Monday, 1 December 2008

RMA to be reviewed to promote easier theft-by-government

Despite what some of you are still pathetically hoping for, the revolting Nick Smith, the Minister for the RMA, promises no change at all to the heart of the RMA, which is where the real poison lies -- he exhibits explicit disinterest in property rights (which is what is so desperately needed at the heart of the RMA) -- and no interest at all in making the RMA work better for you and me: only in making it work better for the government's Think Biggish public works programme.

If you still don’t believe me, take a look at what this vile scum is promising.  The National/ACT Government, he says –- the Government that you voted for --  will review the Resource Management Act to, quote, “'look at how companies win the right to take private land.”  

Yes, you read that right.  To “'look at how companies win the right to take private land.”

This is what you voted for.

The first ones to be hit will be Canterbury farmers, who Nick Smith is preparing to set up for theft-by-government to make way for the Central Plains irrigation scheme. As Libertarianz deputy Richard McGrath points out, "Environment Minister Nick Smith doesn't even pretend to be concerned for the property rights of Canterbury farmers. His primary goal is to make it easier for a private developer to steal their land."

This is the “brighter future” you voted for.  You can’t say you weren’t warned.


  1. We've been fighting that CPW scheme down here for around 8 years now I think (it's so long it's hard to remember when it started). What I find fascinating is that the left are against it for environmental reasons, and the right are against it as it breaches private property rights, so there are people at both ends of the political spectrum opposing it and presenting completely different reasons why it should not proceed.

    I have submitted against it because their on-farm economic figures were blatantly tweaked to make the scheme look profitable, when fixed it turns out a dairy farmer would actually be losing money moving to the scheme. Yet they still push it so their land values will increase and they can hock their land off to the highest bidder.

    Furthermore it is being pushed predominately by newcomers to the area, and the old, established families are in many cases the ones that would have their land stolen. My extended family will lose access to mineral rights for a large deposit of high-quality coal, and what compensation must be offered for mineral rights is I believe a hazy area in the law. My parents were going to lose half their farm too, before they shifted which valley they were intending to flood. I currently live right in front of the proposed dam, and our house is bang in the middle of CPW's mockup photos of the dam!

    It is a big worry that Nick Smith seems to have such little regard for private property rights.

  2. "It is a big worry that Nick Smith seems to have such little regard for private property rights."

    Correct, Mr D, but about the only thing I *can* say for Nick Smith is that he has, on this topic, been consistent.

    In other words, National voters can never say that they were misled (by his stance).

    To my mind, that's the real worry: that they either voted in ignorance, or disregarded his stance and voted for him anyway.

  3. I think people just don't realise that National has changed. They think they're voting for the old farmer-friendly pro-private-property-rights National party, when that party no longer exists.

    Most voters don't have a clue what anyone stands for. Unlike us weird people who are actually interested in politics :) many people don't really care - and it is those voters who decide the election result.

  4. And, I suspect, mostly National Party voters who will be screwed.

    And they will only have themselves to blame.

    As they say, just because you're not interested in politics, doesn't mean politics isn't interested in you. If you can't even adopt basic self-defence in your dealings with politics, then -- sadly -- you'll probably deserve all you get.

  5. True PC. Unfortunately those of us who didn't vote National will be caught up in the mess as well.

  6. Are you sure the upcoming review is "to promote easier theft by government"? All the quote from Nick Smith says is that the review will look at the issue. He does not say whether he thinks the process of compulsory sale should made easier or more difficult and so the title of your piece is making assumptions that can not be drawn from the information in the article from the Radio NZ website.

    I have almost as little time for Nick Smith as you but the impression I got from the article was that the review has been prompted by those unhappy at the prospect of being forced to sell to Central Plains Water. As Mr Dennis says these people have legitimate concerns, this piece from the Frmers Weekly last year shows the impact of this scheme on those affected , and I suspect it is these concerns rather than any sympathy for Cenral Plains Water that caused Mr Smith to have a closer look at the issue.

    It remains to be what comes of the review and whether it can put a stop to the high handed arrogance of Central Plains Water as well as preventing any repeats of this sorry episode but untill it is complete I think any criticsm of the Minister on this issue is premature.

  7. Well that particular minister is an odious wet turd. His track record is not good. Reckon that on past experience it's safer to expect the worst from him.

    Where oh where are all you National acolytes now?



1. Comments are welcome and encouraged.
2. Comments are moderated. Gibberish, spam & off-topic grandstanding will be removed. Tu quoque will be moderated. Links to bogus news sites (and worse) will be deleted.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say it, it's important enough to put a name to it.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.