Labour leader Chris Hipkins on latest RNZ-Reid Research poll
media politics 27 minutes ago
According to results out on Wednesday morning, the left bloc would have enough support to govern. Labour leader Chris Hipkins spoke to Corin Dann.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
2 hours ago
- Scoop
Changes To Fish & Game Continue Coalition's Handover Of Power To Polluters
Press Release – Choose Clean Water Choose Clean Water spokesperson Tom Kay says the changes announced today are clearly designed to remove Fish & Games ability to advocate for the health of rivers. Changes announced to Fish & Game this morning are another move in the Coalition Government's handover of power to intensive farming and other polluting commercial interests, and will result in the further degradation of our rivers and freshwater, say freshwater campaigners. Choose Clean Water spokesperson Tom Kay says the changes announced today are clearly designed to remove Fish & Game's ability to advocate for the health of rivers. 'Fish & Game has used its statutory purpose as a strong advocate for the health of rivers across New Zealand, and as such has helped protect numerous rivers from pollution and degradation.' 'There are some things about the system that do need fixing, but this is not only about that—this is the Coalition Govt taking advantage of an opportunity to reduce Fish & Game's influence over polluters.' 'When environmental groups, local community groups, or iwi can't afford to legally challenge a damaging activity or poorly made decision, Fish & Game is often there to ensure waterways are protected—working on behalf of their members to protect habitat for fish. But this Government is trying to stop that.' The Coalition has stated that Fish & Game's advocacy functions will be 'revised' so regional Fish & Game Councils will only be able to take court action in relation to advocacy if explicitly approved by the New Zealand Fish & Game Council or the Minister and within a new restricted advocacy policy. This morning's press release from Minister for Hunting and Fishing James Meager on the changes states they will restrict the organisation's ability to undertake court proceedings and require 'Fish & Game councils to better consider the interests of other stakeholders such as farmers and the aviation sector in decision-making'. 'It's telling that the Government has said specifically that it wants Fish & Game to better consider farming interests. Why not public health interests? Why not the interests of future generations? Why not the myriad of other commercial interests that operate in our communities? This demonstrates that this decision is another example of the Government enabling more pollution in rivers, lakes, and drinking water sources, and the handing of more power over our water to polluting commercial interests like intensive farming.' 'We know how detrimental the influence of Ministers can be over the statutory purposes of agencies like the Department of Conservation to protect our environment, for example. This is another case of Ministers being given the power to step in and stop actions that would protect our environment.' Fish & Game led the processes to secure many Water Conservation Orders —similar to National Parks—for our rivers, protecting them for anglers and the public alike to enjoy. In 2002 they launched a large campaign against 'Dirty Dairying' and the conversion of land into intensive agriculture, particularly in the South Island. More recently, Fish & Game took up a legal challenge against ongoing extreme pollution of Southland's waterways where dairy interests were wrongly claiming 'there is no evidence of diffuse discharges from farming activities, either individually or cumulatively, causing adverse effects, including significant adverse effects on aquatic life'. 'Proponents of damaging, intensive agriculture and other major polluters are all over this Government's decisions. This decision stinks of undue influence.'
Scoop
2 hours ago
- Scoop
Changes To Fish & Game Continue Coalition's Handover Of Power To Polluters
Press Release – Choose Clean Water Choose Clean Water spokesperson Tom Kay says the changes announced today are clearly designed to remove Fish & Games ability to advocate for the health of rivers. Changes announced to Fish & Game this morning are another move in the Coalition Government's handover of power to intensive farming and other polluting commercial interests, and will result in the further degradation of our rivers and freshwater, say freshwater campaigners. Choose Clean Water spokesperson Tom Kay says the changes announced today are clearly designed to remove Fish & Game's ability to advocate for the health of rivers. 'Fish & Game has used its statutory purpose as a strong advocate for the health of rivers across New Zealand, and as such has helped protect numerous rivers from pollution and degradation.' 'There are some things about the system that do need fixing, but this is not only about that—this is the Coalition Govt taking advantage of an opportunity to reduce Fish & Game's influence over polluters.' 'When environmental groups, local community groups, or iwi can't afford to legally challenge a damaging activity or poorly made decision, Fish & Game is often there to ensure waterways are protected—working on behalf of their members to protect habitat for fish. But this Government is trying to stop that.' The Coalition has stated that Fish & Game's advocacy functions will be 'revised' so regional Fish & Game Councils will only be able to take court action in relation to advocacy if explicitly approved by the New Zealand Fish & Game Council or the Minister and within a new restricted advocacy policy. This morning's press release from Minister for Hunting and Fishing James Meager on the changes states they will restrict the organisation's ability to undertake court proceedings and require 'Fish & Game councils to better consider the interests of other stakeholders such as farmers and the aviation sector in decision-making'. 'It's telling that the Government has said specifically that it wants Fish & Game to better consider farming interests. Why not public health interests? Why not the interests of future generations? Why not the myriad of other commercial interests that operate in our communities? This demonstrates that this decision is another example of the Government enabling more pollution in rivers, lakes, and drinking water sources, and the handing of more power over our water to polluting commercial interests like intensive farming.' 'We know how detrimental the influence of Ministers can be over the statutory purposes of agencies like the Department of Conservation to protect our environment, for example. This is another case of Ministers being given the power to step in and stop actions that would protect our environment.' Fish & Game led the processes to secure many Water Conservation Orders —similar to National Parks—for our rivers, protecting them for anglers and the public alike to enjoy. In 2002 they launched a large campaign against 'Dirty Dairying' and the conversion of land into intensive agriculture, particularly in the South Island. More recently, Fish & Game took up a legal challenge against ongoing extreme pollution of Southland's waterways where dairy interests were wrongly claiming 'there is no evidence of diffuse discharges from farming activities, either individually or cumulatively, causing adverse effects, including significant adverse effects on aquatic life'. 'Proponents of damaging, intensive agriculture and other major polluters are all over this Government's decisions. This decision stinks of undue influence.'
RNZ News
4 hours ago
- RNZ News
Warning to illegal rubbish dumpers: new rules could lead to crack-down
Clearing up the worst dumping spots costs Heretaunga-Hastings ratepayers more than $100,000 a year, councillor Wendy Schollum says, and she wants councils to have better enforcement options (file photo). Photo: Supplied/ Hastings District Council Fly-tippers illegally dumping rubbish could be in for a shock if new laws are passed making it easier for councils to prosecute them, and to crack down on them using clues such as old car registration plates or names on letters or mail. The government has proposed revisions to the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 (WMA) and the Litter Act 1979 (the Litter Act), including giving authorities more flexibility to help them crack down on illegal dumping. Hastings District Councillor Wendy Schollum told Checkpoint that illegal rubbish dumping was an ongoing issue in the community, but the council was currently limited in its ability to do much about the fly-tippers. Annually, picking up litter in Heretaunga-Hastings cost well over $100,000, council staff had told her - "and that was only in hot-spot areas, so that wasn't even across the whole district," she said. Wendy Schollum Photo: Supplied via LDR "We estimated that if we were to try and clear every space of litter, it would cost in excess of over $1 million." The types of rubbish being dumped in the area varied from everday litter, to households worth of rubbish, including whiteware and mattresses. "It's actually quite outrageous some of the stuff that gets left," Schollum said. Hastings District Council was not alone in the problem, but critics say it is difficult to hold offenders to account under laws written in the 70s, with offenders basically needing to be caught in the act. "When I first was elected onto council back in 2017, right from then until now, littering and dumping has been the number one issue with ratepayers in our area," Schollum said. But at the moment, even with overwhelming evidence, the council often could not do much in response, she said: "Unless someone was literally standing there watching the person do it at the time, under the current law, there is so little we can do." A consultation document on the law changes also noted the problem: The current Waste Minimisation Act "provides limited CME [compliance, monitoring and enforcement] powers. Prosecution is the main means to address non-compliance, with maximum fines of $100,00 for all main offences at a central government level, [and] $20,000 for a breach of bylaws." But in effect that meant: "For ... offences [other than non-payment of the levy] prosecution through the courts is the only enforcement option, which is limiting because prosecution can be a disproportionate regulatory response to non-compliance, [and] if non-compliance falls below the prosecution threshold, no consequences can arise from breach of the WMA." Schollum said the current loophole leaves ratepayers footing the bill for fly-tippers. "In an area like Heretaunga, where they've been hit by Cyclone Gabrielle and we're reeling from recovery costs, our ratepayers don't need to be paying for what is frankly laziness." She believes the problem was caused by bad attitudes, rather than issues affording dump fees. "Often people contact me and say, 'well, if you reduce the dump fees, people wouldn't litter'. The reality is that if that were the case, we would see in areas where it's cheaper or free to dispose of rubbish that there would be no illegal dumping at all and that's just not the case. "The evidence overwhelmingly points to the fact it's about attitudes." Under the proposed changes, evidence like addressed mail left in dumped rubbish could be used to identify dumpers and fine them. (file photo) Photo: Supplied/Gisborne District Council The consultation document also suggests a new tiered compliance system, with different penalties for different levels of offence. This could range from small infringements where a warning might be suitable, for example for "illegal plastic bag use" or minor littering, through to mid-range offences where the most severe consequences were not suitable, up to the most severe consequences, for behaviour like "high-harm illegal dumping". Schollum said tiered enforcement options would be helpful to the council: "If someone threw their takeaway container out their car window, they're not going to be met with the same sort of penalty as someone who dumps a whole house ... worth of rubbish [in] the community area. "This is about councils finally being able to pursue repeat offenders and stop communities having to pay for the cost of laziness, but only with reasonable evidence." The revisions could also distinguish between individuals and larger entities committing offences, and define offences and maximum fees, penalties and prosecution. Schollum said despite enthusiasm from the community to help in clearing the litter, other frustrating barriers have stood in the way. "Some of the worst hit areas are actually NZTA managed lands, and at the moment, because of health and safety rules with NZTA we can't even arrange community clean ups on their land." Even though these set backs have limited community clean ups, Schollum said it should not be the community's job in the first place. "We shouldn't be having to look at the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff solution, which is the community spending their money and time trying to clean up other people's mess. We need to stop the dumping and the littering in the first place." Other changes in the proposal include adjusting how local councils are allocated funds to dispose of waste, widening what councils can use the funds for and clarifying who is responsible for what. Consultation for the potential law changes closed on 1 June, the Ministry for the Environment website said. Next, the submissions will be considered, and from there Cabinet could decide to create an amendment bill, which could be introduced to Parliament to pursue changing the existing law. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
