You are here: Working with you Consultation Talk Environment Roadshow What you told us in 2005 Canterbury

Christchurch community meeting

13 October 2005

National Environmental Standards

Contaminated land

What is the advantage of the National Environmental Protection Measure numbers for the Contaminated Land National Environmental Standards? How can a cost benefit assessment using numbers that are not technically robust be useful?
Some of the Contaminated Land National Environmental Standards limits were set too high especially in comparison to Canadian standards. There was a feeling that more caution should be taken in what should be made as a standard (in general).
National Environmental Standards and the RMA made for costly and time consuming Environment Court proceedings.
How will standards be monitored, in particular air quality?
What will happen with contaminated sites that were contaminated before the RMA?

Drinking water

The catchment approach to Drinking Water National Environmental Standards is good.
Preference for guidelines rather than standards. There was a feeling that Drinking Water National Environmental Standards should be an exception to this and they should go ahead.
There are concerns regarding the Standard’s wording, ‘Provided there is treatment available, you can do whatever you like.’
Sophisticated treatment plants are too expensive for small communities.
The main source of nutrients and bugs is dairy, but if it is all exported (i.e. milk products) we are degrading the environment for the benefit of a few or overseas. Does anyone really believe in sustainability?
Public health is driving health aspects of sustainability. No one else seems to be very committed.
Small communities do not have very good wastewater schemes.
Does the Ministry support the fluoridation of drinking water? Public Health is very supportive of fluoridation.

Air quality

Is the Ministry subsidising solar panels and heat pumps or other alternatives to log burners?
Retrofitting houses is really difficult. What about strict building codes? We should target builders and developers as they will go for the cheapest option.
There are useful links to building and manufacturing qualifications and certification (legislation and education). The ‘End of Suburbia’ movie is a good educational tool.
Particular concerns were raised about PM10 monitoring in Kaikoura, where natural sources have exceeded the Air Quality National Environmental Standards. It was felt that the toxicity of natural sources should be determined and taken into account when implementing air quality standards. The HAP, New Zealand project (linking health and PM10 concentrations in Christchurch) was criticised by two individuals as being unscientific and it did not allow consultation and lacked credibility. There were no comparisons of health of people in clean parts of Christchurch compared to polluted areas and criticism of the changing estimates of mortality.
Another person raised concerns about the ‘microwave station’ at Victoria Park and health effects and there were brief comments about locating power stations close to where the electricity is required. A system was described for removing PM10 from domestic chimneys. It was felt that the method pioneered by Roger Best was being ignored and a valuable resource was not being explored. Under the National Environmental Standards the system might need to be tested like a wood burner.
There was concern that National Environmental Standards affect poor people the most by preventing them from having affordable heating. Wood burners were being ‘attacked’ when they are a cheap form of heating for those without money.
National Environmental Standards alone will not improve air quality and other initiatives need to complement the process (such as funding heating alternatives).
Industry is being unfairly penalised if domestic heating is largely responsible. Waste incineration is a good option for waste management but is being prevented by legislation.

General comments

The National Environmental Standards are an undemocratic process and do not represent the outcomes most people want. People should have more of a say about what are and are not standards. People also want to know what data has been used when developing them. National Environmental Standards restrict New Zealand’s ability to react to environmental issues and represent huge costs in the environmental courts.
MFE needs to improve consultation regarding national standards to allow key stakeholders to have input and know about proposed changes.
There is a concern that the energy standard is being developed by industry and interest parties and groups are not involved or being represented (e.g. Scrap Metal Recycling Association).
There are concerns about Electromagnetic Radiation and effects on children.
We need standards but stakeholders want the opportunity to be involved before things are set. It is also very important to tweak standards after they are set if they need it.
We need effective consultation (extending input) but it cannot slow the process down. MFE probably needs to improve its consultation and communication with some groups (e.g. industry associations and non government organisations).
The high temperature incinerator ban does not take new technologies into account.
We have hit the oil peak. The demand will force people to look at alternatives. New Zealand is more prepared to change than the United States as we have huge resources already.
We need to change people’s mindsets. They enjoy fires and do not like looking at wind turbines.
The shift to renewables is also about economics (e.g. coal is really cheap and reliable like on the West Coast)
The psychology of the matter is that even when you are offering something good you are seen to be taking away an option.

Resource Management Act

Resource consents

At present there are no consequences for councils in meeting timeframes (i.e. application processing and keeping applicants and consultants up to date on consent processes particularly with regard to s92 further information requests).
There needs to be a mandatory legislative framework for councils as a basis to obtain more environmental information in the first stages of a consent application as a bottom line. This will help the applicant and consultants to be better informed about the consent process and its requirements. The RMA amendments will help to speed up the consent process.
The provisions in section 92 should be reviewed within the first 10 days and if the authority does not make this date it is too late. There needs to be checks in place to make the timeframes and central government assistance would be helpful.
We need to recruit more skilled people who have gone through a university accredited course for RMA planners.
Is there an opportunity for someone to ask the Minister for a call-in on application? Is there a clear and transparent process for the Minister to consider call-in applications?
There needs to be more guidance to the applicant on the issue of further information deadlines and requirements.

Capacity building

The RMA gets bad publicity because the public are generally misinformed about the Act and lack knowledge and understanding about it. MFE and the New Zealand Planning Institute need to change the way in which the RMA is perceived through liaising with the media. As the RMA is the only piece of legislation that people appear to know and refer to some positive public relations work is needed to promote it.
We should put the RMA into the school curriculum. People should know about important legislation from an early age.
The process is very difficult for people to understand and they feel daunted by it. The public is still uneducated about RMA and do not know what a District Plan is.
The RMA is a participatory system and needs information from people for it to work.
We need to focus on beliefs in the system not the facts of individual cases.
There needs to be good communication between council and court about cases if there is likely to be a lot of interest or submissions (so the court can manage).
We need to recruit more skilled people who have gone through a university accredited course for RMA planners.
Community funding is needed. The idea of Environmental Legal Aid is very much supported but more funding is required (as the playing field is not level).

Hearings

There is support for strengthening the pre-hearing process. Hearings should be allowed to be adjourned to allow for discussions.
There should be pre-circulation of evidence supported to take pressure of council officers.
There are only a small number of commissioners in New Zealand and this creates problems with conflict of interest.
RMA changes will only be evident in how they are applied. The local authority hearings conduct will come down to how it is applied (e.g. the ability to speed it up but in practice the hearing panels may have more difficulties with increasingly complex plans and processes).

Environment Court

The amendment to the Act regarding the Environment Court having to take into account the council decision will mean that council hearing will end up more like the Environment Court.
MFE needs to evaluate changes to the RMA (e.g. distribution of evidence, reporting to section 92 requests and accredited councillors etc). How many decisions go to the Environment Court, s42A reports?

General

There is no long-term planning in New Zealand and the development of RMA has encouraged unsolicited development (i.e. subdivision and uncontrolled growth).
The precautionary approach advocated in the Act is not really used or emphasised enough. Regional councils should use it more. Experts are chosen to suit the client’s argument. Community groups get left out because they have no resources.
Where does the law stand if councils do not enforce? How does the public intervene if councils do not enforce an environmental issue? The public is restricted in voicing its opinion.
We need baseline information (e.g. monitoring information on consents) to compare changes to the environment.
It is important that compliance monitoring is adhered to. It needs to be based on objective data and not subjective data.
There are costs to be considered when preparing applications. The council needs to be more proactive in obtaining some information on behalf of applicants. Maybe central government could set up a national environmental database to keep track of and update information about regions throughout the country.

Waste

Product stewardship

New Zealand should follow its trading partners in their example (e.g. European legislation).
‘Clean green’ is not a strong enough market driver for companies.
Manufacturers and importers must have and take responsibility for their products.
There needs to be a generic policy for cost bearing of ultimate disposal at the point of entering the economy (on importer or manufacturer).
‘Lock out’ chips being put in toner cartridges preventing re-use. This should not be allowed to happen.
Those selling goods should take responsibility for their products (e.g. supermarkets).
Product stewardship should be driven by manufacturers and distributors and not the disposers (as it is they who wrap goods that do not need to be). HP supply cartridges with packaging that has more ink on it than in the cartridge.
Consumer goods and the general market do not integrate environmental cost into the price and cost of goods. The cost of goods should be passed onto the consumer (e.g. the warehouse commodities are too cheap).

Education and information

It is hard and expensive to get children out of schools to go on field trips so a simulation game could be developed which educates children about environmental waste issues or a competition for ideas from children on key national issues could be run (then feedback to Ministry and council staff). Children like to be able to connect with important issues and people.
Are schools included in the government’s programme? Changes need to be made to the curriculum.
There needs to be better use of education in schools. Education is a long term focus and it may take generations for the ideas to be adopted into the national values and belief system.
Waste disposal and management is also a growing concern. The solution is better and increased education of children in sustainable issues (e.g. teach environmental economics in high school).
There needs to be more education to tell people about how to do the right thing.
People need to be educated about the gases that come off landfills as there are concerns about this.
Consumers need information about what is recyclable.
There is a general understanding about organic waste and compost but we need to increase understanding for locals and industry with a nationwide education scheme about organic waste and its lifecycle, impacts and disposal.

Recycling, reuse and community

People need the option of being able to be green (e.g. need to have boxes available at the supermarket if people do not want to use plastic bags).
There are recyclables out there that are not being recycled at the moment and packaging quantities should be reduced.
There should be free rubbish bins on the street to promote recycling.
The Residents Association is very interested in litter and clean streets.

Packaging Accord

Waste reduction incentives need to be put in place. Waste minimisation and education need to be considered in the development of business. We need to look at licensing and education courses together. Incentive schemes will also influence business.
We should have a tax on plastic bags (through the Packaging Accord).
There needs to be more economic disincentives for packaging and disposal of waste.
We need to be tougher on packaging standards (e.g. incentives and disincentives need to be applied).

General comments

We need levies on landfill waste to support environmental management programmes.
Waste should be dealt with in our own communities and not shipped off to Kate Valley (where it is out of sight out of mind).
Waste management needs to be driven economically.
No one is doing any serious work or research on organics. MFE has guidelines but no-one is taking them seriously.
Waste from information technology is a concern. An example to illustrate is of a university where disposal of computers was the responsibility of the secretary and as a result computers ended up in the rubbish skip.
People want clean water and the best environmental standards regardless of cost.
There is collusion between officials and industry over illegal dumping.
There needs to be a nationwide household composting scheme supported by local councils.

General topics

Environmental education and information

We need to include children in conversations about environmental issues. We need to provide some feedback from the roadshow forum to schools.
Primary school education starts on environmental issues, but this focus fades when children enter secondary school. We need to work on changing the mindset by educating the younger generation.
The NCEA has killed off science and pushed business studies. The impact of this is that we will have no scientists.
The people at the top do not understand the issues (e.g. Ministry of Education and Business Roundtable).
We need to have greater integrated planning and strategies for education, practice and science so that they are not working in isolation.
New Zealand focuses on sustainable development but where economic, social and cultural areas are considered very little value is given to environmental aspects. What about having environmental issues on network national TV news.
Education of environmental matters is a key element. Schools need environmental management systems. Resource recovery packs are great tools for education. Environmental education should be integrated into the syllabus.
Does the public have accessibility to information? Unless information is readily available then costs for complying with legislation can be quite high. MFE should have a regular TV programme to inform the community what is going on in different areas of the country with regard to environmental issues.
There are problems with the fact that so much information only seems to be accessible via the internet. Not everyone has access to a computer. Also everybody is not aware of MFE website. There was praise for MFE Christchurch office as they will print out information and send it out to people when they telephone it regarding specific issues.
There is a need for more focused consultation by the Ministry targeted at specific groups (like schools) that need to understand about certain legislation and environmental issues.
There is an interest to know more about how councils are performing. Also a lot of people do not understand what different councils are responsible for (i.e. regional councils and city councils etc). It is difficult to find information on who is doing what.
Environment Canterbury cannot stop people from burning wet wood which is a major factor of air pollution in the city. A lot of councils do not have the resources to deal with many issues.
Regional councils should be doing more education as opposed to regulation.
The Ministry for the Environment needs to focus more on looking at ways of disseminating environmental information so that it can be accessed by the whole community.
Environmental education should be made compulsory in the curriculum. It is voluntary at the moment.
Enviro-schools should be supported and promoted by MFE (i.e. for each school to develop and implement an environmental charter).

Urban

The RMA does not deal well with urban design and councils do not get involved.
We need to deal with the cumulative affects of poor urban design complicated by private property perceptions.

Water

There are concerns about fluoridation and the increase in thyroid conditions in Christchurch. Trying to encourage fluoridation in the West Coast by District Health Board.
We need to bring the ‘health’ issue back to the wider issue of water and water quality. Strategies need to be developed for re-use. Water is not unlimited in quantity. Clean water going to treatment is not efficient. Water will be a ‘cash cow’ in the near future. We need to value and conserve it.
The Canterbury economy is dependent on agriculture. Lowland rivers are in a poor state. The economics of triple bottom line has overtaken the social and environmental aspects. We need to make reference to the Parliamentary Commission for the Environment’s ‘Growing for Good.’
How do we regain the balance? Does economic pay its fair share with social and environment? We need to put incentives on water to give it value. We cannot let privatisation skew thinking.
We need to question the link of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) versus environmental degradation. Is economic gain sufficient for degrading resource?
Councils need to have a stronger input in maintaining general water and drinking water quality and the clean-up of contaminated water (non-point source pollution).
There needs to be a collection of baseline data information to assist with State Owned Enterprise (SOE) monitoring of water quality by local authorities. There also needs to be financial incentives and guidelines for people with existing use rights for maintaining water quality.
Central government needs to lead with issues regarding existing use rights and maintaining water quality.
Water is a public resource and is metered all over the world.
There may be an emerging crisis with land-use and abstraction. There were once 4 well drillers now there are 26.
We need to reframe thinking to truly explore the sustainability proposition.
We need caution moving forward as we are allowing ‘water barons’ to develop.
Drinking water supply in Christchurch is threatened due to RMA allowing growth. It would cost the government $60 million to buy land that is threatened with development and would pollute artesian water supply in Christchurch. The government needs to provide funds to protect Christchurch drinking water.
If population growth continues we will need to increase investments in sewerage water supplies.
There are concerns regarding rural zoning allowing activities that will create problems for water. Changes are dramatic and have bad downstream effects. Some areas are marginal for farming. Farming is not the only source as large improvements have been happening.
Engineering solutions may not fix everything. We need scientists to be involved in a more holistic approach as collaboration is the key element.
Water usage on plains needs to be looked at in the future. Changes to farms may not be sustainable in the long term. Information cannot just be based on engineering.
We lack information on groundwater so we need to use the precautionary principle to balance growth and the environment. PHD theses are important and we need to be able to get hold of them to consult as local authorities cannot afford to buy the knowledge.
We need to get nutrients back on the land and not in the water (i.e. wastewater). Especially in Christchurch there is no incentive to treat water to a high quality. Who will pay for this treatment? Heavy metal disposal has reduced which is a positive step. People are more aware of the issues today.
The central plains irrigation scheme is an issue.
There is concern about the volume of dairy farms and the removal of shelter belts. There needs to be a general education given of the issues in stocking rates dictated by water extraction but the positives of irrigation gives the flexibility of production.
We need to identify the best scale for irrigation schemes.
The principle of storing water is good (e.g. flood clearance will improve the overall water status of plains).
People are unsure as to the water quality of Heathcote River. There seems to be less water coming down the river than in the past.
There are pollution issues. People would not swim in the river. Accidental discharges going into the river seem to be happening more regularly. People are unsure if all pollution incidents are reported and people should be encouraged to report accidents.
A point was raised whether people in Christchurch supported Environment Canterbury in buying private land to protect the city’s drinking water. There was no consensus.
People were unsure as to where their drinking water actually comes from. Protecting water in the local area is seen as important. Whether central government gets more involved in local issues will depend on what is more palatable for the rate payers. Also the needs for future generations should be taken into account.
Waste-water for dairy farmers is an issue.
The need for using greywater systems was raised. The fact that the same water is used for drinking and washing cars is crazy. It was pointed out that in Australia every new house must have a rain water tank.
We would like to see water collection from roofs.
There should be some incentive by councils to get people to use rainwater (e.g. interest free loan).
There is a lack of awareness of the scarcity of water.
There has been a change of awareness in Christchurch City Council (e.g. swales to hold back stormwater and absorb contaminant.)
MFE should produce more guidelines to help councils on issues like water conservation.
There needs to be more emphasis on individual small scale water management (e.g. dairying). Dairying has a huge water abstraction and polluting discharges (analogy to over fishing)
There should be a charge on water abstraction. Environment Canterbury should ban the taking of water in some areas.
There are 2 issues with RMA implementation regarding Linton Dairies.
1. It is a precautionary approach. The Environment Court has said that Environment Canterbury is too conservative. The RMA does not have an ability to manage under a precautionary approach and cannot manage to an ‘end point’.
2. The cumulative impacts are poorly dealt with under RMA. The judgement said they need the probative evidence to do this. This raises issues for sustainable management programme implementation.
Linton Dairy’s decision is the key to the implementation of the ‘Water programme of Action.’ Support is wanted from MFE for the approach Environment Canterbury took otherwise a ‘precautionary’ approach will not be able to be part of the Water Programme of Action implementation.
The first in first served approach can undermine strategic planning for water.

Energy efficiency and waste management

We need to support energy efficiency by reducing the need for hydro and other pollution.
There is confusion in the presentation of targets for waste reduction and energy consumption in light of the overall increase due to growth.

Urban development, design and planning

People are concerned about urban sprawl encroaching onto quality agricultural land. Also infill housing is creating pressure on infrastructure services. Will development levies deter developers?

Housing sustainability

Sustainable housing needs regulations that enforce and ensure sustainable housing options are followed (e.g. the housing boom is currently occurring and people are not expected to put in solar heating or insulation). Solar water heating and environmentally friendly housing material should be mandatory. We need to increase the focus on environmental education as it will have increasing importance on the continued population and economic growth.
We need to raise the standard of insulation for new houses.
Builders and architects needs to be educated.
Environment Canterbury evidence suggests that houses would rate around 2 out of 6 which is not a good incentive. Instead we need to use a temperature change with insulation which gives a bigger shift and incentive for homeowners.
We want to get the outcome specified and not the standards specified in house standards.
We need to put the onus on the manufacturer (produce stewardship) to make sure that the operation of woodburners in homes matches what is achieved in the laboratory. Factor of 5 to 10 difference in performance from laboratory to homes. A range of factors in the operation need to be addressed. Environment Canterbury is keen to work with MFE on this.
Housing standards are very poor. There needs to be higher standards for insulation.
European double glazing of PVCO steel insert is far more superior to aluminium double glazing.
MFE should enable ‘cosy homes’ and develop more efficient standards for new homes.

General comment

There needs to be better partnerships between local councils.
Visitors should pay for public toilets like Taupo.
People would like to see ecological economic incentives (e.g. tax breaks).
We need long term vision and government support for environmental initiatives (e.g. CNG gas).
Why was Waitaki dealt with by a board, not a local process?
There needs to be greater central government support and funding for environmental technology. Funding needs to be streamlined and provided throughout the process.
If we want population and growth we need the intensification of land use. There needs to be a real balance and more cautious decision making. Growth does not have to happen all in one generation. There needs to be a clear framework that has sustainable levels of development. Allocation plans are important. Water storage and harvesting is essential to sustainable use. Allocation could be based on water zones.
The price of agricultural land is driven by dairy farming (bio-fuels may be given wider options).
A community driven process is important. MFE should put more energy into community views and outcomes rather than impose heavy handed regulation (e.g. hard for people to find information out about the problem of land use and its impact on water). People need to know that they are being listened to.
What stage is the biodiversity National Policy Statement at? Is financial support available?
We should not use the environment as an open cheque book.
Councils have to respond to each submission point (of the summary of submissions on RMA plans) and want the ability to do a quicker process for this similar to the Waitaki Board process.
Science is based on understanding complex systems not answering all questions to the nth degree. It is better to be approximately right than completely wrong.
The links between environmental and social issues are important and are highlighted in the ‘Healthy Christchurch’ approach. This project funds initiatives so joint ventures can be undertaken without ‘capture’ or ‘dominance’ by one agency. This facilitates connections between groups. The ‘Healthy Christchurch’ approach could be used as a pilot for other approaches.
Electricity demand, generation and transmission supply want to combine and look at what is needed for human well being (i.e. a sustainability approach). We need to specify the level of service and not supply for infrastructure provision.
There should be local decentralised systems for infrastructure (e.g. sewage disposal versus centralised systems). Five-sixths of the cost of centralised systems is in transport to the central location. Localised systems can therefore spend a lot more to get good quality.

Last updated: 17 September 2007