Skip to main content.

Rotorua public meeting

2 February 2005

Questions/issues raised

  • Concern about government departments (eg, Department of Conservation) making submissions dictating the way people should be doing things.
  • There are several lobby groups; some with more scientific backgrounds than others. A small lobby group may have a coherent argument but government will listen to the bigger lobby groups and cast aside smaller lobby groups. The government must make sure they are looking at good educated data.
  • The polluter should pay for clean-up but there is no mention of this in the document. There needs to be incentives so that people who use water have to pay for their impacts on water quality.
  • Objectives need to be set together but then land-users should be able to decide for themselves the best way to achieve the objectives.
  • Central government needs to learn to engage with small business (eg, farmers/landowners). Land-owners don't have the resources to deal with submissions; communities should be resourced so that there is a balance.
  • Taupo Lakes Action Group: the Taupo process is not working, the Rotorua process is much better and much more inclusive.
  • Concern from farmers about nutrients being seen exclusively as pollutants; there is also a need to look at the benefits of nutrients.
  • There is a role for central government in funding science and research. This is important if water quality issues are to be dealt with. Currently the bulk of lake research is funded by the Bay of Plenty region. Research concerns include basic things like an inventory of the current situation.
  • Water efficiency is an important issue. There is no mention of demand and domestic use. What about grey water and water collection systems?
  • There are questions about whether whole-of-government submissions are possible and if so, whether this circumvents the planning process.
  • Government should be able to identify priorities but not override RMA decision-making process.
  • Māori want real participation and consultation, with local government and the community. Support the Rotorua lakes process.
  • Central government has abdicated the process to local government.
  • Local government has the skills and experience to deal with local issues. There is a need for standards from central government, but not heavy involvement.
  • There needs to be an urban focus as well as rural in looking at water quality.
  • The current competitive model for science funding prevents good communication.
  • Central government has a responsibility for Lake Rotorua because it was a government town and adequate sewerage disposal was not provided until 1980.
  • Set up a "Sustainable Freshwater Fund" similar to the Sustainable Farming Fund.
  • Best practice rather than consistency between regional councils - matters such as how catchment management fits into regional land and water plans.Best practice should be sharing good ideas rather than telling people what to do. If people have this information available, consistency is not that important. Best practice, science and funding are not included in the action points in the discussion document.
  • Any attempt to set uniform standards throughout the country would need to be treated cautiously because of different environments around the country.
  • The document is patronising. Communities are finding solutions and don't want government telling them how to do it. Government should only get involved where this isn't happening.
  • There is a need for urban dwellers to understand reasons for pressure and the impact that economic drivers and urban lifestyles have.
  • Solutions need to be based on knowledge, information and research rather than knee-jerk reactions.
  • Water quality and quantity problems need systems. There is a need to pool the resources of several Crown Research Institutes - individually they will not be able to solve problems.
  • There is a need to link different planning processes.
  • Amalgamate local government to provide sources of funding.
  • Central government has a role to provide information to enable people to make their own decisions.
  • There is a need to encourage and support individual innovation.
  • Have national standards/guidelines, backed by funding to allow local decision-making.
  • There needs to be a process for "inter-regional" funding. Where one region benefits, another shouldn't have to bear costs (eg, Waikato River - Auckland ).
  • Where things are not being done at the local level, there is a need for central government to play a role - possibly in the form of funding or auditing.
  • Central government could have a role in facilitating local communities to find solutions; making sure rules are applied consistently in different areas and sharing information/best practice.
  • In choosing management strategies, there is a need to consider neighbouring regions to ensure approaches are consistent and complementary.
  • Consider a zonal approach - divide New Zealand into five zones?
  • There is a need to provide greater opportunity for local communities to contribute to government policy-making.
  • There is a problem of too many laws - over regulation and re-regulation. There is a need for simplification.
  • People need to be given adequate time for consultation and be treated with respect.
  • Central government should provide:
    • Leadership
    • Strategic direction
    • Facilitation
    • Catalyst
  • Use the media to educate people about using water well; make it easy for people to find information.

Last updated: 25 November 2008