Councillors split over Te Mana o te Wai
The Otago Regional Council (ORC) has welcomed consultation on national freshwater policies, but some councillors pushed back against Agriculture Minister Todd McClay, who said previous provisions had been weaponised "to push ideology over common sense".
Mr McClay and Associate Environment Minister Andrew Hoggard yesterday declared consultation open on the review and replacement of national freshwater policies.
A key aspect of the changes proposed is "rebalancing" Te Mana o te Wai provisions, which in the present national policy statement for freshwater management include a "hierarchy of obligations" in which the health of a waterway is prioritised over the value water has for potential use.
Mr McClay said proposed changes to the national freshwater direction were a key step toward "restoring balance" in how freshwater was managed across the country and "ensuring the interests of all water users, including farmers, growers, and rural communities" were properly reflected.
"Farmers aren't asking for a free pass — they're asking for a fair go.
"We won't stand by while councils weaponise Te Mana o te Wai, to push ideology over common sense.
"It must reflect the importance of freshwater to all New Zealanders."
The ministers' statement noted the government's "decisive intervention" last year when it blocked the Otago Regional Council from pushing ahead with its land and water plan ahead of the reforms now under way.
Council chairwoman Cr Gretchen Robertson said having clarity around national freshwater policies was "crucial for Otago" and at present the council was stuck with an outdated plan.
"On the suggestion that the council has 'weaponised' Te Mana o te Wai, I firmly reject the claim.
"Te Mana o te Wai is embedded in current government regulation — we didn't invent it.
"We simply do our job under the law and direction of the government of the day."
Cr Tim Mepham said the government's "aversion to the influence of Māori culture within legislation" was evident in Mr McClay's statement.
"If Te Mana O Te Wai had been referred to in English as 'the authority of water' and the principles were identified as maintaining healthy waterways and ensuring water was drinkable, then would he refer to it as an ideology?"
Cr Elliot Weir said if the ministers truly believed the ORC was pushing ideology over common sense, it did not "bode well for where reforms to environmental policy [would] land."
It was the delay in implementing the council's land and water plan that had "brought confusion", Cr Alan Somerville said.
It was good to see progress on the reform of the Resource Management Act and freshwater management, Cr Lloyd McCall said.
"A simplified targeted approach that avoids red tape, if done well, will enable landowners and the environment to work together for their mutual benefit."
Cr Andrew Noone said the council had developed its land and water plan using Te Mana o Te Wai as a fundamental concept.
"In a nutshell, the concept requires adherence to a hierarchy of obligations that prioritises the health and wellbeing of freshwater over human or commercial activities such as using or modifying a water body.
"It's a very high bar to meet, in my view creating a wetland would be one of the few activities that would be consistent with the number one obligation or priority in [Te Mana o Te Wai]."
Cr Michael Laws said the minister's criticism was "valid".
"A number of councillors warned the ORC of the unnecessary cost and duplication of planning, but we were not heeded."
Cr Gary Kelliher also "completely agreed" with the criticism.
"ORC wants two things under the [shelved] draft plan, minimise resource use to the utmost, which of course then totally stymies any improvement to our economy, and secondly, for the minimal resources ORC was prepared to make available, primary sectors needed to reconsent almost continually, under very short consent durations and always at risk of losing the consent.
"It's utterly ridiculous and I am very hopeful these new actions from government will result in clear messages to regional councils to back off and become more realistic in resource management."
Council chief executive Richard Saunders said council staff welcomed the consultation.
"We look forward to working with our councillors to participate in the consultation process as well as considering what the next steps will be in the development of Otago's long overdue land and water plan."
hamish.maclean@odt.co.nz
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
35 minutes ago
- Scoop
Why Is The New Zealand Media Not Questioning The Implications Of The Gene Technology Bill?
Press Release – Lisa Er Despite the profound ethical, environmental, and societal implications, there has been a noticeable lack of critical scrutiny from the mainstream media, says Lisa Er. As the Gene Technology Bill advances through Parliament, New Zealand faces a pivotal moment in science, agriculture, and public health. The proposed legislation would significantly relax restrictions on gene technology, enabling broader research, development, and use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in New Zealand for the first time in nearly 30 years Yet, despite the profound ethical, environmental, and societal implications, there has been a noticeable lack of critical scrutiny from the mainstream media. 'It is plausible that political and economic factors are influencing the nature and depth of media coverage regarding the Gene Technology Bill,' says Lisa Er, author of a petition to 'halt the progress of the Gene Technology Bill and instead set up a Commission of Inquiry into the health and safety of people and the environment on behalf of citizens, to allow time for wider community and stakeholder consultation.' Key Concerns: Environmental Risks: The Bill paves the way for the release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into New Zealand's unique ecosystems, risking irreversible impacts on native species, biodiversity, crops, and the country's global clean, green brand. Lack of Public Consultation: The Government has failed to meaningfully consult with Māori, scientists, and the wider public, ignoring Treaty of Waitangi obligations and indigenous rights, community concerns about food safety, cultural values, and environmental protection. Threat to Export Markets: New Zealand's primary export markets, especially in Europe and Asia, have strict GM-free requirements. The Bill endangers market access and could jeopardize billions in export earnings. Undermining Precaution: The Bill abandons the precautionary principle that has underpinned New Zealand's cautious approach to gene technology, exposing the country to unknown long-term risks. Ignoring International Best Practice: Leading nations are strengthening, not weakening, their oversight of gene technologies in response to new scientific evidence and public concern. Insufficient Public Debate: The bill has generated over 1,500 public submissions, reflecting deep divisions and strong opinions across the country. The removal of labelling GE is of considerable public concern. Why has the minimal media coverage largely focused on official statements and the potential benefits, with little attention paid to the risks, opposition viewpoints, or the broader societal debate that is unfolding in submissions and community discussions? Risk Oversight and Regulatory Gaps: the bill will open the door to unintended consequences, including ecosystem disruption, cross-contamination of crops, and unclear long-term health effects Transparency and Accountability: Some have questioned whether the bill is being rushed or if consultation has been adequate, particularly given the timing of the public submission period over the summer holidays Media outlets have an essential role in holding lawmakers accountable and ensuring transparency in the legislative process, and these risks deserve deeper journalistic investigation and public explanation. A Call to Action for the Media: We urge New Zealand's journalists and editors to fulfil their democratic duty by: – Investigating the full range of concerns about the Gene Technology Bill, including those raised in public submissions. – Highlighting the ethical, cultural, and environmental questions that remain unresolved. – Providing balanced, evidence-based coverage that empowers New Zealanders to make informed decisions about the future of gene technology in their country. 'The Gene Technology Bill represents a generational shift in New Zealand's approach to biotechnology', says Er. 'The public deserves robust, critical journalism that examines not only the promises but also the very real perils of this legislation.' Lisa Er, founder of Lisa's Hummus Issued in the public interest to encourage transparent, balanced, and investigative reporting on a matter of national importance Petition with over 4,000 signatures Petition request: That the House of Representatives halt the progress of the Gene Technology Bill and instead set up a Commission of Inquiry into the health and safety of people and the environment on behalf of citizens, to allow time for wider community and stakeholder consultation. Petition reason: I consider the Gene Technology Bill has failed to follow sound and fair processes by not consulting enough with the public and other stakeholders. I believe there is inadequate consideration of Te Tiriti obligations, and insufficient requirements to protect people and the environment from the risks of GE contamination. A range of gene editing techniques would be excluded from regulation. This would mean GE products would enter the environment and food supply untested, unregistered and unlabeled.
1News
an hour ago
- 1News
Environmentalists see forestry changes as dangerous step for Tairāwhiti
Tairāwhiti environmentalists have called changes for commercial forestry under proposed Resource Management Act reforms "a slap in the face" and a return to weaker forestry regulations. Local groups are preparing to make submissions on proposed changes to the way forestry is managed after consultation on the Resource Management Act opened on Thursday. The proposals would make it harder for councils to have their own discretion in setting stricter rules to control tree planting. Gisborne District Council said the proposed changes grant both "real opportunities" and "some challenges". The Eastland Wood Council is still considering its options around submitting. ADVERTISEMENT Mana Taiao Tairāwhiti (MTT), the group behind a 12,000-signature petition that triggered the Ministerial Inquiry into Land Use (MILU) in Tairāwhiti and Wairoa, claimed the Government was relaxing "already permissive forestry rules". The inquiry, published in May 2023, followed the destruction caused by Cyclone Gabrielle and other major storms, when woody debris, forestry slash and sedimentation flooded the region's land, waterways and infrastructure. At the time of the inquiry's findings, the previous Government announced actions to reduce the risk of a Gabrielle repeat. MTT spokeswoman and Ruatōria resident Tui Warmenhoven said, "We were promised stronger protections – what we're getting is deregulation dressed as reform". The proposed changes were "a slap in the face to the hundreds of whānau who've already paid the price for poor forestry regulations," said Warmenhoven in a group statement. Another part of the proposed changes will require a Slash Mobilisation Risk Assessment as part of all harvest management plans. It would also consider refining requirements to remove all slash above a certain size from forest cutovers. ADVERTISEMENT MTT welcomed the proposed requirement for Slash Mobilisation Risk Assessments, however, it warned "this would be ineffective without enforceable planning requirements and local oversight". "A slash assessment without an afforestation plan is meaningless – it's a partial fix that ignores the root of the problem," said Warmenhoven. "We've already seen what happens when forestry is left to regulate itself and the problems with planting shallow-rooting pine on erosion-prone slopes. We are also concerned about the removal of references to woody debris, given that whole pine plantations collapsed during Cyclone Gabrielle and still line many waterways in the region." Last September, Eastland Wood Council chairman Julian Kohn said forestry firms were "bleeding money," with many companies finding Gisborne too costly to invest in. Speaking with Local Democracy Reporting, Kohn said Eastland Wood Council was still considering whether to submit its own response or work with other council members to make submissions. "We've been working closely with the minister and advocating for what we see needs to be real change in respect of some of the causes in the NES-CF [National Environmental Standards for Commercial Forestry]," said Kohn. "Our real concern is that the way the council is treating many of these consents and these enforcement orders are literally sending these forest companies to the wall." ADVERTISEMENT He said forestry companies would close if things continued the way they were, which would leave forests unmanaged and unharvested. "Next time we have a rain event, then some of those trees which have been locked up are going to come down the waterways, which is exactly what everybody wants to try to prevent." Gisborne District Councils director of sustainable futures, Jocelyne Allen, said the consultation documents came "as no surprise" as they were broad and aligned with what the council had seen in the Cabinet paper and Expert Advisory Group report. "The packages cover infrastructure, the primary sector, freshwater, and urban growth, all areas that matter deeply to our region. "There are real opportunities here, but also some challenges, and we're taking the time to work through both carefully," Allen said. The council intends to submit a response and will be taking a strategic and collaborative approach to doing so, including engaging with tangata whenua, whānau, hapū and iwi across the region and working through its sector networks, particularly the Local Government Special Interest Groups and Te Uru Kahika, said Allen. Before the announcement of the proposed changes, in an email to Local Democracy Reporting on Monday, Primary Industries and Forestry Minister Todd McClay said forestry played an important role in the economy and provided many jobs on the East Coast. ADVERTISEMENT "The Government is working closely with the Gisborne District Council and respected members of the forestry industry, farming and iwi to manage and reduce risk through better and more practical rules rather than blanket restrictions or bans." He said they are reviewing slash management practices and will amend the NES-CF so councils can focus on the most at-risk areas, lower costs and deliver better social and environmental outcomes. "We want them to focus on high-risk areas, which is what Gisborne District Council is currently doing, rather than suggesting that there should no longer be any forestry in the Tairāwhiti region," he said. LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air.
Scoop
3 hours ago
- Scoop
Why Is The New Zealand Media Not Questioning The Implications Of The Gene Technology Bill?
Press Release – Lisa Er Despite the profound ethical, environmental, and societal implications, there has been a noticeable lack of critical scrutiny from the mainstream media, says Lisa Er. As the Gene Technology Bill advances through Parliament, New Zealand faces a pivotal moment in science, agriculture, and public health. The proposed legislation would significantly relax restrictions on gene technology, enabling broader research, development, and use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in New Zealand for the first time in nearly 30 years Yet, despite the profound ethical, environmental, and societal implications, there has been a noticeable lack of critical scrutiny from the mainstream media. 'It is plausible that political and economic factors are influencing the nature and depth of media coverage regarding the Gene Technology Bill,' says Lisa Er, author of a petition to 'halt the progress of the Gene Technology Bill and instead set up a Commission of Inquiry into the health and safety of people and the environment on behalf of citizens, to allow time for wider community and stakeholder consultation.' Key Concerns: Environmental Risks: The Bill paves the way for the release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into New Zealand's unique ecosystems, risking irreversible impacts on native species, biodiversity, crops, and the country's global clean, green brand. Lack of Public Consultation: The Government has failed to meaningfully consult with Māori, scientists, and the wider public, ignoring Treaty of Waitangi obligations and indigenous rights, community concerns about food safety, cultural values, and environmental protection. Threat to Export Markets: New Zealand's primary export markets, especially in Europe and Asia, have strict GM-free requirements. The Bill endangers market access and could jeopardize billions in export earnings. Undermining Precaution: The Bill abandons the precautionary principle that has underpinned New Zealand's cautious approach to gene technology, exposing the country to unknown long-term risks. Ignoring International Best Practice: Leading nations are strengthening, not weakening, their oversight of gene technologies in response to new scientific evidence and public concern. Insufficient Public Debate: The bill has generated over 1,500 public submissions, reflecting deep divisions and strong opinions across the country. The removal of labelling GE is of considerable public concern. Why has the minimal media coverage largely focused on official statements and the potential benefits, with little attention paid to the risks, opposition viewpoints, or the broader societal debate that is unfolding in submissions and community discussions? Risk Oversight and Regulatory Gaps: the bill will open the door to unintended consequences, including ecosystem disruption, cross-contamination of crops, and unclear long-term health effects Transparency and Accountability: Some have questioned whether the bill is being rushed or if consultation has been adequate, particularly given the timing of the public submission period over the summer holidays Media outlets have an essential role in holding lawmakers accountable and ensuring transparency in the legislative process, and these risks deserve deeper journalistic investigation and public explanation. A Call to Action for the Media: We urge New Zealand's journalists and editors to fulfil their democratic duty by: – Investigating the full range of concerns about the Gene Technology Bill, including those raised in public submissions. – Highlighting the ethical, cultural, and environmental questions that remain unresolved. – Providing balanced, evidence-based coverage that empowers New Zealanders to make informed decisions about the future of gene technology in their country. 'The Gene Technology Bill represents a generational shift in New Zealand's approach to biotechnology', says Er. 'The public deserves robust, critical journalism that examines not only the promises but also the very real perils of this legislation.' Lisa Er, founder of Lisa's Hummus Issued in the public interest to encourage transparent, balanced, and investigative reporting on a matter of national importance Petition with over 4,000 signatures Petition request: That the House of Representatives halt the progress of the Gene Technology Bill and instead set up a Commission of Inquiry into the health and safety of people and the environment on behalf of citizens, to allow time for wider community and stakeholder consultation. Petition reason: I consider the Gene Technology Bill has failed to follow sound and fair processes by not consulting enough with the public and other stakeholders. I believe there is inadequate consideration of Te Tiriti obligations, and insufficient requirements to protect people and the environment from the risks of GE contamination. A range of gene editing techniques would be excluded from regulation. This would mean GE products would enter the environment and food supply untested, unregistered and unlabeled.
