The Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act (CS&A Act) was established to prevent easy access to abortion, and yet the actual provisions of the law are being flouted. 99% of the 18,000 plus abortions last year came after a brief consultation and approved on the grounds of "mental health".
[SATIRE ALERT]
Lawyers warned late last year that ignoring the intent of the law set a dangerous precedent, and opened the way to legally change the way all laws in New Zealand were applied.
Their warning was made too late.
The most notable adoption of the CS&A Act was a change of policy at Kapiti Coast District Council (KCDC) last week. The KCDC has responded to public demands to improve the building consent process by embracing the Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act.
From July 1, all building permits will be subject to the same provisions of the CS&A Act. Any person requiring a “permit” simply sees a licensed “consultant”, who will immediately approve any building requirements on the grounds that a person’s mental health may suffer if they cannot go ahead with the construction. The $80 fee is means tested, and in most cases will be met by the government.
Previously, such fees were excessive: engineers, planners and architects were called in, at the victims expense and would try to counsel the victim out of taking such a rash course of action, or they would place a series of deliberate road blocks to slow the project down. A small renovation might cost over $1,000 in fees. Subdivision costs are typically over $40,000. Furthermore, council staff were obliged to point out the inherent dangers of adding to existing buildings, and regale victims with stories of leaky homes and DIY projects gone wrong.
In a complete turnabout, this entire process can now be ignored and a person simply decide they want to build something. Human Rights activists point out that it should be every persons right to build something and any consultation trying to talk them out of it, or placing excessive fees is an affront to the dignity of the person.
“Right to Build” spokesperson David Carpenter suggested that the consultation process was there to ensure the safety and integrity of the renovation project. “Whilst we expect 99% of the consultation cases to be approved on the spot if the victim indicates mental stress, there is a small chance that some victims are only going ahead with the building due to a condition known as “Joneses Syndrome”.
“It’s clear that people suffering from this condition are building for the wrong reasons. We advise the increased use of small apartments to reduce the incidence of unwanted buildings”. David Carpenter said that people with greater access to condominiums are less likely to request a building extension, although this fact is disputed. The Anti-Quarter Acre Coalition have produced figures to say easy access to condominiums has not abated the need for building renovations.
The Greens have come out very strongly against “The Right to Build” and claim the planet already has too many building extensions and more extensions will cause a catastrophic impact on the environment. Jeanette Fitzsimons, Green Party Co-Leader said that their policy was to set a limit of one building extension per family. “It’s a simple matter of family planning. Extensions would not be needed if the government taxed additional rooms and encouraged the use of bunk beds.
--Ends
Slightly Related Link: Abortion Supervisory Committee Should Be Replaced
[SATIRE ALERT]
Lawyers warned late last year that ignoring the intent of the law set a dangerous precedent, and opened the way to legally change the way all laws in New Zealand were applied.
Their warning was made too late.
The most notable adoption of the CS&A Act was a change of policy at Kapiti Coast District Council (KCDC) last week. The KCDC has responded to public demands to improve the building consent process by embracing the Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act.
From July 1, all building permits will be subject to the same provisions of the CS&A Act. Any person requiring a “permit” simply sees a licensed “consultant”, who will immediately approve any building requirements on the grounds that a person’s mental health may suffer if they cannot go ahead with the construction. The $80 fee is means tested, and in most cases will be met by the government.
Previously, such fees were excessive: engineers, planners and architects were called in, at the victims expense and would try to counsel the victim out of taking such a rash course of action, or they would place a series of deliberate road blocks to slow the project down. A small renovation might cost over $1,000 in fees. Subdivision costs are typically over $40,000. Furthermore, council staff were obliged to point out the inherent dangers of adding to existing buildings, and regale victims with stories of leaky homes and DIY projects gone wrong.
In a complete turnabout, this entire process can now be ignored and a person simply decide they want to build something. Human Rights activists point out that it should be every persons right to build something and any consultation trying to talk them out of it, or placing excessive fees is an affront to the dignity of the person.
“Right to Build” spokesperson David Carpenter suggested that the consultation process was there to ensure the safety and integrity of the renovation project. “Whilst we expect 99% of the consultation cases to be approved on the spot if the victim indicates mental stress, there is a small chance that some victims are only going ahead with the building due to a condition known as “Joneses Syndrome”.
“It’s clear that people suffering from this condition are building for the wrong reasons. We advise the increased use of small apartments to reduce the incidence of unwanted buildings”. David Carpenter said that people with greater access to condominiums are less likely to request a building extension, although this fact is disputed. The Anti-Quarter Acre Coalition have produced figures to say easy access to condominiums has not abated the need for building renovations.
The Greens have come out very strongly against “The Right to Build” and claim the planet already has too many building extensions and more extensions will cause a catastrophic impact on the environment. Jeanette Fitzsimons, Green Party Co-Leader said that their policy was to set a limit of one building extension per family. “It’s a simple matter of family planning. Extensions would not be needed if the government taxed additional rooms and encouraged the use of bunk beds.
--Ends
Slightly Related Link: Abortion Supervisory Committee Should Be Replaced
Comments
Post a Comment
Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.