It is refreshing to read the editor’s take and Mr Rasmussen’s on TCDC’s Long Term Plan (‘The Informer’, 16 April 2024).
The consultation was, as usual, a waste of time (and money). The proposed ‘options’ reflected ‘shades of bad’ rather than clear alternatives.
Soon as the consultation period had closed, the Council started publicizing more details about projects that had been consulted on. It can’t escape the most naïve mind that the direction the Council is going to take had been decided long before we had any opportunity to comment.
I agree with Mr Rasmussen in that ‘our elected representatives are the root cause of this failure’ to deliver an economically viable, fiscally prudent budget. I just wonder to what degree officials who provide advice to the Council might play a considerable part in ‘steering’ Councillors according to agendas and interests.
Councillors are not expected to have project specific or indeed economic expertise. They heavily rely on staff advice. If this advice is not based on rigorous fiscal prudency, we get what we were just consulted on.
Elisabeth Resl, Kuaotunu
Fast Track Bill Concerns
The new ‘Fast-track Approvals Bill’ would give just three Ministers the power to approve or deny development projects, avoiding the usual checks and balances that are in place.
These are my concerns about the Fast Track Approval Bill.
1. It goes against the ethos of parliament and democracy. Just because a politician happens to be on the “right side of the vote,” it is arrogant to assume that he has the sole voice and ultimate decision-making powers.
2. The vast majority of New Zealanders care deeply about the environment and the consequences of not looking after it. There is no due process for people/citizens/voters to have a voice and put forward their concerns. There are no checks and balances, so politicians have given themselves the power to run roughshod over the people they claim to represent.
3. Giving three people with an agenda the power to approve or disapprove major issues creates an opportunity for bribery and corruption. These ministers could receive money and favours from large multi-national corporations, in return for example; of allowing mining in the Coromandel and other areas of natural beauty. In effect stealing the resources from the people of New Zealand to provide wealth to overseas companies. This could be considered an act of treason.
4. Mr Shane Jones’s words: “Extract the dividend from Mother Nature’s legacy.” Would he steal from his own mother? These resources do not belong to him, to any one political party, or to any race or culture. Just because something is there doesn’t mean it needs to be exploited. The abundance of Mother Nature provides the life force of this planet.
5. Unprecedented greed causes pollution and environmental damage. These ministers gets to breathe clean air, drink pure water, and eat natural foods because they live privileged lives far removed from the consequences of their actions.
6. Mr Shane Jones’s argument is that mining and other fast tracked resource consents will create jobs and export revenue. This is a poor argument because thousands of jobs can be created in natural and sustainable industries.
7. Mr Shane Jones calls himself Minister of Resources. Whose resources? Just because a person is a bank manager doesn’t mean that he can spend the bank’s money as he sees fit. Minister of Resources implies responsibility and stewardship of resources, not ransacking and pillaging. After his term in office, there will be no resources left, to manage.
8. If this Fast Track Approval Bill goes through, it will have devastating consequences for years to come.
