Author: MIL-OSI Publisher

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;…”

NZ Rivers Group Submission

• “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.”

NZ Planning Institute

• “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

• “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

·         Normalised1 profit after tax: NZ $1,158 million, up 11%  

·         Normalised continuing earnings per share: 70 cents per share, up 13%  

·         Return on capital: 11% down from 11.9%  

·         FY25 full year forecast earnings range: 65-75 cents per share  

·         2024/25 season forecast Farmgate Milk Price: $10.00 per kgMS  

·         2025/26 season opening forecast Farmgate Milk Price: $10.00 per kgMS.

Fonterra Co-operative Group Ltd today provided its Q3 business update, announcing strong profit after tax of $1,158 million, up $119 million on this time last year.  

As a result of these strong earnings, the Co-op narrowed its year-end earnings range to 65-75 cents per share, at the upper end of the guidance provided in March of 55-75 cents per share.  

At the same time, Fonterra announced an opening forecast Farmgate Milk Price for the 2025/26 season of $10.00 per kgMS, driven by stable near-term market demand.  

CEO Miles Hurrell says Fonterra is committed to delivering strong shareholder returns through both earnings and the Farmgate Milk Price.  

“We’ve delivered strong shareholder returns through FY25, including a 22-cent interim dividend, and as we get closer to the end of the year, we are focused on maintaining this momentum.  

“Our forecast Farmgate Milk Price for the current season is driven by strong demand for our milk price reference products and our range is unchanged at $9.70-$10.30 with a midpoint of $10.00 per kgMS. We’re also pleased to tighten our year-end forecast earnings within the existing range, given the strength of our third quarter performance,” says Mr Hurrell.

2025/26 season opening Farmgate Milk Price  

“Looking at the season ahead, we expect this demand to continue for now, but we acknowledge the ongoing geopolitical uncertainty and the potential for a wider series of outcomes across the season.  

Therefore, our opening forecast Farmgate Milk Price for the 2025/26 season of $10.00 per kgMS sits within a wide forecast range of $8.00-$11.00 per kgMS.  

For the current season, the milk price of $10.00 per kgMS equates to around $15 billion into the New Zealand economy. The majority of this flows into regional New Zealand where it plays a strong role helping to sustain local communities.  

Business performance

Fonterra’s focus on optimising its product mix has driven a Q3 normalised profit after tax of $1,158 million, equivalent to 70 cents per share, with operating profit of $1,740 million, up $267 million on last year.  

“This result reflects the scale and ongoing strength of our Ingredients channel, and volume growth in our Foodservice and Consumer channels with each channel increasing its third quarter performance compared to the same period last year.  

“Our rolling 12-months Return on Capital is 11%, which is above our previous target for FY25 and within our long-term target range of 10-12%,” says Mr Hurrell.  

“Our full year forecast earnings range of 65-75 cents per share assumes flat earnings in Q4 of FY25 due to the seasonality of our milk collections, the higher input prices for our Consumer and Foodservice businesses, ongoing investment in our ERP system and an increase in costs associated with shaping the Co-op post divestment to execute our strategy.  

“We are heading into year end with a strong balance sheet and full year debt metrics on track to be below the Co-op’s target range,” says Mr Hurrell.  

Strategic delivery  

Miles Hurrell says a priority for Fonterra this year has been the implementation of its strategy, which deepens the Co-op’s focus on its high-performing Ingredients and Foodservice businesses.  

“Last year, we announced a step-change in our strategic direction, including a decision to divest our global Consumer and associated businesses.

“This step was grounded in an understanding of how we best create value for farmer shareholders and ultimately for New Zealand.  

“We have been thoroughly testing the terms and value of both a trade sale and initial public offering (IPO) as divestment options. This work is on track as planned and we will seek farmer shareholder approval to divest through a vote in due course.  

“Given the confidence we have in our strategy, we have strong conviction that a divestment is the right choice for the Co-op and its owners.  

“Our financial results show we have an impressive business as a global B2B dairy player, powered by our home-base of New Zealand milk and operations.  

“If we divest our Consumer business, we will still be a Co-op with global reach and scale, and a diverse product mix sold to customers in more than 100 countries.  

“By focusing on our core strengths and the sales channels that deliver the highest returns, we have the confidence to target an average Return on Capital of 10-12%, which is above our 5-year average. This is alongside paying farmers the highest sustainable Farmgate Milk Price, which we are always committed to,” says Mr Hurrell.  

Fonterra continues to target a significant capital return to shareholders and unit holders following divestment.  

1 Normalised profit after tax excludes $77 million of costs associated with the divestment of the Consumer channel integrated businesses in Australia and Sri Lanka.

About Fonterra  

Fonterra is a co-operative owned and supplied by thousands of farming families across Aotearoa New Zealand. Through the spirit of co-operation and a can-do attitude, Fonterra’s farmers and employees share the goodness of our milk through innovative consumer, foodservice and ingredients brands. Sustainability is at the heart of everything we do, and we’re committed to leaving things in a better way than we found them. We are passionate about supporting our communities by Doing Good Together.  

New insights reveal insurance is a growing financial burden for New Zealand households, as trust in the industry dips and climate pressures loom.

Insurance has jumped to the fourth most significant financial pressure for households, behind housing, food and household debt, marking a notable rise from sixth place in October 2024. This shift reflects a growing sense of strain as premiums continue to climb across house, contents, car and health insurance.

At the same time, trust in the insurance industry is falling, based on results of the latest Consumer NZ Sentiment Tracker survey of more than 1,000 New Zealanders.

“Insurance is meant to provide a safety net, but for many people, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to access. When you add the complexity of policies and the lack of transparency, it’s easy to understand why trust in the industry is falling,” says Rebecca Styles, Consumer investigations team leader.

Insurance affordability now in focus

Consumer’s upcoming report on house and contents insurance will delve deeper into these issues, exploring how rising premiums are affecting consumers’ ability to access appropriate cover. With the effects of climate change increasing risk and, in turn, premiums, more New Zealanders are feeling financially exposed.

“We’re hearing more and more from consumers who feel they’re being priced out of essential cover,” Styles says.

Interestingly, this comes as climate change concerns are cooling. Fewer New Zealanders now rank climate change as one of the top three most pressing issues — now at 12% (down from 15% in January and 17% a year ago), as more immediate pressures take priority.  

Cost of living still top concern

The cost of living remains the number one issue for New Zealanders, with 65% of respondents identifying it as their top concern – a new high. Financial pressures across housing, food, debt and now insurance continue to weigh heavily.

Trust in the insurance sector drops

As premiums rise, trust in the insurance sector has taken a hit. More people now say they distrust insurers than trust them – a reversal from previous sentiment tracking and part of a broader decline in trust across sectors such as healthcare and energy.

Consumer warns that the decline in trust signals a need for the insurance industry to do more to demonstrate value, transparency and fairness in its offerings.

Climate risks compound affordability issues

With climate change increasing the frequency and severity of weather events, insurance affordability is a growing concern. Many New Zealanders living in high-risk areas are already facing pricier premiums or are being denied insurance altogether.

“Our upcoming report will highlight how the affordability of house and contents insurance impacts resilience in Aotearoa,” Styles says.

Notes

The Consumer NZ Sentiment Tracker is a quarterly nationally representative survey of 1,000 New Zealanders. It provides a snapshot of public opinion on key consumer issues, including financial wellbeing, trust in institutions and sector-specific sentiment.

The winter issue of Consumer magazine has a focus on insurance and will be on newsstands Monday 9 June 2025.

The Aotearoa New Zealand Trauma Committee of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons expresses profound concern regarding the increasingly prevalent informal activity known as “run it straight.” This practice, characterised by two players charging directly at each other in a high-speed collision, poses significant risks to participants, leading to severe injuries and, tragically, fatalities.

We call on everyone who can influence this activity to:

• raise awareness so participants understand the potential for serious injuries and the long-term consequences of high-speed collisions,
• support regulatory measures such as medical evaluation, age restrictions and safety protocols to minimise risks,
• promote safer alternatives for fundraising events that do not involve high-risk physical competition,
• encourage educational about the risks, and help young athletes protect their health, and
• engage healthcare professionals to provide valuable insights into injury prevention and help inform public policy decisions.

Recent tragic events, including the death of a young man during a “run it straight” challenge, have brought the dangers of this practice into focus. This incident is not an isolated case; it highlights a broader issue within both organised and informal sports where the emphasis on toughness and bravado can lead to reckless behaviour. The glorification of head-on collisions as a measure of strength is outdated and harmful, particularly for youth and young adults who may feel pressured to participate in these dangerous activities to prove their worth or bravery.

The biomechanics involved in “run it straight” significantly increase the risk of serious injuries, including concussions, cervical spine injuries, and long-term neurological damage. Unlike controlled tackles within the framework of regulated gameplay, this practice lacks tactical purpose and amplifies the potential for high-impact forces that can result in catastrophic consequences. The repetitive head trauma associated with such collisions poses a well-documented risk for developing chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), a degenerative brain disease increasingly recognised among athletes in contact sports.

The environment in which “run it straight” typically occurs – often informal, unsupervised and unregulated – further compounds the dangers. Most of these events happen outside of structured sporting contexts, frequently in casual settings where safety protocols are absent. This lack of regulation exposes participants to unnecessary risks and highlights the urgent need for action from the broader community, including parents, coaches, schools and sporting organisations.

To combat the rising trend of dangerous practices like “run it straight,” the Aotearoa New Zealand Trauma Committee of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons calls upon all stakeholders to take immediate and concerted action:

Raise awareness: public health campaigns must educate individuals, especially young athletes and their families, about the dangers of participating in “run it straight” and similar activities. It is crucial that participants understand the potential for serious injuries and the long-term consequences of high-speed collisions.

 Support regulatory measures: we advocate for the establishment of clear guidelines and regulations governing informal and organised sporting events. This includes mandatory medical evaluations for participants, age restrictions and well-defined safety protocols to minimise risks.

Promote safer alternatives: charitable organisations and community groups should seek safer alternatives to fundraising events that do not involve high-risk physical competition. Engaging communities in activities that encourage fitness and camaraderie while prioritising safety is essential.

Encourage educational initiatives: educational institutions and sports organisations must incorporate discussions about the risks associated with “run it straight” into their curricula and training programs. By promoting a culture of safety and informed decision-making, we can help young athletes understand the importance of protecting their health.

Engage Healthcare Professionals: collaboration with healthcare professionals is vital to advocate for participant safety in all forms of sports, including informal activities. Their expertise can provide valuable insights into injury prevention and help inform public policy decisions.

“Run it straight” represents an alarming trend that requires immediate attention from all associated parties. We urge stakeholders to prioritise safety and foster a culture that values wellbeing over reckless displays of toughness.

About the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons (RACS)

RACS is the leading advocate for surgical standards, professionalism and surgical education in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand. The College is a not-for-profit organisation that represents more than 7000 surgeons and 1300 surgical trainees and Specialist International Medical Graduates. RACS also supports healthcare and surgical education in the Asia-Pacific region and is a substantial funder of surgical research. There are nine surgical specialties in Australasia being: Cardiothoracic Surgery, General Surgery, Neurosurgery, Orthopaedic Surgery, Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Paediatric Surgery, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Urology and Vascular Surgery. www.surgeons.org