Firstly, how bad much of our law is and that stems back to how it’s written and processed. Secondly that many concerned organisations are not afraid to scaremonger and exaggerate to win their way. And thirdly how many New Zealanders rely on social media to keep informed on the issues of the day.
For those who were spooked by the news that land in the Conservation estate could be swapped or sold, they only had to go to Google, and they could find a myriad of expert opinion.
For many much of the new law updates were sorely needed for a piece of legislation that’s 40 years old.
On Newsroom one expert planner also pointed out the sales and swaps of conservation land already happens, and all this amendment does is make the process less clunky.
Others pointed out that it takes power away from a Minister which was a check and balance.
All agreed it’s a badly written law that’s been rushed and is currently before a select committee with a tight deadline of July 2. A complaint about our modern law that Sir Geoffrey Palmer pointed out last week.
But one wondered why the reality and the rhetoric were so different. And that lies at the feet of groups like Greenpeace and Forest and Bird who made it seem like 60 per cent was going to be sold.
And then that was amplified by so many getting their information from biased social media and not realising the full story.
A word of advice to the government. You’ve failed to explain this and you might want to take the foot off the gas.
Andrew Dickens is a broadcaster with Newstalk ZB. - where this article was sourced.
4 comments:
Yet if/when the conservation land is handed over to Iwi, these same groups will celebrate.
Unfortunately, as it's so poorly written, it seems entirely possible if not likely, that the whole 60% could actually be sold. To the right people of course.
A wedge is a useful tool for holding a door open.
Even though this Govt may not intend to sell any DOC land off, you can bet your house on the fact that if the law permits it (why??) another Govt in the future will surely do it to satisfy yet another grievance or similar reason. So why is it in this new law anyway?
Andrew, the proper role for the Department of Conservation is to protect NZ ecosystems and native species, be they fish, plants or other wildlife, so your grandchildren can enjoy them just as you did.
Forcing the department to have commercial considerations as one of its purposes is a massive contradiction that only a politician would accept. Potaka backed down on land sales but the purpose clause remains in the Bill before Parliament.
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.