Dear Bill. About those RMA reforms

A voter writes to Bill English

Dear Prime Minister,

Let me say at the start that I could have begun this letter in a far more impolite way such is my and others anger at the passing of this Bill in its current form.

Please explain to me how iwi and hapu involvement will help to speed up resource consents. It appears to me more likely that when a window next breaks in one of Sir Bob Jones’ office buildings he will again have no end of iwi and hapu to consult before the window can be replaced as happened a few years ago. Therefore, God help us when it comes to getting resource consent to build a house.

I am at a loss to comprehend the current logic and direction of the National Party. The path it seems to be taking is in a large part in direct contradiction of its beliefs and founding principles. These form the basis on which many voters have been unfailingly loyal to the Party over the years. This loyalty is now being sorely tested, first by the Resolution 2334 episode and now the RMA debacle. There is no way National supporters believe supporting Resolution 2334 was because it has always been the Party policy. If, in truth, that is the case then the policy needs to be changed. In respect of the RMA reforms most National voters see it the way Winston Peters does i.e. one law for all.

It appears to me that you are risking driving National supporters to vote NZF, thus ending up having to coalesce with the very man you say you would rather not. The National Party is being seen by more and more loyal supporters to have betrayed its founding principles. Surely, your internal polling must be telling you this. Those of us who vote National or Act do so because of an inherent fear of a Labour/Greens horror show.

My reading of those on the political right is that the Government is now being watched very closely and is in fact on notice that some, maybe many, of those loyal to the Party are seriously thinking of giving their support to NZF.

My advice would be to ignore this rising tide of discontent at your and our peril!

Kind regards,
John [withheld]