Is this type of ridiculous situation only going to get worse under any new Luxon-led government or a Hipkins created, road to ruin?
When you read about a North Island farmer stalled for ten months over an effluent consent; a consent process hijacked by bizarre iwi demands to ban palm kernel feed and host mandatory karakia, doesn’t it make you want to scream ENOUGH IS ENOUGH?
This isn’t resource management; this is an absolute farce and it is occurring all around the country and all with the connivance of local and national authorities. How can a farmer be put through the wringer, forced to jump through ideological hoops just to manage ordinary farm activities? Yet, our political leaders remain completely blind.
You all know my views on Christopher Luxon’s track record of bestowing influence and authority on Maori. Does National not see they are alienating the very people who keep this country running? Alienating the voters who were once the backbone of the National Party!
Despite ruling them out nineteen times during the campaign, Luxon has already held an hour-long meeting with Opportunity’s Qiulae Wong. If special votes erode the right’s slim majority, Luxon will inevitably invite TOP into a coalition just to keep the Prime Minister’s salary.
Imagine the consequences for our country and in this example, the consequences for our farming community. They will be catastrophic!
TOP’s explicit platform represents an absolute capitulation to co-governance, aggressively pushing to radically entrench the role of the treaty across all public legislation and completely devolve total autonomy, along with taxpayer funding, over vital health and justice services directly to Maori organisations!
This potential coalition exposes Luxon’s utter lack of political integrity. Despite his hollow campaign promises, he is clearly prepared to get into bed with TOP, a party whose platform heads directly to co-governance. By enabling them, Luxon is actively selling out the country’s future, greasing the wheels for TOP to radically entrench the role of the treaty across and into all facets of our governance and even our lives! All just so he can cling to power.
Does he never learn?
When will Luxon find a backbone, take up the cudgels, and tell the Iwi Chairs Forum that everyday New Zealanders are sick of being driven into regulatory bankruptcy? Councils are palming off accountability to unaccountable third parties, leaving taxpayers to fund the fallout. We need national standards that explicitly rule out spiritual overreach immediately. It is time to draw a hard line, stand up for our farmers, and stop sacrificing economic survival on the altar of political benevolence.
https://www.farmersweekly.co.nz/news/farmer-questions-iwi-conditions-on-effluent-consent/
A North Island farmer has questioned iwi conditions sought for his effluent consent, including restrictions on palm kernel feed and cultural requirements.
Mark Hooper says it’s deeply disappointing that a farmer who just wants to get on managing effluent within environmental guidelines is being put through the wringer.
A North Island farmer says he’s baffled by some of the conditions set by an iwi for sign-off on his effluent discharge to land consent.
Iwi approval hinged on him agreeing not to use palm kernel as supplementary feed, and to host karakia and a blessing before the start of any project on his farm.
“They specified the native species used in riparian planting, and they wanted cultural monitors come and check the planting,” the farmer says.
With his consent and the final list of conditions yet to be confirmed, the farmer was against us naming him, or the council involved, for fear there could be further delays.
“The iwi also wanted us to install water quality monitoring and provide five different quality measures,” the farmer says.
“It sounded a bit over the top considering the council already monitors water quality but at least that condition, unlike the others, is relevant to effluent management.
“A frustrating aspect for me was that I suggested to the iwi we get together and discuss their ideas and how we could achieve practical outcomes.
“But they just put what they wanted in a report.”
The farmer applied for renewal of his effluent consent last December and isn’t sure to what degree it’s iwi approval or council dithering that means 10 months later he’s still waiting.
“The council has been very slow.
“It could have been because of what the iwi was seeking but council wouldn’t tell me if that was why. They wouldn’t answer my questions about how long getting permission was going to take.”
The farmer’s plight was highlighted by Associate Agriculture Minister Andrew Hoggard in a recent social media post.
Hoggard says it’s an example of why ACT has a policy to ensure spirituality and the Te Mana o te Wai hierarchy is removed from resource consenting processes.
“[This farmer’s case] makes it abundantly clear what’s at stake in the election,” he says.
“The next term of government needs to deliver national standards that are clear and straight-forward, and explicitly rule out the inclusion of spiritual matters.”
Federated Farmers RMA reform spokesperson Mark Hooper says the conditions sought by the iwi are a prime example of why resource management changes are vital.
“It’s deeply disappointing that a farmer who just wants to get on with an ordinary farm activity within environmental guidelines is being put through the wringer.
“These consent conditions are bizarre.”
Federated Farmers’ election platform calls for 10 national standards for activities including effluent management, gravel extraction, on-farm water storage and wetland restoration.
“The National Party took up our challenge, and even added nine more activities on top of our 10,” Hooper says.
“The national standards mean farmers who operate within clear, consistent guardrails can get on with the job without needing a resource consent.
“Farm plans, tailored to risk, will also reduce the need for expensive and time-consuming consents.
“If you’re halving the number of consents, that in itself goes a long way to solving concerns over needing iwi approval.”
Hooper says even with national standards and farm plans, there’ll be situations where resource consents will still be warranted.
“It might be because it’s a higher-risk location, or there’s something out of the ordinary in what you’re trying to do.
“In those individual consent cases, Federated Farmers says responsibility for the decision-making needs to have a clear line of accountability back to elected representatives on the councils.
“At the moment, some councils are palming those decisions off to a third party, like iwi, meaning farmers have two sets of hoops to jump through.”
There’s nothing wrong with iwi – or anyone else – having their say during district and regional plan setting, Hooper says.
But he says once the rules are established, only the council should be involved in approving or denying individual consent applications.
In the two new laws replacing the RMA, reference to Te Mana o te Wai and concepts of spirtuality have been removed.
Iwi participation is limited to engagement with developing national standards, and at regional council level, the setting of a region’s Natural Environment Plan.
“We’re entering a bumpy multi-year transition period as the Natural Environment and Planning Acts replace the old RMA,” Hooper explains.
“While aspects of the new legislation are already operational – including a paring back of public notification requirements – the new legislation won’t be fully in effect until about 2029.”
As new national standards are introduced, they’ll start to apply on top of the RMA.
“From farmers’ point of view, the new legislation coming fully into force, along with promised permitted activity national standards and the new system of practical farm plans, can’t happen soon enough,” Hooper says.
Pee Kay writes he is from a generation where common sense, standards, integrity and honesty are fundamental attributes. This article was first published HERE
You all know my views on Christopher Luxon’s track record of bestowing influence and authority on Maori. Does National not see they are alienating the very people who keep this country running? Alienating the voters who were once the backbone of the National Party!
Despite ruling them out nineteen times during the campaign, Luxon has already held an hour-long meeting with Opportunity’s Qiulae Wong. If special votes erode the right’s slim majority, Luxon will inevitably invite TOP into a coalition just to keep the Prime Minister’s salary.
Imagine the consequences for our country and in this example, the consequences for our farming community. They will be catastrophic!
TOP’s explicit platform represents an absolute capitulation to co-governance, aggressively pushing to radically entrench the role of the treaty across all public legislation and completely devolve total autonomy, along with taxpayer funding, over vital health and justice services directly to Maori organisations!
This potential coalition exposes Luxon’s utter lack of political integrity. Despite his hollow campaign promises, he is clearly prepared to get into bed with TOP, a party whose platform heads directly to co-governance. By enabling them, Luxon is actively selling out the country’s future, greasing the wheels for TOP to radically entrench the role of the treaty across and into all facets of our governance and even our lives! All just so he can cling to power.
Does he never learn?
When will Luxon find a backbone, take up the cudgels, and tell the Iwi Chairs Forum that everyday New Zealanders are sick of being driven into regulatory bankruptcy? Councils are palming off accountability to unaccountable third parties, leaving taxpayers to fund the fallout. We need national standards that explicitly rule out spiritual overreach immediately. It is time to draw a hard line, stand up for our farmers, and stop sacrificing economic survival on the altar of political benevolence.
*****************
https://www.farmersweekly.co.nz/news/farmer-questions-iwi-conditions-on-effluent-consent/
A North Island farmer has questioned iwi conditions sought for his effluent consent, including restrictions on palm kernel feed and cultural requirements.
Mark Hooper says it’s deeply disappointing that a farmer who just wants to get on managing effluent within environmental guidelines is being put through the wringer.
A North Island farmer says he’s baffled by some of the conditions set by an iwi for sign-off on his effluent discharge to land consent.
Iwi approval hinged on him agreeing not to use palm kernel as supplementary feed, and to host karakia and a blessing before the start of any project on his farm.
“They specified the native species used in riparian planting, and they wanted cultural monitors come and check the planting,” the farmer says.
With his consent and the final list of conditions yet to be confirmed, the farmer was against us naming him, or the council involved, for fear there could be further delays.
“The iwi also wanted us to install water quality monitoring and provide five different quality measures,” the farmer says.
“It sounded a bit over the top considering the council already monitors water quality but at least that condition, unlike the others, is relevant to effluent management.
“A frustrating aspect for me was that I suggested to the iwi we get together and discuss their ideas and how we could achieve practical outcomes.
“But they just put what they wanted in a report.”
The farmer applied for renewal of his effluent consent last December and isn’t sure to what degree it’s iwi approval or council dithering that means 10 months later he’s still waiting.
“The council has been very slow.
“It could have been because of what the iwi was seeking but council wouldn’t tell me if that was why. They wouldn’t answer my questions about how long getting permission was going to take.”
The farmer’s plight was highlighted by Associate Agriculture Minister Andrew Hoggard in a recent social media post.
Hoggard says it’s an example of why ACT has a policy to ensure spirituality and the Te Mana o te Wai hierarchy is removed from resource consenting processes.
“[This farmer’s case] makes it abundantly clear what’s at stake in the election,” he says.
“The next term of government needs to deliver national standards that are clear and straight-forward, and explicitly rule out the inclusion of spiritual matters.”
Federated Farmers RMA reform spokesperson Mark Hooper says the conditions sought by the iwi are a prime example of why resource management changes are vital.
“It’s deeply disappointing that a farmer who just wants to get on with an ordinary farm activity within environmental guidelines is being put through the wringer.
“These consent conditions are bizarre.”
Federated Farmers’ election platform calls for 10 national standards for activities including effluent management, gravel extraction, on-farm water storage and wetland restoration.
“The National Party took up our challenge, and even added nine more activities on top of our 10,” Hooper says.
“The national standards mean farmers who operate within clear, consistent guardrails can get on with the job without needing a resource consent.
“Farm plans, tailored to risk, will also reduce the need for expensive and time-consuming consents.
“If you’re halving the number of consents, that in itself goes a long way to solving concerns over needing iwi approval.”
Hooper says even with national standards and farm plans, there’ll be situations where resource consents will still be warranted.
“It might be because it’s a higher-risk location, or there’s something out of the ordinary in what you’re trying to do.
“In those individual consent cases, Federated Farmers says responsibility for the decision-making needs to have a clear line of accountability back to elected representatives on the councils.
“At the moment, some councils are palming those decisions off to a third party, like iwi, meaning farmers have two sets of hoops to jump through.”
There’s nothing wrong with iwi – or anyone else – having their say during district and regional plan setting, Hooper says.
But he says once the rules are established, only the council should be involved in approving or denying individual consent applications.
In the two new laws replacing the RMA, reference to Te Mana o te Wai and concepts of spirtuality have been removed.
Iwi participation is limited to engagement with developing national standards, and at regional council level, the setting of a region’s Natural Environment Plan.
“We’re entering a bumpy multi-year transition period as the Natural Environment and Planning Acts replace the old RMA,” Hooper explains.
“While aspects of the new legislation are already operational – including a paring back of public notification requirements – the new legislation won’t be fully in effect until about 2029.”
As new national standards are introduced, they’ll start to apply on top of the RMA.
“From farmers’ point of view, the new legislation coming fully into force, along with promised permitted activity national standards and the new system of practical farm plans, can’t happen soon enough,” Hooper says.
Pee Kay writes he is from a generation where common sense, standards, integrity and honesty are fundamental attributes. This article was first published HERE
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.