Skip to main content.

Auckland City community meeting

19 October 2005

National Environmental Standards

Contaminated land

  • Contaminated land is still not being recorded on the Land Information Memoranda (LIMS). The regional councils and territorial local authorities do not communicate very well and resources across the country are unevenly spread.
  • The existing risk-based numbers for contaminated sites were developed by joint initiatives. There are concerns over the consultation process and a lot of disagreement over the proposed numbers.
  • NEPM suits the Australian system and they can apply a fuller framework. New Zealand has different political drivers.
  • There is lead in the soils. There needs to be consistency within the New Zealand guidelines that addresses the environment and human health at the same time. Hydrocarbon screening is different in NEPM than New Zealand.
  • The National Environmental Standards for contaminated land are important for cleanfill infrastructure projects in Auckland.
  • There is a clear need to ensure that National Environmental Standards Contaminated Land are in place. At the same time it is difficult to understand the framework in which the proposed Standard operates.

Air quality

  • We need vehicle emissions controls.
  • More needs to be done with regard to controlling vehicle emissions. Vehicle emission standards need to be put in place. We are weak on testing and awareness. The quality of fuels is generally ok but we need to go further. Also other vehicle contaminants cause problems (e.g. heavy metals in stormwater). Public transport may be part of the solution but there needs to be more investment as we are failing to identify the true economic cost of emissions.
  • The National Environmental Standards on air quality are too inconsistent around the country and too many consents are required. There needs to be more effort and priority on the sources of pollution in this area. MFE has been too slow and sleepy with implementing the National Environmental Standards. We need to encourage more knowledge sharing and more technology sharing around the country.

Drinking water

  • Water transporters should be regulated. There are problems with regulation. Does the Ministry of Transport have a monitoring role?
  • Do the Drinking Water National Environmental Standards apply to service station supplies? For example, Helensville water supply.

General comments

  • We could follow the Australian model for energy efficient housing.
  • We need better linkages between government ministers so that there is more leverage between departments.
  • We need to move very fast to have sustainable policies applied. New Zealand is small enough to make standards work.
  • Overseas countries have standards in place relating to building sites (e.g. Australia and Singapore). Building or development activities can create a lot of environmental damage.
  • Incentives or a tax advantage needs to be attached to the Standard (e.g. waste oil). Overseas countries have financial incentive on sustainable homes. This will need government leadership and facilitation but could be driven by industry.
  • With so much consultation and process for the standards to go through they get watered down and do no have so much impact.
  • National standards are important because they give certainty across the board.
  • We want to see standards set for farmers as well (e.g. applying fertiliser and effluent and educating farmers).
  • We need to get a balance between National Environmental Standards and regional policies, for example, it may be more appropriate for the regional level to be more prescriptive.
  • There needs to be a level of precision but without too much depth to ensure that standards can be implemented.
  • Because New Zealand is not as polluted as say Europe we do not have so much urgency.
  • Industry will only be driven by what is commercially viable. We need to look at the incentives and how they get created.
  • Is there another approach that can deliver the same community outcomes?
  • Developing plans takes so long and they are so involved (e.g. Auckland air plan).
  • People preparing the standards need to remember the implementation and costs for implementing. They need to work this into the cost benefit analysis from the start.
  • There may be difficulties in achieving compliance with receiving employment standards because the process of developing management approaches can be expensive. For example, Auckland Regional Council stormwater treatment (costs more money) versus source control. They ended up deciding on source control but it was an expensive process to reach that decision.
  • We need to pass information from the scientific community onto farmers (e.g. tools to improve management).
  • MFE should disseminate case studies of good management to other councils (e.g. Environment Waikato).
  • National Environmental Standards are required for noise, parking, electromagnetic radiation coastal development, ratio dimensions and heritage.

Resource Management Act

Resource consents

  • Councils need to take a wider view of who is affected.
  • We should have to put up a sign on site to notify an application.
  • Restricted discretionary activities are being notified which is difficult for the public to understand. The general public needs to be educated so that they can work within the RMA system.
  • The changes made to notification processes appear cumbersome.
  • Some people are looking for ways around the Act or are just proceeding without consent.
  • Why do we have consents in the first place if 95% of consents are going through without notification? The alternative is regulation and the ticking of boxes.

Policies and plans

  • We should provide model plans for structure to help consistency and help make them easier to use and more accessible to the public. This will also help practitioners moving between regions.
  • Local authorities are amending plans and only putting them on the web. It is not easy to gain access to them and people should know about them (e.g. the Institute of Architects need to be advised of the amendments to the Act).
  • The greater lack of clarity in legislation and plans gives more scope for misunderstandings.
  • There needs to be guidance on the application of new amendments to improve council interpretation of the Act and reduce the complexity of plans.
  • Quality planning should contain the previous RMA versions also.
  • A 2-year time-frame for plans will be hard to meet what with the lack of planners.
  • We need guidance on outcome setting especially for cross-border issues.

Iwi consultation

Iwi involvement in consultations needs to be resourced (e.g. in preparing iwi management plans or in contributing to 2nd generation plans).

Hearing process

The RMA hearing also became too complex for the average person to understand. The general public need to be educated about the Act.

General comments

  • MFE needs to guide councils to view the Act as facilitating sustainable development. The RMA is generally perceived as an obstacle that is implemented in a negative obstructive way. MFE should change the perception of the RMA so that the Act is viewed positively.
  • Local authorities are not adequately resourced to deal with RMA.
  • RMA amendments were a sudden development (e.g. further information). There should have been a greater lead-up in time to enactment.
  • RMAA05 has posed complexities but has also made some improvements.
  • Auckland council is treating any place with a liquor licence as being a contaminated site.
  • There needs to be an environmental ombudsman. This should be within the Ministry for the Environment.
  • Connections need to be developed between MFE and Civil Defence to work on emergency management issues such as disaster avoidance. MFE needs to facilitate avoidance in plans. The planning process has issues for the reduction of emergency risk (e.g. not zoning housing in flood management areas etc.) The RMA could already cover it so probably MFE guidance.

Waste

Education and information

  • Research shows that consumers want to take action but it does not take place as information is very fragmented and hard. We need to look at tools to help consumers (e.g. consumer institute).
  • Councils are committed to 2620 waste protocols but a huge amount still needs to be done if these protocols may be achieved. We need education and guidance from MFE on this.
  • How do we encourage people to do the right thing? We need information and guidelines? What are international trends?
  • A one-hit campaign is insufficient and loses momentum. We need a co-ordinated approach. The continuity of the waste strategy is essential within the programmes. However, we need to be aware that there is an overwhelming amount of information out there. Sometimes there is too much information and it becomes meaningless. Individual industries or companies may be regarded as biased. MFE would be a better information source but an integrated approach may be better.
  • We need to look at the Tradenz model for a suitable structure.
  • The Ministry needs to work as a catalyst for change.
  • More research is needed on all aspects of waste management. What is the government doing on this?

Recycling, reuse and community

  • There is disagreement over the statistic that New Zealand has 95% recycling availability.
  • We could use stamps and labels for energy use and for indicating what packaging is reusable and how well it can be recycled.
  • We need to look at the recycling of light bulbs and batteries.

Institutions and legislation

  • There is a global drive for people not to be responsible for the costs of their demands. We are very interested in MFE direction on Extended Producer Responsibility (e.g. consumer responsibility and the regulation of cowboys).
  • There is great concern about inconsistencies in waste levies. Councils presently operate different systems. Co-ordination is needed with waste levies to prevent border hopping. We need a national framework that drives consistency to systems that are operated on a regional level. We need to ensure that there is regional and local consistency in collections and distribution of funds and to ensure better tracking and regulation of waste.
  • A waste levy is needed for batteries.
  • Sandpit legislation is needed for the regulation of ‘cowboys’.
  • There are problems associated with the lack of control over imports.
  • Can the waste strategy targets be met without formal introduction (and subsidy) from central government? Perhaps industrial leaders lose out - voluntary or to a point - but there is a problem with freeloaders. The sandbox legislation is welcomed.
  • There are tensions between local waste management and national or even regional initiatives.
  • It is felt that New Zealand is not doing enough to tackle waste issues. Europe is light years ahead of New Zealand. Increased legislation and follow up legislation is required, though voluntary approaches may also help.
  • Does New Zealand need an Environmental Regulation Authority?
  • Could someone clarify whether councils have a legal responsibility to assist businesses in reducing waste?

Product stewardship

Product stewardship covers only a small range of waste.

Hazardous waste management

  • We need clarity on the guidance note on hazardous waste.
  • There should to be clear communication regarding hazardous waste.
  • We need good codes of practice that are user friendly for hazardous waste.

General comments

  • There is a concern as to Maori overall understanding of aspects associated with the quality of the built environment.
  • There are real difficulties experienced in removing PCB from the environment. The commercial model worked.

General topics

Water

  • Auckland’s drinking water is predominantly within areas owned by the council. How will Waikato catchment be managed?
  • We should look at water de-salination plants to provide water for Canterbury.
  • There needs to be some rethinking on water compensation and incentives (e.g. surcharge on water consumption to cover wastewater). We need to look at water tanks to conserve water.

National Environmental Standards and National Policy Statements

  • The current biodiversity National Policy Statement has become the lowest common denominator.
  • There needs to be more national standards and National Policy Statements to guide local decision making. There is a lack of leadership at central government level. We need government vision and strategic direction to push for national policies.
  • There are concerns about the ability of normal people to get involved in national policy making. Maybe they do not need to be. If solutions are put in place public consultation may not add any benefits.
  • We need more standards to be created and applied consistently (e.g. air, water quality and soil protection).
  • There needs to be competitive advice around the development of National Environmental Standards.
  • There should be a national vision around National Environmental Standards so that they all complement each other. They should not be so piecemeal in how and when they are introduced.
  • We need money from the government for research into standards.

Environmental education and information

  • Education is important at all levels to encourage good and long lasting habits. It is especially important for primary aged children, to encourage better practices from an early age (e.g. enviroschools programme). We need to work with the Ministry of Education to include sustainable management education in the curriculum. We also need to target education to adult decision makers and focus on the ‘why’ issues.
  • Work experience programmes (early tertiary) can encourage young people from all backgrounds to get involved and gain an understanding of sustainable management and council functioning. Internships and secondments could be developed across government to encourage cross discipline awareness. Other schemes could include cadetship programmes and modern apprenticeships.
  • The use of TV media (e.g. documentaries and reality shows) on waste management could be useful in reaching new audiences.

Home heating

There are concerns over the use of wood in heating and the perception that it is not clean. There needs to be more targeted information and education about wood burning.

Climate change

New Zealand needs a climate change policy.

Energy efficiency

  • New Zealand needs to be the leader in ‘clean green’ energy and technologies. The Ministry should be more proactive on educating about alternative technologies and energy sources.
  • We need more information on developments in Australia around energy efficiency (from Australia and New Zealand Environment Conservation Council, ANZECC).
  • Auckland Regional Council has prepared issues and options paper in co-ordination with EECA (the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority).
  • Energy has no regional management but someone needs to make sure that policy and management are done better to ensure supply.
  • We need the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (EECA) to be more efficient in central government. What is efficient in terms of energy types and supply? Gas (but is there a supply?), wind, Otahuhu plant and Todd building small stations.
  • How can we get older homes to retrofit? (E.g. solar).
  • Auckland has the most number of wood heaters. The Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority manage efficiency. It is not their role to drive policy. The Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority have done some good work for small to medium industry but they should target households.
  • There is a lack of a whole government approach on energy including demand. Energy is the most crucial issue of the decade. Some industries that are doing reasonably well financially now focus on expanding and growing. Risk assessments have to be made.
  • What market incentives are there for energy? Feasibility of generation and objection to power stations.

Waste management

  • The Ministry has been working on hazardous waste for several years. There are technologies to deal with waste (e.g. tracking systems). We need legislation in place to deal with waste management.
  • Timber treaters are looking for reassurance that they will not have liability issues in the future.
  • We should track hazardous waste right through the life cycle.
  • We need to grow Totara as a better source of wood.
  • What about recycling bottles and packaging in general? (E.g. recycling bottles for 5ยข return).
  • We are looking at voluntary accords. What work is being done in this area by Industry?
  • There are problems with clear glass. We are working with importers to overcome some of these problems. Why do we have packaging around shirts? There is a working group looking at this issue.
  • Regulations can be inhibitors as they are often not flexible and they take more time.
  • In Europe, after one, minute people turn idling engines off to save fuel. This should be the norm here.
  • The issue of building waste needs to be addressed. Large amounts of un-recyclable products are used and wasted in the building process. We need to look at what could be recycled (e.g. Gib board).
  • Ferries previously dumped waste into the sea. Now it must be pumped out into tanks.

Resource Management Act

  • With regard to the RMA there needs to be more consistency in rulings through standards as inconsistency between councils is a major concern.
  • The resource consents under section 92 are absurd. (i.e. 20 working days is a joke and some consents are taking 57 days). There should be an independent section 92 arbitrator.
  • Hearing committees have trouble making decisions and adjourn hearings
  • There needs to be better decisions programmes. Consultants try to minimise risk with pre-application meetings.
  • It is hard to get council officers to respond to e-mail requests.
  • There is tension between energy use, the country going forward and who can enter into consultation. The public perception is that we are being held back and there is a looming crisis because there is difficulty in making progress through process.
  • The resource consent process could be sped up through the Environment Court but consultants do not want to take applications there.
  • The process is still being looked at. What about the fundamental shifts underlying the problem?
  • There should be mechanisms to measure scope rather than independent planners making decisions about what is best for the community.
  • S92 consultation fees are high and have to go back to the applicant for further budget making the time line grow to more than three months.
  • There needs to be a pre-hearing meeting or process.
  • It is ok with large projects but small projects are problematic as they become more costly in relation to the overall project.
  • There needs to be a solution (i.e. more guidelines and disputes tribunals formally initiate mediation).
  • The biggest problem is lack of training (e.g. straight out of university). The council does not have the resources so it is farmed off to consultants’ juniors (who are risk adverse to s92).
  • There needs to be a course for resource consents and skills courses in research, science and transport planning. Resource consents need technical training.
  • RMA is mismanaged.

Urban development, design and planning

  • There are urban design issues (i.e. the way growth happens in the city).
  • The issues of built environment and sustainability in New Zealand are important. New Zealand is 10-15 years behind the rest of the world. We need to build environmental sustainability into building and development projects from the outset. This needs to be agreed by the entire project team and use objective and well represented techniques to make it easier (e.g. Green Building Council).
  • Leadership and demonstration from public agencies (e.g. schools) should include sustainable building features (e.g. solar) versus inconsistency when private developers build to lower standards.
  • We need to push single practical measures and behaviour change to achieve more sustainable practices (e.g. gardening and choosing a grass species for lawns that needs less water or changing school travel plans by walking or taking the bus).
  • Local character, identity and attractiveness are important for urban sustainability.
  • Urban Sustainable Management Fund criteria should include beauty, attractiveness and desirability of cities including art (e.g. where telephone switch bases are painted attractively and there is no graffiti).
  • Heritage can provide both local character and save materials etc. The Italians and the Spanish are good at blending the new with the old.
  • We cannot put environmental issues into a different box as social issues.
  • We need consultation-led design, not design-led consultation. People at the heart of design will value the environment and people with a stake in the environment will look after it.
  • The tank farm development provides an opportunity to engage with a wide range of groups to workshop the project brief.
  • The RMA is very rule based. The attitude of developers is to find a way around it or push it to the maximum compared to other countries where the practice might be more co-operative.
  • A vinegar factory redevelopment on Ponsonby Road is a potentially good model of intensive urban development versus local interests, preserving the two storey streetscape and maintaining commercial viability of the Ponsonby Road shops.
  • Councils need to lead urban development and design. Since compact form and intensification is in Auckland’s best interest, it needs to be council -led as people do not trust developers. There is a need for councils to buy land, get involved in development, set standards, have good consultation and provide initiatives etc.

Air quality

  • Air pollution is an issue. There are too many cars on the road and too many emissions.
  • There are a number of approaches to tackling air pollution (e.g. education, Auckland Regional Council promoting public transport, reduction in car use, more bus and cycle ways and better walk ways etc).
  • There needs to be more leadership on the air pollution issue. A multi-agency approach is needed from central government and local government and action needs to be taken to tackle the air pollution issues.
  • Measures like banning the use of cars on certain days for instance are ways of encouraging people to reduce air pollution from their vehicles.
  • Wellesley Bridge provides a good example of how things need to change. No pedestrians or cycles are allowed on the bridge. The council have not thought this issue through.

General comments

  • In order to achieve and maintain the sustainability of ecology we need to discuss who we could consult with (e.g. bird protection and forestry industry).
  • We need to consider carbon costs. How many trees do we need to plant? What other areas can be looked at to help manage climate change? (E.g. motor vehicle emissions solutions, better public transportation and work from home etc.)
  • National Policy Statements give certainty to new industry.
  • Who pays for contaminated land and its remediation?
  • How do we understand environmental risk?
  • Forestry is facing different challenges around the country with conflicting interests.
  • We need to sell the idea of compensation for forest owners for carbon credits.
  • The flaw in Kyoto is that it does not recognise the harvesting of trees. Stored carbon is being used for building houses. It should encourage the building of wood houses.
  • Biosecurity is a primary concern for the New Zealand economy in terms of ‘clean green’ for farming and forestry. It needs to be built into the cost of the economy. For example, the potential impact of the painted apple moth.
  • Public servants should have more say and the ability to state their own position rather than have to toe the Minister’s line.

Last updated: 17 September 2007