The Disastrous Effects Of Pine Forests On Our Land And On Ratepayers Pockets
The public made it clear they wanted to end the shocking and predictable pollution from slash and waste logs, putting lives and property at risk, and clogging beaches after each significant rainstorm.
'The RMA and councils are failing the public. It's time for a more careful public focused response." says NZ Outdoors and Freedom Party leader and lawyer Sue Grey. "The common law makes individuals strictly responsible for the consequences of activities on their properties. Every lawyer learns about Rylands v Fletcher and strict liability for harm. Why are councils not holding logging companies responsible under these principles? Why are the public being expected to pay time and time again for the clean ups? How can it be in the public interest for private companies to take the benefits of logging but the public to pay the costs?"
The cost to the taxpayer of cleaning some of the beaches in the Gisborne area resulted in a public outcry. As a result we all thought that might have been the end of the problem. The forestry companies promised that they would amend their harvesting practices.
"Of course it was all posture and hollow words to keep the public quiet" says Alan Simmons of the NZ Outdoors and Freedom Party, who published a report after the East Coast floods. "The same can be said for the Government response which again was nothing but platitudes.'
Take one look at the Tasman District after this latest huge rain event and you wonder why anyone ever wasted breath or ink on their promises.
One of regions favourite beaches , Kaiteriteri Beach, has been left in an appalling state, covered in pine forest logs and waste. Sue Grey leader of the Outdoors & Freedom Party and Nelson Resident is angry about the damage done to this beautiful beach and by the lack of respect for the law by the forestry industry and local council.
Sue Grey wants to know "Why forestry companies are not automatically required to pay for the cleanup and also the economic costs to the local business". She said "These costs should not fall on the ratepayer. The community is tired of the continuous excuses, the never ending slippery answers and the hollow promises they will ""voluntarily amend practices"", to avoid further harm and cost to the environment and local communities.'
'A decision by the House of Lords in 1868 developed English tort law establishing the rule of Rylands v Fletcher that everyone is strictly liable for harm caused by non-natural use of their land. It's now approaching 200 years since that rule was developed. Why are we still waiting for it to be applied in New Zealand?' asks Party leader Sue Grey
'If you seek to make the profit from growing the pine trees, then you must pay the costs for the consequences."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Spinoff
9 hours ago
- The Spinoff
‘So many issues' but ‘alright, I guess': What students actually think of NCEA
It turns out young people have opinions about things that affect them. Last week, we shared a Now You Know explainer video on the future of NCEA after prime minister Christopher Luxon announced it was getting a 'fundamental overhaul'. The Education Review Office thinks NCEA Level 1 'needs substantial reform' and parents are pressuring schools to ditch the qualification altogether. But what do the people actually doing NCEA think? They don't seem to be asked very often, so we took it to the comments section. Here's what we learned, in their own words. Comments have been lightly edited for clarity. Language classes are OK, except when people are using Google Translate to complete their internal assessments. Moved from the US 10th grade to year 12, so I have a somewhat wider perspective. In short, teaching and learning was minimal, while memorising and copy-pasting were rewarded. The standards for an Achieved are on the ground, while Excellence requires an insane amount of effort. At my school, English was not required past year 10 (still needed reading/writing credits though), and many kids didn't know how to write, some probably couldn't read, either. Music and languages in particular, I think, were alright. However, language courses could move a LOT faster (although the internal assessments were pointless as most students could Google Translate their work). It's great that NCEA gives students choice about their subjects and assessments but that is about the only good thing I can say about it. / Student who finished NCEA in 2023 A key theme was that not a single human soul in the comments understands what is going on with NCEA Level 1. And also, for the love of God, students want us to stop changing their assessment standards mid-year. I did the new Level 1 NCEA last year and there were so many issues since teachers didn't know what they were teaching. There are many things we didn't learn due to there not being enough time to learn everything in the curriculum, so going into Level 2 we have missed out on many things. With the new Level 1 system it was still changing throughout the year, and the way assignments were supposed to be marked was changing whilst doing them. It was not planned out well, and they had not finished the new system halfway through the year and were still altering it, making it even harder to manage. / NCEA Level 2 student Found last year was alright with credits but NO TEACHER KNEW WHAT THEY WERE TEACHING BECAUSE OF THE SYSTEM CHANGE AND THE LACK OF RESOURCES GIVEN TO THEM! This year was alright, I guess. A lot of overload in a way: one class with three assessments for one thing I'm doing, and I'm finding it hard to get credits but I've passed (for now) all my assessments. / NCEA Level 2 student I think that lots of the new standards are repetitive and aren't actually clear on what is needed to achieve highly. For example, 1.2 English is basically a repeat of the CAAs [Common Assessment Activities] we have to sit, and it seems to me teachers haven't actually been able to give their own feedback on the course. It is also apparent there's a lack of communication from NZQA to teachers. I think there's also a bit of a disconnect between Level 1 and Level 2 which is going to stitch up my year group. / NCEA Level 1 student A lot of students told us that once you've passed NCEA Level 1, you are totally unprepared for Level 2, so good luck with that. Level 1 was fine, very easy and I only had three exams. But now the jump to Level 2 is huge, and I have 11 exams this year / NCEA Level 2 student I HATE level 2 😭✌️ / NCEA Level 2 student I took L1 [Level 1] last year and my chem teacher said the new Level 1 Labour introduced doesn't even align with Level 2 chem. She said once you hit Level 2, it's like restarting. / NCEA Level 2 student Some students think that NCEA has some redeeming qualities. It's going great right now in the first year of NCEA but if there were anything I would have to change, most likely the wording of the standards. Even one of my teachers said that it was 'pretty vague' / NCEA Level 1 student As someone currently doing Level 2, I don't have any major issues with NCEA. My main issue is that it doesn't necessarily feel like we want to do the assessments (whether because we're forced to write about specific subjects or are only assessed on subjects the teachers know well). Admittedly, getting students to be passionate about learning isn't easy. In conclusion, I think that the current use of NCEA is fine; however, in the future, we should find a way to move into a qualification system that is better suited to doing what the students want rather than what the teachers want. / NCEA Level 2 student Some people were just happy we showed an interest in what they had to say. I personally find it alright, but I know a lot of my friends are struggling. The system definitely needs change, and it's great to have someone actually care about our opinions for once. / NCEA Level 2 student
NZ Herald
2 days ago
- NZ Herald
Letters: Warriors defensive woes, voting reforms, David Seymour and dropkicks, passport name-changing
It is just too easy for opponents to exploit the frailties we have here. Alan Walker, St Heliers. Voting reforms How are the changes to voting going to make it harder to cast a vote? The election date is announced months in advance, so people have no excuse to not enrol to vote. Also, by making it illegal to have entertainment or food offerings within 100m of a voting station is just common sense, votes must be cast freely and no inducement should be offered. It seems the only ones complaining are the ones who use this as an election-day strategy. Mark Young, Ōrewa. David Seymour and dropkicks David Seymour has again demonstrated his gift for insult, this time calling tardy voting registrants 'dropkicks'. Such boorish, sneering, self-righteous language, while not surprising coming from Seymour, really shows what a massive dropkick he is. Brian Dwyer, Welcome Bay. Passports It is so hard to understand what the Government is trying to do in changing the order of name on our New Zealand passports. The use of te reo is a source of pride in the unique embracing of our heritage through our original language. Other countries praise us for it. There are no obvious nay-sayers except certain voters who are dwindling in number as they 'get' the unique lustre of 'Aotearoa New Zealand'. In that order. Christine, Northcote Point. What's in a name? I am a New Zealand citizen living in South Dakota. I recently had my New Zealand passport renewed and noticed the Māori word for New Zealand was placed above the English word on the passport. I was somewhat mystified and offended by this change, as I view myself as a New Zealander, not an Aotearoan. I presume this renaming order is a manifestation of 'woke' ideology derived from the previous Government under Dame Jacinda Ardern. I find this form of 'virtue signalling' distasteful and not becoming of the Commonwealth country New Zealand is. To the three leaders of the current Government, congratulations are deserved on their sensible and appropriate name reversal on the front of the New Zealand passport. Quentin Durward, South Dakota, US. Cost of living We are currently in Perth and there are five different supermarket chains to shop at, plus a whole host of independent stores. One greengrocer in particular, Spud Shed, is 17 stores strong. Many of these are open 24 hours, offering an exciting shopping experience for the customer. It is a lot easier to shop around here to keep them honest. Some purchases included red capsicums for $1.75 each, two for $4 cabbages, $5 blueberries, and large 500gm strawberries for only $4.99. Two chips of cherry tomatoes for $3, and a block of Aussie butter for $6.79. Their in-season Sumo mandarins are magic, but it is not all beer and skittles in the produce world; we spotted our gold kiwifruit for $12.99/kg, and we miss our glorious New Zealand apples dearly. However, one thing is for certain, our New Zealand grocery retail needs some serious competition. Glenn Forsyth, Taupō.
1News
3 days ago
- 1News
Te Pāti Māori, Greens outraged at 'marginalising' passport changes
Te Pāti Māori says the Government's changes to passports are an attempt to whitewash the national identity. The Government confirmed on Friday that New Zealand's passport is being redesigned to place the English words above the te reo Māori text. The new look won't start being rolled out until the end of 2027. Since 2021, passports have had "Uruwhenua Aotearoa" printed in silver directly above New Zealand Passport. Internal Affairs Minister Brooke van Velden said the positioning of text on passports will change to reflect the Government's commitment to using English first. She said the redesign, which would be unveiled later this year, was being done as part of a scheduled security upgrade, ensuring no additional cost to passport holders. ADVERTISEMENT Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer said the change diminishes the visibility of tangata whenua. "Our passport is not just a travel document, it's a statement of who we are as a nation. So, the stripping down of te reo Māori, or marginalising our indigenous identity, reflects this Government's sad obsession with erasing Te Tiriti o Waitangi and dragging us back to a monocultural past," she said. Ngarewa-Packer said the move undermined Aotearoa's reputation as a leading nation in recognising indigenous rights. "Restoring our reo took a long time. I mean imagine doing this in Ireland, imagine doing this to the Welsh. This was hard fought for. It's not re-ordering of words, the reformatting is deliberately done to undermine the mana [and] to sideline us tangata whenua." Not 'a positive vision' - Greens Green MP Benjamin Doyle. (Source: Green Party MP Benjamin Doyle said the move is not what New Zealanders need from the government. ADVERTISEMENT "We are seeing day by day, the rights and dignities of minority communities being stripped away while they leave the majority of New Zealanders suffering under the Government's current decisions," Doyle said. "This is not a positive vision for Aotearoa, this is not a positive step towards unifying kotahitanga and it's not benefiting anyone. Really, its just dog-whistling politics. It's the tail wagging the dog." The ACT Party celebrated van Velden's move on social media, saying the change would "restore English before te reo Māori - without costing taxpayers". The change comes as part of a deliberate push by the coalition to give English primacy over te reo Māori in official communications. New Zealand First's coalition agreement with National stipulates that public service departments have their primary name in English and be required to communicate "primarily in English" except for entities specifically related to Māori. It also includes an as-yet-unfulfilled commitment to make English an official language of New Zealand.
