Skip to main content.

Wellington public meeting

8 February 2005

Ouestions/issues raised

  • There is an expectation that certain freshwater species will become extinct. The biodiversity strategy is not included in the discussion document but should be included.
  • Property rights or the potential loss of property rights is not included in the document.
  • Are the concerns raised tonight covered by the RMA?
  • Have regional councils had input into this process? Have they asked for help? Are we just putting on more layers of bureaucracy?
  • Will the final plan cover the whole of New Zealand ? The regions are diverse, there needs to be more simplification.
  • There is a lack of recognition of existing rights in the discussion document.
  • It is hugely important to know where somebody comes from to understand the significance of their submission.
  • How can someone in Wellington decide what is best for people in Central Otago or Fiordland?
  • National concerns need to be addressed, regions must work together to address national issues. The discussion document raises issues but doesn't talk about "how". It lacks detail.
  • The "how" is already with us - in the RMA. "Clawback" already exists under the RMA.
  • Have I missed the definition of "sustainability?" It is not defined in the document. It needs to be - it is a fundamental concept.
  • The document is a collection of methods but does not contain goals. It is looking at methods in a vacuum.
  • There is no shortage of water - take it when it is plentiful and store it for when it is needed.
  • What about geothermal water and wetlands? These have important ecological values.
  • In terms of trading water and discharge permits, there is a lack of analysis in the background documents.
  • There is not enough emphasis on forestry. Don't forget the significance of forestry to New Zealand 's lifestyle and economy.
  • Do people think there are problems in terms of allocation and water quality? The proposals are not conservation based but instead will make it easier for industry while problems will continue.
  • The RMA is pretty good, the problem is wimpy implementation by local councils.
  • The key problem is that there is a lack of aims, goals, objectives targets and timeframes.
  • Accept the reality of conflict.
  • The RMA provides the framework but problems occur at the local level.
  • It is a highly politicised process.
  • Problems exist and the document does not address them. "Growing for Good" and this discussion document do not connect. There is no connection between key organisations.
  • Concern about the commercialisation of water.
  • The discussion document is trying to address impacts on water quality and allocation. Allocation is not just about commercial use, it is much broader than this and all uses be taken account.
  • Sort out allocation at a local level.
  • Over allocation is as much a problem as under-allocation.
  • This is a cycle we have been around many times.
  • Nationally important values are not yet identified.
  • People misread the RMA regarding "national interest". A fundamental misunderstanding about "national importance" is that it is environmental not economic.
  • Deciding which use of water is more important is not possible. Each project must be considered on its merits.
  • Why shouldn't the processes contained in the RMA take time? It should be done properly and this takes time.
  • Why do we need high quality water for washing cars? Urban wastage of water is huge.
  • Water wastage should not be divided into rural and urban wastage. It should just be considered waste water.
  • We don't make the best of what we have at the moment.
  • It seems like the government doesn't want to deal with aims and objectives.
  • Identify users and their uses of water - identify common ground.

Last updated: 25 November 2008