Latest news with #ActNewZealand
Otago Daily Times
5 days ago
- Business
- Otago Daily Times
Growth and the environment
As if we needed reminding. The government reinforced its emphasis on growth by releasing three discussion documents, which cover 12 national policy statements and national environmental standards. The aim is to have 16 new or updated statements and standards in place by the end of this year, well ahead of legislation to replace the Resource Management Act. They would underpin both the RMA and its replacement. The consultation covers infrastructure and development, the primary sector and freshwater. It opened at the end of last week and runs until July 27. The scope is vast, leaving much to digest and react to. RMA Reform Minister Chris Bishop described the changes as both complex and technical, but also essential. The government claims its balanced approach represents the biggest change in national policy statement direction. The present regime was a "direct contributor to infrastructure deficits, driving up costs and slowing down projects". The measures would help "unclog the arteries of the economy". However, others see these changes as an assault on the environment and a win for the wish lists of lobbyists, such as farmers and miners. Freshwater will be a fierce battleground, and the government is consulting on options. After feedback, specific proposals will be released for further submissions. The government plans to "rebalance" Te Mana o te Wai, while Act New Zealand would like it scrapped altogether. Te Mana o te Wai placed the health of waterways as the priority, followed by drinking water, with economics and social matters secondary. New objectives propose that councils should "safeguard the life-supporting capacity of freshwater and the health of people and communities, while enabling communities to provide for their social, cultural and economic well-being, including productive economic opportunities". In other words, neither priority is ranked above the other. Councils would also be required "to consider the pace and cost of change, and who bears the cost". The government, occasionally correctly, claims that practical realities were sometimes ignored when previous standards were applied. Yet, strong action is vital to reverse the degradation of wetlands, lakes, rivers and aquifers. There are also loosened provisions for vegetable growers and water storage. The definition of wetlands is "clarified". It is claimed that the costs were disproportionate to the benefits, with fencing requirements for non-intensive grazing a notable example. In some cases, dilution is the solution. Consenting for quarrying and mining and clean energy projects would be streamlined, described as "cutting red tape and not corners". Commercial forestry changes may lead to slash mobilisation plan assessments, although questions have been raised about their enforcement. Granny flats of up to 70sq m would be allowed without consent in specific zones, and rules for housing on Māori land would be made more consistent and accessible. Consultation on housing direction as a whole is expected soon. Of course, the government claims environmental protections are important and will be retained. Rightly, there is scepticism. The devil lurks within a hell of a lot of detail across the standards. They will each need to be carefully and fairly scrutinised, although the results will inevitably fall short of satisfying competing views and interests. It has become clear that the narrow majority of Otago Regional councillors were quixotic when they fought on for their land and water plan. The government was always going to change the rules, and they should have accepted that sooner. National regional council representatives this week expressed frustration at policy swings. They are on the front line of RMA (and any replacements). They seek greater certainty and bipartisan agreement, as substantial changes bring upheaval and expense. The RMA itself was a bipartisan measure, once a pioneering piece of legislation internationally. However, it became more complex and criticised from all quarters. National promptly discarded Labour's 2023 RMA replacement. Lasting and consistent laws and standards built on practical environmental protection would necessitate major compromises. Yet, such a consensus is increasingly unlikely as National and Labour move further apart.
Otago Daily Times
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Otago Daily Times
It's not easy being Green
Green is the colour of nature, a soothing collection of hues from a pale minty or spring-like tint to a deep mossy one. Seeing and experiencing things green is said to be restful and restorative, and good for one's blood pressure and wellbeing. For many people, even imagining something green puts a skip in their step. It is not for nothing, though, that Kermit sang It's Not Easy Being Green. For a start, green is not one of the primary colours but a secondary one made up of yellow and blue. When those are the colours used by Act New Zealand, that is a pretty uncomfortable truth for the Green Party. Then there are the epithets which can teasingly be used to poke fun at Green Party members or supporters, invoking Cleopatra's "salad days, when I was green in judgement" quote from Shakespeare's Antony and Cleopatra, or the more prosaic "not as green as I am cabbage-looking". New Zealand politicians from other parties are often even less subtle about the Greens. Yesterday, Public Service Minister Judith Collins called them "frankly bonkers". Harsh words indeed, although there can be little doubt that the Green Party we now see in Parliament is many, many miles away from the party of former leaders Jeanette Fitzsimons and Rod Donald, and even from the more recent one co-led by James Shaw. Kermit knows a thing or two. The Greens are in a difficult position, one which opens them up to criticism whatever they do. Their tradition is to be a party which first and foremost advocates for the environment and its protection, at the expense of the economy if such a clash of philosophies arises. Yet, it is unlikely that any party will gain major traction in a parliament if it is solely a one-trick pony. For that reason, the Greens have been forced to expand their offerings to policies running the full gamut of portfolios, from the more obvious close cousins to the environment, such as sustainable transport and housing, to more radical political activism on gender diversity, immigration and the plight of Palestinians. Yet all the time in the background they have to deal with the cry of "shouldn't you be focusing on the environment?". Green Party co-leaders Marama Davidson (left) and Chloe Swarbrick. PHOTO: RNZ This week, the Greens issued their alternative budget ahead of the government's effort due on Thursday. Co-leaders Chloe Swarbrick and Marama Davidson unveiled policies which they said reflected the party's belief in fairness and common sense, and which would make New Zealand a better country to live in by rapidly reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, cutting the cost of living and improving the quality of life. Their cornerstone ideas include free GP visits and nursing services, annual free dental checkups and basic dental care, free prescriptions, 20 hours of free childcare a week for children up to school age, and a guarantee to ensure anyone studying or out of work an income of at least $395 a week. The intention is to fund the policies by increasing taxes on the country's wealthiest people. Among their proposals to do that are a wealth tax, a rise in income tax for those on more than $120,000 a year, a tax on the use of private jets, stopping interest breaks for landlords, and doubling royalty payments on mineral extraction. The private jet tax would make the aircraft owner/operator pay $5000 per passenger each time they arrived and departed from New Zealand. At the other end of the emissions spectrum, the Greens want to breathe new life into regional passenger rail services, including where they are desperately needed, in the South and between Dunedin and Christchurch, and eventually electrify them. The intention of the budget would be to raise almost $89 billion over four years, in order to pay for the free healthcare and other policies. Predictably, the government and its supporters have leapt on the proposals, calling them left-wing economic madness, "kookiness" and a "clown show". Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters was unsurprisingly the most ardent belittler, labelling it a "pink, Marxist plan". As laudable as the ends are, and who could possibly argue that free healthcare and childcare would be a bad thing, the means of getting there do certainly appear too extreme. But, of course, that still allows room for scaling things back to a more moderate approach. In the meantime, though, we say bring back passenger rail in the South regardless.
Otago Daily Times
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Otago Daily Times
The wapiti exception
At first glance, the plan to grant wapiti deer special status in Fiordland National Park seems inappropriate. Wapiti damage the forest understorey through browsing. When deer, tahr, and goats proliferate unchecked, the destruction across forests, valleys, and alpine pastures becomes severe. Forest & Bird chief executive Nicola Toki said this week that the proposal to designate the wapiti as a herd of special interest (Hosi) amounts to the government "looking at changing the law to let a North American deer species use the national park as a glorified vege patch". She argued it was "eating away at the very natural heritage that these sanctuaries have been legally designed to protect. What next? A sanctuary for stoats?" The plan was catering to a handful of vested interests at the expense of all New Zealanders, she said. Ms Toki said Forest & Bird was baffled by the prioritisation of government time and energy into helping 512 hunters shoot 86 deer in a national park. Scepticism surrounding the move is heightened by widespread concerns about the government's alleged tendency to cater to vested interests, as well as Act New Zealand's connections to the gun and hunting lobbies. Cementing the place for a non-native species in a national park raises concerns, particularly given the National Park Act stipulates: "Introduced plants and animals shall as far as possible be exterminated." As a matter of principle, Forest & Bird would struggle to support the planned status for the wapiti. Last year, the organisation sought a judicial review of an agreement between the Department of Conservation and the Fiordland Wapiti Foundation, arguing that the agreement did not comply with the National Parks Act. The review has since been paused. Under the agreement, the foundation is permitted to manage a wapiti herd while undertaking pest control and other conservation efforts in the area. Whatever the concerns over principle and precedent, strong pragmatic and practical arguments support the Hosi designation and the government's parallel plan to amend the law, clarifying that a herd of special interest can be established in national parks. The foundation manages six back-country huts and more than 500 predator-control traps in the wapiti area. Its annual ballot attracts thousands of domestic and international hunters. Wapiti, known as elk overseas, were given to New Zealand by United States president Theodore Roosevelt in 1905. They have since interbred with red deer, and wapiti remain prized trophy animals. Ecologist Cam Speedy, who works with the foundation, said the wapiti efforts over 200,000ha of Fiordland had yielded positive outcomes for both the environment and hunters. Wapiti density was only two to four per hectare, the lowest deer density in almost all Fiordland. Combined with the pest control that Doc could never undertake, the environment and native birdlife were thriving, more so than in almost all the rest of the park. By harnessing hunters' energy, the initiative enhanced environmental, cultural, social, and economic values, Mr Speedy said. It is in the foundation's interests to maintain relatively low numbers and ensure healthy forests — an approach that ultimately improves the quality of the stags and their antlers. There are occasions when the Department of Conservation can collaborate with hunters to manage deer or tahr populations. More often, however, hunters alone cannot be relied upon to keep numbers sufficiently low, and the resulting ecological damage is serious and enduring. The Wapiti Foundation's efforts in Fiordland, now firmly established, represent an exception and should be regarded as such. Nevertheless, periodic reviews and independent monitoring could add another layer of long-term assurance. Wapiti could never be fully "exterminated" from the national park. Instead, a controlled approach has emerged, offering multiple benefits. Formally designating the population as a herd of special interest should help secure these advantages.
Otago Daily Times
12-05-2025
- Politics
- Otago Daily Times
Letters to the Editor: pay equity, student housing, cycling trail
Today's Letters to the Editor from readers cover topics including pay equity, student housing and not everyone embracing cycling trail. The percentages of the pay equity discussion Of a total of 123 MPs in the New Zealand Parliament 54 are women. This makes women 43.9% of the population of MPs. As 43.9% is nowhere near the 70% female content of a workforce required to obtain pay equity under the modified pay parity law, I expect that female MP salaries will not be adjusted upwards along with male salaries when future routine salary adjustments take place. This government has thoughtfully instituted a law change to enable them to share the pain that their whole ''savings'' programme, including rescinding pay equity, is inflicting on ordinary citizens. The selfless support of this law change by prominent female MPs in the current government is heartening. What a noble gesture. Jenny McNamara Southland Saving billions I have an idea. If the government, and especially Act New Zealand, are so keen on pay equity, let them bring the incomes of all male workers - including MPs - down to equal those of the lowest-paid women. They will save even more billions of dollars. Ann Charlotte Waikouaiti Heed the librarians Equal pay for work of equal value, the cornerstone of pay equity legislation, is to be undermined again. Labour's 1990 Employment Equity Act went under incoming National government Finance Minister Ruth Richardson's knife later that year. Now, with the same cost-cutting zeal, Brook Van Velden (ODT 7.5.25), will ''discontinue current pay equity claims'', and raise thresholds to show ''genuine'' gender discrimination, saying ''You have librarians who've been comparing themselves to transport engineers''. Presumably these are the same transport engineers her government's former transport minister, Simeon Brown, consulted about raising speed limits, before ignoring their advice and fast-tracking New Zealand's nine cars on the road to every 10 people. By the same token, if money is the concern, Mr Brown might've consulted the librarians. It would have been cheaper. Susan Hall Oamaru Hairy issue Pay equity changes by stealth because National are too scared of the backlash to their proposal to take money from the underpaid to fill the hole in their Budget. The only difference between Trump and Luxon is that one has hair. Barry Salter Invercargill Governing the govt With he government's urgent legislation, and the coming referendum for a four-year term, I find myself thinking: We know that if the government wants to go from start to finish with laws in few hours, they can because they did. We know that if the government wants to ignore decades of court decisions, they can because they did. We know that if the government wants to fully pass laws with no advice on who they will hurt, they can because they did. We know the government isn't interested in implementing report recommendations on making legislation more carefully, because they haven't. As we watch the government make up laws overnight, faster even than the current United States government, we know that an extra fourth year in a term would just be an extra year to ignore the electorate. David Hood Dunedin Student housing comments a tired stereotype George Livingstone's comments on the student area (ODT 10.5.25) reflect a tired stereotype I've grown used to over my five years in Dunedin, from a vocal minority of landlords who remain indifferent to the reality of student housing. When students call for warm, safe, and affordable homes, some landlords respond not with concern, but with contempt, dismissing us as ''beer-swilling immature adolescents''. That might have passed for humour in the 1980s, but today's students are juggling rising rents, part-time jobs, mounting debt, and a cost-of-living crisis. We're don't want Victorian cottages, just flats that are warmer than fridges. North Dunedin is filled with cold, damp, and overpriced flats. Aesthetic charm doesn't make up for black mould, cold draughts and broken heaters. These conditions have real consequences: respiratory illness, poor mental health, and compromised academic performance. If Mr Livingstone truly cares about the student area, I invite him to step inside not just admire from the kerb. His scorn for a rental warrant of fitness as an ''endless stream of regulations'' overlooks the fact that the Healthy Homes Standards were the first update to rental requirements in nearly two decades. Clear, enforceable standards aren't red tape - they're a basic protection. They ensure decent landlords aren't undercut by slumlords. And as for the claim that landlords are being squeezed out of the market - rents have risen by over $100 per room (inflation-adjusted) since 1991 with the majority of flats remaining largely the same. The data speaks for itself. Every generation of students has had its fun. But fun doesn't mean forfeiting the right to a safe place to live. With all due respect, the real crisis isn't landlord discomfort. It's that students have been forced to live like this for far too long. Liam White President, Otago University Students' Association Pros and cons of cycling vs river access It was announced in early April that agreement with the last stakeholders had finally been reached to allow the completion of the Roxburgh Gorge Trail. Mention of the rugged landscape and the magnificent views of the Clutha River brought a wry smile. As a keen fisherman, the mention of the trail maintenance aspect simply made my eyes roll. Yes, the trail may well be maintained but the borders of the river are most surely not. Broom, gorse, manuka and unwanted pest plants line the river's edge. The Millennium Trail between Millers Flat and Beaumont is a prime example; where once stock roamed to control this overgrowth, the cycle trail saw the land fenced off and the end result was two-fold - loss of river access, loss of river views. Over 60% of the river where locals and visitors alike could fish or camp is now inaccessible. Dave Butler Invercargill Ferry bad I was shocked to read that the Aratere ferry will be out of service soon and there will be no rail-enabled ferries until the new ones arrive in 2029 (if there are no delays). This is the first time since 1962 that we've had no rail-enabled ferry. What does this mean for the future of rail, particularly in the South Island? It can't be good. The government surely saw this coming. It beggars belief that they have allowed this to happen. Philippa Jamieson Opoho Super unrelaxed Our CEO, oops, I mean Prime Minister, is ''super relaxed'' over Erica Stanford's use of her private gmail account for ministerial duties, and the consequent exclusion of its contents from official government records subject to the OIA, and parliamentary scrutiny. This highlights Mr Luxon's disregard, or worse, wilful contempt for the inconveniences and truths of democratic and open governance. Paul Elwell-Sutton Haast Address Letters to the Editor to: Otago Daily Times, PO Box 517, 52-56 Lower Stuart St, Dunedin. Email: editor@
Otago Daily Times
09-05-2025
- Politics
- Otago Daily Times
Govt's disservice to women and NZ
It always used to be said that New Zealand was one of the most generous nations in the world per capita. We knew right from wrong, and we weren't afraid to stand up against far bigger countries when it came to moral issues. Most Kiwis identified with the little battler label and were proud to have it as part of our national psyche. We were comfortable being David to others' Goliath because we strongly believed good would always prevail over bad, regardless of size. But something has gone wrong with our leadership. Our politics and our politicians appear to be losing their way in expounding messages and policies which are progressive, empathetic, inclusive and just. In other words, doing what they can to make sure things are essentially right for as many people as possible. This week's punch to the stomach over barely signalled changes to pay equity law reveals a government which has clearly either misplaced, or lost, its moral fibre. This coalition of the uncourageous is being led by a prime minister, Christopher Luxon, who needs to find some guts. It could be argued, perhaps, that progressing what was going to be such an unpopular move because the government truly believed it was doing the right thing is actually courageous. Unfortunately, the way the coalition went about it was far from that. Pushed along by Act New Zealand's Workplace Relations Minister Brooke van Velden, the law change was deliberately kept from the public's eye, and from a place where the public might be able to have any input or rail against it. The way it was handled, and heard under urgency in Parliament, was sneaky. It also smacks of a guilty conscience. Such behaviour is typical of those who fear public involvement might affect what they are promulgating, and which the instigators know deep down might not be the right thing for the country. As others have pointed out, this is a coalition which thinks nothing of upsetting much of the country and wasting millions of dollars and many months on a Treaty Principles Bill which it said it was ultimately going to vote down anyway. Yet this time, it slunk in something it knew it was going to do and deliberately kept us in the dark. Explanations from Finance Minister Nicola Willis that it was secret because there were concerns of legal risks with claims now being heard don't wash. On such parlous reasoning, surely that would also be the case when it came to any changes to major legislation and the threat of leaks? Yet they still go through the select committee process and have regulatory impact statements. There is still confusion too over the motivations for doing this now. Act leader David Seymour is cheering it on as freeing up billions of dollars to ''save'' this month's Budget, but Mr Luxon claims it was nothing to do with that. The question now is how will Mr Luxon rebuild trust and support after going along with another damaging Act-led wheeze? It's also worth asking, how has the government managed to sideline so many Kiwis in just 18 months? Let us count the ways: broken promises over a new Dunedin hospital; rising unemployment and redundant public servants; appalling school lunches replacing hearty, locally made meals; dangerous speed-limit changes; the Treaty Principles Bill. And now this. In case Mr Luxon and his Cabinet have forgotten, women make up 50% of the population, in fact 50.3% at the latest count. That is a great deal of votes to jeopardise. Women across the country, and especially those pursuing pay-equity claims, 33 of which have now stopped, have an absolute right to be angry about how this was slipped through. They have the right to be angry with Mr Luxon, Ms van Velden, Ms Willis and all the women ministers who looked decidedly uncomfortable when the changes were announced. We all have that right, for this was a low point among many for the coalition. It is also a low point for New Zealand and our international standing. It tells us the government needs its moral compass resetting.
