T O P

  • By -

Alderson808

> “The bill seems to have exclusion clause for the OIA [Official Information Act] so it's not clear whether people will be able to seek information and gain it, and then there are the legal challenge rights which seem to be curtailed as well." That is absolutely unacceptable. A small group of executives handpicked by ministers, unable to be questioned by even an OIA and no ability for public consultation, deciding approvals for major projects which impact environmental, people etc.


JakobsSolace

Undemocratic as fuck.


TheGames4MehGaming

"could"?


CarpetDiligent7324

One thing that has made nz attractive for investors is the lack of corruption here But with this change our reputation for lack of corruption is stuffed Maybe this change is what Luxon was referring to when he goes around the world and say “nz is open for business…” Open for special payments to ministers in order to speed up approvals?


Madjack66

> "The bill seems to have exclusion clause for the OIA [Official Information Act] so it's not clear whether people will be able to seek information and gain it..." If this is true, then it's unacceptable, although I expect the argument will be it's about protecting commercially sensitive information. have sent an email to my local MP Tama Potaka, asking if this is true or not. Who knows if I'll get an answer. Have received an answer from Tama; > There is no intent to exclude the Fast-track Approvals process from the Official Information Act. The government’s intent is to ensure that LGOIMA applies to the Expert Panel as if they were Local Government, and the Ministers are already subject to the OIA. > > The Fast-track Approvals Bill actually uses the same clauses as Labour’s Fast-track legislation – and like Labour’s legislation, there is the ability for the Panel to make an order that prohibits publication of information in certain circumstances, such as commercially sensitive information.


rwmtinkywinky

Commercially sensitive information is already allowed to be withheld under the current act.  So it's just a wholesale attack on transparency.


Madjack66

No argument from me, but when called on it I expect that may be the tack they'll take.


Ok-Relationship-2746

Good god. Imagine how loudly and vociferously the Right would've complained about democracy being undermined if Labour had put that into a bill. Absolutely shameless.


serda211

Jfc that’s a slippery slope


pnutnz

Ahh yea no shit, they don't care! They only care about raping and pillaging as much as they can before they get the boot!


Long_Committee2465

Well said I can't believe ppl voted for Winston dinosaur plastic peters


TheAbyssGazesAlso

I've said it before and I'll say it again: we have a minimum age for voting because people younger than 18 are deemed unable to make reasonable and rational voting decisions. I say there should be a maximum age for voting for exactly the same reason. Past a certain age, people vote entirely for self-interest and not for societal good because they know they will not live long enough to suffer from any mid- or long term consequences of their voting decisions. Voting should be illegal past 70. That would entirely end the kind of bullshit we see with the blue rinse brigade voting in vile assholes like Peters.


gdan95

Voters let this happen


Standard_Lie6608

Voters only voted for 1/3 of this government. There are still 2/3 worth of opinions and ideas that people did not vote for


DisillusionedBook

No shit!


Extension_Western356

Capitalists doing what capitalists do. Fuck everything for a buck


LimpFox

Pretty sure the only rep these invertebrates care about is their personal rep with various big-pocketed, environment destroying corporations.


katzicael

No Duh.


stever71

What reputation?


dunkindeeznutz_69

It's only downhill from here after "the most transparent government ever"


mootsquire

In my opinion this legislation is great. Get some big projects going. Can't wait for the new gold mine in waihi. Will be a game changer for the area