8:42 More interesting that Shane Jones and his dinner guests, is Barry Bragg's (of mining company Stevenson Holdings) letter of 19 February 2024 to Chris Bishop, about the Te Kuha opencast coal mine proposal, which is a "poster child" for the "One stop shop" idea. Te Kuha needed three sets of permissions. First, RMA resource consents granted by councils then declined on appeal by the Environment Court. Second and third, they needed two separate land access permissions under the Crown Minerals Act/Conservation Act/Reserves Act. One from DOC (declined by Eugenie Sage and a High Court judicial review was unsuccessful), and a second from the district council for access to the special purpose water reserve. Stevenson Mining, if I recall correctly, went to the High Court first to get a declaration that the councils could grant access for mineral extraction purposes, rather than for water reserve purposes. Forest and Bird won that case as the High Court said that s61 of the Crown Minerals Act stated the purposes the council had to consider and that they did not include mineral extraction. Bragg misrepresents that history and claims environmental benefits. He claims that Te Kuha can be carried out "with no negative impacts to the environment, in fact, with some benefits". That contradicts the findings of fact made by the Environment Court. Bragg is like the PM, "staying on message" but it appears delusional or at best ill-informed to me. He claims "resource consents and land access arrangements that were granted, or almost granted, before being delayed on appeal by Forest & Bird". This shows his lack of understanding of the consent process. In an appeal of a consent, the councils decision is legally set aside and the Environment Court re-hears the facts of the application as if it was the council. The councils grant decision is irrelevant. The Environment Court's decision stands in it's place and it is the only binding legal decision for that application. If Bishop and Brown and Jones approve the Te Kuha mine under the FTAB, it would be a case of executive dictatorship - three ministers effectively using "Henry VIII" powers to drive the bulldozer through New Zealand's conservation laws. Which would enable a "Zombie" project that has already validly failed three times. I don't think any one else has described the FTAB as "Henry VIII" powers, but it's an accurate analogy.😀
*_"delusional or at best ill-informed" ... "lack of understanding"_* Why is everyone too scared to use the L word? And why the concomitant implication that mining companies employ delusional uninformed fools? Bragg has at least 22 years "extensive corporate governance across the public sector, iwi sector, mining, farming property and construction sectors" The L word is an integral part of "executive dictatorship". Companies which do it to our government should be automatically disqualified from eligibility. There is only one way to ensure transparency and accountability in our country. "A man who lies to his wife will lie to anyone."
8:42 More interesting that Shane Jones and his dinner guests, is Barry Bragg's (of mining company Stevenson Holdings) letter of 19 February 2024 to Chris Bishop, about the Te Kuha opencast coal mine proposal, which is a "poster child" for the "One stop shop" idea.
Te Kuha needed three sets of permissions. First, RMA resource consents granted by councils then declined on appeal by the Environment Court. Second and third, they needed two separate land access permissions under the Crown Minerals Act/Conservation Act/Reserves Act. One from DOC (declined by Eugenie Sage and a High Court judicial review was unsuccessful), and a second from the district council for access to the special purpose water reserve. Stevenson Mining, if I recall correctly, went to the High Court first to get a declaration that the councils could grant access for mineral extraction purposes, rather than for water reserve purposes. Forest and Bird won that case as the High Court said that s61 of the Crown Minerals Act stated the purposes the council had to consider and that they did not include mineral extraction.
Bragg misrepresents that history and claims environmental benefits. He claims that Te Kuha can be carried out "with no negative impacts to the environment, in fact, with some benefits". That contradicts the findings of fact made by the Environment Court. Bragg is like the PM, "staying on message" but it appears delusional or at best ill-informed to me.
He claims "resource consents and land access arrangements that were granted, or almost granted, before being delayed on appeal by Forest & Bird". This shows his lack of understanding of the consent process. In an appeal of a consent, the councils decision is legally set aside and the Environment Court re-hears the facts of the application as if it was the council. The councils grant decision is irrelevant. The Environment Court's decision stands in it's place and it is the only binding legal decision for that application.
If Bishop and Brown and Jones approve the Te Kuha mine under the FTAB, it would be a case of executive dictatorship - three ministers effectively using "Henry VIII" powers to drive the bulldozer through New Zealand's conservation laws. Which would enable a "Zombie" project that has already validly failed three times. I don't think any one else has described the FTAB as "Henry VIII" powers, but it's an accurate analogy.😀
*_"delusional or at best ill-informed" ... "lack of understanding"_* Why is everyone too scared to use the L word?
And why the concomitant implication that mining companies employ delusional uninformed fools?
Bragg has at least 22 years "extensive corporate governance across the public sector, iwi sector, mining, farming property and construction sectors"
The L word is an integral part of "executive dictatorship". Companies which do it to our government should be automatically disqualified from eligibility.
There is only one way to ensure transparency and accountability in our country.
"A man who lies to his wife will lie to anyone."