Category: Environment

National and local environmental issues

The misuse and abuse of our fresh water.

24.5.17

The Editor, North Shore Times and NZ Herald. (Published in NST 30.5.17)

Letter to the Editor.

It is heartening to read ongoing publicity about the use and misuse of our precious fresh water. I believe this needs major attention and action by the public – namely lobbying all politicians to do something comprehensive and wise to protect it.

Water is the gold of this millennium. It is critical to the life of each and every one of us.

Even with the huge amount of water on this planet, only 1% of it is fresh water, and half of that is already polluted, with pollution levels increasing across the world.

Equally scary is that with climate warming, our glaciers, major sources of many rivers, are shrinking at an unprecedented rate.

Some important people commented recently in articles that water is a necessity of life, a ‘public good’ and is a human right, and so must remain in public ownership.

I have been writing to all Parliamentary parties over several years to encourage them to pass an Act enshrining this principle. Such (‘entrenched’) legislation would require a two-thirds Parliamentary majority vote to abolish public ownership of water, subject also to a public referendum with a two-thirds majority in favour.

Fresh water, its ownership and control, is far too important too important to simply leave to politicians to meddle with.

The response to my letters to the Parliamentary parties has been a deafening silence. We all need to shout much louder!

Posted on by Tony Holman

The Destruction of Local Government.

Local government is being removed from the people at an increasing rate.

For decades the Local Government Commission has had a general instruction to reduce the number of local authorities nationwide, especially since the first major amalgamation in 1989.

Just twenty years after that amalgamation, Auckland became the target for another significant amalgamation – the amalgamation to set up a new, experimental species, the “Super City.” What was established was a corporate, and bureaucratic model, with a democratic veneer to confuse the public.

Further constraints on the captive citizens of Auckland were overlays by central government through the requirements of the Unitary Plan, which, among other things, ensures that there is little chance of objection from the majority of Aucklanders, and that the rights of developers and intensification anywhere and everywhere are paramount.

In addition, the key public assets and services have been excised from any real democratic input or control and are run by unelected appointees from the business world. These euphemistically named “Council Controlled Organisations” include:

Watercare Services: controls water and sewerage services and reticulation, together with sewerage plants, water storage and treatment plants.

Auckland Council Investments Limited: (100% shareholding in Ports of Auckland Limited; shares held in Auckland International Airport; Auckland Film Industries.)

Auckland Transport (Public transport network including Britomart; Roading network. This asset is owned by the council and managed by Auckland Transport).

Development Auckland Ltd (Panuku). (Freehold interests in Waterfront Land; Sale or redevelopment of various council-owned land and facilities.)

Regional Facilities Auckland. (Auckland Art Gallery (including the arts collections owned by Regional Facilities Auckland; Auckland Zoo; Aotea Centre; Civic Theatre; Viaduct Events Centre; Mt Smart stadium.)

The “local” level of governance in this mish mash Auckland Council, are the local boards which have far less say and fewer functions than the former Community Boards.

In brief, then, the democratic rights and avenues of Aucklanders have been largely removed or overridden by government.

Not satisfied with this, the government has altered the Resource Management Act, and now introduced the Urban Development Authorities (UDA) proposal.

The powers potentially available for an urban development project relate to:

• Land – powers to assemble parcels of land, including existing compulsory acquisition powers under the Public Works Act 1981.

This means private property, which should alarm every citizen. Also alarming is that it means public property such as parks, so this would override the Reserves Act intended to protect public open space for public uses.

• Planning and resource consenting – powers to override existing and proposed district plans and regional plans, and streamlined consenting processes.

• Infrastructure – powers to plan and build infrastructure such as roads, water pipes and reserves.

• Funding – powers to buy, sell and lease land and buildings; powers to borrow to fund infrastructure; and powers to levy charges to cover infrastructure costs.

The Government would decide which enabling powers could be used for particular projects.

The government is keen to impose its Auckland model of ‘local government’ on the rest of New Zealand to ensure direct control from Wellington.

So far that has failed, because it allowed two regions to actually have a referendum on the proposals, something denied to Aucklanders.
The two regions were Wellington and Hawkes Bay, both of which sensibly rejected the proposal.

I doubt that the government has given up this quest, and I believe that those plans will resurface soon after the forthcoming elections. If so, the Auckland born and bred ‘refugees’ now streaming out of this beleaguered place will not escape for long. The reason is that if the government resumes this pursuit, I believe it will impose this model throughout the country.

The logical consequence of all of this is that local government, local democracy and local determination as we have known it, will be dead.
Full control will have been removed to Wellington and Parliament, and probably will be administered by a new Ministry – of ‘Local Government!’

Don’t count on Labour opposing this government policy. Labour began the move to a “super city” and amalgamation, as well as being responsible for the 1989 one.

We seem to be moving towards a totalitarian form of centralised government, devoid of local needs and aspirations.

(12.5.17)

Posted on by Tony Holman

Water and the effects of urbanisation and intesive dairy farming.

17.4.17

The Editor,
NZ Herald.

Dear Sir, Letter to the Editor.

Congratulations to Fran O’Sullivan for joining the many who are so worried about the effects of urbanisation and farming intensification which are leading to major and possibly permanent destruction of much of our fresh water.

She like many others has strong proof of this catastrophe, including from this Government’s scientific adviser, Sir Peter Gluckman.

All of this points up the abject failure of this Government to deal with these problems and take strong remedial action, including the need for strong measures to ensure that dairying and industry are required to drastically up their game. That includes the urgent need for funds to be generated to deal with pollution, housing, educational and other essential infrastructure, especially while the Government continues its faulted immigration programme.

However, the farming lobby is very powerful and the Government relies on their support, and for the income produced overseas from milk products, which, together with housing speculation makes the economy appear falsely strong. The environment thus takes a very back seat.
Tony Holman QSO/.

q

(Not published.)

Posted on by Tony Holman

Another perspective on Key’s leadership.

23.3.17

The Editor,NZ Herald,

Dear Sir,

As the smiles fade and the bonhomie passes, along with the adulation by some writers, may I suggest another perspective on the ‘smile and run’ money man who has purported to lead this country.

The record shows a ‘leader’ of a government that has used massive immigration to give a false impression of a ‘sound economy.’

There is a history of denying any housing crisis, thus providing little useful response to a deepening social problem of major proportions.

We have seen little effective action to curb rampant speculative investment and manipulation from both local and overseas sources.

There have been distressing scenes of deprivation, homelessness, rack renting, and desperate people, not seen since the Great Depression.

Add to this, considerable unrest within the underfunded and undermined education and medical fields. There have been anti-environmental measures regarding global warming, conservation areas, our rivers and lakes.

Further, government statements that nobody ‘owns’ water are incorrect, because those who achieve rights to ‘take water’ get a right to posses it, bottle it, make huge profits here and overseas. Then there are those who have the right to take water for huge irrigation schemes.

There’s a lot more, but wording limits preclude it.

Posted on by Tony Holman

Water – A fundamental need and right for our people.

I first wrote to leaders of all Parliamentary Parties in June of 2007 with the following proposition:

“that there should be entrenched legislation enacted to ensure that our water supplies are protected from privatisation and from international control. That entrenched legislation should also be bolstered by the need for a prior citizens referendum.”

Subsequent to the original letter to Leaders further correspondence set out additional concerns about powers which already exist (under the RMA) which allow private companies to become “requiring authorities” and “network utility operators” with the powers of local authorities and government regarding water and compulsory acquisition powers under the Public Works Act!

The next aspect related to some of the key issues which have arisen as some local authorities and Watercare have looked at, or been using water as a commodity which (being so vital) could be used as a tax/rate/profit-making device – a bit like the infamous old ‘salt tax.’

Some of the principal problems with that approach include treating water as a “commodity” not as a right and essential to life, to agriculture and to industry. Immediately one moves from the human need and right to have good potable water at the lowest possible cost and to treat it as a privately owned/supplied commodity one is rapidly moving to privatisation and profit making out of the “gold of this millennium.” A recent press article (Business section, NZ Herald) set out this approach very starkly.

“So legislation also has to prevent public owners of supply and reticulation from being able to do things as exemplified by Metrowater and proposals relating to Watercare (largely pushed by Auckland City Council) and advocated in the article.

Any legislation relating to the ‘reform’ of Watercare and/or Auckland governance must ensure that all of the above matters are dealt with in the public interest..

Finally I note that a book entitled “Troubled Water,” highlights some of the principles and pressures on this most precious gift of life – water. It also emphasizes the worrying fact that only 1% of the water on this planet is fresh water and over half of that is already polluted and that percentage is increasing quite quickly!

Having outlined those matters, I would now like to re-emphasize what I see as some of the political opportunities in this matter. Firstly, I believe that the protection argument (entrenching legislation etc) can be seen as one of wisdom, foresight and enshrining a fundamental human right and need.’

Further, not only would that be good for the whole country, but any parties adopting these policies would have the moral high ground as the initiators.

I sincerely hope your Party will see the need both morally and politically for urgently adopting these policies. I look forward to constructive engagement.”

Sincerely,

Tony Holman QSO.

That letter to Party leaders received no substantive or supportive replies
Since that time, a number of things have worsened:

Global warming is seeing a rapid reduction in fresh water as glaciers melt and rush to the sea. The ice sheets at the poles are doing likewise.

In New Zealand alone, our glaciers are retreating at an unprecedented rate, with huge implications for the future of water supplies for drinking and other uses, including power production.

Yet despite all of this, the government is allowing private companies to take huge amounts of water from springs and other sources, bottle it for large profits, and sales here and abroad.

This, in my view, is totally reckless for a host of reasons, not the least of which is that some of the formerly pristine sources of potable water for domestic and industrial supplies is becoming polluted from infiltration of farming fertilisers and animal waste.

Life-giving potable water is a human necessity and right and should be fully protected in all ways instead of allowing increasing pollution of our remaining supplies and of selling our best water for the benefit of a few.

This whole problem needs to be made a very big election issue, while there is still something to protect and retain.

Tony Holman QSO. 20.3.17

Posted on by Tony Holman