Press release: Select committee announces support of law changes that will prevent councils from restricting harmful pollution of water

Wednesday 11 June 2025

A select committee report released today demonstrates Coalition parties support law changes that would prevent local government from being able to control pollution even when it is causing serious harm, say freshwater campaigners.

“The damage these changes would cause must not be underestimated. This is not only an attack on the health of our environment but also democracy as the proposals seek to give greater power to polluting industries and write local government out of regulating harmful pollution of freshwater,” says Choose Clean Water spokesperson Tom Kay. 

“It beggars belief when you consider that the National-led Government came to power claiming to be champions of localism - they’ve thrown that out the window completely.”

For freshwater, two parts of the Environment Select Committee report are most significant; the proposals on Section 70 of the Resource Management Act and changes to farm plans, including more Ministerial control.

Currently, Section 70 says that councils cannot allow pollution that would cause “significant adverse effects on aquatic life” as a permitted activity. This means regional councils cannot allow for potentially polluting activities to happen without them going through a consenting process to assess whether they can avoid, remedy, or mitigate their impacts, even where an environment they want to operate in might already be polluted.

The Coalition parties support doing away with this and allowing polluting activities to go ahead, as long as the place those activities are occurring is already polluted and as long as there will be some reduction in that pollution over time. 

“But it doesn’t make sense. It is laughable that the report suggests you could grant a consent for an activity to add pollution to a place or continue polluting it now as long as it reduces its pollution by a bit, later. Why would we say ‘We’ll make a waterbody really sick now so we can nurse it back to health over decades’!? Make it make sense.” 

Even with standards for these permitted activities, campaigners regional councils will struggle to ensure they are sufficient to reduce or avoid “significant adverse effects on aquatic life” and will face significant lobbying to minimise any standards.

“This opens the door to more and worse pollution. Pollution that harms aquatic life inevitably has an impact on human lives, either directly due to illness or through impacts on livelihoods or taking away the things with love about the places we live in.”

The Coalition parties in the select committee also support changes that would bypass regional councils' role in controlling pollution through farm plans.

Farm plans have been a largely unsuccessful attempt to reduce the impact of farming on the country’s freshwater over the last decade or more. In regions where they have been used, like Canterbury, they have been found to be unable to stop the degradation of communities’ waterways and drinking water sources. 

“Not only is the value of farm plans in controlling pollution highly questionable,” says Kay, “the Select Committee’s proposal is to give Government the ability to support farm plans written and audited by polluting industries rather than regional councils, and to allow the Minister for the Environment to make the decision on which industry groups can play this role. This keeps regional councils at arms length from attempts to control pollution through farm plans, effectively writing them out as regulator.”

“This Government has demonstrated it has close and inappropriate relationships with some industry bodies. Having a Minister be responsible for such a decision opens the door to undue influence and allows for industry to capture the whole process around farm plans. We’re watching it happen now. This proposal effectively writes local government out of their regulatory role of controlling pollution.”

“It has never been clearer that the National-led Government is working for the polluters and not for the public. Our communities will pay for this through the impact on our quality of life, our drinking water sources, our opportunities to swim or fish, our pride in our beautiful environment, and our ability to be involved in local decision making.” 

ENDS

Tom Kay

022 183 2729

Press release: Changes to Fish & Game continue Coalition’s handover of power to polluters

For immediate release

Thursday 5 June 2025

Changes announced to Fish & Game this morning are another move in the Coalition Government’s handover of power to intensive farming and other polluting commercial interests, and will result in the further degradation of our rivers and freshwater, say freshwater campaigners. 

Choose Clean Water spokesperson Tom Kay says the changes announced today are clearly designed to remove Fish & Game’s ability to advocate for the health of rivers.

“Fish & Game has used its statutory purpose as a strong advocate for the health of rivers across New Zealand, and as such has helped protect numerous rivers from pollution and degradation.”

“There are some things about the system that do need fixing, but this is not only about that—this is the Coalition Govt taking advantage of an opportunity to reduce Fish & Game's influence over polluters."

“When environmental groups, local community groups, or iwi can’t afford to legally challenge a damaging activity or poorly made decision, Fish & Game is often there to ensure waterways are protected—working on behalf of their members to protect habitat for fish. But this Government is trying to stop that.”

The Coalition has stated that Fish & Game’s advocacy functions will be “revised” so regional Fish & Game Councils will only be able to take court action in relation to advocacy if explicitly approved by the New Zealand Fish & Game Council or the Minister and within a new restricted advocacy policy.

This morning’s press release from Minister for Hunting and Fishing James Meager on the changes states they will restrict the organisation’s ability to undertake court proceedings and require “Fish & Game councils to better consider the interests of other stakeholders such as farmers and the aviation sector in decision-making”.

“It’s telling that the Government has said specifically that it wants Fish & Game to better consider farming interests. Why not public health interests? Why not the interests of future generations? Why not the myriad of other commercial interests that operate in our communities? This demonstrates that this decision is another example of the Government enabling more pollution in rivers, lakes, and drinking water sources, and the handing of more power over our water to polluting commercial interests like intensive farming.”

“We know how detrimental the influence of Ministers can be over the statutory purposes of agencies like the Department of Conservation to protect our environment, for example. This is another case of Ministers being given the power to step in and stop actions that would protect our environment.”

Fish & Game led the processes to secure many Water Conservation Orders—similar to National Parks—for our rivers, protecting them for anglers and the public alike to enjoy. In 2002 they launched a large campaign against “Dirty Dairying” and the conversion of land into intensive agriculture, particularly in the South Island.

More recently, Fish & Game took up a legal challenge against ongoing extreme pollution of Southland’s waterways where dairy interests were wrongly claiming “there is no evidence of diffuse discharges from farming activities, either individually or cumulatively, causing adverse effects, including significant adverse effects on aquatic life”.

“Proponents of damaging, intensive agriculture and other major polluters are all over this Government’s decisions. This decision stinks of undue influence.”

ENDS

Tom Kay

022 183 2729

Press release: “Don't be fooled”: Govt's freshwater reforms means more pollution in your water and commercial control of public resources

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.”

ENDS

Tom Kay

022 183 2729

Opinion: We’ve been asked to trust industry leaders who say they’re willing to reduce their impact on waterways, while in practice they’re pushing to delay the rules that would do just that.

21 May 2025

By Tom Kay

Published in Hawke’s Bay Today.

It’s been reported that some farmers and growers in Hawke’s Bay are “revolting” against the implementation of environmental protections under the Tank regional plan change (‘Heretaunga Plains farmers revolt’ — Hawke’s Bay Today, May 9).

While still subject to Environment Court appeals, these rules would limit the water allocated to irrigators to their “actual and reasonable” use, one of the steps in the essential work needed to protect our rivers and groundwater from further degradation.

Reports that this amounts to reducing takes by almost half seem designed to mislead.

It only appears that much because the annual volume of water allocated on paper was enormous. That amount, around 180 million cubic metres, has in fact never been used — and should never have been handed out to begin with (actual use has never been much higher than 90 million m3).

In practice, it means producers will generally continue to be able to access the amount of water they’ve used to date.

Despite this and knowing for years it was coming, some industry leaders seem to consider it unfair and appear shocked.

There seems to be little appreciation on their part that it was unfair for the wider community’s collective resource to be handed out to private interests without a responsible limit in the first place.

Frustratingly, the leaders who are taking issue with Tank (and stoking misplaced anger in others) were previously some of its strongest supporters.

Leaders of the “revolt” include orchardists John Bostock, and regional councillors Xan Harding and Jerf van Beek.

In 2017, Bostock lauded the “scientific research and robustness” of the Tank process while opposing the proposed Ngaruroro River Water Conservation Order.

Harding stated that Tank would “deliver an equal or better environmental outcome” in the Ngaruroro catchment than a WCO, and would “minimise … time and expense in appeal processes”.

Van Beek said horticulturalists thought they could look after the river through Tank.

Tank was then a favourite excuse of those exploiting rivers and groundwater to delay essential changes.

The claim was that it would solve everything if the community would just slow down and trust growers and their industry in the process, one they presumably thought they could control.

However, now that Tank is out there and it doesn’t allow industry to do exactly what they wanted — to keep taking more water for commercial use — they’re attacking the process they once lauded.

Industry was involved in developing these necessary limits through Tank. Everyone, including producers, has known freshwater is severely over-allocated and under many pressures.

Yet many producers have failed to consider how they might adapt to what our environment can support. Some have even expanded the operations that are unsustainable and unfit for the land, water, and community around them.

Back in 2017, Bostock accused environmental groups of “gaming” the regional planning process, and said they had “sought to cut off” the Tank process and “impose their position on to everyone else around the table”.

If anything, the opposite is true. Community groups, iwi, marae, environmental groups, and some future-focused producers have worked for decades to try and protect water so we don’t descend into the almost-unsalvageable position of communities in Canterbury.

Meanwhile, proponents of large-scale irrigation have relentlessly imposed their position on everyone else, a position that all too frequently results in water that is unsafe to swim in, drink, or can’t even be accessed.

We’ve been asked to trust industry leaders who say they’re willing to reduce their impact on waterways, while in practice they’re pushing to delay the rules that would do just that.

National direction changes expected to advance dangerous ACT ideology at expense of the health of NZers and environment

Monday 26 May 2025

For immediate use

Government changes to national direction relating to the country’s resource management, expected to be announced this week, will advance ACT Party extreme ideologies at the expense of the health of the public and our environment, say freshwater campaigners.

Campaign group Choose Clean Water says a close reading of the Coalition Government’s cabinet paper on resource management reform provides a strong indication of what will be in the Government’s national direction announcement, and shows the National-led Government is adopting the extreme and incoherent views of ACT in their approach to environmental policy. 

“The changes to national direction signalled in the cabinet paper cover more than freshwater policy but what’s proposed for freshwater is indicative of what’s coming across the board. 

“The Coalition Government is making sure commercial interests can trump the public’s interests, and that supposed private property rights can trump the rights of everyone else in our communities to a safe, healthy environment to live in,” says spokesperson for the group, Tom Kay. 

Choose Clean Water says the cabinet paper’s prioritising of ‘the enjoyment of private property rights’ in public policy is straight out of an extreme libertarian ideology and becomes incoherent and dangerous when applied to communities’ needs and the natural environment.

As the cabinet paper emphasises, the Coalition Government intends to ‘replace the RMA with resource management laws premised on the enjoyment of property rights as a guiding principle’.

It goes on to say, ‘land use effects that are borne solely by the party undertaking the activity would not be controlled’. 

“The cabinet paper ignores reality. Prioritising ownership as it exists right now ignores the fact that property changes hands over time—so one landowner’s actions will affect a future property owner or community.

“The reality is that most land use activities will have an impact on the rest of the community and wider society, even those that may be confined within a property boundary.

“That’s why we have rules about what people can and can’t do, so that the needs of everyone—including future generations—can be managed and communities aren’t harmed by one person’s poor decision making.” 

Additionally, Choose Clean Water says any national direction announcement that highlights ‘environmental limits’ should be met with skepticism. 

It appears as though the Government has already agreed to take away existing essential environmental limits for freshwater. 

The cabinet paper states, ‘Limits to protect human health would be set nationally, whereas limits to protect the natural environment would be set by regional councils, who may incorporate sub-regional perspectives (such as catchment groups)’.

“We have existing protections for rivers and lakes in the form of national bottom lines (environmental limits). The National Party introduced these in 2014 and they’ve been refined since. 

“But the cabinet paper proposes to remove these existing bottom lines and throw this decision-making back to regional councils again. This means communities will be vulnerable to more pollution of their rivers, lakes and drinking water, such as from another predicted ‘dairy boom’ in Canterbury.”

“It’s dangerous to disconnect human and environmental health, and unrealistic to imagine you can protect people’s health without protecting the waterways they swim in, fish and collect food from, and rely on for their drinking water.”

Kay also says the group can also see the influence of commercial interests over public policy, such as allowing catchment groups to set limits as another way of weakening or removing limits. 

“It just opens them up to industry capture, where agribusiness exerts massive influence to set weak standards that work for them. Catchment groups are currently largely dominated by these interests and aren’t set up to allow for what downstream communities might want or need to protect their health and livelihoods.”

“This is only a small example of what’s in the cabinet paper and there is more to be alarmed about in the Coalition Government’s proposals for our environmental policies. ACT’s dangerous ideology should not be the basis of our resource management system, and National Party leaders must push back on them.” 

ENDS

Spokesperson: Tom Kay, 022 183 2729, tom@choosecleanwater.org.nz

Govt officials knew 2020 water policy would fail to protect health of water and ignored scientists’ advice

Govt officials knew 2020 water policy would fail to protect health of water and ignored scientists’ advice 

11:45am Monday 1st March 2021

For immediate release

Choose Clean Water

Reporting by Radio New Zealandtoday has revealed that government officials knew the 2020 freshwater policy would fail to protect the health of waterways and ignored scientists’ advice that the government should introduce a 1mg/L dissolved inorganic nitrogen bottom line.

Freshwater campaign group Choose Clean Water says that it is deeply troubling that officials from the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) ignored the Government’s expert science advisory group on a bottom line for nitrogen and instead adopted policy being lobbied for by intensive dairy industry executives. 

Radio New Zealand revealed today that MPI, citing DairyNZ modelling, put pressure on the Ministry for the Environment to weaken water policy.

Fortunately, Choose Clean Water says, the Government made a promise in May 2020 to revisit the bottom line for nitrogen in 12 months. 

It now needs to implement what the scientists told it in the first place: putting the health of people and rivers first by introducing the 1mg/L bottom line for nitrogen pollution this year.

“By not protecting water properly, the Ministry for Primary industries is letting the health of our rivers and our people take hit after hit when it should be that polluting industries are required to change,” spokesperson for the group, Marnie Prickett, says.

Choose Clean Water says the Government’s water policy framework, Te Mana o Te Wai, says that regional councils must put the health of rivers and people before commercial interests. 

“Te Mana o Te Wai requires regional councils to put the health of rivers and people before private financial interests. Our national water policy clearly must do the same. This starts with strict rules on pollution.”

ENDS

Wairarapa Water Ltd.’s bad science and poor process a warning bell for all

For immediate use

11am Monday 21 December 2020

Choose Clean Water

Freshwater campaigners say Wairarapa iwi Rangitāne o Wairarapa statement released today highlighting their concerns around Wairarapa Water Ltd.’s “rushed time frames and incorrect information” is an important warning bell for the public and politicians. 

“We support Rangitāne o Wairarapa in raising their concerns around Wairarapa Water Ltd.’s bad science and poor process.,” says Choose Clean Water spokesperson Marnie Prickett.  

“We have long questioned the motives of Wairarapa Water Ltd. in pushing a scheme that would benefit very few land owners, and have large consequences and costs for the rest of the community.”

“The fact that Water Wairarapa appears to be operating under the strange belief that water that flows to the sea is “wasted” is a major warning bell,” Prickett says. 

“Most of us know that to be healthy a river needs to flow to the sea and have plenty of water for the life that it supports.”

“Our best climate mitigation is protecting and enhancing our natural environment. This will make us more resilient than the type of damming and irrigation being proposed by Water Wairarapa.”

The group says that around the country vested interests are presenting water storage schemes as having community benefit when, in fact, they are taking water that people and nature need from rivers and often seeking resource consents that would last 35 years.

“We are concerned that the Government is yet to fully recognise and respond to the resource grab that these water storage schemes represent. Schemes like this pose a danger for future generations in that they will concentrate resources in a few hands for many decades and degrade the natural environment.”

The group says the Government needs to put money into researching and developing natural infrastructure solutions for building climate resilience as well as to put a moratorium on water takes until a sustainable path way forward is set in place. 

ENDS

Water storage should not be prioritised over waste and drinking water infrastructure in post-Covid public spending

 Thursday 11 June 2020

For immediate release

Choose Clean Water 

The Government should be putting public health first in its post-Covid spending, freshwater campaigners say, prioritising waste and drinking water infrastructure over water storage.

Campaigners from Choose Clean Water were disappointed to learn today that the Government has given $37.3 million for a water storage scheme in Northland, not for long overdue and essential improvements for waste, storm and drinking water infrastructure.

“We’re just emerging from a serious public health crisis and it is reasonable to expect that our Government would prioritise its post-Covid spending on projects to improve public health – that’s not what we’re seeing in today’s announcement,” says group spokesperson Marnie Prickett.

“Our three waters – storm, waste and drinking water – infrastructure has been neglected over many years and we know that councils have put forward projects to improve these services with post-Covid funding. Such projects would be a win-win for public health and economic stimulus through construction.”

“Upgrading drinking water infrastructure alone has already been costed out at hundreds of millions of dollars and the Havelock North Inquiry found that 721,000 people in New Zealand are drinking water that may not be safe.”

"Moreover, the group says, while the Government claims the water storage project is to protect Northland from the effects of climate change, the science to back these claims appears not to have been provided."

“Global analysis shows that seeking to reduce water use is a better way to develop resilience than building dams. Our Government should be showing the public the science upon which it is basing water storage decisions. We suspect there is no sound basis.”

“Water storage projects look like a plaster on a much bigger problem – our changing climate.” 

ENDS

Crucial policy missing from Government’s water announcement, say campaigners

Crucial policy missing from Government’s water announcement, say campaigners

11:30am Thursday 28 May 2020

For immediate use

Choose Clean Water NZ

Freshwater campaigners are frustrated the Government has delayed a crucial decision on nitrogen pollution for a further 12 months until after the election. 

“We have urged the Government many times to put in place clear and unequivocal limits for nitrogen pollution in rivers and streams, specifically a bottom line that protects ecosystem health.” 

“It is the main policy we have been asking for,” says Marnie Prickett, spokesperson for Choose Clean Water.

“It was also recommended by the Government’s own Science and Technical Advisory group that produced hundreds of pages of reports saying that to protect the health of rivers the bottom line should be 1mg/L for dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN).”

“Likewise, submissions on the policy made by medical professionals supported 1mg/L because of the implications of nitrogen pollution for human health and the country’s drinking water.”

“But in today’s announcement, the decision on this bottom line has been put off until after the election.”

“This is a great disappointment to many of us who have campaigned for clear, strong freshwater policy.”

“The public will now need to wait until next year to see whether Labour comes through with the 1mg/L recommended by the scientific majority.”

“Polluting industries exploit gaps and ambiguities in policy, which is why this 1mg/L bottom line is so important.” 

At the same time, campaigners support a number of parts of today’s announcement.

“The other main policy we pushed for was a cap on nitrogen fertiliser use and we are pleased that the Government has announced that today. Capping nitrogen fertiliser use is an important step forward, although at 190kg/ha/year it is set too high.”  

“On the deferred nitrogen bottom lines, we urge as a stop gap that the government introduces what’s called a “look up table” of default values for nitrogen to manage periphyton (a requirement brought in by the National Government) to guide Regional Councils in the interim.”

“The country has witnessed the benefits of government policy being based on best available science in our Covid-19 response. We need exactly the same approach on rivers.”

“We will be keeping on the pressure until the Government has brought in the necessary rules on nitrogen pollution in 12 months’ time.”

“Once the necessary bottom lines are finalised, implementation of freshwater policy will be by regional councils. Regional councils are vulnerable to pressure from polluting industries and need greater oversight by central government. We recommend a Te mana o te Wai/Waterways Commission is established as soon as possible to ensure regional councils protect the public and our rivers.” 

ENDS

For more information: Marnie Prickett, 022 161 2634, marnie@choosecleanwater.org.nz

www.choosecleanwater.org.nz

Strong water rules essential as new report shows most NZ rivers polluted

 A government report released today shows most New Zealand rivers are polluted, highlighting why strong water rules are urgently needed, say freshwater campaigners.

 The report shows most of our waterways are under stress and many are severely impacted.

In our response to the Covid-19 epidemic, the Government must not sacrifice the health of our country’s water by stalling long overdue freshwater reform as some have called for, says Choose Clean Water spokesperson Marnie Prickett.

Our Freshwater 2020, part of Ministry for the Environment and Stats NZ’s reporting on the state of the environment, shows most rivers flowing through urban and rural land are polluted.

One per cent of the length of New Zealand rivers flows through urban catchments, half through pastoral catchments and six per cent through land dominated by forestry.

“Surely, at a time when health is front of mind for most New Zealanders, this report is yet more evidence that we need strong water rules to be finalised by this Government this year,” says Prickett.

“Water is the foundation for our country’s health. Our waterways are sources for our drinking water, where we go to play and gather food. Clean, healthy waterways support our mental and physical well-being.”

Moreover, the group says, healthy waterways are important for resilience in the face of a changing climate. The report states that freshwater habitat continues to decline.

“More than ever, the need for strong water rules is clear.”

“We urge the Government to listen to the evidence on freshwater, plan ahead and put us on the path now to protecting water for the long-term health and well-being of all New Zealanders.”

ENDS

Read the report here: https://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/environmental-reporting/our-freshwater-2020