Source: Choose Clean Water – Tom Kay
Freshwater campaigners are saying “don’t be fooled” by the Coalition Government’s rhetoric in today’s freshwater policy announcement. What it really means for New Zealanders is more pollution in rivers, lakes, and drinking water sources and the handing over of more power to commercial interests to control a fundamental public resource.
The Coalition Government made its long-awaited announcement on freshwater policy reform today and Choose Clean Water’s spokesperson Tom Kay says it confirms what has been feared.
“Ministers are using comforting words like “balance” but the details of this policy demonstrate that this is not about balance or protecting the public. The Government is proposing to remove existing bottom lines and change the long overdue prioritisation of the health of people and waterways provided by Te Mana o Te Wai.”
“Don’t be fooled, this is a massive blow for the health of our water and the health of our communities.”
Te Mana o te Wai is a vastly improved decision-making framework in the existing National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020. It requires regional councils to provide for the protection of the health of waterways and the health needs of people (i.e. access to safe, good quality drinking water) before commercial uses can be considered. It was strengthened following the failure of previous National Policy Statements in 2011, 2014, and 2017 to improve the health of freshwater in New Zealand, and widespread public support for the Government to act.
“What Te Mana o te Wai finally provided, in the 2020 version of our national freshwater policy, was sufficient weight to the public interest and need for healthy water. Before this, people’s drinking water and waterways were regularly losing out to commercial pressures, which we saw result in sick rivers and lakes, the drying up of rivers and groundwater, and undrinkable water sources around the country.”
“In the 2020 national policy statement, it was finally recognised that communities couldn’t continue like that—it was unstable, unsustainable, and unhealthy.”
The group says Minister Hoggard’s ACT party has consistently misrepresented Te Mana o Te Wai and used race-baiting to generate misguided anger towards a policy that protects all New Zealanders.
Leader of the ACT Party, David Seymour, has stated that Te Mana o te Wai is “the same as waving crystals over the water to drive out evil spirits, and it’s truly bonkers.”
“This is not only nasty and insulting but it’s also plain wrong,” says Kay.
“Te Mana o te Wai is simply a framework that says we have to ensure our water is healthy enough to support itself and our people before it can support commercial interests. It doesn’t rule out business—it just says that business can’t occur at the cost of our communities’ health.”
Previous consultation on changes to freshwater policy under the Resource Management Act demonstrated most regional councils support Te Mana o te Wai.
“Not only that, groups from Water NZ to Seafood NZ to Forest & Bird to public health advocates support Te Mana o te Wai because it makes priorities clearer for decision makers and provides better protection for the health of waterways and people.”
Minister Hoggard and Minister McClay’s announcement is consistent with the Coalition Government’s approach to handing over more power to extractive commercial interests and removing basic protections for New Zealanders.
“Polluting industries have massively influenced this freshwater policy. The Government is following the requests of groups like DairyNZ who have asked the Government to remove bottom lines and for industry control of instruments like farm plans. This Coalition Government is captured by big industries, we saw it with tobacco and now we’re seeing it with agribusiness.”
Choose Clean Water says it’s important for the public to make submissions on the changes (these can be made until 27 July 2025) but it’s just as important for the public to contact MPs and Ministers directly to voice their opposition.
“We have a good existing national policy statement for freshwater. It puts us all on the path to restoration and health over time and still allows for productive land use to support communities. The Coalition Government is making changes New Zealand simply doesn’t need and that will take us backwards.”
Notes: Last year, the Government made amendments to freshwater legislation through the Resource Management (freshwater and other matters) Act. This Act removed the application of Te Mana o te Wai from resource consent decisions, among other changes. Submissions on this Act give important insight into the support for Te Mana o te Wai and its hierarchy of obligations. We provide quotes and links below for your reference.
Te Uru Kahika (Regional Councils)
-
“All councils support the fundamental concept of Te Mana o te Wai.”
-
“Most councils strongly oppose excluding the hierarchy of obligations within the NPS-FM from resource consent processes, on the basis that it plays a fundamental role in addressing water quality and quantity challenges, is deeply embedded into regional planning instruments and will potentially undermine te Tiriti principles.”
Greater Wellington Regional Council
-
“We oppose the removal of TMoTW hierarchy from consent decision making. There is little evidence that the Hierarchy of Obligations is causing a significant issue for consent decision making. As per the Ministry for the Environment’s analysis, few applications are known to have been declined on this basis, and they would likely have been declined on effects under the RMA regardless. Greater Wellington has not declined any resource consent applications on this basis.”
Seafood New Zealand submission:
-
“…we do not support the removal of regulations that ensure the sustainability of our natural resources.”
-
“We are concerned that the Bill seeks to repeal clauses that act to reduce the sediment loading in freshwater and therefore the coastal environment. Research has demonstrated the importance of coastal environments to the productivity of our inshore fisheries and the long-term negative impacts that land-based effects, especially sedimentation have on these sensitive ecosystems and fisheries resources.”
-
“We consider that there is currently insufficient importance given to manage adverse land-based impacts on coastal systems. Our industry experiences the negative effects of land-based activities directly through lower productivity and indirectly through spatial restrictions.”
-
“We therefore do not support: …All provisions which exclude the hierarchy of obligations in the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPS-FM) from resource consenting;…”
-
“We are extremely concerned with this Bill and the changes it makes that disallow consideration of the hierarchy of obligations / Te Mana o te Wai in resource consent decisions. In our view, this poses a risk to the health and function of rivers, floodplains, and other freshwater ecosystems around Aotearoa. There may be an unintended consequence of increasing risk to infrastructure, people, and communities in removing or bypassing the hierarchy, which in our view requires communities to reconsider how they live with rivers, including their associated risks and hazards.”
The Public Health Communication Centre (PHCC)
-
“The ‘hierarchy of obligations’ is essential to reduce risks to people’s health.”
-
“We are concerned the Government (through this and other Bills) is not recognising the extent to which ecosystem health supports communities’ health, and our adaptation to and mitigation of climate change impacts.”
-
“In NZ, it has been estimated that at least 30,000 New Zealanders experience illness as a result of contaminated drinking water each year.”
-
“The current health burden on New Zealanders from water pollution means the country needs strengthened policies to restrict the extent and impact of water pollution on people’s health. However, the Bill proposes – with insufficient explanation or rationale provided by the Government – to weaken protections for drinking water under the RMA.”
-
“…the Bill, as well as other changes signalled by the current Government, would reverse this protection for drinking water recommended by the [Havelock North] Inquiry and established in law by the NPS-FM 2020.”
-
“NZPI supports the hierarchy of obligations under Te Mana o Te Wai and supports its implementation through regional plans. We also support its application to resource consent applications while the plan provisions are being developed…”
-
“In practice, the hierarchy of obligations is helpful as it provides direction on how to weigh up competing interests. If the hierarchy of obligations under Te Mana o Te Wai is taken away, decision-making will become more difficult again.”
The Resource Management Law Association of NZ Inc | Te Kahui Ture Taiao
-
“RMLA opposes removal of consideration of Te Mana o Te Wai from resource consent applications and resource consent decision-making processes.”
-
“Water New Zealand does not support the removal of the hierarchy of Te Mana o Te Wai.”
-
“The Bill contains a suite of changes that exclude consideration of Te Mana o Te Wai hierarchy in resource consent decisions. There is no “problem” that these changes will solve.”
-
“However, it is clear these changes will prevent prioritisation of freshwater health and as a result, will perpetuate the existing tr