September 21, 2024 • 14 mins
RMA Minister Chris Bishop's revealed two laws will replace the old system -- one to manage environmental effects arising from activities, and another to enable urban development and infrastructure.
Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform, Simon Court, joined Tim Beveridge on The Weekend Collective to discuss.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
You're listening to the Weekend Collective podcast from News talks'd Be.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Cabinet has agreed that new RMA rules should only restrict
a building that impacts other properties or the wider environment.
The government said enjoyment and property rights will be the
guiding principle and replacing the RMA. But how much will
it really improve development? What difference will it make? Well
to discuss that with me now is the Undersecretary to
the Ministry responsible for RMA reform, and he is Simon Court.
(00:31):
Good afternoon, Good afternoon, Simon. Every time I would say
most New Zealanders hear the word the letter's rama. It's
never about anything good. What's wrong with it?
Speaker 1 (00:46):
Well, for too long the Resource Management Actors made it
too difficult, unclear, too expensive to get consents to build
things that we know we need, whether it's housing, subdivisions
or new bridges for example. My background is a civil engineer.
I've worked on landfills, worked on rooting projects, and the
time it takes to get consens for things is often
(01:09):
longer than it takes to build things. So I've been
thinking about this for many years and now as part
of the coalition government have an opportunity to put some
of some of the concepts that Act campaigned on and
that are in the Act National Coalition Agreement into practice,
which is to replace a system we've got which is
called integrated resource management, mixing up development aspirations, Well the gosh,
(01:31):
we've got to protect everything everywhere we find it, the
precautionary principles saying well, we better not do it now.
We're going to have a system that's going to be enabling.
We're going to agree it's not if we can build something,
but where. And guess what. We know that most things,
whether it's a bruge or a subdivision, have been done
thousands of times before, and they've been done with the
minimal environmental impact. We can simply take all of those
(01:53):
learnings put them into a new law, rather than having
to have people apply for consents for things that we
already know how to do. Well.
Speaker 2 (01:59):
Is it just straightforward just to say, look, we're not
reforming now, we're throwing this one out and we're starting
from Is it starting from scratch?
Speaker 1 (02:07):
Yeah, we certainly are the problem with the resource management
at is it talks about all of these concepts going
back to the nineteen seventies, like sustainable development and integrated management.
It's just not possible. There's no other country in the
world has copied what New Zealand trying to do, bringing
all these things of the one law. Most other OECD
countries have separate law for development and housing, particularly for
(02:29):
infrastructure enabling, and separate law that sets environmental limits, say
for fresh water, coastal areas or air quality. So we're
going to create two separate pieces of legislation and it's
going to be very clear. There will be environmental limits
and places that there need to be and that are
special ti kiwis. But most of the places that we
want to get on and build, whether it's state highways,
whether it's wastewater treatment plants or pump stations, housing subdivisions,
(02:53):
they're going to be shown on a map where they're going,
and at that point it won't be having to ask
for permission. All will be doing is making sure that
those things fit within existing environmental best practice.
Speaker 2 (03:03):
How different does your approach to what labor, Because labor,
we're trying to reform it as well, weren't they.
Speaker 1 (03:08):
Labor had proposed a very complicated series of new laws,
which included new and mystifying terms like temana tayo, which
the lawyers I've just been a couple of days with
the Planning Conference and New Plymouth this week said they
had no idea what that meant, how long it was
going to take to work out what it meant. That's
the last thing you do to give confidence to people
(03:28):
who want to get on and build stuff. They had
also planned that it would take ten years to implement
their new system. Well, what we're saying is, look, it's
much simpler than that. We've got to stop resource management
doing system doing things it's not meant to do. But
the resource management system doesn't need to control climate change.
You know, we've got the zero carbonac, we've got their
emissions trading scheme. The Resource Management Act actually doesn't need
(03:51):
to control heritage. If some people who work at your
local council think that the houses in your street look nice,
well they should come around and knock on the door
and ask the permission to lest those houses as heritage,
rather than an issue blanket heritage orders that actually make
it much harder for people to develop their properties.
Speaker 2 (04:07):
So I noticed in Crispship speech one of the Senates
said that Cabinet has agreed to the high level principles
for the system. What are the high level principles.
Speaker 1 (04:18):
Well, there's around ten of them, and at a high
level essentially designs the outcomes of the act. So we
want two acts with clear distinct purposes. We want two
bottom lines, a double bottom line. We want to provide
essential human needs. That means infrastructure and housing, food production
for example, drinking water, energy, and the other bottom line
(04:40):
is environmental limits. We want councils to be able to
set environmental limits for fresh water, say in their region,
not have them set by central government national standards. For
most of the things we already do well. I mean,
I've worked as a soil engineer, I work with people
who do subdivisions, and I know that the emrosion can
seem control traffic management noise does They are all the
(05:00):
same type of consent conditions every time there's almost no change.
Wine Co we make these into annational standards so you
don't have to pay for consents. Now there's ten legislative criteria.
If your listeners want to find out more, you can
jump onto the high website. We'll certainly follow me on LinkedIn.
Simon Court and I'll be posting with your updates about
(05:21):
what we're up there.
Speaker 2 (05:23):
Have you had input or conversations with the opposition about this?
And the reason I asked that is because obviously, in
major pieces of legislation, you know, we want an act
that's going to persist. We don't want it to be
played around within three, six, nine years time. So what
input are you expecting or seeking with other parties in
Parliament on this, Well, we will.
Speaker 1 (05:45):
Be seeking the cooperation and support and some of the
things that we do agree on with you opposition, such
as the need for spatial planning one plan pro region
that shows where the infrastructure is now, where the future
infrastructure is, we're housing should be built up in a
new transport bus center is going to be for example.
There is no political disagreement that we need one spatial
(06:08):
plan per region. That is an enduring concept. I think
some of the challenges will place around the previous government
wanted to make the treaty the center of resource management
and what we're saying is, look, it's focused on private
property rights. Many of the organizations I've spoken to ee
Maori ruining organizations that want to invest in infrastructure and
(06:28):
invest in their own housing. The place problem. They've got
this the barriers put up by the resource central system.
The last thing they want to do is have to
go and negotiate with cousins that get along down the
road and think the position about how they should be
allowed to develop their land. So we say, look, it
needs to be around private property rights, enabling infrastructure and housing,
protecting the environment with sound environmental and it's based on science,
(06:49):
it's not based on vibes. We think we'll have this
up and running within three years, so it'll be past
this term apartment and we aim to implement it very
very quickly.
Speaker 2 (06:59):
What an impact do you expect it to have on
the cost of developments. Let's just look at say residential
proper then the cost of development. So how much money
do you expect is going to be saved through the
expediency of what you're proposing.
Speaker 1 (07:13):
Well, a lot of the savings will be in the
infrastructure provided to housing developments and where we want to
build up, saying cities like Auckland or Tarong or Hamilton
for example. The infrastructu Commission estimates that New Zealand spends
around one point three billion dollars per aund the just
on consenting infrastructure. Now we can move that into a
national standard where you don't have to ask for permission,
(07:35):
then potentially there's a billion dollars worth of savings right
there that won't go on through householders and infrastructure uses.
The other things we want to do is allow people
who own property and want to build on it, whether
that's housing or industrial subdivisions that actually provide jobs for people,
that they can just get on and do that and
they don't have to ask for permission. The only concern
(07:57):
that they'll have to address is does this affect my
neighbors if I'm building higher than allowed in the zone,
or is the noise, you know, the traffic movements for example,
going to affect people who who live next door. So
we're going to make it much easier to get on
and build the things that we need for housing that
encourage employment, and we think we can do this relatively quickly.
Speaker 2 (08:18):
What about the environment are there? Does it create any
dangers in terms of people go on doing developments or
building infrastructure where the environment hasn't really been properly considered.
Speaker 1 (08:31):
Well, one of the problems we've got the cities is
that we do want to build out and up, and
we have wastewater riverflows in Auckland into the harbor into
our fresh water system and in the countryside you've got
concerns that farmers are not looking after fresh water for example.
There's many different ways that are except to do this,
whether it's constructing new wetlands, planting out raperian species along
(08:56):
the raperian margins, along stream banks. There are river care
groups around New Zealand. Catgement management groups want to be
able to take ownership of water quality their regions. They're
made up of farmers, regional counselors, ere groups. We want
to empower them to do that, and they can do
that by setting environmental limits that what they want to
see in their region, rather than have it handed to
them top down. So we've got to invest in the infrastructure.
(09:18):
We're going to provide an enabling pathway to do that
in our cities where there's real pressure on the environment
from growth, and we're going to give the opportunity to
fix up the local environment to people who know it
best and love it best.
Speaker 2 (09:30):
What are the reactions You're getting any pushback or applaudits
from councils around the country.
Speaker 1 (09:37):
Well after the past couple of days, I've had the
most incredible support from particularly lawyers and planners who work
for councils that are trying to get their own infrastructure upgraded,
whether it's upgrading the local wastewater treatment plant, building new roads,
doing the coastal protection to stop the sea washing away
roads and homes, for example. They're telling me, Simon, if
(09:59):
you could get this as quickly as possible, would make
it much easier for us to actually deliver the infrastruct
through our communities met that we wouldn't spend years and
potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars in court for each
results consent because someone turns out sectually a vicatious lilquan says, well,
we don't think what you're doing is right by the environment,
and we're going to object. We're actually going to make
(10:20):
it much harder, if not impossible, for people who do
not have direct interest of thems, they're not neighbors to
object to the kind of things that a local government
wants to do that benefit us. All. Yeah, overwhelming support
from the planners and the lawyers have spoken to over
the past few days. They're not worried about their jobs.
What they're really concerned about is extra delivant better services
(10:41):
for all their clients and getting on delivering stuff.
Speaker 2 (10:44):
So, how you mentioned a window of about three years
to get this legislation passed. How long do you expect
it to be until the rule changes? The new act
would actually see a tangible change in the way we
get things done.
Speaker 1 (10:57):
Well, we'd like to have it passed. I think the
intention is and from its Relux has confirmed this will
we pass this term of government thinking a very rapid
implementation phase rather than creating a whole lot of new rules.
We're simply saying, if there's a national environmental standard safe
for chelecommunications, renewable energy, for electricity transmission, all these things
(11:19):
that really exist, then councils shouldn't be able to ask
for anything more, either in their plans or consents. Therefore,
you're going to be able to do that as of right.
What we're hoping to do is to turn off large
parts of existing plans. Essentially national standards override, because look,
we've got a national standard to protect the environment. There's
no sense in law and Coupital's asking people for consent
(11:40):
conditions or for consents or putting planning conditions in their
local plans. We're going to make sure that this is
abled to implemented by turning off making things less complex,
rather than adding more stuff to the.
Speaker 2 (11:50):
Me So you're going to pass this term, You've got
what eighteen months to get it sort of eighteen months
two years to get it all past, isn't you? Well?
Speaker 1 (11:59):
Fortunately, we're not starting from black slate. I mean I
conduct more than forty interviews or people while in opposition
to come up with the policies that reflect accesspirations for
a system based on property rights. But that also all
the things that we've learned through the Select Committy processes
on the previous government's failed attempt at resource management reform.
(12:22):
We're taking all the good things that infrastructure, property developers
and the environmental scientists and fondness and we're putting them
into this design outline. We're going to get a group
of experts, lawyers, planners, environment scientists, people with tau Maori
knowledge to essentially produce the bulldeprint and the legislative architecture.
(12:44):
We're well down the track. We're not going to be
waiting for for years for a group of lawyers and
do good is to tell us how to do this.
We've set the addenda around about ten legislative principles and
we're expected to get on and act, start drafting legislation
early next year, have it into the House in middle
of twenty twenty five.
Speaker 2 (13:03):
Excellent.
Speaker 1 (13:03):
OK.
Speaker 2 (13:03):
Hey, look, so I'm going to re appreciate your time
this afternoon. So a big job, so crack on, thank
you very much. Yes, there we go that. Simon Courty's
the Under Secretary Parliamentary arounder secretary for RM reform. We're
going to do some talkback after the break.
Speaker 1 (13:17):
And now the.
Speaker 2 (13:17):
Simple question is do you, well, simple straightforward questions, do
you support RAMA reform. I would have thought that's that's
a no brainer, isn't it. I mean, is there anyone
who thinks, no, no, RMA is working just fine right now?
Do you support it being basically let's throw it out
and start again and come up with a new piece
of legislation. But in particular the getting rid of I
(13:39):
guess actually the couple of things resonated. I think that
there's a I don't want to put this the wrong way,
but it does come across a little bit that in
a lot of our legislation there's a bit of virtue
signaling going on. And I don't mean this to beat
up on treaty principal clauses and things like that, but
more things that are a bit amorphous and hard to
sort of pin down. Do you support the idea? It's like, hey,
lock first principle, it's your property, do what you will,
(14:03):
but you must do it within the law. But we're
not going to make you jump through a million hopes.
Do you support this reform of the IMA? And for
more from the Weekend Collective, listen live to news Talks
it'd be weekends from three pm, or follow the podcast
on iHeartRadio
You're listening to the Weekend Collective podcast from News talks'd Be.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Cabinet has agreed that new RMA rules should only restrict
a building that impacts other properties or the wider environment.
The government said enjoyment and property rights will be the
guiding principle and replacing the RMA. But how much will
it really improve development? What difference will it make? Well
to discuss that with me now is the Undersecretary to
the Ministry responsible for RMA reform, and he is Simon Court.
(00:31):
Good afternoon, Good afternoon, Simon. Every time I would say
most New Zealanders hear the word the letter's rama. It's
never about anything good. What's wrong with it?
Speaker 1 (00:46):
Well, for too long the Resource Management Actors made it
too difficult, unclear, too expensive to get consents to build
things that we know we need, whether it's housing, subdivisions
or new bridges for example. My background is a civil engineer.
I've worked on landfills, worked on rooting projects, and the
time it takes to get consens for things is often
(01:09):
longer than it takes to build things. So I've been
thinking about this for many years and now as part
of the coalition government have an opportunity to put some
of some of the concepts that Act campaigned on and
that are in the Act National Coalition Agreement into practice,
which is to replace a system we've got which is
called integrated resource management, mixing up development aspirations, Well the gosh,
(01:31):
we've got to protect everything everywhere we find it, the
precautionary principles saying well, we better not do it now.
We're going to have a system that's going to be enabling.
We're going to agree it's not if we can build something,
but where. And guess what. We know that most things,
whether it's a bruge or a subdivision, have been done
thousands of times before, and they've been done with the
minimal environmental impact. We can simply take all of those
(01:53):
learnings put them into a new law, rather than having
to have people apply for consents for things that we
already know how to do. Well.
Speaker 2 (01:59):
Is it just straightforward just to say, look, we're not
reforming now, we're throwing this one out and we're starting
from Is it starting from scratch?
Speaker 1 (02:07):
Yeah, we certainly are the problem with the resource management
at is it talks about all of these concepts going
back to the nineteen seventies, like sustainable development and integrated management.
It's just not possible. There's no other country in the
world has copied what New Zealand trying to do, bringing
all these things of the one law. Most other OECD
countries have separate law for development and housing, particularly for
(02:29):
infrastructure enabling, and separate law that sets environmental limits, say
for fresh water, coastal areas or air quality. So we're
going to create two separate pieces of legislation and it's
going to be very clear. There will be environmental limits
and places that there need to be and that are
special ti kiwis. But most of the places that we
want to get on and build, whether it's state highways,
whether it's wastewater treatment plants or pump stations, housing subdivisions,
(02:53):
they're going to be shown on a map where they're going,
and at that point it won't be having to ask
for permission. All will be doing is making sure that
those things fit within existing environmental best practice.
Speaker 2 (03:03):
How different does your approach to what labor, Because labor,
we're trying to reform it as well, weren't they.
Speaker 1 (03:08):
Labor had proposed a very complicated series of new laws,
which included new and mystifying terms like temana tayo, which
the lawyers I've just been a couple of days with
the Planning Conference and New Plymouth this week said they
had no idea what that meant, how long it was
going to take to work out what it meant. That's
the last thing you do to give confidence to people
(03:28):
who want to get on and build stuff. They had
also planned that it would take ten years to implement
their new system. Well, what we're saying is, look, it's
much simpler than that. We've got to stop resource management
doing system doing things it's not meant to do. But
the resource management system doesn't need to control climate change.
You know, we've got the zero carbonac, we've got their
emissions trading scheme. The Resource Management Act actually doesn't need
(03:51):
to control heritage. If some people who work at your
local council think that the houses in your street look nice,
well they should come around and knock on the door
and ask the permission to lest those houses as heritage,
rather than an issue blanket heritage orders that actually make
it much harder for people to develop their properties.
Speaker 2 (04:07):
So I noticed in Crispship speech one of the Senates
said that Cabinet has agreed to the high level principles
for the system. What are the high level principles.
Speaker 1 (04:18):
Well, there's around ten of them, and at a high
level essentially designs the outcomes of the act. So we
want two acts with clear distinct purposes. We want two
bottom lines, a double bottom line. We want to provide
essential human needs. That means infrastructure and housing, food production
for example, drinking water, energy, and the other bottom line
(04:40):
is environmental limits. We want councils to be able to
set environmental limits for fresh water, say in their region,
not have them set by central government national standards. For
most of the things we already do well. I mean,
I've worked as a soil engineer, I work with people
who do subdivisions, and I know that the emrosion can
seem control traffic management noise does They are all the
(05:00):
same type of consent conditions every time there's almost no change.
Wine Co we make these into annational standards so you
don't have to pay for consents. Now there's ten legislative criteria.
If your listeners want to find out more, you can
jump onto the high website. We'll certainly follow me on LinkedIn.
Simon Court and I'll be posting with your updates about
(05:21):
what we're up there.
Speaker 2 (05:23):
Have you had input or conversations with the opposition about this?
And the reason I asked that is because obviously, in
major pieces of legislation, you know, we want an act
that's going to persist. We don't want it to be
played around within three, six, nine years time. So what
input are you expecting or seeking with other parties in
Parliament on this, Well, we will.
Speaker 1 (05:45):
Be seeking the cooperation and support and some of the
things that we do agree on with you opposition, such
as the need for spatial planning one plan pro region
that shows where the infrastructure is now, where the future
infrastructure is, we're housing should be built up in a
new transport bus center is going to be for example.
There is no political disagreement that we need one spatial
(06:08):
plan per region. That is an enduring concept. I think
some of the challenges will place around the previous government
wanted to make the treaty the center of resource management
and what we're saying is, look, it's focused on private
property rights. Many of the organizations I've spoken to ee
Maori ruining organizations that want to invest in infrastructure and
(06:28):
invest in their own housing. The place problem. They've got
this the barriers put up by the resource central system.
The last thing they want to do is have to
go and negotiate with cousins that get along down the
road and think the position about how they should be
allowed to develop their land. So we say, look, it
needs to be around private property rights, enabling infrastructure and housing,
protecting the environment with sound environmental and it's based on science,
(06:49):
it's not based on vibes. We think we'll have this
up and running within three years, so it'll be past
this term apartment and we aim to implement it very
very quickly.
Speaker 2 (06:59):
What an impact do you expect it to have on
the cost of developments. Let's just look at say residential
proper then the cost of development. So how much money
do you expect is going to be saved through the
expediency of what you're proposing.
Speaker 1 (07:13):
Well, a lot of the savings will be in the
infrastructure provided to housing developments and where we want to
build up, saying cities like Auckland or Tarong or Hamilton
for example. The infrastructu Commission estimates that New Zealand spends
around one point three billion dollars per aund the just
on consenting infrastructure. Now we can move that into a
national standard where you don't have to ask for permission,
(07:35):
then potentially there's a billion dollars worth of savings right
there that won't go on through householders and infrastructure uses.
The other things we want to do is allow people
who own property and want to build on it, whether
that's housing or industrial subdivisions that actually provide jobs for people,
that they can just get on and do that and
they don't have to ask for permission. The only concern
(07:57):
that they'll have to address is does this affect my
neighbors if I'm building higher than allowed in the zone,
or is the noise, you know, the traffic movements for example,
going to affect people who who live next door. So
we're going to make it much easier to get on
and build the things that we need for housing that
encourage employment, and we think we can do this relatively quickly.
Speaker 2 (08:18):
What about the environment are there? Does it create any
dangers in terms of people go on doing developments or
building infrastructure where the environment hasn't really been properly considered.
Speaker 1 (08:31):
Well, one of the problems we've got the cities is
that we do want to build out and up, and
we have wastewater riverflows in Auckland into the harbor into
our fresh water system and in the countryside you've got
concerns that farmers are not looking after fresh water for example.
There's many different ways that are except to do this,
whether it's constructing new wetlands, planting out raperian species along
(08:56):
the raperian margins, along stream banks. There are river care
groups around New Zealand. Catgement management groups want to be
able to take ownership of water quality their regions. They're
made up of farmers, regional counselors, ere groups. We want
to empower them to do that, and they can do
that by setting environmental limits that what they want to
see in their region, rather than have it handed to
them top down. So we've got to invest in the infrastructure.
(09:18):
We're going to provide an enabling pathway to do that
in our cities where there's real pressure on the environment
from growth, and we're going to give the opportunity to
fix up the local environment to people who know it
best and love it best.
Speaker 2 (09:30):
What are the reactions You're getting any pushback or applaudits
from councils around the country.
Speaker 1 (09:37):
Well after the past couple of days, I've had the
most incredible support from particularly lawyers and planners who work
for councils that are trying to get their own infrastructure upgraded,
whether it's upgrading the local wastewater treatment plant, building new roads,
doing the coastal protection to stop the sea washing away
roads and homes, for example. They're telling me, Simon, if
(09:59):
you could get this as quickly as possible, would make
it much easier for us to actually deliver the infrastruct
through our communities met that we wouldn't spend years and
potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars in court for each
results consent because someone turns out sectually a vicatious lilquan says, well,
we don't think what you're doing is right by the environment,
and we're going to object. We're actually going to make
(10:20):
it much harder, if not impossible, for people who do
not have direct interest of thems, they're not neighbors to
object to the kind of things that a local government
wants to do that benefit us. All. Yeah, overwhelming support
from the planners and the lawyers have spoken to over
the past few days. They're not worried about their jobs.
What they're really concerned about is extra delivant better services
(10:41):
for all their clients and getting on delivering stuff.
Speaker 2 (10:44):
So, how you mentioned a window of about three years
to get this legislation passed. How long do you expect
it to be until the rule changes? The new act
would actually see a tangible change in the way we
get things done.
Speaker 1 (10:57):
Well, we'd like to have it passed. I think the
intention is and from its Relux has confirmed this will
we pass this term of government thinking a very rapid
implementation phase rather than creating a whole lot of new rules.
We're simply saying, if there's a national environmental standard safe
for chelecommunications, renewable energy, for electricity transmission, all these things
(11:19):
that really exist, then councils shouldn't be able to ask
for anything more, either in their plans or consents. Therefore,
you're going to be able to do that as of right.
What we're hoping to do is to turn off large
parts of existing plans. Essentially national standards override, because look,
we've got a national standard to protect the environment. There's
no sense in law and Coupital's asking people for consent
(11:40):
conditions or for consents or putting planning conditions in their
local plans. We're going to make sure that this is
abled to implemented by turning off making things less complex,
rather than adding more stuff to the.
Speaker 2 (11:50):
Me So you're going to pass this term, You've got
what eighteen months to get it sort of eighteen months
two years to get it all past, isn't you? Well?
Speaker 1 (11:59):
Fortunately, we're not starting from black slate. I mean I
conduct more than forty interviews or people while in opposition
to come up with the policies that reflect accesspirations for
a system based on property rights. But that also all
the things that we've learned through the Select Committy processes
on the previous government's failed attempt at resource management reform.
(12:22):
We're taking all the good things that infrastructure, property developers
and the environmental scientists and fondness and we're putting them
into this design outline. We're going to get a group
of experts, lawyers, planners, environment scientists, people with tau Maori
knowledge to essentially produce the bulldeprint and the legislative architecture.
(12:44):
We're well down the track. We're not going to be
waiting for for years for a group of lawyers and
do good is to tell us how to do this.
We've set the addenda around about ten legislative principles and
we're expected to get on and act, start drafting legislation
early next year, have it into the House in middle
of twenty twenty five.
Speaker 2 (13:03):
Excellent.
Speaker 1 (13:03):
OK.
Speaker 2 (13:03):
Hey, look, so I'm going to re appreciate your time
this afternoon. So a big job, so crack on, thank
you very much. Yes, there we go that. Simon Courty's
the Under Secretary Parliamentary arounder secretary for RM reform. We're
going to do some talkback after the break.
Speaker 1 (13:17):
And now the.
Speaker 2 (13:17):
Simple question is do you, well, simple straightforward questions, do
you support RAMA reform. I would have thought that's that's
a no brainer, isn't it. I mean, is there anyone
who thinks, no, no, RMA is working just fine right now?
Do you support it being basically let's throw it out
and start again and come up with a new piece
of legislation. But in particular the getting rid of I
(13:39):
guess actually the couple of things resonated. I think that
there's a I don't want to put this the wrong way,
but it does come across a little bit that in
a lot of our legislation there's a bit of virtue
signaling going on. And I don't mean this to beat
up on treaty principal clauses and things like that, but
more things that are a bit amorphous and hard to
sort of pin down. Do you support the idea? It's like, hey,
lock first principle, it's your property, do what you will,
(14:03):
but you must do it within the law. But we're
not going to make you jump through a million hopes.
Do you support this reform of the IMA? And for
more from the Weekend Collective, listen live to news Talks
it'd be weekends from three pm, or follow the podcast
on iHeartRadio
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.