Great summary! It's helpful to see clearly who is saying what in parallel with your analysis. One thing I am struggling with is the argument that the Fast Track Bill will override public consultation and undermine democracy. My question is doesn't the government have political mandate, to some extent, to make decisions on behalf of their voters? The government can't and shouldn't consult on everything, and that's assuming that the way they consult is effective or meaningful at all, which is a pandoras box in itself. Did Labour and the Greens consult when they pushed through the no new mines in conservation land policy or no new permits for offshore drilling? They might have, I'm not sure, it's a legitimate question :)
These days we seem to have governments which are short on ethics, and long-term visions. When a big change is proposed surely it is necessary to look for moral reasons for the changes and their ethical base. Change must follow a sensible debate on why these changes are to be justified.
I do not, for a minute, support the delays in getting projects approved and completed which is the current status quo in many situations.
Let's consider those who are the promoters of the proposed legislation. Minister Bishop seems to have his feet firmly on the ground and responds to feedback. Minister Jones seems to have an almost total absence of a moral compass. Minister Brown has not demonstrated the sort of intellectual framework necessary to firstly understand his complex portfolios, before shooting he shoots his mouth off advocating poorly thought through solutions. The tunnel under Wellington would be a good example.
What seems to have been forgotten is the back-room architect of the framework of the new operating system, Stephen Joyce, handsomely rewarded at $4k per day as he writes the rules. Having been sacked by Joyce from a position because I didn't agree with his ruling I have a slightly jaundiced opinion of him. Joyce operates sleuth like behind closed doors and right now he is writing how the projects in front of the Ministers will be considered. What checks and balances are there on the ethics of his work? He is writing the rules, and will chair the consideration panel. I doubt that Joyce will produce anything which has a strong moral base. Has this panel has been carefully chosen to be anything but a tick-box exercise?
Let us consider the elements the cheer leaders for the legislation are promoting:
1. Developers:
I accept some of the rules around development have become complicated. However, often that is because individual developers, most of whom only see their project as something on its own, seldom think about the long term. Look at the numerous cases where central and local government have been left to clean up messes created by developers who have either closed up shop, or when the going gets tough, filed for liquidation.
2. Infrastructure:
For too long we have had local government politicians promise low rates. The casualty of this misguided behavior is often inadequate investment in infrastructure. The current challenge is to find funding mechanisms by central government guarantees which stand behind local government projects. This would enable cheaper lending costs and shut outfits like S & P up.
3. Housing:
My generation has so often removed the opportunity for our children and grandchildren to own their own homes. As Bernard Hickey so often states the NZ economy is a housing market with an economy tacked on. Fast tracking a weak and greed driven market is not the solution. There are systems which could address housing for future generations which could take land out of the mix. Don't laugh. It's already been done in NZ. It's interesting to note developers who contributed significantly to the National Party in the last election who are on the "acceptable" list for consideration by the Joyce panel. Housing solutions cannot be fast tracked. They need a complete revolution, starting with capital gains and death taxes.
This Government wasn't voted in. Labour was voted out, as they should have been. I have met so many people who voted for National, or their coalition partners, who have told me that they regret their vote decision. Labour can accept the blame for the monster which has replaced them.
It's time to think long term. It's time to think longer than 3-year electoral cycles. It's time for our planning framework to be 50 to 100 years at least. We must honour our planet. We must think about future generations. Rushing things as part of political theatre is neither ethical, nor sensible.
I recently read a book and it concluded with this comment, and boy are we headed down this path with this legislation:
We risk a return to feudal reality. Where the words of the strong, of the rich, is gospel.
Yeah, the Resource Management Act is such a failure that we have in the last few years had record numbers of houses constructed.
Yeah, the Resource Management Act is such a failure that this government reinstated it, while retaining a faster processing track from the Built and Natural Environment Act.
The fact that 66% of low income are supportive needs further teasing out. When we have systemic increasing inequality, subtly designed to do so, then those at the bottom just 'struggling to put 'food on the table' will support the populous rectorect with no knowledge of the failure of the trickle down economic system is the hidden foundation of their poverty.
Hi Bryce, I emailed you about a potential fast track issue but haven’t heard back from you. I appreciate it may be something that doesn’t interest you but I’d appreciate an acknowledgment that you did receive it. Thanks.
Hi Sarah - thanks for your comment. I guess I take a different approach to political progress and debate. I genuinely want to understand what my opponents are arguing - especially if, their arguments are popular. It's quite probably, that NZers are overwhelmingly positive towards the Fast-Track Bill (unfortunately). You can't defeat opposing arguments without understanding, or at least showing good faith. I have a friend who was a leading campaigner in homosexual law reform. He said that a big part of their success was that they visited churches and those on the other side of the debate and took them seriously and debated with them and explained their campaign. They didn't just condemn their opponents as bigots, but actually won them over. It's a much more progressive way of making social change than just pretending there is only one side to every story.
Great summary! It's helpful to see clearly who is saying what in parallel with your analysis. One thing I am struggling with is the argument that the Fast Track Bill will override public consultation and undermine democracy. My question is doesn't the government have political mandate, to some extent, to make decisions on behalf of their voters? The government can't and shouldn't consult on everything, and that's assuming that the way they consult is effective or meaningful at all, which is a pandoras box in itself. Did Labour and the Greens consult when they pushed through the no new mines in conservation land policy or no new permits for offshore drilling? They might have, I'm not sure, it's a legitimate question :)
These days we seem to have governments which are short on ethics, and long-term visions. When a big change is proposed surely it is necessary to look for moral reasons for the changes and their ethical base. Change must follow a sensible debate on why these changes are to be justified.
I do not, for a minute, support the delays in getting projects approved and completed which is the current status quo in many situations.
Let's consider those who are the promoters of the proposed legislation. Minister Bishop seems to have his feet firmly on the ground and responds to feedback. Minister Jones seems to have an almost total absence of a moral compass. Minister Brown has not demonstrated the sort of intellectual framework necessary to firstly understand his complex portfolios, before shooting he shoots his mouth off advocating poorly thought through solutions. The tunnel under Wellington would be a good example.
What seems to have been forgotten is the back-room architect of the framework of the new operating system, Stephen Joyce, handsomely rewarded at $4k per day as he writes the rules. Having been sacked by Joyce from a position because I didn't agree with his ruling I have a slightly jaundiced opinion of him. Joyce operates sleuth like behind closed doors and right now he is writing how the projects in front of the Ministers will be considered. What checks and balances are there on the ethics of his work? He is writing the rules, and will chair the consideration panel. I doubt that Joyce will produce anything which has a strong moral base. Has this panel has been carefully chosen to be anything but a tick-box exercise?
Let us consider the elements the cheer leaders for the legislation are promoting:
1. Developers:
I accept some of the rules around development have become complicated. However, often that is because individual developers, most of whom only see their project as something on its own, seldom think about the long term. Look at the numerous cases where central and local government have been left to clean up messes created by developers who have either closed up shop, or when the going gets tough, filed for liquidation.
2. Infrastructure:
For too long we have had local government politicians promise low rates. The casualty of this misguided behavior is often inadequate investment in infrastructure. The current challenge is to find funding mechanisms by central government guarantees which stand behind local government projects. This would enable cheaper lending costs and shut outfits like S & P up.
3. Housing:
My generation has so often removed the opportunity for our children and grandchildren to own their own homes. As Bernard Hickey so often states the NZ economy is a housing market with an economy tacked on. Fast tracking a weak and greed driven market is not the solution. There are systems which could address housing for future generations which could take land out of the mix. Don't laugh. It's already been done in NZ. It's interesting to note developers who contributed significantly to the National Party in the last election who are on the "acceptable" list for consideration by the Joyce panel. Housing solutions cannot be fast tracked. They need a complete revolution, starting with capital gains and death taxes.
This Government wasn't voted in. Labour was voted out, as they should have been. I have met so many people who voted for National, or their coalition partners, who have told me that they regret their vote decision. Labour can accept the blame for the monster which has replaced them.
It's time to think long term. It's time to think longer than 3-year electoral cycles. It's time for our planning framework to be 50 to 100 years at least. We must honour our planet. We must think about future generations. Rushing things as part of political theatre is neither ethical, nor sensible.
I recently read a book and it concluded with this comment, and boy are we headed down this path with this legislation:
We risk a return to feudal reality. Where the words of the strong, of the rich, is gospel.
Yeah, the Resource Management Act is such a failure that we have in the last few years had record numbers of houses constructed.
Yeah, the Resource Management Act is such a failure that this government reinstated it, while retaining a faster processing track from the Built and Natural Environment Act.
The fact that 66% of low income are supportive needs further teasing out. When we have systemic increasing inequality, subtly designed to do so, then those at the bottom just 'struggling to put 'food on the table' will support the populous rectorect with no knowledge of the failure of the trickle down economic system is the hidden foundation of their poverty.
Hi Bryce, I emailed you about a potential fast track issue but haven’t heard back from you. I appreciate it may be something that doesn’t interest you but I’d appreciate an acknowledgment that you did receive it. Thanks.
Every story has two sides. Okay.
And sometimes a side is rascist or homophobic or, in the case of the Fast-Track side, biophobic.
How much weight really should we give to a side when they have yet to confront their disgust / disconnection / denial of the natural world?
We wouldn't accept a homophobic "side" writing legislation for our queer community, for example.
Perhaps a better place to address the issues with the Fast-Track Bill would be to ask the side suffering from biophobia to address their disorder.
I believe the stakes are just too high to proceed with unfit politicians positioned at the coalface of this harmful [biophobic] bill.
Hi Sarah - thanks for your comment. I guess I take a different approach to political progress and debate. I genuinely want to understand what my opponents are arguing - especially if, their arguments are popular. It's quite probably, that NZers are overwhelmingly positive towards the Fast-Track Bill (unfortunately). You can't defeat opposing arguments without understanding, or at least showing good faith. I have a friend who was a leading campaigner in homosexual law reform. He said that a big part of their success was that they visited churches and those on the other side of the debate and took them seriously and debated with them and explained their campaign. They didn't just condemn their opponents as bigots, but actually won them over. It's a much more progressive way of making social change than just pretending there is only one side to every story.