"It is no wonder submitters have warned that Parker’s new laws will be worse than the RMA he wants to repeal. That is some achievement."
"So just what is wrong with [David Parker's proposed replacement for the RMA] For such a complex reform exercise, the problems with can be succinctly stated.
"They include multiple conflicting objectives with no mechanism for evaluating costs and benefits to resolve trade-offs.
"They largely disregard property rights, so will have a chilling effect on investment.
"They presume that planners know best – and will be able to predict society’s complex and diverse future needs.
"They will undermine local democracy by conferring planning decision-making powers on new regional entities.
"And perhaps worst of all, they introduce a Pandora’s Box of new amorphous concepts.
"A generation or two of lawyers have got rich litigating the meaning of the RMA’s core concept of 'sustainable development.' New requirements like 'enabling the use… of the environment in a way that supports the well-being of present generations without compromising the well-being of future generations,' will have environmental lawyers licking their lips.
"Not to mention the new 'fundamental principle' of Te Oranga o te Taiao. This principle is defined to include the relationship between iwi and individual hapu and the environment. It places untested, undefined and unpredictable race-based considerations at the centre of the planning process.
"It is no wonder submitters have warned that Parker’s new laws will be worse than the RMA he wants to repeal. That is some achievement."
2 comments:
It's worth noting that Parker is an experienced lawyer and businessman. Lack of clarity in this bill won't be accidental or inept; it will be intentional and aimed towards specific outcomes.
It's been a feature of local law since Geoffrey Palmer, who -- instead of making law certain, and known in advance, with principles able to applied by judges to etc context before them -- posited instead that law should be unclear uncertain, and open to whatever interpretation judges wished to put upon it. He maintained this makes law "flexible." (And I exaggerate only slightly.)
As both writer of laws, and as a teacher (at the VUW Law School) of those who write them, his view has been enormously influential.
And destructive.
Post a Comment