National Direction Changes Mark Dark Day For People And Planet
The Government has really shown their cards today. It could not be clearer that they are hellbent on pushing our natural environment to the brink, exploiting everything they can for any profit that can be squeezed out of it.
Today's sweeping changes to environmental protections paints a damning picture of a government hellbent on profit at all costs, openly allowing more environmentally harmful activities under the guise of progress.
'Today is a dark day for rivers, lakes, streams, beaches, forests and all who enjoy and rely on these taonga across Aotearoa,' says the Green Party's Environment Spokesperson, Lan Pham.
'Taking freshwater as one example, 'Te Mana o Te Wai' offered us a clear legal framework that prioritised the health of our waterways and the health of our communities above corporate greed.
'Instead, the actions of this Government will go down in history as the most anti-environment we have ever seen. Councils and communities could be stripped of their ability to control the harmful impacts of industries like forestry, intensive farming, and mining.
'Further, the Government is making changes to enable more mining on wetlands, significant natural areas, and in places where our most precious indigenous biodiversity is.
'The Government has really shown their cards today. It could not be clearer that they are hellbent on pushing our natural environment to the brink, exploiting everything they can for any profit that can be squeezed out of it.
'If this feels like this is straight out of a deliberate playbook, it's because it is. The language of 're-balancing', 'efficiency', 'cutting red tape', and 'enabling industry' is often used, but what's really happening here is a systematic and comprehensive erosion of environmental protections.
'Truly prosperous economic activity is only possible if our planet is also thriving. We depend on healthy nature and a stable climate for the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat and the materials for life,' says Lan Pham.
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
Poor information sharing between government agencies means NZ not keeping pace with organised crime
'The public reasonably expects government agencies to use information that it has collected to lawfully target organised crime, both domestically and internationally. That requires the information to be proactively shared. That is not happening,' the panel wrote. 'There also appears to be a deeply rooted culture of a risk-averse approach towards proactive sharing of information.' The Privacy Act was regularly cited by government agencies as a reason to not proactively share information, often on the advice of lawyers, especially after high-profile cases that had led to public criticism. This approach was not shared by the Privacy Commissioner Michael Webster, who is quoted in the report as saying: 'Nine times out of 10, it's organisational culture or systems issues that stop effective and needed information sharing from taking place – not the law.' In a section of the report titled 'Organised crime is organised – we are not', the expert panel said that while there are legal avenues for information to be shared among government departments, such as memoranda of understanding, they are not applied consistently. In particular, Inland Revenue (IR), which holds tax records that can be crucial to investigations into organised crime, was singled out for mention. 'IR has told us that it recognises the approach it has traditionally taken to information sharing may have been too conservative, and there is scope to be more pragmatic,' the expert panel wrote. 'This mirrors feedback we received from a number of other Government agencies.' The ministerial advisory group said the same lack of information sharing flowed into the private sector, which held a wealth of useful information and should be a key partner in the fight against organised crime 'Many businesses want to help. Information that would assist businesses in high-risk industries such as ports and airports to disrupt and prevent organised crime, such as key trends, emerging threats and features of organised crime, are not being provided,' the panel wrote. 'Businesses want this information. Sector leaders that we spoke to told us that they want a seat at the table. They want to help to design the solution. But they are being overlooked.' A group of experts advising the Government says more information needs to be shared with private businesses, such as the Port of Tauranga, to help combat organised crime syndicates bringing drugs through the border. Photo / George Novak The advisory panel recommended the establishment of a national plan, rather than separate ones for individual government departments, to clearly set out what information can be shared. This national framework should be accompanied by a 'data lake' – a platform, or centralised repository, to make the data easy to search. In time, AI could also interrogate the data to identify trends or other leads for further investigation. To move away from a risk-averse culture, the panel also recommended that information-sharing benchmarks be set as performance measures for the chief executives of government departments. 'Senior leaders steer the direction of their agencies – if they are motivated to improve the culture, that motivation should filter down through the organisation.' The advisory group has made recommendations to Costello on a different organised crime topic each month since March, such as corruption and money laundering, with a final report to be published in September. But it has already warned the coalition Government that bold changes are needed urgently as New Zealand was 'losing the fight' against transnational organised crime, illustrated by how the country was flooded with methamphetamine. Despite more drugs being seized than before, the consumption of methamphetamine more than doubled in 2024 to the highest levels recorded in national wastewater testing. Jared Savage covers crime and justice issues, with a particular interest in organised crime. He joined the Herald in 2006 and has won a dozen journalism awards in that time, including twice being named Reporter of the Year. He is also the author of Gangland, Gangster's Paradise and Underworld.
Scoop
2 hours ago
- Scoop
Govt's Justification For Last-minute RMA Changes Appears To Directly Contradict EU Free Trade Agreement
The Government's attempt to justify last-minute changes to the Resource Management Act appear to contradict New Zealand's commitments under our Free Trade Agreement with the European Union, say freshwater campaign group Choose Clean Water. On Tuesday, the Government issued a press release stating that its last-minute changes to the Resource Management Act, which would allow agricultural and industrial pollution of waterways to continue where it's causing 'significant adverse effects on aquatic life', are 'Urgent economic action to protect exports'. The Government is aiming to change a long-standing and fundamental part of New Zealand's environmental law designed to protect fresh waterways from severe damage (ie, the loss of fish and other wildlife). 'What this means is that ongoing, severe pollution is being made legal at the stroke of a pen and that appears to directly contradict our obligations under our EU Free Trade Agreement,' says Tom Kay, Choose Clean Water spokesperson. 'A recent court decision on the Southland Land and Water Plan concluded that farming that was causing serious harm to rivers and other waterways could not simply be allowed as a permitted activity without a resource consent. This meant other councils who had similar permissions in their plans, like Waikato, are likely also allowing farming where it is causing significant degradation too.' Advertisement - scroll to continue reading 'But rather than do something to address this severe pollution, the Government is trying to cover it up by calling it 'routine on-farm activities', and trying to make the problem disappear by weakening the law and stating this is to 'protect exports'. 'There are clauses in our Free Trade Agreement with the EU about not weakening environmental protection in order to encourage trade.' Our European Union Free Trade Agreement states, 'Each Party shall strive to ensure that its relevant law and policies provide for, and encourage, high levels of environmental and labour protection, and shall strive to improve such levels, law and policies.' 'A Party shall not weaken or reduce the levels of protection afforded in its environmental or labour law in order to encourage trade or investment.' 'A Party shall not, through a sustained or recurring course of action or inaction, fail to effectively enforce its environmental or labour law in a manner affecting trade or investment.' 'A basic reading of the Free Trade Agreement would suggest that the Government's last-minute changes to the RMA, as well as its other efforts to weaken environmental law, directly contradict the clauses relating to environmental protection.' The Ministers' press release says they are making the changes because 'The Waikato region generates 20% of the nation's primary exports,' and 'If we don't act, the economic heart of New Zealand's primary sector could grind to a halt.' However, Kay says, the Government has not mentioned the potentially irreversible and intergenerational damage that could be done to waterways—such as groundwater underneath Canterbury that many rely on for drinking water—by allowing this pollution to be swept under the rug. Given the consequences of these changes on people's health and well-being, the places we live, and our international trade obligations, Ministers Bishop, McClay and Hoggard must issue a vastly more detailed explanation on the impacts of their changes to environmental protections for the state of our water and our trade agreement. 'There have been other instances where MFAT has advised we may breach these environmental obligations. How much can the Government weaken environmental law before there are international consequences?' 'If so-called 'routine on-farm activities' in New Zealand lead to the severe pollution of our freshwater, then our agricultural industry lobby groups aren't the international leaders they say they are.' 'The Government must drive and support more widespread improvement of farming activities, council enforcement, and accountability. They can not just magic away the problem by taking away environmental protection that safeguards all New Zealanders, the places we live in, and the water we all rely on.'
Scoop
3 hours ago
- Scoop
Emergency System Reforms Will Place New Costs On Councils
Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) says the Government has signalled emergency system reforms will place new costs on councils – which will lead to higher rates bills. A Cabinet Paper released today estimates the reforms would initially cost councils $82.8 over their first four years. This would cover implementing new requirements, updating civil defence emergency management (CDEM) plans and better engaging with communities and iwi Māori. Councils will receive no additional funding to meet these new compliance requirements. LGNZ Chief Executive Susan Freeman-Greene says these new costs will leave councils with no option other than increasing rates. 'What local government needs is more financial backing from central government to respond to emergency weather events. Councils don't need more costs and compliance measures pushed onto them, that can only be funded from rates,' says Susan Freeman-Greene. 'Communities turn to their councils when disaster hits and the Government expects councils to be responsive to their community's needs. Locally led planning and response is critical, as councils lead their regions and communities through all phases of an emergency. 'As weather events become more frequent and extreme in New Zealand, councils are also increasingly bearing the brunt of emergency events. Currently councils fund civil defence activities through rates, receiving some central government support to respond to and recover from civil defence events. 'The actual bill for councils and their ratepayers could be much higher that the Cabinet paper implies, because it doesn't account for the ongoing resourcing implications of minimum service levels. 'Like the Government, councils want to keep rates down. But rates are the only way they can cover these kinds of costs imposed by central government.' Susan Freeman-Greene believes that a better solution is for the Government to empower councils through a separate funding source for emergency management. 'Last year LGNZ released a set of 25 funding and finance tools that could help councils better resource the infrastructure and services their communities need. "One of these tools was a civil defence levy to help councils fund emergency response efforts and alleviate some of the significant costs they face when responding to extreme weather events and natural disasters. 'This levy, modelled on natural hazards cover, could be included with insurance premiums to support emergency preparedness and response.'
