Skip to main content.

Hamilton community meeting

18 October 2005

National Environmental Standards

Drinking water

  • The Drinking Water National Environmental Standard needs to be practical. There are concerns regarding compliance costs for farming. High rates and consent costs are having economic effects on farmers. What if every farmer complies but the cumulative effects of discharges result in water quality deteriorating beyond what the treatment plant can deal with? Is there a need for the Standard?
  • There are concerns that there is no bottom line as the ‘goal posts’ keep moving.
  • New Zealand has been too lax and should be reinstating the environment and setting higher standards.
  • Does the National Environmental Standards apply to future drinking water catchments? There are concerns that MFE have not monitored resource consents issued by regional councils and district councils efficiently. Monitoring and implementation are important.
  • The Drinking Water National Environmental Standards do not address Mauri of water. It should consider Mauri spiritual values and incorporate them (but questions have been raised regarding how to incorporate them). There are 67 Mauri water classifications (wai tangata).
  • We are not disputing the need for clean water but will the National Environmental Standards actually deliver or just impose costs on agriculture without any benefits for anyone?

General comments

  • Do the National Environmental Standards consider the effects of air emissions on water quality? For example, the atmospheric deposition of contaminants into a waterway.
  • How do we reach a consensus on what standard we protect to? How do we find the balance between economics and the environment? How much disease will we actually prevent by this National Environmental Standards? Will the National Environmental Standards achieve any health protection? Is it worth it?
  • The development of National Environmental Standards would be advantageous to support councils struggling with complex issues. Though it should have been done 10 years ago.
  • The introduction of national standards will reduce the amount of subjectivity amongst councils. It can be driven through quicker by central government than regional government.
  • There may be negative effects on the rural community and agriculture due to economic pressure. Small communities cannot afford to pay for the upgrade of wastewater and a water treatment plant. The National Environmental Standards are placing costs on them that could cripple an industry or a small community and this could affect the economic well being of the country.
  • There is a fundamental question regarding the future of New Zealand (increased population and economic drivers). Do we need National Environmental Standards? Yes, but there are difficulties working in transition to the National Environmental Standards (and when details of regulations come in later).
  • Councils do not always promote best practice. Most people believe that we need standards. The National Environmental Standards are good to have but content is the key.
  • How does organic farming connect to the Standards?
  • Environmental education is extremely important. There has been very little focus on environmental issues in education over the past 20-30 year in the school curriculum. Funds are required to increase environmental awareness.
  • Society needs to be more forward-looking and consider adverse environmental effects before they occur.

Resource Management Act

Resource consents

  • Has the fast tracking of consents been looked at?
  • Some councils are being unduly onerous with their rejection of consents. Tauranga are using pre-lodgement meetings.
  • Consent conditions are being written that are unenforceable or too onerous.
  • Consultants are recommending now to go to public notification because it is quicker (e.g. transit approvals take at least 4 months minimum to get non-notified consents).

Iwi

There should be financial resources for iwi to be able to employ expertise. The iwi needs to understand RMA processes and practices. There should be some audit and assessment of iwi management plans to ensure that they are effective and useful for policy development (especially since they have to be regarded to).

Policies and plans

  • What does it mean ‘to give effect to the Regional Policy Statement/ National Policy Statement’? It is a potentially dangerous requirement for district councils to be required to do this.
  • Cross boundary issues are difficult to address for councils through Regional Policy Statement that are cut between regions (e.g. Franklin has to deal with two different regional outcomes which is administratively very tricky).
  • Is MFE waiting for guidance from the court on the new Regional Policy Statement role or is it preparing guidance?
  • A new councillor who is inheriting a District Plan from a permissive area takes a long time to make changes to the plan.
  • Hamilton City Council has not yet made the plan operative and has not been able to make private plan changes.
  • The complexity of issues has been too devolved to local government and is not being addressed properly by councils.
  • Councils are changing direction through plans when they do not need to (i.e. when they have previously been negotiated like in Waikato District Council where a new plan is being developed).
  • A major issue for resource users is the way district and regional councils set up their plans and the assumption that communities have had input into them.
  • There is a need to make sure that the rest of the RMA links up with Part II. Rules need to be linked to environmental effects.

Capacity building

  • Councils have the discretion not to follow good practice. There needs to be promotion of good practice in councils and the ability to make them perform. The Ministry should have a more regulatory role.
  • The councils do not have the resources to do functions that are being devolved to it.
  • Councils struggle with repetitive RMA requirements and issues that are not understood. Planners are not retained. It is hard to find the quality of policy makers required. Are they at national level? The administrative burden is huge on councils. There are issues surrounding the working environment and political influence on staff opinion.
  • The principles of the RMA are right but we need to make people feel comfortable with the process and that there are check and balances. The obligations for people have not been highlighted so public education is needed.
  • Councils have the discretion not to follow good practice. There needs to be promotion of good practice in councils and the ability to make them perform. The Ministry should have a more regulatory role.

Environment Court

Environment Court looks at the legal side rather than focusing a lot on the effects. How the new s92 provisions will work remains to be seen.

Hearing process

  • There is support for encouraging round the table discussions with councils and applicants.
  • Pre-hearing meeting provisions need to be supported by the Environment Court.

General comments

  • The RMA has now gone full circle in focus to be activity based.
  • The ‘public confidence and consistent administration of the Act’ is being widely used as a means to decline consensus.
  • There are concerns that national interest issues are overriding local concerns. We need to narrow down what national interest issues are. National Policy Statement guidance is needed and the processes under the Act should not need to be adjusted yet again.
  • The National Policy Statements and the National Environmental Standards need to occur and must be progressed by MFE (e.g. the responsiveness to issues such as dairy conversion, geothermal energy extraction and other generation issues).
  • The generation of electricity has created a multitude of issues, more than the RMA should be addressing.
  • The cost compliance international comparison is good (e.g. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development - OECD) but we cannot afford for the cost compliance to be as high as we are so remote.
  • Some councils are reporting their working days incorrectly.
  • Has any guidance been developed for the ‘Transfer of Powers’ (section 33)?
  • The 2003 amendments around permitted baseline and united notification have been useful. The discretionary aspect of permitted baseline brings some uncertainty however for users. There needs to be more certainty (e.g. we need district plans to have some certainty on what is permitted baseline for an area). Guidance should be provided.
  • New Zealand does not have the safeguard that encourages people to not just meet the bottom line.
  • There is feeling that the standards have been developed in isolation from implementation, i.e. the cost of implementation needs to be factored in (e.g. in Tokoroa it is very difficult to comply with air quality standards).
  • When looking at the development of transport noise standards the whole spectrum of health effects needs to be considered. We need to have experts that know what they are dealing with and have accurate facts.
  • The log jam is not with the legislation, it is with how it is implemented.
  • There has been criticism of the RMA process (e.g. groups have objected to the process just to hold it up).
  • There are concerns when governments have agendas that are not overt. The public need to be able to get involved in the RMA process.
  • An RMA issue for concern is consent conditions.
  • In Tokoroa it is hard to get resource consents.
  • Bad and inconsistent decisions are made by councils. Could these decisions be pinpointed and questioned by being brought to light so the whole country at large could discuss them.

Waste

Waste minimisation

  • There are concerns about disposal and diversion costs. The public needs more education but funding is an issue. MFE should not do this. We need more funds for the territorial local authorities to do it.
  • Concerns have been raised about the environmental impact of the transport of waste. We need figures to show that the effects of this do not outweigh the costs of diversion. How far should people drive to dispose of one glass bottle? The public and councils need examples like this. Communities want recycling but do not want to pay for it.

Packaging Accord

  • Packaging Accord - There is a lack of understanding regarding how the glass subsidy works. Is the subsidy going to the right place?
  • We need to put levies on packaging importers (especially plastic).

Product stewardship

  • Economic incentives are required for product stewardship.
  • Mobile phones and product stewardship - Do we know the batteries are going to the correct place? Who is going to audit these schemes?
  • Sustainable business practice is becoming a driver to improve practice.

General comments

  • The Ministry needs to communicate truth (e.g. saying that agrichemicals are destroyed when in reality they are incinerated off shore). It is important to relay accurate information.
  • There needs to be a national anti littering campaign.
  • Broken glass on roadsides is a hazard to cyclists and people walking by. There needs to be regulations put on pick up of glass regarding breakage.
  • There needs to be regulation to back up good work.
  • Where does MFE stand on the issue of tyres? What is the timeline for dealing with this issue?
  • What is happening with silage wrap? It is vital that there is legislation for this issue.
  • People are happy that we export our hazardous waste and recognise that we do not need to have the facilities in New Zealand.

Recycling reuse and community

  • What happens to the recycled material collected? How much is actually sent to the landfill?
  • It costs $10 to take recycling to the dump in Waipa even though there is a zero waste council.
  • We need to buy more recycled products to support the industry but they are hard to find and are more expensive.
  • There are still products that are not recyclable. This should not be possible and needs to be regulated.
  • A deposit should be paid on glass bottles to encourage recycling and reuse.
  • Incentives rather than regulation are the key.
  • There needs to incentives regarding packaging (i.e. for industry to put products in recyclable containers).
  • The cost of recycling (i.e. transport) is a disincentive to doing it. There needs to be legislation behind recycling.
  • Extended Producer Responsibility is needed in the waste strategy.
  • There is a variation in the prices of landfills and this has an effect on recycling benchmarks. We need base costing for waste.
  • It is economically cheaper to take materials to the landfill.
  • There are no financial incentives to recycle. It is getting more difficult to recycle because of the price for glass and plastic. We need to pay to recycle.
  • We need to reward children for recycling.
  • We need to educate councils.

General topics

Urban development, design and planning

  • How will the Urban Design Protocol be achieved? Pressure needs to be put on councils to perform.
  • Ideas of limiting urban developments were discussed.
  • How do we get sustainability information to developers?
  • The quality of houses is an issue at present. Improvements need to be made in housing design.

Energy efficiency

  • It is important to have good energy efficiency measures in buildings (e.g. schools). It should be regulated.
  • We need to provide incentives for good design including energy efficiency.
  • Energy efficiency rating could be useful for housing (i.e. ranking system).
  • Solar heating and double glazing should be mandatory. Mandatory regulations may not suit every situation however so people should be able to make their own decisions.
  • There needs to be standards and legislation to require new homes to be energy efficient.
  • There should be insulation subsidies.
  • The ‘Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority’ (EECA) is ineffective.
  • Central and local government should lead by example with energy efficiency measures.
  • There is support for the ongoing education about flueless gas. It should be banned. People were pleased to see the brochure on flueless gas heaters.
  • The government should lead by example with its buying power.
  • Incentives and disincentives are a good idea as well, but we need to have regulations as well. The last 15 years of experience have shown this.
  • New Zealand should learn from the examples of other countries rather than learning all the same lessons again.
  • Power companies charge the highest users the lowest price and the lowest users the highest price. This does not encourage energy conservation.

Environmental education and information

  • How do we increase public awareness? How does the public get involved? How does the public access information? How does the public know it is achieving positive effects? (E.g. Measure consumption).
  • TV could be used as a better educational medium to get information across about the environment and initiatives being made. Environmental education and information is an important and we need to work on how people can gain access to the right information in a timely and helpful way.

Water

  • The councils are still not providing water meters.
  • Water quality is at its worse (e.g. sludge).
  • Water quality in Taupo and Waikato is poor and is not being managed. Hamilton people then have to drink it. The river levels also affect the quality of the water. This is caused by hydro power generation.

Climate change

  • Climate change needs energy and time to make a big global impact. Some people do not accept that it is happening and are sceptical but some people are starting to see it becoming a real, serious issue.
  • Climate change is a big issue and is caught up in Kyoto. What is it going to cost?
  • Swedish biodiversity understood the issues around climate change before introducing policy solutions.
  • There is a lack of information regarding sea level rise and weather change.
  • There is a need for basic information that Europe has moved on from. In Europe every flood is now related to climate change. A New Zealand spokesperson says this is nonsense.
  • In the north every year there is a localised flood. What can be done? How far ahead? (Hurricane Katrina and Cyclone Bola).
  • The Climate Change Coalition is looking at the economic cost of reducing emissions.
  • People are looking for direction. We have to make clear what a lot of people can do through simple messages (e.g. walk).
  • What can local government do? (E.g. implement solutions).

Biodiversity

  • We need to have a better understanding of what biodiversity means. We need to raise public awareness of it (e.g. by having an environmental campaign about what it is and its contribution to the environment).
  • Biodiversity protection is pivotal to other issues (e.g. waste and water).
  • There has been some great work done around the country (e.g. Waikato).
  • The government needs to make a concerted effort to educate people and make changes.

General comments

  • There is too much pressure on council staff which means that they are not being adequately retained by councils.
  • We do not see inter-government integration at a local level. There needs to be work on significant issues (e.g. minerals, Long Term Council Community Plans (LTCCPs), water for drinking etc.)
  • There is a trade off between economic and environmental issues.
  • We need to apply sustainability (e.g. if the next generation of farmer applied it then this would change the behaviour of the next generation).
  • Forestry is disappearing.
  • We cannot accept lower standards of living.
  • There are lots of riparian success stories.
  • National assets are being sold to overseas (e.g. Contact Energy and Sealord Fishing).
  • The affordability of infrastructure renewal is a concern. We need better tools to spread the costs more fairly.
  • What is the Kyoto Protocol going to cost industry?
  • Melanoma is a real, serious issue that needs to be dealt with (particularly for children). Is health linked to Kyoto? If not, it should be.
  • The National Environmental Standards for air need to include industry in airshed.
  • Moving aggregate leads to increased costs to the community. There needs to be a regional strategy.
  • There should be equity with costs for positive environmental change. It is unfair to ask farmers to protect someone’s view, at the cost to farmers and not to the public. There are inconsistencies within the district as it is not across all land only that which is close to town.
  • Plan provisions have weight before there is any discussion. There should be discussion before regulations are passed and put in place.
  • What is the situation with forestry turning into farming near rivers which are also used for drinking water?
  • The change in land use lower down in Waikato catchment (forestry to farming) will lead to problems in the future. We need to monitor the changes on towa catchments of Waikato River and make changes to management before degradation occurs.
  • There needs to be a stronger environmental policy and statement on transport issues (especially the use of buses, bikes and pedestrians).
  • There are links between the Biosecurity Act and environmental outcomes.

Last updated: 17 September 2007