Thread: Demise of Waterfowl. Habitat destruction.

Another example of political interference. See below.
There was a hint late 2016 that The Minister of Resource Consents (RMA Hon Nick Smith) was about to have the EPA become the sole Centralized Authority issuing resource Consents for 1080 poison applications for all of New Zealand and that Local / Regional Councils (meaning ratepayers) would no longer have their traditional responsibility of this " democratic right ". This was reiterated on TV Three AM show this morning. In addition the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (Dr Jan Wright) commented to the effect, that this proposal was a good thing in that where proposed 1080 poisoning was to occur (for example) across regional boundaries, that those bordering authorities which often had differing constraints to any permissions conditions they might wish to impose and which differences made things more complicated would now have no issuing authority and the process would become much simpler by being controlled by central government; or words to that effect.



My opinion on this issue is that Dr Nick Smith, Dr Jan Wright and the central NZ government are creating a de facto rule which if allowed to be enacted could be applied to practically any person or council in our country depriving those persons or their elected councillors and their councils of all and any rights of management of their areas, environment, or even their property and to have imposed upon them by central government edict an application of virtually any lethal substance including unrestricted access OVER AND UPON public and private property for ANY purpose CONVENIENT TO CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND ULTIMATELY THOSE WHO FINANCE OR OTHERWISE INFLUENCE THE SEATS OF POWER IN OUR COUNTRY. This new de facto imposition cannot be assumed to restrict itself to just one issue. It could be applied to ANY type of resource consent application rule or edict ANYWHERE on any persons property at any time.



Where then is your right of appeal or indeed your ability to have accountability of these persons guaranteed? (It is almost impossible even within councils today as you will know.)



The disgusting situation we face in this CURRENT example is the application of one of the deadliest poisons known to man, into our streams, lakes, waterways, drinking supplies, over agricultural as well as forest land and even into marine foreshore environments. The platitudinious verbiage coming from the mouths of the advocates for this bullying policy and at least one set of representatives of corporate interests should do nothing to convince New Zealanders that this type of governance is acceptable to us.



I quote a few definitions below:__



A centralized government (also centralised government (non-Oxford spelling)) is one in which power or legal authority is exerted or coordinated by a de facto (De facto (/deɪ ˈfæktoʊ/), Latin for "in fact", describes practices that exist in reality, even if not legally authorized.[1][2][3] It is commonly used used in contrast with de jure ("in law"), which which refers to things that happen according to law, as opposed to de facto, which refers to what happens in practice.) political executive to which federal states, local authorities, and smaller units are considered subject.

Centralized government - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralized_government



and:- Authoritarianism is characterized by highly concentrated and centralized power maintained by political repression and the exclusion of potential challengers. ... The transition from an authoritarian system to a more democratic form of government is referred to as democratization.