Latest news with #TomKay
Scoop
6 days ago
- Politics
- 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
30-06-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
Flooding Demonstrates Danger In Govt ‘Growth At Any Cost' Ideological Agenda
Flooding in the top of the South Island, and the threat of more to come later this week, demonstrates the dangers of the Government pushing ahead with policy changes based on narrow ideological grounds and a 'growth at any cost' agenda, say freshwater campaigners. Tom Kay, spokesperson for the campaign group Choose Clean Water, says the Coalition Government's proposed resource management reforms, with an ideological focus on 'the enjoyment of property rights', will inevitably leave communities more vulnerable to the impacts of flooding. 'The Coalition Government has demonstrated across its resource management reform that they care more about the profits of commercial players than good governance for the health and stability of our communities. Their 'growth at any cost' agenda is not only thoughtless but downright dangerous.' Kay, a strong advocate for the idea of Making Room for Rivers as a strategy to keep communities and infrastructure safe from flooding while restoring the health of our rivers, says while many communities, councils, and insurance companies are ready for action to avoid hazards and widen allowed floodplains, the Government must not put growth and development on par with community safety and environmental health if they want to meaningfully reduce the risk to communities. 'We've just seen yet another example of devastating flooding following back-to-back experiences in Otago in October, the West Coast in November, and Canterbury in May. The costs are incredibly serious, including people losing their lives. 'We know our rivers need more space to carry floodwater safely, especially with the more extreme weather we're getting as the climate continues to warm. But the Government's narrow focus on growth and private property rights through their resource management reform risks undermining progress towards this.' Kay says international evidence and case studies show the best option for keeping communities and infrastructure safe from flooding is to avoid development in high-risk locations, and to incentivise and fund planned relocation from places already at high risk. This approach also provides the best opportunity for restoration of rivers and their floodplains, whilst increasing community wellbeing, amenity values, and resilience. However, he says the Government's focus on growth and property rights is inconsistent with this. 'Documents continue to highlight the Coalition Government's obsession with growth, and the misplaced idea that somehow we can continue to grow anywhere, with few restrictions, and still somehow mitigate the consequences. We can't. 'While we support the introduction of a National Policy Statement for Natural Hazards, for some reason it is less-developed now than it was last year, and drafted provisions that would have prioritised using nature-based solutions to reduce flood risk—such as making room for rivers, and to direct councils to avoid development in high risk locations, are gone.' 'The proposed provisions direct councils to 'consider' risk and act 'proportionately', leaving plenty of room for vested commercial interests to push councils into continuing to allow development, including homes, in high-risk locations. 'Not to mention that the proposal doesn't apply to the development of infrastructure, which is one of the main and most expensive assets hit during flooding; or to aquaculture, agricultural, pastoral, horticultural, mining, quarrying, or forestry activities and the land and buildings they use.' Kay says proposed changes to weaken the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management will also undermine the need to keep people out of harm's way, and to maintain sufficient river health and width to safely carry floodwaters. 'We have a requirement to prioritise the health of water bodies and communities in the management of our freshwater under the idea of Te Mana o te Wai. Flood managers have supported this idea as a way to help communities reconsider how they live with rivers, including their associated risks and hazards, and to make changes that increase flood resilience and river health together. 'But the Coalition Government wants to get rid of this prioritisation.' 'We also have no idea what the Government wants to do with an existing provision in the policy that prevents the 'loss of river extent', and thereby maintains wider flood corridors, for example; or whether they want to remove a provision that requires water to be managed as part of an 'integrated response to climate change'.' 'Our rivers and wider catchments need to be healthy and resilient if our communities are going to be safe from the worst harms of flooding. This Government needs to understand that private property rights and growth-at-all-costs won't enable that. It will cost us all in the long-run.' The Government's consultation on freshwater and natural hazard policies, as well as related policies, is open for submissions until 27 July.
Scoop
24-06-2025
- Health
- Scoop
New Stats NZ Groundwater Reporting Highlights Serious Risk To Public From Govt Proposal To Weaken Freshwater Protections
Stats NZ's latest groundwater reporting shows New Zealanders are already at risk from contaminated drinking water sources and highlights the threat to the public should the Government continue with its proposals to weaken policy that protects freshwater, says campaign group Choose Clean Water. 'The Government is consulting on plans to remove the prioritisation of the health of waterways and protection of drinking water sources in current freshwater policy and instead change it to give power to commercial polluters of freshwater. 'Given the state of our groundwater, where many of our communities draw their drinking water from, this Government proposal will inevitably increase the health risks to people. It's unbelievably irresponsible.' says Choose Clean Water spokesperson Tom Kay. The new Stats NZ groundwater quality reporting presents monitoring data for groundwater sites across the country between 2019 and 2024. It shows the Maximum Allowable Values for New Zealand drinking water were exceeded at least once between April 2019 and March 2024 at 45.1 percent of sites (450 of 998) for E. coli and 12.4 percent of sites (146 of 1173) for nitrate. Almost half of the monitoring sites show likely or very likely increasing trends in nitrate. Stats NZ says groundwater provides drinking water to nearly half of the population. 'Healthy water bodies provide safe, good quality drinking water. Where groundwater quality is contaminated, we need strong policy that prioritises the public interest in healthy water. Otherwise, communities will struggle to access safe, good quality drinking water at a manageable cost. 'Treating contaminated drinking water, particularly for nitrate contamination, is expensive, complicated, and not very effective. Some communities are already dealing with this as a result of pollution from commercial interests and the Government is proposing to further open the door to commercial interests to dramatically increase their pollution of a fundamental public need,' says Kay. High levels of nitrate in Waimate's drinking water supply in December last year led to a do-not-drink notice for many households. In 2022, a report estimated that treating Christchurch's water supply for potentially high nitrate levels in future could cost $610 million to construct and $24 million per year to operate. The Government's consultation document on freshwater policy is open for submissions until 27 July. The consultation document proposes to remove national bottom lines for pollution as well as to remove or rewrite Te Mana o te Wai, the decision making framework in current national policy that prioritises the public interest in healthy water bodies. 'Rewriting Te Mana o te Wai or removing it from policy would have the same effect. It would take legal priority away from the public interest in healthy water and give more power to polluters by putting private commercial interests on par with people's drinking water. 'It's immoral but consistent with this Government's approach - look at the decisions on tobacco, for example. The Government is demonstrating it cares more about harmful commercial industries than it does about the health of its people.'
Scoop
11-06-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
Select Committee Announces Support Of Law Changes That Will Prevent Councils From Restricting Harmful Pollution Of Water
A select committee report released today demonstrates Coalition parties support law changes that would prevent local government from being able to control pollution even when it is causing serious harm, say freshwater campaigners. 'The damage these changes would cause must not be underestimated. This is not only an attack on the health of our environment but also democracy as the proposals seek to give greater power to polluting industries and write local government out of regulating harmful pollution of freshwater,' says Choose Clean Water spokesperson Tom Kay. 'It beggars belief when you consider that the National-led Government came to power claiming to be champions of localism - they've thrown that out the window completely.' For freshwater, two parts of the Environment Select Committee report are most significant; the proposals on Section 70 of the Resource Management Act and changes to farm plans, including more Ministerial control. Currently, Section 70 says that councils cannot allow pollution that would cause 'significant adverse effects on aquatic life' as a permitted activity. This means regional councils cannot allow for potentially polluting activities to happen without them going through a consenting process to assess whether they can avoid, remedy, or mitigate their impacts, even where an environment they want to operate in might already be polluted. The Coalition parties support doing away with this and allowing polluting activities to go ahead, as long as the place those activities are occurring is already polluted and as long as there will be some reduction in that pollution over time. 'But it doesn't make sense. It is laughable that the report suggests you could grant a consent for an activity to add pollution to a place or continue polluting it now as long as it reduces its pollution by a bit, later. Why would we say 'We'll make a waterbody really sick now so we can nurse it back to health over decades'!? Make it make sense.' Even with standards for these permitted activities, campaigners regional councils will struggle to ensure they are sufficient to reduce or avoid 'significant adverse effects on aquatic life' and will face significant lobbying to minimise any standards. 'This opens the door to more and worse pollution. Pollution that harms aquatic life inevitably has an impact on human lives, either directly due to illness or through impacts on livelihoods or taking away the things with love about the places we live in.' The Coalition parties in the select committee also support changes that would bypass regional councils' role in controlling pollution through farm plans. Farm plans have been a largely unsuccessful attempt to reduce the impact of farming on the country's freshwater over the last decade or more. In regions where they have been used, like Canterbury, they have been found to be unable to stop the degradation of communities' waterways and drinking water sources. 'Not only is the value of farm plans in controlling pollution highly questionable,' says Kay, 'the Select Committee's proposal is to give Government the ability to support farm plans written and audited by polluting industries rather than regional councils, and to allow the Minister for the Environment to make the decision on which industry groups can play this role. This keeps regional councils at arms length from attempts to control pollution through farm plans, effectively writing them out as regulator.' 'This Government has demonstrated it has close and inappropriate relationships with some industry bodies. Having a Minister be responsible for such a decision opens the door to undue influence and allows for industry to capture the whole process around farm plans. We're watching it happen now. This proposal effectively writes local government out of their regulatory role of controlling pollution.' 'It has never been clearer that the National-led Government is working for the polluters and not for the public. Our communities will pay for this through the impact on our quality of life, our drinking water sources, our opportunities to swim or fish, our pride in our beautiful environment, and our ability to be involved in local decision making.'
Scoop
05-06-2025
- Politics
- 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.'
