The Right to Know, and Say.

The resent proposal to farm carp at Taupo, and its subsequent demise, has left many questions unanswered and issues unresolved, according to a National Freshwater Fishing organisation.

Ken Sims, spokesman for the New Zealand Federation of Freshwater Anglers, said there were two important lessons to take from this issue. Firstly, it got as far as it did, because it ‘flew under the radar’. The ‘scientific evidence’ for concluding this was both safe and desirable was presented by a commercial company who would benefit financially from supplying the fish. As a ‘business proposal’ only one well embellished side was presented to decision making bodies. They not only enthusiastically embraced it, but they made the conscious decision not to tell anyone about it. The consent for this was granted on a ‘non-notified’ basis. This was after both DOC and F&G NZ had given it the ‘thumbs up’, again without bothering to ask or notify their public stakeholders. Incredibly, none of these organisations seem to think that the public, particularly the angling public, would have had an interest or opinion about the merits or otherwise of the case. You would almost wonder if they just didn’t care.

Secondly, even when it was forced out into the open, it was only overturned because of extremely vocal and sustained pressure from the public, mainly anglers, and concerned individuals; and one of the commercial stakeholders, and eventually the company setting up the project, recognising that it was completely contrary to both public opinion and the commercial image that company wanted to project.

But what about the other stakeholders in this project? Communications from Louise Upston, the local National MP revealed that she not only supported the project, but that she was unaware and unconcerned about opposition to it from her constituents and the rest of the public. DOC’s Minister Maggie Barry assured parliament that the project was completely safe and a great potential asset to Taupo. Who was she listening to? Certainly not the public, or those within the scientific community who were voicing their concerns about it. The District Council, by their own admission, heard and saw only a one-sided business case – growth, employment, money. And despite living beside the country’s most iconic lake, that apparently was enough. Once again, the conscious decision not to seek consent, demonstrates both how out of touch and unconcerned they were with their constituents views. Finally, it was endorsed by Fish & Game NZ. An organisation dedicated to protecting the recreational fishery. Their constituents were never even alerted or notified about this decision, let alone asked what they thought of it.

Emerging Trend

Mr Sims described this as part of an emerging trend that could be repeated in other parts of the country, and which can be seen in many other issues that directly affect our waterways.

Recently the public were treated to the unseemly sight of Minister Nick Smith swimming in the Manawatu River to celebrate a new action plan by the Manawatu River Leaders Accord. It would have been much more impressive if Nick Smith had swum below the PNCC sewage outfall, after the Regional and City Councils did a ‘sweetheart’ deal to circumvent the Environment Court and put off requiring the City Council to do something to stop its ongoing pollution of the river.

In Hawkes Bay and Wairarapa, plans to damage local rivers and fisheries with irrigation dams continue unabated, despite them being neither environmentally and financially viable. Understandably, farmers don’t want to pay for them, and you might think that would be an end to the matter – but no, regional and national government think they are a great idea, so currently the taxpayers and ratepayers are forking out, whether they know it, want it, like it or not. You (through the government) now subsidise polluting intensive farming practices to the tune of $750M, comprising $400M Crown Irrigation Fund, $250M Clean Up Fund and a further $100M expected from Councils to contribute to marginal land purchases alongside freshwater courses. What other industry gets this and how would dairy survive if it had to pay the true costs of irrigation and pollution cleanup?

Hawkes Bay ratepayers have been told that not only are they paying to pollute their own rivers, but that they have to pay again on top of that to protect those rivers from the pollution they are already having to pay for – a situation so ludicrous that even George Orwell couldn’t have dreamed it up.

The vested interests in mega-irrigation schemes (IrrigationNZ, Fed Farmers, Dairy NZ, MPI et al) and now even the Minister, are spinning the line that dams are good for the environment because they regulate river flow, despite this being shown as a completely discredited fabrication.

Canterbury Woes

They appear to be trying to emulate Canterbury, where intensive agriculture on inappropriate land is both drying up whole rivers and their aquifers, and polluting them to the point where fisheries have become unsustainable and even human health is being impacted. Recently North Canterbury Fish & Game have had to close lowland fisheries to try and preserve what stock remains, as pollution levels are preventing spawning and recruitment from further up the rivers. Of course, Canterbury does have the advantage of not being a regional democracy, its Regional Council having been replaced by Environment Minister Nick Smith with appointed ‘puppet’ commissioners, - so it doesn’t have to worry about what the public think.

The recent Choose Clean Water NZ campaign toured the country, talking to ordinary New Zealanders about their expectations and aspirations for our rivers and lakes. The overwhelming response was that (1) they expected rivers and lakes to be swimmable without making you ill, (2) they felt loss, anger and disempowerment over the current polluted and over-extracted state of our waterways, and (3) they felt ignored or threatened by the authorities that were supposed to protect our waterways, and the industries that were polluting them. The immediate, off-hand and dismissive response from Environment Minister Nick Smith to the suggestion of ‘swimmable’ waterways was that it was ‘impractical’.

Worsening Trend.

And given the trend, it is highly likely that the commercial exploitation and erosion of democracy will get worse. Much worse. What began with the first National reform of the RMA, which negated some environmental protections in favour of ‘economic development’, is set to be amplified by the second such reform currently before parliament. The first has resulted in this ludicrous situation where regional authorities are trying to be both protector and exploiter of the environment, and forming private business companies that work in secret, are not accountable and which often advocate the opposite of what councils are trying to achieve.

This favouring of business exploitation above environmental protection would be magnified under the second reform, giving Ministers widespread powers to override and direct Council decisions. We can see this sort of system already trialled in Canterbury.

The proposed law has already been criticised by Fish & Game NZ, the NZ Law Society and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment for favouring industry exploitation over environmental protection. And although it now includes an MCI count, it sticks to the same toxic bottom lines for N, P and E Coli. So we can now even more accurately measure how shity are rivers and lakes are. It is currently open for submissions.

“But if Taupo teaches us anything, it is that even when regulation fails, consultation is circumvented, and public expectations ignored, you can still make a difference” said Mr Sims. “If enough people stand up, shout and say ‘this is not acceptable to me’, they can be heard and listened to. But you have to be prepared to stand up and act for what you value and believe in. Don’t automatically assume that those you think should be representing your best interests, will be. The alternative is to bend over and take what you are given, and then try to explain it to your grandkids”.

Ends.

© Scoop Media