You are here: Working with you > Consultation > Talk Environment Roadshow > What you told us in 2006 >

Wellington public meeting

Monday 30 October

Waste policy

Waste levy

The cynical view is that waste levies will not be used for waste minimisation or diversion. Money needs to be managed and used.

Recycling, reuse and community

New Zealand waste management is not helping the clean green image e.g. green glass recycling.
Polystyrene is easy to recycle in large urban areas. There is a need to regulate packaging.
The cheapest option is to dump. There is no incentive to do otherwise.
Shouldn’t the Ministry concentrate more on finding markets and end uses?
The Ministry should work more closely with NZTE to find overseas markets for recycled products.
MfE needs to co-ordinate links between industry and local government.
MfE should discuss packaging design with the industry.
Hit people in the pocket to drive consumer behavioural change.
Expertise is wanted to assist businesses with waste minimisation.
It is up to consumers to drive change by selecting where they shop.

Education and information

There should be education about collection facilities for battery disposal.
There should be education around the life cycle of products.
Education needs to be a part of the Ministry’s programmes.
Markets drive more learning from overseas and NZ case studies, e.g. NZ Business Council for sustainable development case studies.
MfE needs to work with businesses to share learning from case studies.

Institutions and legislation

There are issues with both regulation and voluntary approaches.
Policy is only as strong as the weakest link. Policy must be supported throughout the life cycle.
There is concern that the Waste Minimisation Bill is leading to government policy and will impose extra costs and regulation.
The concept of the Waste Minimisation Bill is ok, however, there are concerns that there is no cost analysis included.
There needs to be ‘backstop’ legislation to deal with free-riders.
People who take part in voluntary initiatives would like to see free-riders regulated.
A standard response is needed across local government (e.g. recycle same products, same rules and regulations, etc.).

General comments

There is a need for accurate and meaningful reporting.
Should we be requiring buildings to have lives longer than 50 years?
Govt³ is a good example of providing incentives to industry.
Often there is a larger cost associated with sustainability.
We need to get away from the perception that sustainability comes at a cost.

National environmental standards

Air quality

There is concern about the implementation of the air quality standard, especially in Christchurch.
The original cost benefit analysis on air quality assumed log burners would be replaced by electricity from renewable sources – but is this actually the case? Is MfE going to review the cost benefit analysis and this assumption?
In Christchurch the air quality National Environmental Standard is being implemented by removing woodburners rather than looking at renewables. This means the air quality and the CO2 assumptions are contradictory. No one is looking at locally grown firewood sources for example because of this assumption it would be against the NES.
People also use heat pumps to cool their homes. This puts more pressure on electricity supply.
HAPINZ notes that the removal of wood burners leads colder houses but does not suggest how to deal with this.
New Zealand does not have legislation for health of inside of homes.
Christchurch is promoting and paying for wood burner replacement. This is good, but NES did not assume this high level of subsidy.
There are tensions between PM10 and climate change. Climate change was “dismissed” in NES cost-benefit analysis (CBA). Now Christchurch is facing increased demand for electricity. MfE is urged to revisit and review this assumption.
National Environmental Standards that apply universally have an impact on small Maori communities and place disproportionate costs. MfE could look at how exceptions can be made to help these communities.
These communities often not able to influence plan processes and their voice is rarely heard. It is important for Government to take them into account
NES are for public good. Compensation could be a better method of considering small communities rather than making concessions.
There are sometimes problems with the way New Zealand delivers services to small communities. National Environmental Standards can be a bit blunt. Small Maori communities have poor health outcomes and the costs high to improve this, even with subsidies. This problem is outside MfE’s control and is an unintended outcome of national and local policies and plans. Is there a way government can better support these communities in a more integrated, cross-government way? NES’s are very silo based. Can MfE take a lead on this?
When making NES or thinking about them, the impacts on small/poor/Maori communities must be considered, as well as unintended impacts or perverse outcomes such as the impacts on electricity demand of the air quality National Environmental Standards.
Evaluate the potential impacts or outcomes of National Environmental Standards before implementation and consider how they can be avoided or managed during implementation.
NES should be reviewed after implementation.
What is good for air quality is not necessarily good for climate change.
How clean are old sites, like old horticultural sites, sheep dip sites and old gas works?
Money can be spent remediating or removing the soil elsewhere.

Electricity transmission

Changing the conductors may seem to be a minor thing – might change from thin to a thick wire.
A National Environmental Standard is not very good because it does not always protect the people it is supposed to. Some people have to look at transmission lines everyday.
The contaminated sites standard should be pushed ahead. Regional councils need to get them in to their plans. Contaminated sites are dealt with inconsistently and councils conduct different levels of investigation.
A consistent contaminated land standard is needed. This should be backed up by regulation. A standard should clarify roles and responsibilities for managing contaminated sites.
How do people claim compensation and redress? A standard will not address liability, for example if someone buys a house and finds it is on an old gas works, there is no liability framework. The liability question is an important one.
If standards become too punitive it encourages people to cover up exceedances. When landfill charges increased and rural people began burying waste on their land instead of using a landfill.

Septic tanks

The use of septic tanks has increased.
A land treatment collective is looking at the soil science of septic tanks and small water systems.
Low tech and inexpensive systems are needed
Do we need a national standard for septic tanks? Why don’t we leave it to local people to sort it out? A standard should be responsible for the methodology/or risk assessment only – and leave the actual roll out to the local council or community.

General comments

There is disquiet that standards are national when the risk may be minor or non-existent. Standards should set a process for consistency and let councils decide what to do locally.
MfE seems to engage well in business community, but not so well with NGOs. Is MfE working on a better method to talk to NGOs?

Water

Water quality

There is a lot more we can do about water quality. The availability of resources is an issue.
The “waterwatch” programme in Aussie is a good example. [Waterwatch is a national community water quality monitoring network that encourages all Australians to become active in the protection of their waterways].
How do we put a value on ecosystem services?
We cannot draw the line at the sea. This is where the water drains to.
Pollution of freshwater/water quality is an issue.
Taupo is a good example of regional council leadership – saying enough is enough.
Intensification of use leads to problems in both rural and urban areas. It is not just a rural issue.
We do not have resources for improving water quality. Extending Auckland’s Water Care Programme to the rest of the country would be good.
The erosion of rivers is contributing to poor water quality.

Water allocation and usage

Freshwater biosecurity has not received a great enough focus until recently.
It is hard to bring home issues when fresh water is always available.
There should be something similar to the energy efficiency campaign on water efficiency. Water metering would help draw attention to the issue of household use.
Australia provides an opportunity for the development of innovative products for water efficiency/storage.
The regulatory environment needs to be supportive of alternatives.
Investment in technology and research is needed to support innovation.
Water rates are a tool to influence usage. People with their own water storage facilities could receive a reduction in rates.
Community water usage levels should be published to inspire people.
Greater knowledge and management of groundwater is required.
Councils want more guidance to back up their decisions.
Plans need to be more flexible to keep up with change.
We need to be able to put a stake in the ground and draw the line at what is acceptable in relation to water quality, hazard rules, and metering.

Flood risk management and catchment management

There is a lack of poplar and willow poles to meet erosion control demands.
More government leadership on the development of flood plains is needed.
There is a lack of integration between town planning and catchment management.
Queenstown is a good example of how to deal with flood risk.
Competition for resources means that flood risk management has to compete with other infrastructure demands.
There could be better information and mapping of flooding areas but this is expensive for councils, and is not always considered a priority by communities and councillors.
How well are we managing catchments? Management in urban areas is not as good as best practice, but as good as other countries. Farm plans are working well in some areas, e.g. planting trees in sensitive areas. Some farmers want more plans and planting of trees. More government support is needed for on-the-ground action e.g. flood plain management.
We might not be implementing the RMA consistently in terms of land-use and water, e.g. prohibition of activities (Environment Canterbury’s Natural Resources Regional Plan) is not always appropriate. A “horses for courses” approach is needed. Better information is needed on water resources, where the issues are and the appropriate management approach.
How can we manage growth and flooding issues? It is difficult to work in retrospect. People have to educated about the risk of living in particular areas. Local plans need to take in to account practical issues like raised floors in buildings.
Rodney District Council has done a large amount of work in relation to coastal areas and related hazard. Raising awareness of hazards is important.
There is a general lack of understanding about risk and probability. Hazards could happen frequently or infrequently across the next hundred years. Education can be started in the classroom e.g. collection of rain data and understanding what the results are showing. Government support for national waterways has been good and needs to continue.
The lack of management of water quality in the DOC estate needs to be taken into account e.g. there is no monitoring of possum damage. There needs to be a link with pest management strategies and the work land owners are doing regarding re-infestation of pests.
It is difficult to put an economic value on pest management, erosion and water quality. Whole of catchment management should include the DOC estate, e.g. the DOC estate should be subject to the RMA.

Education and information

There is a need for community education about living with flood risk and the risks of where you live. We all face risks depending on where we live and cannot always expect local and central government to help out. Public expectations need to be managed.
The base information about resources needs to be better.
Education should promote better understanding of our resources and the impacts of our activities on those resources.

General comments

A third of the country is managed under the Conservation Act.
There is a lack of pest control on conservation land. This is not being monitored on conservation land/indigenous forest areas and leads to re-infestation of land adjacent to DOC land.
The Conservation Act has implications for regional pest management strategies and adjacent land owners.
Parts of DOC estate could be sustainably logged. Help with resourcing pest control and ecosystem maintenance.
The DOC estate should be subject to the RMA.
Planning has not been adequate over the years. It has been piecemeal over the last 20 to 30 years. Structure planning is improving.
Little thought was given to urban issues and planning in early RMA years.

Climate change

Adaptation and mitigation

Mitigation and adaptation are personal responsibilities. Behaviours need to change. It is better to use encouragement rather than fear.
Discussion is needed about the appropriate discount rate for new large infrastructure investments. Different rates could be used for different periods as is done in the UK.
We cannot adapt without also mitigating emissions.
The emphasis until now has been on mitigation. A new emphasis on adaptation is very welcome.
Coal should not be an option. Marsden B should not happen. Happy Valley should not be mined.
Strong signals need to be created by pricing carbon to have “bite”.
Cap and trade should have “no grandparenting”
There is some doubt as to the quality of the 2005 work on carbon pricing.
Hard emission targets should be set e.g. ECC levels.
Carbon pricing should occur before 2012.
The electricity reforms should be repealed as they inhibit community based generation as well as blocking old initiatives.
Ice in the Antarctic is melting faster than expected.
Public transport needs to be cheaper than car travel. Investment is needed in the public transport system.
What policy has been implemented since we signed Kyoto that shows something is actually being done to help us meet our commitments?
New Zealand is not showing leadership in this area, in comparison to Australia. New Zealand is not gutsy enough in making industry take action. We are not moving fast enough in bringing in policies. Where is the action beforehand to inform those policies? Regulation is wanted.
It is difficult to adapt when there are so many uncertainties.
What are the highest priorities for New Zealand to focus on?
Adaptation is the easy option. Mitigation is much harder.
We need to adapt now and avoid the “2050 rush”.
Better price signals and incentives are needed around forest planting.
Sell adaptation because of the economic benefits
Short term versus long term thinking – 50 years planning horizon instead of this year’s balance sheet.
New Zealand’s “clean green image” needs to be backed up with real mitigation activities.
Cross party consensus is needed.
It is not the average that matters but the extremes.
We need to get past “hold the line” thinking (e.g. build sea walls).
New Zealand appears not to learn from past experience in relation to catchments and floods.
There is concern that adaptation is preceding a policy framework around mitigation
We need to take action internationally to assist developing countries to manage their emissions.
Policy is needed to prevent high risk development in coastal areas and on flood plains.
A price on carbon is needed sooner rather than later. People are expecting a price on carbon.
The USA is doing more in terms of mitigation and adaptation than New Zealand. New Zealand should lead the way but there is no action. Clear targets are needed. We need to change how we live. Urgent, more compelling and committed action is needed by all including government, in view of science.
Limits for emissions of greenhouse gases should be reduced internationally and domestically. There should be a price on greenhouse gases and land use controls to encourage sinks.
It is sad that New Zealand has coal power stations. Carbon is a big issue. New Zealand should be self-sufficient as trading partners are uncertain.
The RMA should consider greenhouse gases. Marsden B should not continue.
The IPCC expected Antarctic to be neutral for decades. But the ice has melted quite fast already. Lots of people doing small things is just as important as big business doing big things.

Transport

Individuals will do what is easiest and cheapest. Petrol taxes should be directed into public transport to make public transport cheaper than cars. Make it easier for people to ride bikes off roads.
Government should set a minimum price for petrol.

Education and information

MfE’s messages are not heard in small New Zealand towns. MfE needs to ensure all New Zealanders are aware of MfE policies, including Maori. All MfE staff should watch the Al Gore movie.
Messages, discussions and communication need to be continuous and ongoing.
Issues need to be ‘mainstreamed’ to engage people, rather than addressed in a piecemeal and sporadic way.
Incentives should focus on transport choices and perhaps solar water heating and energy efficiency. Information needs to be provided, for example on the fuel efficiency of vehicles.
MfE should make a submission on the draft national curriculum to increase the emphasis on climate change matters.
There is a gap between behaviours, actions and thinking. Clear and bold messages and supporting information is needed to overcome the gap. All signposts need to be pointing in the right direction. There needs to be a commonly held, understood and supported vision for New Zealand.
Buy in can be achieved by publicising success stories.
Is climate change happening? Where is the evidence?
MfE’s role is to show leadership and provide information.
An opportunity is being missed. We must educate the young, they can influence their parents.
What we need is good, up-to-date information.
More resources should be put into ruminant research.

General comments

The New Zealand government does not tend to legislate like in the EU, so they cannot come here and say that is what should be done here too.
There is only time to act, we cannot waste time just talking about it.
Energy efficiency in houses is a low hanging fruit for New Zealand.
Recognise New Zealand is in a place to come up with innovative solutions
There is concern that electricity use will go up because of policy that has been introduced for heating.
More incentives are needed to help people take action in their homes.
There is frustration that MfE is just talking to people yet again.
Lots of work has been done in Australia, but clear policy is needed so everyone knows what the message is.
There is concern about water usage in New Zealand (Wellington up 1% over last year). Water is a precious resource.

Environmental reporting

General comments

A strategic approach and collaboration is needed.
There are gaps in environmental baseline data.
It is difficult to access information and know where to find it. Some of the data is outdated.
There is interest in collaboration/making linkages between programmes.

ENZ07

The purpose of the document needs to be clear.
There need to be clear linkages between chapters.
The report needs to have a reasonable amount of actual environmental data.
The report should include lots of tables, information and data.
Where are data sets coming from? Data must be robust.
What is the role/accountability of information?
People do not always know where to find information.
The roles and responsibilities of who collects data need to be clear. Clarify where to go to get more information.
Data should be accessible and able to be used in different ways.
National datasets are difficult to access. There are issues about where the source is and where the most effective place to access it is (i.e. where should the public access information given to MfE by councils?).
The report should be data rich.
The report should be clearly referenced so people can go to the source of information.
It is positive to see that the EPI indicators have been used.
MfEs role is to provide links to information or provide information at various levels of detail/resolution.
Ongoing access to good information enables effective consultation.
The ENZ07 report could inform better consultation.
It is important to have a clear purpose to the report and be targeted at the intended audience.
Good information is key to effective consultation opportunities.
A balance is needed between providing plenty of data and a good synthesis of data in executive summaries.
Access in or through one site would be very useful.
Hierarchical information would be useful i.e. being able to drill down from the executive summary, through a report, and have links to the underlying technical reports and the data and to other websites.
MfE needs to consider how to disseminate the report to get the maximum value from it - perhaps by advertising.
Keeping the report up-to-date would be good e.g. by providing linkages to updated information and data.
A monitoring methods section would be useful covering where the data came from and the methods of collection and analysing.
Summary tables are valuable in providing a high level national summary.
The report should include meaningful information on progress and the way forward i.e. what needs to be done.
Details can be included in appendices.
A state of environment report is a good idea. However effort should not be diverted from helping people use the information.
MfE should put 80% of its effort in the relationships around the report and 20% into the report.
We will need more reports before we can assess the effectiveness of policies.
Gentle footprints boots 'n' all was a good format for farmers and others, although you could debate the content.
It would be useful to get feedback on the state of the environment report within one year of release.
It is important to share information on state of the environment reporting between local government and central government.
The ENZ07 data should be compared to measurements from the 90s.
There is a resource sacrifice when producing ENZ207 – lots of effort, little use of resource/product.
We are good at monitoring but not at identifying and fixing the root cause.
Monitoring must lead to action on the ground.
Environment reports are great and are needed to look at policy effectiveness.
Links to other data sources are vital.
Boots ‘n’ all is a great format for its target audience and was well received.
The report must be targeted to a very specific audience at the right intellectual level.
There is always a tendency to report at a technical level that NGOs often struggle to understand. The stand alone Boots ‘n’ All summary was good and could be read quickly by Ministers and Councillors.
All information needs to be very easy to find.
Information about data sources is vital, including possible errors, limitations, when it was produced etc.
Summary tables and graphics are very valuable and should be incorporated into publications and on websites.
How can landowners, farmers and those at the grass roots feed in to MfE’s national reporting?
How can industry get involved in the reporting?

General interest

Oceans Policy

There is a move to treat the whole of the marine environment as pristine under the RMA. Unless a plan provides for a particular activity, you cannot do it. This is in contrast to how it works on land. Areas of high modification should be clearly differentiated from pristine environments. There should be a balance between what is pristine and modified. This could start at the national policy level – modified environments should not be treated with the same level of control as pristine environments, though there should be base standards, e.g. regarding water quality. However, water quality cannot be expected to be very high near populated areas.
We cannot control all aspects of shipping. Ports need to meet client needs and want to maintain flexibility so they can react to customer requirements.
Ports would not want to see too many controls on activities in modified marine environments.
The move to sell land where the wharves are in Wellington may result in a need more container space. This may revive plans to reclaim land around the harbour. This is a trend that is happening throughout New Zealand.
Modern technology is likely to reduce the need for reclamation.
There is a need for oceans policy and better guidelines for the ocean out to the 200 nautical mile limit. Ongoing degradation is occurring e.g. faecal contamination of pristine water.
Fishing activity does not come under RMA. Activities such as bottom trawling have a significant impact on the environment.
Work needs to be done on the land/sea interface and biosecurity. There is not a lot of control of shipping. Once something is there, there is not a lot you can do about it.
There is a need to move on the marine environment. Quicker progress is needed with oceans policy.
The RMA should be extended to the EEZ, though only to control fishing, not all activities. There are issues around ocean mining that need to be sorted out under oceans policy.
Undaria (seaweed) is doing a lot of damage. We are not responding to it as fast as we could. We could have dealt with it better when it was first identified as a problem. We do not have adequate responses. Better monitoring is needed. Undaria was in Wellington harbour for a long time.
It is better to try to stop invasive species getting to New Zealand than try to stop them spreading once they are here. The risk of invasive species is increasing with climate change. There may be a trend towards shipping as air travel becomes more expensive, which will also increase the risk of invasive species reaching New Zealand.

National Environmental Standards

Too long is spent trying to develop the perfect solution rather than acting now. For example too long is spent developing standards. Quicker responses are needed when problems are identified. This includes quicker development of National Environmental Standards with a built in review process down the track. Otherwise the response will be similar to what happened with the rabbit problem – someone will go overseas and bring the solution in themselves.

General comments

Organisations do not take the environment in to account because there are no dollars in, only dollars out. There is no money to deal with the environment. This attitude needs to change.
Green building practices are not adopted unless there is a sufficient cost benefit. Those wanting to justify moving into new buildings need to show there is some environmental consideration.
The current draft plan for Wellington allows for a 22% increase in CO2 emissions. This does not seem to ensure sustainability and does not seem to be monitored. Regional councils seem to be able to do what they want. MfE should take a greater interest. There needs to be some sort of score card of these issues.
MfE used to have greater role in trying to keep standards up but got withdrawn from this function. MfE needs an overview role in monitoring local government to ensure they meet minimum standards. E.g. the Wairau District Council has only 12,000 rate payers and cannot do everything they are meant to do. Some oversight of local government is needed. E.g. if grey water is seen to be a good practice, someone needs to push it down in to regional council practice.
MfE has the ability to make submissions and should do so.
MfE still has this role but got pulled back from it. We have MOT advocating for transport, MOE advocating for education, however business has a problem that there is a government department that advocates for the environment.
Govt³ has grown substantially. This suggests that it is possible to increase support for environmental initiatives.
MfE ought to be focusing on practical transport initiatives.
In New Zealand, an international company took over rail and are now wanting to move more freight by truck rather than rail. They are not maintaining the rail network. This forces the government in to a decision on whether to subsidise the rail network.
A lot of work could be done on externalising externalities.
There is a meat works nearby. They have a permit to emit odours within site boundaries, but no action is taken when the odours spread. Councils do not enforce their bylaws. Councils need to enforce their bylaws to control odour.
In Seaview, the council wanted to put a residential area near an industrial area. This is ridiculous – the area should be preserved as an industrial area.
A lot of Wellington harbour is closed to the public, e.g. the port area. Different DOC conservancies have different rules on access. The rules vary from one end of country to the other. There should be an overall approach.
There are a lot of things happening in the environment but no one is auditing them. Auditing is very important. If it was not for small organisations around New Zealand, a lot of things would be missed.
MfE needs to audit central government and local authorities implementation of environmental policies and take a leadership role
Should we be accepting investment from the US and international companies without proof of their environmental track records? There should be public debate about the environmental integrity of international companies investing in New Zealand.
More singular and focused messages are needed as there are too many government departments involved in decision making.
It is good that we are exporting and not necessarily burning the coal mined in New Zealand ourselves, especially in areas that are conservation land and even in areas that are not. It is unjustifiable to create new coal mines or extend the existing ones so why is it happening? This includes ones for which permission has already been granted.
More resources are needed to promote Environment week.

Last updated: 27 February 2008