ECan chair rebuffs Government's directive to stop planning
Councils have been urged "not to stop the planning" despite the government saying plan changes are a waste of ratepayers' money.
Environment Canterbury (ECan) chairperson Craig Pauling said the work of local government still needs to continue.
''At ECan we've already been impacted by stops to planning and I am personally disappointed some good things in our Regional Policy Statement, which would have made a difference, can't happen.''
The policy statements provide an overview of resource management issues in a region.
Resource Management Act (RMA) Reform Minister Chris Bishop this week announced the government would halt changes to district and regional plans.
It comes ahead of a shake-up of the RMA, which is expected to come into effect in 2027.
Pauling made his comments during a panel discussion at the Local Government NZ conference on Thursday, July 17.
''I would encourage you not to stop the planning. Don't stop thinking. You've got to do the analysis.
''Keep the thinking going, so when things do land you are in the best position.''
ECan voted in November to put its RPS on hold until January 2026, while it awaits more certainty with RMA reform.
It has been unable to adopt a plan change to fix issues in the Canterbury Land and Water Regional Plan, following a Supreme Court decision on a water bottling plant in Christchurch in 2023.
There has been speculation the RMA reform could lead to regional councils being scrapped, but both Bishop and Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour said no decision had been made.
Bishop, who met with regional council chairs during the conference, indicated an announcement was likely by the end of the year.
Pauling said it made sense to consider the shape of local government alongside the RMA reform, as regional councils came into being in 1989, in anticipation of the RMA, which was enacted in 1991.
He admitted there were flaws with the present model, as local and regional councils didn't always work together.
''My personal view is separating land-use between city and regional councils was wrong. We've had so many occasions when land-use has been consented non-notified and then it needs water table allocations (from the regional council).''
LGNZ passed a remit at its annual general meeting calling for a review of local government functions and governance arrangements.
Its chief executive Susan Freeman-Greene said local government needed to be proactive and lead the changes required.
Under existing legislation there are only two alternatives for regional government - regional councils and unitary authorities.
Speaking to Local Democracy Reporting, Pauling said more options were needed, as different regions had different challenges.
Canterbury is much larger than other regions, has more braided rivers and catchments, a centrally located population and sparsely populated districts such as Kaikōura, Hurunui, Mackenzie and Waimate.
''We need to be having the conversation and asking the questions. Would Kaikōura and Waimate survive as unitary authorities?''
Splitting the region into three - North, Mid and South Canterbury has been mooted - but Pauling thinks it would be ''problematic''.
South Canterbury would likely be the largest unitary authority in the country in terms of geography, but with a population of only 60,000.
The Hurunui district alone is the same size as Taranaki and half the size of Auckland, but with a much smaller population.
A Christchurch or Greater Christchurch unitary authority has also been mooted, but questions have been raised about whether the rest of Canterbury would have a sufficient ratepayer base to manage regional council functions.
Pauling said he believed it would be ''unworkable''.
Another option, which ECan councillors considered at a recent workshop, was a Canterbury or South Island Assembly.
This was based on the Greater Manchester model, where the existing local councils could continue and the mayors or council representatives and Mana Whenua representatives could form an assembly to make regional decisions.
Whatever is decided, Pauling said local communities need to be involved in the decision making ''or it wouldn't fly''.
By David Hill, Local Democracy Reporter
LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
an hour ago
- NZ Herald
Climate Change: The culture of complaint is alive and well
Its leaders are currently running a high-profile campaign, calling for New Zealand to withdraw from the Paris Climate Change Accord. This is despite Fonterra committing to being net zero by 2050 and this season introducing incentive payments for farmers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But Groundswell has found support in the Beehive with both Act and NZ First, with the latter's leader, Winston Peters, supporting the call to pull out from Paris. Act has targeted rural New Zealand - and it has paid off. In the 2023 election, its top three party vote percentages were in Kaikōura, Rangitikei and Southland: all usually National Party rural fortresses. Waikato, Waitaki, Tukituki and Taranaki were all in Act's top 10 party vote electorates. National knew this was happening - not surprising given that the party could not find a working farmer to be their agricultural spokesperson in Opposition between 2020 and 2023. So, the party deliberately set out to select farmer candidates for the 2023 election. Four of them, Grant McCallum, Suze Redmayne, Mike Butterick and Miles Anderson, are now in the caucus. Last year the MPs launched a new National Party special interest group, Rural Nats to rank alongside the Blue Greens and Super Blues as influencers within the party. And in Government, National set out very deliberately to implement the Federated Farmers 12-point 2023 election manifesto. This has been most obvious with the moves it has made in reforming the Resource Management Act to accommodate rural interests. Thus, the current consultations on proposals to amend the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management. The policy statement was the target of the original Groundswell 'Howl of a Protest' tractor protest four years ago. There have been other moves like enabling more water storage, abolishing the ute-tax, restricting carbon farming and reviewing the methane targets, which were all part of the Feds' manifesto. Richard Harman National has had to concede to Act the requirement that councils must compensate landowners when they designate part of a farm a Significant Natural Area. But apart from that, it was all National's work. It showed up in a Federated Farmers Curia poll released at Fieldays, which showed 54% support for National farmers against 19% for Act. Nevertheless, there was one Feds' manifesto proposal that is causing some concern, not for the Government, but for the Feds themselves. The manifesto called for the Government to embrace new technology, including gene editing 'that could solve many of the challenges we face as farmers'. The Government obliged with the Gene Technology Bill, which would liberalise the approval process for crops like the Ag Research-developed genetically edited ryegrass, which is currently being tested in the United States to determine its ability to lower methane production in cows. Under present regulations it cannot be grown here. In a surprise move in April, Federated Farmers president Wayne Langford told the Health Select Committee that even if the law was changed, it might not be possible to approve the grass because it could spread to neighbouring properties that were marketing their produce as GE-free. 'Our members' views on issues are as diverse as their farming systems,' he said. 'Most farmers are in support, some are neutral, and some are opposed. 'Federated Farmers' job is to navigate those differences in opinion, to present a credible and consistent view, which we try to do.' Langford's comments reflected the dilemma his organisation constantly faces, that there is no universal consensus among farmers on most major policy decisions. Nowhere has this been more evident than on climate change. Farming as a whole has always been concerned about the 2050 methane targets requiring a reduction of between 24 and 47 per cent on 2017 emission levels. They are thought to be difficult to achieve whereas the 2030 target of a 10 per cent reduction is thought likely to be met. A Government-initiated review by a science panel last year suggested that a smaller 2050 target reduction, potentially 14%-15%, could be consistent with 'no added warming' from methane emissions. The Government has given itself until the end of this year to respond to this but now Groundswell has stepped up its campaign, not to change the target, but to completely pull out of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. Meanwhile, Fonterra has taken the issue into its own hands. Through agreements with Nestlé and Mars, two of its biggest customers, it has committed to being responsible for net zero emissions by 2050 and this season has begun paying a bonus to farmers who meet the emission reduction targets it has set. This has not topped Groundswell, which has been closely aligned with the Taxpayers' Union and whose Facebook site is now a reservoir of conspiracy theories and wild claims about climate change and other favourite ultra-right causes like UN Agenda 2030 and the WHO. Groundswell has broadened their campaign to now answer questions about how to restrain farms being converted to forestry for carbon farming by simply saying we should pull out of Paris. Unlike Act and New Zealand First, National is standing well clear of them and its spokespeople have used the argument that reducing emissions is simply a requirement from our markets. Wairarapa MP Mike Butterick clashed with Groundswell Environment spokesperson Jamie McFadden. Butterick reminded McFadden about the economic situation facing farmers. 'In terms of some of the pressures on sheep and beef farming, number one has been profitability,' he said. 'We're in a really good spot right now; record product prices all on the back of those lucrative markets that do have those (climate change) agreements, that profitability would be at risk.' Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has been similarly emphatic. 'Do not be naive and think there will not be implications if we leave a global commitment,' he told farmers at Fieldays last month. Though Federated Farmers did an online poll earlier this year and found that 69 per cent of respondents favoured pulling out of the Paris Agreement. But a remit calling for NZ to withdraw from Paris at the Feds' annual meeting last month was defeated. It marked a new sense of realism within the Feds, in part inspired by more contacts with experts like our trade negotiators. An example was the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade deputy secretary, Vangelis Vitalis, the country's lead trade negotiator, speaking at the DairyNZ Farmers' Forum at the end of May. He said more than 85% of the discussions on trade agreements have climate at their heart. Langford, obviously took messages like this to heart. Speaking after the remit defeat, he said the Government had been very clear, as had our trade negotiators and largest exporters, that it would be total economic sabotage to withdraw and farmers would pay the price. That is not stopping Groundswell or Act's Climate Change spokesperson, Simon Court. Groundswell are now encouraging farmers to erect highly professional billboards saying 'The Paris Agreement is Destroying Us' on their farms. Court used his every question opportunity at a recent Select Committee hearing on limiting afforestation on farmland for carbon farming to try and get the submitter to agree that the obvious answer would be to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. National must press ahead with complying with Paris - in part because that is what Fonterra's customers and the country's trade agreements are increasingly demanding, and in part because its campaigners have looked across at Australia and know that the easiest way to lose the centrist urban female vote is to be soft on climate change. Whether Groundswell can persuade Act to make withdrawal a bottom line at the next election may well become one of the big political stories of the next 18 months.
NZ Herald
an hour ago
- NZ Herald
Agribusiness and Trade: NZ food and fibre sector poised for growth
Confidence rebuilding on the farm In the past, over-regulation, compliance creep and anti-farming rhetoric eroded trust and stalled investment in our primary sector. But the settings are changing, and so is sentiment. According to the February Federated Farmers Confidence Survey, general farmer confidence has rebounded by 16 points since July 2023. While there's still work to do, this is the largest uplift in confidence in five years, and I predict the next survey, due in the coming weeks, will break new records as farmers reap the benefits of their hard work. The message is clear: this Government backs farmers and the policy reset is working. Over the six years of the previous government, the rural sector was burdened by unworkable regulations that siffled production and stopped them competing on the world stage. Farmers and growers want to innovate and lead the world. They know they must be at the forefront of market trends to command shelf space in the world's supermarkets and the attention of increasingly discerning consumers, and when given permission to compete they produce some of the most effect, high-quality, safe food and fibre the world has seen. To ensure the farmers and growers can achieve this this we've reset rules, wound back costly red tape regulation, and reinstated common sense so producers have the freedom to do what they do best – grow food. The focus is now firmly on moving forward. We're looking at how we can increase land use flexibility to ensure farmers can adapt and diversify based on opportunity, not red tape. And we're driving a full overhaul of the Resource Management Act to create a regulatory system that enables, rather than obstructs enterprise. One that recognises food and fibre as a strategic and economic asset, and allows us to smartly meet environmental obligations rather than closing down good businesses. At the same time, we're building long-term investment partnerships with the sector. In Budget 2025, we launched the Primary Sector Growth Fund (PSGF), a $246 million commitment to co-invest in high-impact innovation. The first project, Resilient Pastures, is already underway: a seven-year, $17 million programme to breed more productive, climate-tolerant pasture systems. This is just the start. Upcoming PSGF projects will focus on automation, breeding gains in livestock and plants, and new platform technologies to give producers the tools to compete and win. We also introduced Investment Boost, allowing agribusinesses to immediately deduct 20% of the cost of new assets from their tax bill, giving firms more capital to reinvest at speed, and to help drive economic growth and export opportunities. Trade delivering – sharing our food and fibre with the world As we reset the domestic policy environment, we've also been relentlessly focused on unlocking global opportunities for New Zealand's world-class producers and exporters. May marked one year since the EU Free Trade Agreement came into force—well ahead of schedule, and already it's delivering. In just 12 months, exports have increased by more than $1 billion. Similarly, we've also marked two years of the UK FTA, which has seen a 21% boost in exports worth an additional $644.4 million. Beyond Europe, we've signed a Free Trade Agreement with the United Arab Emirates which once enacted will unlock over $1 billion in additional trade value. We've also concluded negotiations with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), a high-potential $3 trillion regional economy, and launched negotiations with India, recognising its critical importance as a long-term growth market for New Zealand's exporters. Trade is not magical, it merely creates jobs and lifts incomes for every New Zealander. Todd McClay In Asia, we're progressing an upgraded Services Agreement with China, and successfully resolved a long-standing non-tariff barrier in the cosmetics sector, unlocking an estimated $200 million in new market access for Kiwi exporters. Importantly, we're tackling non-tariff barriers (NTB) head-on. In the past 18 months alone, we've resolved $933 million worth of NTBs that were holding exporters back, including forcing Canada to honour its obligation to New Zealand dairy farmers under the CPTPP agreement - and we're going after more. This is trade policy focused on execution and growth. These outcomes are expanding shelf space, lifting export value, and reinforcing New Zealand's competitive edge in a global market that demands quality, trust and speed. Trade is not magical, it merely creates jobs and lifts incomes for every New Zealander. Global markets demand proof, not just promises Premium markets increasingly demand not just great products, but verifiable systems behind them. That's why we've launched New Zealand's first Grass-Fed certification standard, giving red meat and dairy exporters a trusted mark to differentiate in global markets where sourcing claims are under the microscope. Initiatives like this reinforce what the best in the industry are already doing. From leading grass-fed systems to precision technology and value-added processing --New Zealand agribusiness is already creating the future. Government's role is to support, enable, and amplify that progress, clear the roadblocks, and scale the success. The challenge is set and accepted New Zealand's position in the global food economy relies on dedication and relentless ambition focused on innovation that leads the world and keeps New Zealand forefront in the minds of global consumers. There is no shortage of ability on our shores or desire to succeed. The demand is there, and the capability exists. What's needed now is ambition backed by smart rules, better investment pathways, and a clear strategic direction, led by a sector that's hungry to remain on the top shelf.
Otago Daily Times
2 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Farmer to have case considered
Invercargill city councillors will next week consider whether a Tisbury poultry farmer will be compensated for the loss of income and distress caused by a nearby housing development. In May, during the public forum of the council's community wellbeing and regulatory committee McNeill's Poultry Farm owner Nigel Hewitson outlined his troubles with a new housing development near his farm. He said since September last year the vibrations and noise from the housing development had stressed the 5000 hens on his Tisbury poultry farm. The hens lost their appetite, their condition, became more aggressive towards each other and egg production dropped. Mr Hewitson said he did not know how the development had gained planning consent without him being identified as an affected party and thought the council was at fault. Council consenting and environment general manager Jonathan Shaw was asked to prepare a report. In his report tabled at Tuesday's community wellbeing and regulatory committee meeting, Mr Shaw said while Mr Hewitson believed he should have been identified as an affected party, the application did not breach the district plan and therefore he was not an affected party. While it was obvious Mr Hewitson had been affected by the development, for the purpose of the consent he was not. Mr Hewitson sought a High Court injunction against the developer to mitigate the impacts to his operation which was issued in January. In his findings High Court Justice Jonathan Eaton noted the council consents and the work was being carried out according to the consent conditions. The council was not a party to the injunction and no concerns were raised by Justice Eaton about the actions of the council, the report said. The High Court ruling imposed stricter limits on noise and vibration than those set in the District Plan and the council had no authority to monitor or enforce the injunction. Mr Shaw had reviewed the conversations Mr Hewitson had with staff and concluded record keeping could be improved. There was also a delay in Mr Shaw being updated by staff about the situation. There were now protocols in place to ensure interactions with the public are recorded and matters are brought before senior management as required. Cr Ian Pottinger said it was clear that Mr Hewitson was an affected party and asked what staff had done to help when he approached them. Mr Shaw said the district plan did not not have any provisions to deal with the issues. Mr Pottinger said section 17 of the Resource Management Act (RMA) stated there was a duty to avoid, remedy, or mitigate any adverse effect on the environment arising from an activity and asked who in this case was responsible to do this. Mr Shaw said his understanding was the applicant and the local authority was responsible. However, at the time the resource consent was approved, those effects were seen to be less than minor. Mr Hewitson attended the meeting and afterwards said he thought the system was "unjust". It seemed getting the consent conditions right on paper was more important than the real impact it had on people, he said. Legislation was there to protect people and their properties. "Where's my protection?" After the meeting, council chief executive Michael Day said the question of compensation was discussed in committee, behind closed doors.
