ACT Launches Petition To Dump Te Mana o te Wai
Instead of clear metrics like nitrate levels or sedimentation rates, councils are being asked to assess spiritual values that cannot be measured or contested, says ACT Agriculture spokesperson Mark Cameron.
ACT is at Fieldays this week, garnering farmers' support for the campaign to scrap the vague, spiritual concept of Te Mana o te Wai and allow regional councils to set their own freshwater standards by scrapping national bottom lines.
The party has launched a petition at rural.act.org.nz and is collecting signatures on the ground.
'All Te Mana o te Wai achieves is to drive up costs on users and add uncertainty and ambiguity to consenting. ACT believes the Government should scrap Te Mana o te Wai and national bottom lines, allowing regional councils to set their own standards,' says ACT Agriculture spokesperson Mark Cameron.
'The vague concept of 'Te Mana o te Wai' replaces scientific benchmarks with a subjective idea of the mana of the water that leads to co-governance and unequal treatment based on who someone's ancestors were.
'Instead of clear metrics like nitrate levels or sedimentation rates, councils are being asked to assess spiritual values that cannot be measured or contested.
'Kiwi farmers are the best in the world. They're forecast to return $59.9 billion in export revenue and make up 10% of GDP. We simply can't afford to burden them with spiritual malarky dreamed up in Wellington.
'It means iwi have a right of veto over how water is used. The National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management 2020 requires Te Mana o te Wai to apply to the consenting of all projects involving freshwater management. Consenting is now subject to consideration of mauri, or the 'life-force' of water.
'It has led to water users making large one-off and on-going payments for 'cultural monitoring' services which do nothing for the environment but add costs to consumer and business power bills.
'Is requiring farmers to comply with a spiritual concept going to make them farm better? Of course not. It means they'll have to employ a cultural consultant and waste time and money that could instead be spent improving their farming practices. That's what happens when we regulate water quality based on superstition not science.
'Farmers just want to grow food and look after their land, incorporating spiritual concepts isn't necessary for them to do that.
'ACT is dedicated to real change. We cannot continue with a policy that burdens our farmers unnecessarily. We campaigned on a complete overhaul of the NPS-FM to remove subjective concepts and ensure that our freshwater management is scientifically sound and adapted to the needs of local communities.
'New Zealanders never voted for co-governance. Yet under Te Mana o te Wai, it's being imposed on every dam, drain, and ditch. We need to bring common sense back and let farmers farm.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Spinoff
2 hours ago
- The Spinoff
Secondary teachers walk off the job as government digs in
Teachers say an offer of 1% a year is an insult. Ministers say they should be at the negotiating table, not on the picket line, writes Catherine McGregor in today's extract from The Bulletin. A full-day walkout Secondary teachers are off the job today, with classes around the country cancelled as members of the Post Primary Teachers' Association stage a one-day strike. As Lyric Waiwiri-Smith explains in The Spinoff this morning, the action follows teachers' rejection of the government's offer of a 1% annual pay rise over three years – an increase the union described as 'the lowest in a generation'. Teachers had sought a 4% yearly rise to cover inflation and stem the loss of staff overseas. Today's walkout is just the beginning: rolling strikes are scheduled for mid-September, when teachers will refuse to teach particular year levels on successive days. Meanwhile, primary teachers are holding paid union meetings this week to consider their next steps, after also voting to reject the 1% offer. Teachers say they're worth more For many teachers, the issue is about more than headline figures. In a widely shared essay for The Spinoff, Auckland teacher Connor Murphy describes the government's offer as 'an insult disguised as an offer', pointing out that 'teachers entered into these negotiations with a set of very reasonable demands. Instead of making a reasonable counteroffer, the government ignored our requests and crafted an offer seemingly purpose-built to make things worse.' Teachers argue their pay has fallen far behind comparable professions, with Australian starting salaries now up to $31,000 higher than New Zealand's. Murphy says that while prime minister Christopher Luxon has talked about keeping New Zealanders at home with good, well-paying jobs, the government hasn't followed the rhetoric with action, and teachers are instead eyeing better pay across the Tasman. Ministers dig in Education minister Erica Stanford has urged the union to return to negotiations, calling today's strike 'premeditated' and 'deeply unfair' for parents and students. Public service minister Judith Collins went further, labelling the walkout a 'political stunt' and accusing unions of having 'little tantrums' and using children 'like their shuttle boards' [sic]. The government has tried to highlight what it says is a strong deal: public service commissioner Sir Brian Roche said the latest offer came 'on top of a further 3.9% to 7.7% in pay increases already built-in for each of the next three years' and that the package would deliver pay rises of between $2,500 and $7,000 a year, when annual progression is included. But Collins herself was forced into a rare backtrack yesterday after she wrongly claimed that teachers with 10 years' experience earned $147,000 a year. As Stuff's Bridie Witton and Glenn McConnell report, she later admitted she had 'mixed up [her] messages', clarifying that only a small number of senior deputy principals in large schools would reach that figure. The gaffe further inflamed teachers already sceptical about the government's grasp of their pay and conditions. What teachers actually earn So what do teachers really take home? As Nik Dirga writes in a comprehensive explainer for RNZ, the base salary for a newly qualified teacher begins at just over $61,000, rising step by step each year to $103,000 at the top of the scale. The Ministry of Education puts the average secondary teacher salary at around $101,000. Extra responsibilities – such as running a subject department or serving as deputy principal – attract management units and allowances, which can boost pay into the $110,000–$140,000 range. But only a handful of teachers reach the $147,000 Collins cited, and most are in senior leadership rather than classroom roles. For new teachers, the current offer of 1% a year translates to an increase of less than $12 a week. That, say striking teachers, is why they're on the picket lines today, and why more disruption is on the way unless the government comes back with an offer they can live with.
1News
2 hours ago
- 1News
Te reo in schoolbooks: 'Govt has it the wrong way round'
Te Reo experts say the Government has got its approach back to front in removing Māori words from school texts. It was revealed last week that Education Minister Erica Stanford decided to cut Māori words, except for characters' names, from any new books in the Ready to Read Phonics Plus series. The concern was that Māori words were confusing for young readers learning English. However, two experts in te reo Māori and bilingualism told TVNZ's Marae programme nothing could be further from the truth. Watch the full discussion on TVNZ+. Dr Vincent Ieni Olsen-Reeder, research fellow at Te Herenga Waka Victoria University of Wellington, said: 'It's because the reverse of what the ministry says is actually true. ADVERTISEMENT 'The more we expose our tamariki while their brains are well-geared to learning communication while they're still young, they are learning about patterns and phonetics and grammar in a really comprehensive way that doesn't require a lot of external teaching applied to it.' Olsen-Reeder's doctoral research looked at the effectiveness of bilingualism in revitalisation efforts, and the ways bilingualism could remove anxieties around te reo Māori use among its speakers. He said students in Māori-medium education like kura kaupapa Māori are examples of how kids can excel in literacy across both languages. He believes the Government has missed the mark and that not only does it look as if te reo is being taken away from 'the eyes and the minds' of tamariki, particularly Māori tamariki, but it only contributes to New Zealand's lower English proficiency. 'All these things taking the language away from how we speak every day, just doesn't make sense,' he said. Localised, homegrown structured literacy programme Instead, he said there would have been a 'real opportunity' for Aotearoa to create a localised structured literacy programme that's informed by the way New Zealanders actually read, write and speak, which he says has never been done. ADVERTISEMENT 'It's always been informed by overseas,' he said, 'and there was a real chance here to investigate how structured literacy programme from Aotearoa could have been built in a way that really make sense to how New Zealanders read and write and speak, and all those things.' (Source: 1News) He said resources could have been better utilised towards this goal and consideration of Pacific languages taken into account. The role teachers play Colleague Dr Awanui Te Huia, associate professor at Te Herenga Waka, is currently looking into the intergenerational use of te reo, exploring the findings from the country's largest longitudinal study of child health and wellbeing, Growing Up in New Zealand. She said as a 'position of authority' in the lives of tamariki, teachers play a big role in how children may value their language. 'When their teacher provides them with themselves, examples of themselves, examples of their language, the way that they're perhaps interacting with their ao hurihuri (ever-changing world) – outside of these confined kura environments… [for tamariki] it reinforces the fact that these institutions see our language as valuable. They see our whānau as valuable and the ways that we are culturally, as te iwi Māori, and all of our diversity.' ADVERTISEMENT She said it was important that it's compulsory in mainstream institutions because tamariki Māori tend to be in English medium schools. Teaching teachers te reo Consequently, this also requires quality teacher education, she said. 'If we go back to Te Ahu o Te Reo and all of the improvements we were saying in terms of teacher attitudes and the significant positive changes that that was having in our classrooms in terms of identity, and we've seen the research from that, that was totally clear.' Te Ahu o Te Reo was first piloted in 2019, offering free lessons to teachers to better integrate te reo Māori in the classroom. It was expanded in 2020 to help 10,000 more teachers learn te reo. The budget for the programme was cut in 2024 despite a glowing independent review commissioned by the ministry. Resourcing public libraries ADVERTISEMENT Te Huia said resourcing public places, like libraries, properly would help. 'Getting some form of integration of our whānau back into these public spaces so they can see themselves in libraries and participate in our language outside of the kāinga, as well as outside of the kura. 'So, seeing it all around our communities has a direct impact on how relevant, how cool, and how useful te reo Māori is - those were some of the three findings from some of our research.' For the full discussion, watch Marae on TVNZ+. Glossary tamariki - children ao hurihuri - ever-changing world ADVERTISEMENT kāinga - home(s)
The Spinoff
4 hours ago
- The Spinoff
David Seymour was right to question our compulsory helmet laws
There's little evidence our mandatory cycle laws improve overall safety, and quite a lot of evidence suggesting they're doing more harm than good. A jeering crowd quickly gathered in its usual meeting place, the internet, after news broke that David Seymour had asked his pet ministry to look at reversing mandatory cycle helmet laws. 'David might be brain damaged, but others shouldn't be!' said one taunter. 'How many taxpayer dollars were wasted using his overpaid pet staff to investigate this rubbish?' said another. The response could be statistically distilled into the sentence 'ha ha, you dip shit'. But Seymour's suggestion was neither dip nor shit. The Act leader's mistake wasn't in asking the Ministry of Regulation whether we should make helmets optional, as was once proposed by his fellow right-wing firebrand, Green leader Chlöe Swarbrick. Instead it was in abandoning his tentative efforts at the first sign of resistance from its anti-bureaucracy bureaucrats, who responded with advice noting serious injuries and fatalities have declined since a regulatory helmet mandate was introduced in New Zealand, and added 'removing the helmet mandate would likely lead to an increase in serious injuries and fatalities as a result of cycling accidents'. It's true, since we made wearing a bike helmet compulsory in 1994, cycling injuries have steadily trended downward. Research indicates that wearing a helmet significantly reduces your risk of getting a traumatic brain injury or otherwise bunging your body in a crash. On the face of it, the figures are compelling. Case closed, motion to appeal denied, say helmet law defenders. Squint at the data though, and troubling trends swim into focus. Cycling deaths and serious injuries may have reduced since mandatory helmet laws were passed, but only roughly in line with similar improvements for drivers and pedestrians. A 2023 meta-analysis of studies found no clear evidence that making helmet wearing compulsory for everyone improved safety overall. That's not ideal on its own. It's worse when you consider the laws corresponded with a precipitous dropoff in cycling numbers. Put the two figures together, and the number of injuries sustained per 100,000 cyclists has risen steeply since we started legally mandating headwear. The swan dive in our cycling numbers likely has a host of causes. We've catered our transport infrastructure exclusively to the needs of an enraged white collar worker speeding past a school in a Ford Ranger. Our streets are busier than ever, and the bike lanes hallucinated by talkback hosts remain stubbornly non-existent in many areas. But plenty of research has shown mandatory helmet laws kill bike share schemes and generally make people less willing to cycle. That impacts safety. Studies show a strong correlation between higher cycle numbers and reduced risk. The more cyclists on the road, the more likely motorists are to look out for them. Reducing the number of cycle trips also has a wider effect on population health. Helmets may alleviate the damage for the unlucky few riders who manage to crash their e-bike into a street sign, but more sedentary lives put all of us at risk of heart attacks, strokes, and worse, gout. The research persists. One troubling study found many motorists see cyclists as less than human, and that mindset is reinforced when those cyclists are wearing helmets and protective gear. Though we tend to think our mandatory helmet laws are a no-brainer, they're an international outlier. New Zealand is one of only three countries worldwide that makes helmets compulsory for riders of all ages. One of the others is Australia, a place we notoriously hate. But the laws make sense to us intuitively, partly because we've made our roads so unsafe. They individualise risk management, plonking the burden of keeping cyclists out of the ER on their flimsy fiberglass hats, and in the process absolving our politicians of making more impactful policy interventions. Greater Auckland's Matt Lowrie says shrugging off unnecessary and potentially counterproductive helmet regulation would be a good first step toward improving our cycling numbers. But to meaningfully improve safety and give people choice in the transport free market, he says Seymour needs to do the unthinkable and back the most effective, well-researched intervention on offer: protected cycle lanes. 'Helmet laws are a distraction from the more important question for a self-avowed libertarian like Seymour: why isn't he doing everything in his power to give people a meaningful choice to have the freedom to ride a bike for transport, and unshackle ourselves from relying on cars for every trip?'
