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

Wellington community meeting

20 October 2005

National Environmental Standards

Air quality

The Air Quality National Environmental Standards is a good example of how not to introduce a standard. It was a rushed process, too fast to get a quality product. The economic analysis had not been carried out beforehand and there was a lack of forethought about control (e.g. costs). Will this process be repeated for drinking water? In developing standards for drinking water, a cost benefit analysis will be useful.
Different people at MfE saying conflicting things regarding air.
Submissions on air quality are not listened to (e.g. Sinclair Knight Merz experts). We are getting into the ‘dumbing down’ of the industry (e.g. a one-page summary given to someone who has 40 years of experience). Does MfE have any expertise? Technical?
What is the time frame to implement the change of housing resourcing air quality standards (i.e. open fires)? Christchurch County Council has by-law. There needs to be a more pragmatic approach and increased resourcing.
We need legislative support to deal with the vehicle emissions issue. Is it user responsibility? We need to address our dependence on transport.

Drinking water

During the process for developing standards, the Drinking Water National Environmental Standards will cause problems at local level. The cost-benefit analysis will be needed first.
Why are the Drinking Water National Environmental Standards so narrow? – For the protection of human health.
Why is MfE producing the Drinking Water National Environmental Standards rather than the Ministry of Health? The Ministry of Health has a drinking water quality standard at the tap whereas MfE has a standard for catchment activities that influence water quality.
Septic tank management requires the separation of groundwater bores and septic tank outlets.
Water treatment plant operators need more transparency. This is something that MfE are aware of and will take it on board.
In Waikato consent of dams cannot be issued.
Different catchments have different values.
There is not enough support from councils or they have not been listened to during the development of the Standard.
The pragmatic issues and practical implications are not coming through in proposals. There has been no community input yet.
The drinking water standards need to be accompanied by guidance and assistance to help farmers etc. We need to make sure that people know what is expected of them and how to go about complying.
Do we need to treat all water to the drinking water standard?

Contaminated land

The landfill standards were fundamentally flawed and withdrawn. But now we are seeing an identical process with Contaminated Land National Environmental Standards. The National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999 (NEPM) is flawed and under challenge for indecent haste. The process should be more open, consultative and slower. This is a huge backwards detour from the current approach to contaminated land.
Where did the contaminated land pamphlet come from? It suddenly sprang up from nowhere. Where is the cost-benefit analysis in dealing with the implementation at council level? Why is NEPM replacing previous guidelines (when they were good)?
There are concerns over the use of NEPM numbers which are considered to be too high. We should not adopt Australian or other overseas numbers without considering the New Zealand concept and framework.
Current MfE guidelines are good, risked based and hierarchy. NEPM is not risk based and is missing some numbers.
The numbers are far too high for the Contaminated Land National Environment Standards (e.g. zinc). There are concerns that vegetation does not grow.
The contaminated land register needs to hold information on contaminated sites even if the land is remediated to a clean standard. There should be case studies of best practice to accompany the Standard document.
Is Mapua really New Zealand’s most contaminated site? People live on old gasworks. They might be worse.
Bitumen in roads would not be considered contaminated (i.e. hydrocarbon numbers).
Some costs spent on contaminated land sites could have been avoided (i.e. stream contamination). What are the effects of contamination? How unsafe are they? (E.g. Waiwhetu Stream). Is this a local funding issue? Lower Hutt has a flooding issue as well.
There needs to be an assessment of the effects as sometimes it is worse to disturb these sites.
There is a problem with people who are selling land who find out that it is contaminated. There needs to be a ‘map’ in development. What is contaminated? Market gardens in Auckland (where there had been prior use of fertiliser) are now residential land. Is it contaminated still? More information needs to be given out with a map. There needs to be a breakdown of measurement of contamination and solutions on how to clean sites up. The implications of contamination can hurt land owners especially if the risk is low.

General comments

What is the priority in setting standards? MfE priority is to get the Air Quality National Environmental Standards working, the Drinking Water National Environmental Standards running within the Health Act and the Contaminated Land National Environmental Standards in place.
The National Environmental Standards focus on human health but what about the natural environment. What about ecological protection? We need to address the environment and health at the same time.
How many standards will be introduced? Will they continue on? For example, raw sewerage into coastal marine area. How are the standards enforced? For example, air standards targeted industry in Christchurch, not home heating. There is not enough data yet for air quality monitoring. There is no emissions’ testing. There used to be but it will be a huge cost and put old cars off the roads.
Odours are not regulated under the National Environmental Standards.
Electricity generation and transmission should be considered together because they are closely related issues.
There should be National Environmental Standards on noise issues (wind farms, internal noise from cars and airport noise etc.).
When is the coastal standard happening (particularly with regard to sewage discharge)? There is too much inconsistency in these conditions and standards. There needs to be an agreement on what is acceptable (e.g. composting toilets – council barriers to alternative schemes).
There is a lack of capacity at local level to implement standards. How will this be addressed? The standards are not appropriate because they are too simple. They should be risk based (like Australia and New Zealand Environment Conservation Council water quality guidance).
We have a growing number of street lights spraying light into the atmosphere (also costly). We need to maintain the quality of our night sky. The Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (EECA) have been consulted but the problem is that there are no standards or monitoring (here or internationally).
There is light pollution in urban areas, such as waste of energy. Who has a role in this?
The Motor Trade Association (MTA) has regulations in place regarding vehicle emissions. However there are cost considerations in buying new equipment and up-skilling technicians and if people are not servicing vehicles how well regulated is it? Why can we not have National Environmental Standards for emissions? Is it illegal to remove catalytic converters?
Black and white standards do not take into consideration the whole picture (e.g. ozone is a primary contaminant from some industries).
We need to get better information to councils on standards to assist decision making and consents.
Is the commitment from government a capacity issue? Is it people or skills required? We have restricted access to expertise and are facing a skills shortage.
There has been criticism that some standards are led in their development by Industry and that RMA expertise and community expectation has not been considered in the implementation. The effects of the National Environmental Standards on communities need to be taken into account.
The National Environmental Standards sets things in stone so that they are not likely to change in the future. Standards need to have a process in place for review in the future. For example, high temperature incinerators. What is the process to change them? How flexible is it?
Cost benefit analysis is more comprehensible after public consultations. We need to review submissions as they give opportunity for discussion, particularly after they have been translated into legislation and before they become law.
With drinking water standards there has to be an economic benefit of the costs of implementation. This cost-benefit analysis is relevant to any National Policy Statement.
Many councils do not agree with the numbers used in biosolids guidelines.
There are concerns about the ‘one size fits all’ systems (i.e. air standards model and water quality/ drinking water standards).
Does the Ministry intend to assist people monetarily in reaching these standards?
Local government needs to assess what standards are priorities in which region and how they can be implemented.
Some standards are coming in at a higher level than previously and require a total new infrastructure (i.e. drinking water).
We need to talk to regions about what is really happening in their areas in terms of standards (e.g. Hutt Valley does not want chlorine added to water and it is an additional cost).
Housing agencies have worries of how practical standards can be. There is tension between national standards and local authorities and they need to work together or MfE set standards and regions have to pay. We need to build a transparent process (i.e. roading standards).
Councils need to have a resolution as to why they parted from the standards which would then generate a process.
We need a national measure for policy. We have no national measurements or mechanisms and they are needed for roading, railways and power etc.
We would like to see national standards for storm water. How can you expect people to invest in the infrastructure if there are no guidelines in place?
We have no access to standards. It is recognised but left up to power companies. Infrastructure needs to be updated.

Resource Management Act

Resource consents

Limited notification is a useful tool.
Is signage for notification still required?
The council will not accept applications on a non-notified basis as written approval has not been given by the residential association (and the application will not be processed non-notified by the city council).
There needs to be clarification of approval by affected persons and council.
Fees for non-notified and notified applications need to be looked at.
There are issues with notification requirements on applicants where modifications to buildings must be done to comply with plan provisions. This comes down to interpretation and change in practice over time. Due to recent litigation it is now more risk aware.
How does an applicant get through the rule ‘neighbour holding unreasonable consent’ provided in the Act?
Councils are imposing other provisions that are not in the District Plan.
Local government does not always follow up on resource consents or monitor.

Capacity building

MFE should work more actively with local authorities to protect and manage heritage (i.e. to obtain more consistency in consents around the country on heritage matters and to establish national guidance on the management of heritage). Perhaps the Historic Places Trust could write a National Environmental Standard or policy on heritage. Would this work?
We need professional help to reduce the ‘baggage’ that people bring to council level processes.
The Ministry should monitor major projects and see if they are successful.
Local government has capacity issues. How do we help this? For example, Wellington has one group of building inspectors for the region.
Central government comes up with ideas and gives them to councils with no support (e.g. new HSNO roles for regional councils).
With regards to training, the ‘Making Good Decisions’ programme is excellent. Can MfE do this for more areas? For example, HSNO? MfE should have done this much earlier and not said, ‘We’re just a policy agency.’
The resourcing of call-in and processes is essential.
A major new policy initiative should have back-up support especially for small district councils (e.g. wastewater work - subsidies are useful for small councils).

Policies and plans

There is a lack of integration of various planning policies (air, water, transport etc.) and how these policies are reflected in the Regional Policy Statements. For example, a regional recycling strategy for Wellington does not have any legal standing as it is created in a separate document to the Regional Policy Statement.
Concerns have been expressed about the usefulness of the Regional Policy Statement in its current form. MfE should be reinforcing the role of the Regional Policy Statement and have a role in explaining why there should be more integration of Acts (e.g. Local Government Act and Transport Act) and plans.
We need a National Policy Statement on electricity transmission.
Precedent mechanisms will be good in plan provisions.

General comments

The RMA needs flexibility without being totally prescriptive to the detriment of the outcomes (i.e. standards feel so high that it is ineffective for the regions to work).
The RMA in its current form is a vehicle for negativity and it should be positive.
It is a shame that the RMA did not have more funding 5 years ago. It could generate bad press in the present. There is a need to re educate the public about it as we need to change perceptions of it (e.g. trade magazines and general media).
We need to promote success stories about major infrastructure projects.
There is concern that there is a lack of consultation. Maybe the Ministry should outline what is provided for by consultation. Perhaps there should be more active work with local authorities in terms of guidance on good practice consultation.
There needs to be consultation with communities and opportunities for input at an early stage.
There is interest in whether MFE has done or is doing much on legislation for transport management and planning. What work has been done on leadership of sustainable transport solutions? Transport is a key land use activity. However, it is not clear what the RMA provides in terms of regulation or guidelines on how this activity should be managed.
The allocation of resources and environmental effects are not the same thing.
We need a good test case and a successful one for call-in. The emphasis on effects and outcomes has shifted to become an emphasis on process.
There are no links between the requirements in the RMA and Building Acts. There is difficulty in working with the two Acts.
The Fisheries Act gives insight into the strengths of the RMA.
Regarding NIMBY projects, often distinct sites for single land use affect local communities for national benefit.
Compensation should be paid by beneficiaries to landowners.
There are cost concerns on the community opposing large projects.
The Environmental Legal Aid (ELA) fund does help but studies show that the number of experts is crucial.
Environmental Legal Aid Fund money is not available at council and does not partner with the process. The Environmental Legal Aid Fund needs to be broadened to the Fisheries Act and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act.

Waste

Waste minimisation

The discussion started by talking about voluntary versus legislative approaches to waste minimisation. Two sides emerged with the Non Government Organisations (NGO’s) pushing for compulsory and industry pushing for voluntary. There is a lack of information about how effective voluntary approaches are.

Recycling, reuse and community

There are at present few incentives that would see new opportunities for recycling encouraged (i.e. businesses recycling new materials that are not recycled at present). Incentives (i.e. tax breaks and financial help) are needed to encourage more recycling initiatives.
Cardboard is the predominant material being recycled because there is money in it (unlike plastics).
MfE should introduce a recycling system into housing and building not just government agencies.
There are no incentives for the public to recycle. Instead people get charged when they separate their waste and take it to the dump.
There needs to be incentives to recycle (e.g. does the farmer tip it down the drain or recycle).
Landfills would be half the size if all recyclable material was actually recycled. How do you stop recyclables ending up in landfills? There may be a need for financial incentives.
Local government does not offer a composting system (part of the kerbside recycling) or organic waste collection point.
There are issues concerning the disposal of compost in high density urban areas. Council members need to provide a variety of bins. There is a need for leadership to ensure that policies are in place regarding green waste disposal in different councils
Home wastewater needs to be trapped at the source and not pass through an expensive system of water treatment.
We live a more regulated life. If people want to take the initiative of fixing something (e.g. stormwater into garden use) the system they have to go through is lengthy and expensive. The building code should require stormwater collection into every new home to gardens.
A facilitation process is needed between councils and waste management companies regarding recycling improvements and incentives.

Education and information

There was agreement that there is a lack of consumer awareness about what is and what is not recyclable (i.e. plastics 1, 2 and 3 etc.) MfE should show leadership to increase consumer awareness of what is recyclable.
There was agreement and praise that MfE is doing a good thing by going out into the community and consulting with lots of groups (e.g. roadshow).
Education about waste needs to start at school, churches and home based projects so that the message gets across to the wider and diverse community.
Value deposits encourage children to collect waste and results in low cost processing.
There are concerns about entrenched attitudes in society, for example in workplaces (e.g. in Parliament it is hard to change from non recycled to recycled paper and they are not allowed worm bins to deal with lunch scraps).
Attitudes need to be changed at ‘grass roots’ level in order to make waste an important issue to average people. For example, educating and enthusing school children about environmentally friendly activities to promote domestic behaviour changes so that the attitudes of the next generation are changed.

Product stewardship

The Packaging Accord needs to reintroduce compulsory deposits and levies on packaging.
It is a good idea to require levies etc. but it needs to be applied at retail end (like Goods and Service Tax - GST) so that it has an effect across the board with impact on imported producers as well as New Zealand producers.
In order to raise awareness of packaging there should be labelling schemes to enable decision making at the time of purchase.
Does waste responsibility lie with the product producer or consumer? Who pays for disposal?
Companies producing products are not responsible for waste (although certain companies also try to collect waste themselves) therefore waste ends up in landfills.
In Melbourne there is an Alternative Technology Association that publicises a quarterly magazine that evaluates different products.
There needs to be greater producer responsibility for the recycling of appliances and waste.
35% of waste comes from construction. Can we do something as architects to change society for the better? It is viable for builders to. There are only guidelines in place and no real systems. Some contractors have their own waste management controls. Architects could get all their contractors to manage waste better. There needs to be information in the form of plans or handouts that we can give out to contractors to advise them of waste disposal. There needs to be ‘follow through’ as there are so many players between us and the rubbish dump. There needs to be links between all knowledge groups but MfE needs to take leadership in this area. Can MfE take this initiative?

Hazardous waste management

Can MfE apply pressure on the enforcement of hazardous waste at a local level? The environment can suffer as a result of local government and councils wanting to keep jobs in the local area rather than looking in the wider region to contract out to other companies (open tender) who can provide hazardous waste management (e.g. for the management of agricultural chemicals more than one company has been looked at).
There are concerns over hazardous waste going ‘legally’ into ‘clean green landfills’ (despite RMA rules etc.) due to lax enforcement.

General comments

Stormwater joins up with the sewage system. No one is taking advantage of rain water therefore water treatment is getting 5 times larger. A number of these systems work and are in place overseas. Why not in New Zealand?
Is there a sharing information point for stormwater discharges? It was noted that there is a lot of information and best practice (e.g. Waitakere has issues with intensification).
Waste should be contracted out and not just handled by one company.
Landfills are stacking up (e.g. mountains of glass). Why is nothing being done about it?
Discussion turned to a lack of rules and standards for landfills and little or no monitoring of what is going where. There was a general consensus for more up to date trend information. MfE needs to make up to date information on waste trends for landfills available.
The strengthening of waste legislation has not seen much progress. Licensing and by-laws are needed for enforcement.
There needs to be more grass roots level interactions with restaurants regarding the management of grease waste.
It is very important to develop good relationships between waste and AgChem companies, local government, MfE and industries.
There is a very fine line between council rules and the commercial sector.

General topics

Environmental education and information

We need education for everyone, especially children who will in turn educate their parents. However, we need a broader education as well (e.g. high schools etc.).
There needs to be more educational awareness as policy does not seem to affect or impress change in the the general public.
People need to be made aware of the real impacts and costs. We need to lead by example and spread the governments initiative wider (e.g. into councils). Education needs to focus on the benefits (e.g. home with even temperature to live in).
We need more incentives (e.g. funding assistance).
We need to make information about options for sustainable technologies more easily available to get beyond producers just promoting their products (e.g. central information sources to let people consult to weigh up their options).
The ‘green star’ grading system provides checklists of how to achieve particular standards.

Council processes

There are few requirements for councils to take responsibility for the impacts of their planning outcomes on other regions (e.g. Kapiti District growth strategy on the transport links to Wellington City caused extra traffic load and posed an increased hazard for cyclists.) How do you make councils consider the impacts outside of their region?

Water

We need to make more information available about water conservation options. There should be a more consistent approach across councils to allow water conservation options (e.g. for greywater and rainwater collection and use).
There are water quality issues. With Fish and Game as advocate it could be a costly process. A statutory advocacy role is needed. ‘Clean streams’ is good but needs more weight behind it.
What environmental policy is there to contain the pest Didymo algae? Who is responsible for this? A pest management strategy should operate at regional level.
There needs to be a holistic view of water to take into consideration all its impacts (e.g. the quality of input water, how garages can be pollutant sources with used oil and the demand side not just supply).
We should have dual water systems for water reuse.

Energy efficiency

There needs to be greater publicity about energy incentive schemes and better guidance on small schemes. There needs to be more alignment between District Council and national strategies. Companies are threatening to not maintain national lines. Reverse metering should be a system to consider. Is the cost neutral or beneficial? There should be alternative systems for small communities.
Leadership needs to be provided in the areas of energy efficiency, greywater implementation and heating. We need reversible solar power generators so the excess powers back to the grid. Promoting solar power could help cut costs and there will be a huge drop in bills. There needs to be an increase in microtechnology and encouragement for the general public to use alternative sources of power generation.
What incentives are available for developers to provide good solutions in regard to power and waste? The ‘ideal world scenario’ is a developer who has ‘buy-in’ from all to have solar power. Developers could be more responsible for energy solutions. It can cost as little as $3,000 for solar panels when building a $300k house. It is very worthwhile. Awareness of these solutions and distribution of knowledge and information needs to be taken on by MfE.
New Zealand has energy issues that need to be addressed. We are approaching a precarious situation when we no longer have enough energy in New Zealand. What are we going to do?
There should be more research on energy obtained from flax (harakeke). If it is viable more information needs to be provided and it should be marketed.

Coastal issues

The oceans policy needs to be processed beyond 12 nautical miles. There needs to be an environmental regime in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).

Council processes

Often the person at the council who makes the decisions does not have the expertise to make the right decision.
There is a lack of experts at ground level. People are not always there when needed and do not have the information. There are too many different people at the council for developers to deal with, each with different processes. Councils need to be better resourced.
People need to understand different schools of thinking and councils need fresh people with new ideas who are not afraid of change. We need to rotate people around the ministries as councils still have entrenched views.
There are too many councils for the population.
There is a lack of co-operation between councils(due to resource shortages and fragmented systems).
There are issues around the use of farmers land and councils having different rules.

Urban development, design and planning

A serious issue for New Zealand is the huge growth in some areas yet stagnation in others. The approach has been ‘hands off’. How much alternative intervention should there be? Most states have organisations to handle the urban issues (e.g. Australia).
There is a link between land use and infrastructure in a position where we can develop frameworks with urban issues in mind. In the UK, development organisations get involved in more ‘high risk’ developments for the greater good of the community. The benefit of a quazi government development organisation is that it can be profit driven yet wider reaching (e.g. in Auckland housing pressure is a leading edge in terms of sustainability).
There needs to be tighter controls. Local government and development companies need to be on board to assist with guidance and in keeping things ‘green’. We need assurance that plans are on the right track and are cost effective. The local council gave permission for hillside sections in Eastbourne and the result is a scarred landscape. MfE should play a stronger role and there should be more leadership from central government.
In Auckland, the Urban Design Panel is peer reviewed. When a proposal for development is put forward it is reviewed by others (3rd party) so that developers cannot just go ahead without outside input and approval. This approach considers the big picture as the third party can make comments that perhaps local governments cannot.
There are concerns about the viability and sustainability of smaller rural towns because local authorities do no have the capacity to undertake effective sustainability planning. Central government should contribute money and help with the plan integration to support smaller communities to achieve their goals.
The government should provide some guidance on how to go about defining landscape values to assist in regional planning.
There has been a lot of emphasis on urban design. What about rural? Sustainable building examples are needed.

General comments

Questions have been asked about what has happened to MfE Environmental Performance Indicators Programme. There is a risk of losing a lot of the good work and thinking that went in to the EPI Programme if MfE do not actively flag and promote the ideas. This discussion led to comment that MfE are not good at communicating what is happening with work programmes (e.g. Biodiversity Strategy).
How is the implementation of the Aquaculture Reform Act going in relation to aquaculture? In reality, implementation of zoning may be driven by industry or lobby groups.
The Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) appears to be disorganised. There are problems with staff capability and too higher cost recovery. It needs serious review.
What happened to the oceans policy? There needs to be a higher profile on this. The Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC) should be involved as we are not getting commitment at a local level or a higher national level. Turf wars are evident.
What has happened to the standards or guidance on Significant Natural Areas (SNAs)? More feedback is needed. Financial assistance and rates relief should be incorporated into Significant Natural Areas policy. MfE should lead on this issue.
MfE is moving in the right direction. However, there is more need for local solutions for local problems. We need to build good structure and support to deal with them.
The ‘Working with Local Government Group’ runs consultation and consenting workshops. The last 5 years have seen a huge improvement.
Are there plans to expand the Government 3 programme? Yes, it is extending to councils and industry.
What is the relationship between local authorities and MfE? How do we identify issues before they become issues? We need to use a best practice document to get the process right and focus on partnership and relationship building. Resource management staffing is hard to attract. Coaching needs to be installed to come to come up with solutions together.
MfE needs to work on making resource management an attractive career.
We need to speak to local government in New Zealand to find out about success stories and form a discussion paper.
We need someone to act as a facilitator who knows the environment and policy infrastructure and can network with the relevant stakeholders. We need to establish a national infrastructure body.
There is fragmentation between policy developed and the people who are using it which means that messages get misconstrued. We need to connect policy with implementation.
MFE needs to work closer with transit and the National Land Transport Strategy.
The National Land Transport Strategy seems to have national drivers and does not pay enough attention to community issues and values.
What work is being done to ensure that plans and projects are sustainable? Housing sustainability looks particularly at energy and water. We need to work towards an acceptable model. We need a partnership approach with the Department of Building and Housing.
There is concern that the Kyoto protocol presents an unquantifiable risk to forest farmers that is a big threat to investments (i.e. Kyoto credits a perverse incentive to investment). Relationships need to be built between the forest growers industry and the Ministry.

Last updated: 17 September 2007