Won’t the Government think about the kiwis?

Written By: - Date published: 9:05 am, April 13th, 2017 - 55 comments
Categories: business, capitalism, Conservation, Economy, Environment, national, Politics, you couldn't make this shit up - Tags:

This is really unfortunate timing for National.  On top of news that it does not care about homeless families, children living in poverty, water standards or climate change amongst many other things there is breaking news that it does not care about Kiwis.  The feathered kind.

I blogged about Alpine Pure’s intent to take huge amounts of water two weeks ago.  I was astounded that there was a plan to extract millions of litres of water out of a Unesco world heritage site, send it by pipe to the West Coast and then ship it to foreign markets for bottling.  The cost of the water would essentially be nil.

Well sounds like things are even worse than I thought.

From Newshub:

A company that’s been given the right to take water that originates in a National Park has also been given the right to lay a pipeline through a sanctuary for New Zealand’s rarest kiwi.

The ‘Alpine Pure’ water will come from the Mount Aspiring National Park and could force the removal of up to 35 rare kiwi, the Haast Tokoeka.

Conservation Minister Maggie Barry put out a press release today trumpeting how the Department of Conservation (DoC) has just released some Haast Tokoeka from a breeding programme, back into the very area that’s affected.

But Ms Barry has no idea about the pipeline. “I’ll need to find out more about the detail of it,” she said when asked about it in Parliament on Wednesday.

“It’s certainly possible to do and DoC and the other experts in this field are capable of doing that. But you wouldn’t want to do it unless there was a really good reason.”

Lets do a cost benefit analysis of the proposal.  The benefit is … I’m not sure.  Fees paid to local authorities are miniscule.  There will be a few jobs constructing the pipeline.  There would also be a few jobs constructing a footpath or repairing a DOC track, probably more.

But this Government is happy to grant permission to put a pipeline though a very important reserve which is habitat to one of our rarest national birds.

Sure the disruption may not be great.  But there is no community benefit that I can see.

How about a price is put on the extraction of water.  One significant enough so that the protection of our national icon can be funded properly and guaranteed.

Update:  And if you want to sign a petition against the pipeline there is one at Actionstation.

55 comments on “Won’t the Government think about the kiwis? ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. michelle 1
    13 April 2017 at 9:23 am

    Time to get rid of these parasites they are destroying our country and they are just as bad as the USA pipeline incident with the native Indians bloody hypocrites in our country wake up a pipeline through a reserve and having to remove kiwi that we have spent millions on trying to protect disgusting more foreigners taking our water for 5k a year something is seriously wrong here.
    How come pakeha here don’t mind the foreigners taking our water they would rather foreigners take our wai than maori have any say or control over it. I think something is seriously wrong here and we have a bunch of dick heads calling themselves the hobson pledge running around the country saying we maori are privileged utter bull and we all know it. Look at he history of our country it was founded on racism as was most colonized countries.

    • Gosman 1.1
      13 April 2017 at 10:10 am

      The people have a say in who accesses water via the councils. The council in this case decided to allow the company involved to get this water but they could equally have denied them that right and that decision is accountable to the local government voters who live in the area. Giving certain Maori groupings the right to decide access rights does not allow ALL the people in the area to have the same say. That is why it is wrong.

      • mickysavage 1.1.1
        13 April 2017 at 10:32 am

        Why?

        The pipeline goes through a DOC kiwi breeding sanctuary. All that DOC had to do is say no and it would not be happening.

        • Gosman 1.1.1.1
          13 April 2017 at 10:39 am

          All the council needs to do is say no to the request for water access. Why didn’t they?

          • BM 1.1.1.1.1
            13 April 2017 at 10:41 am

            Because the pipeline will have very little impact and will follow a road to Jackson Bay.

            • Gosman 1.1.1.1.1.1
              13 April 2017 at 10:44 am

              I would suspect you are correct. However for some reason the lefties want undemocratic organisations such as DOC making the call now whether this can go ahead or not.

              • BM …
                13 April 2017 at 10:48 am

                Ignore that comment MS has a map at the bottom which actually shows where the pipeline is going to be sited.

                Starts a fair way back into bush which I don’t like.

      • michelle 1.1.2
        13 April 2017 at 10:46 am

        Gosman that is a very very weak answer why do you pakeha have a problem with us having a say but no problem with the council hocking of our water to foreigners at a bargain price and you say because everyone in the area needs to have a say sounds like you are a jealous and spiteful man gosman just like the people in charge of this country no wonder we are going down the toilet too many shit stirrers like you

        • Gosman 1.1.2.1
          13 April 2017 at 10:59 am

          Because the council is under democratic control (i.e. the people in the area get to decide). Having Maori organisations control access isn’t democratic. Don’t you believe democracy is the best way of managing shared resources michelle?

          • michelle 1.1.2.1.1
            13 April 2017 at 11:12 am

            we have treaty that is being poo pooed on by people like you

            • Gosman 1.1.2.1.1.1
              13 April 2017 at 11:14 am

              Does the Treaty give the right of Maori to veto democratic decisions?

              • McFlock …
                13 April 2017 at 11:45 am

                Interesting question.
                Why shouldn’t it? How one party of an agreement come to their decision is irrelevant to whether the other party come to the same decision, surely

                • Gosman …
                  13 April 2017 at 11:58 am

                  Let me put it this way then. If you wanted to build something on your property I can understand that Council may have an interest in it. You have the ability to influence Council via the democratic process. However if a Maori organisation has an interest in what you do in your property there are very liitle you can do to influence them. They are only accountable to whoever they represent. Not to the wider public.

                  • Robert Guyton …
                    13 April 2017 at 12:04 pm

                    Your property? From whose property is this water to be extracted and over whose property is the pipeline to be laid?

                  • McFlock …
                    13 April 2017 at 1:22 pm

                    Let me put it this way: you have a small apartment in a complex run by a body corporate. All tenants have a stake in the BC as equal partners, but some changes require consensus rather than just majority rules.

                    You want to knock a hole through your wall, a significant enough change to require consent from the BC.

                    Under the rules you signed up to when you moved in to the apartment, one other tenant can veto your proposed change. Do you have the right to arbitrarily ignore the rules when inconvenient?

                    • lprent …
                      13 April 2017 at 1:35 pm

                      Do you have the right to arbitrarily ignore the rules when inconvenient?

                      In my apartment block, anyone could. However the BC will charge them for fixing the damage to our common structural property and will bankrupt them if they didn’t pay it. Plus if they lack the respect for common property and it, I’d be voting to remove their right to access common property – like doors, garages, and lifts. Remove their card access.

                      It is a strata title and the rules about that tend to be pretty damn clear about what an individual owns. If you happen to own two apartments side by side, you can’t knock a door through without permission from the all other owners. The wall is common property because they are structural.

                    • Gosman …
                      13 April 2017 at 1:39 pm

                      Ahh no. How about you live in a body corporate and only those people who are the descendants of the people who first moved in to the building have the veto rights over what you do in your property but not others.

                    • McFlock …
                      13 April 2017 at 1:50 pm

                      Ahh no. How about you live in a body corporate and only those people who are the descendants of the people who first moved in to the building have the veto rights over what you do in your property but not others.

                      Well if that’s the rule for living in a building that they or their ancestors didn’t give up complete ownership of when entering into a partnership, that’s the rule set you work with.

                      And it might be a smart move to build some decent relationship with those owners, no?

                    • Gosman …
                      13 April 2017 at 3:36 pm

                      You mean like how the working class should come to some arrangement with the Aristocrats in the UK and accept an inferior status due to hereditary privilege ?

                    • McFlock …
                      13 April 2017 at 3:45 pm

                      No. Like if the original owners of the apartment block only sold half the apartments and kept the other half, or if they sold up on condition that the apartment block didn’t get any larger and your proposed extension was in violation of that.

                      I know that as a tory you find issues of consent and agreement to be confusing, but seriously – confusing the terms of a treaty with hereditary wealth acquired by force? But then you also seem to believe that an action isn’t corrupt if it eventually also benefits someone other than the person signing off on the self-serving deal. You’re an odd duck.

              • Robert Guyton …
                13 April 2017 at 12:01 pm

                Can government, central and local over ride the rights given to Maori by the Treaty?

              • greywarshark …
                13 April 2017 at 2:39 pm

                It was a democratic decision to give Maori rights to review some of government and other decisions. This is just to turn around your previously skewed comment and get it facing the right way. Now it’s all nice and tidy isn’t it. But of course it isn’t because there are different interpretations about various things. But there is a base in the Treaty so you can stop sounding querulous.

              • michelle …
                13 April 2017 at 2:56 pm

                When you only make up 15% if the population( maori ) who has the power gosman not us. We rely on our pakeha whanau to vote for the betterment of the whole country not for themselves. Now when we were the majority here the pakeha rulers gave us 4 seats to control us so we couldn’t out vote them now we are out numbered we have all these pakeha asking to get rid of the maori seat they created to control us because they say they are racist. Well they bloody well created these seats now they want rid of there own policy because its no longer suitable its separatism when this country was founded on separatism.

          • Grafton Gully 1.1.2.1.2
            13 April 2017 at 1:15 pm

            41% of the electorate did not vote. How does that ensure a Council under democratic control ?
            http://www.lgnz.co.nz/nzs-local-government/vote2016/final-voter-turnout-2016/
            I don’t believe that your idea of democracy (democracy limited by voter participation) is the best way of managing shared resources.
            The early settler governments and their successors have damaged our soils, waterways, aquifers, plants and animals and pay lip service to the concerns of the Maori people and the Pakeha and others who sympathise with them.

          • Draco T Bastard 1.1.2.1.3
            13 April 2017 at 1:28 pm

            Because the council is under democratic control (i.e. the people in the area get to decide).

            Bollocks.

            The people didn’t get any say – just the councillors.

            Don’t you believe democracy is the best way of managing shared resources michelle?

            Of course democracy is – but we don’t have that. If we had that then there would have been a referendum put out to everyone and not just a few people in council.

            We have an elected dictatorship that rules for business and not a democracy that rules for the people by the people.

  2. Jenny Kirk 2
    13 April 2017 at 9:58 am

    Extraordinary statement from Maggie Barry. She obviously is not kept up to date with what goes on in the conservation estate. And just as obviously, DoC has been “gagged” from making any objections to destructive incursions into the land under their protection – so much for guardianship ! Its now non-existent under this govt.

  3. Gosman 3
    13 April 2017 at 10:08 am

    Yes, let’s start charging commercial rates for water if it is being used for commercial purposes.

  4. tc 4
    13 April 2017 at 10:26 am

    National are being consistent mickey, screwing over the feathered endangered species aligns with their screwing over of ordinary everday working kiwis

  5. BM 5
    13 April 2017 at 10:31 am

    Just done a bit of googling and came across this article

    The consents were first issued in 1991 to take bulk water from a tributary of the Arawhata River, and pipe it to waiting ships for export to the likes of the Middle East.

    Okuru chairman Peter Roselli said yesterday the water, to be sourced from the alpine Tuning Fork Creek, currently just ran out to sea via the Arawhata River.

    Mrs Rasmussen added that the water would not be drawn from a dam, lake or aquifer, but a simple weir in the creek.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11777930

    The Tuning Fork Creek weir is located by Arawhata River bridge and the proposed pipeline will go along the Haast-Jackson Bay Road which has a 100k speed limit to Jackson bay.
    https://goo.gl/14fsof

    I don’t really see any danger to kiwis to be honest.

    If anyone is interested here is the link to the officer’s report which explains everything

    https://www.westlanddc.govt.nz/rc160021-okuru-enterprises-ltd-s42a-hearing-report

    • mickysavage 5.1
      13 April 2017 at 10:41 am

      The report says that the pipe is to go through the “Department of
      Conservation – Arawhata Stock Reserve – Local Purpose Reserve” and also “Part RES 1692 – Construction of the water intake structure and weir involving earthworks within the riparian margins of Tuning Fork Creek, and earthworks and vegetation clearance associated with the burial of a 410mm diameter pipeline for the conveyance of water. Temporary buildings and structures will be associated with the construction site.
      (ii) RES 2044 – Earthworks associated with the burial of a 410mm diameter
      pipeline for the conveyance of water. ”

      This plan (https://www.westlanddc.govt.nz/sites/default/files/RC160021%20-%20s42A%20Officers%20Report_Appendix%20Two.pdf) makes it clear.

      About a third of the pipe goes through reserve, not road.

      • BM 5.1.1
        13 April 2017 at 10:45 am

        Far enough I didn’t see a proper map I thought it would be a lot closer to the bridge.

        That’s quite a fair way back into the bush

      • Gosman 5.1.2
        13 April 2017 at 10:46 am

        Why did the local council allow the request for access then?

        • mickysavage 5.1.2.1
          13 April 2017 at 10:48 am

          Land ownership is not clear to me but the article suggests that it is DOC land. Council has granted consent to construct the pipe but the landowner approval is still required and given that the land is a reserve I am bemused and dumbfounded that this should have happened.

          • Graeme 5.1.2.1.1
            13 April 2017 at 1:34 pm

            It’s Westland micky, wouldn’t be surprised if some of the actors in the current debacle there are mixed up in this. The Havill name figures prominently in another boondoggle just south of this one. (Earl Hagaman gets a mention too)

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haast-Hollyford_road
            http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11666458

            • Jenny Kirk 5.1.2.1.1.1
              13 April 2017 at 1:48 pm

              Not only that, Graeme, and Mickey, but DoC has had its wings cut off – DoC is not allowed to comment or make submissions on resource consent applications which affect some of its properties over which it has guardianship. This is not written into any actual policy but it appears to be the reality – as I have witnessed a couple of occasions when DoC has just dropped the ball on matters which they should have been vitally interested in.

    • Graeme 5.2
      13 April 2017 at 1:52 pm

      Dead right, this thing has been kicking around for a very long time and hasn’t really gone anywhere.

      The thing that intrigues me is the economics of the thing, desalination plants can produce fresh water, and really good fresh water, for stupidly low cost now. https://thestandard.org.nz/down-the-gurgler-2/#comment-1314572

      How can it work fitting out and running a dedicated tanker basically right around the world for a load of water. Branding only goes so far.

      • BM 5.2.1
        13 April 2017 at 1:58 pm

        That’s what I thought, this all seems more of a marketing gimmick than anything else.

        25 years ago I think this would be a viable business, now why bother.

      • Duncan 5.2.2
        13 April 2017 at 7:45 pm

        Branding goes far further than most people appreciate.
        Look what people pay for the latest Nike or to breathe a can of nz mountain air.
        And the freight cost per l would be in the order of 5 cents per l. Hardly a deal breaker.
        Why don’t people recognise the value of the NZ brand?

        • Hanswurst 5.2.2.1
          14 April 2017 at 12:50 am

          I suspect “people” do recognise the value of the NZ brand, but value the simple presence of natural NZ stuff in NZ more highly.

  6. greywarshark 6
    13 April 2017 at 11:02 am

    We need to all grow a pair and make a definite statement that we in NZ are not going to allow our wild, natural water to be exported, or even bottled and sold within NZ.
    Not only is it bloody stupid to allow this essential resource to be hocked off, there are weather conditions that will require that basic supplies are shipped and driven round the country to supply needy areas for years sometimes. And that is without taking any of these round-to-it watering can-cans for dairy or whatever. These bloody dairy farmers saw what had happened in the USA where mighty rivers have been reduced to trickles and downstream farmers, states and countries have had their normal share stolen.

    And another major point is the long-term grants that are given. It is only fair says the business case that if they are going to invest in infrastructure and brand-building that they get the rights for 35 years. That will be a lifetime soon, when we start facing our harsh prospects and stop feeding us oldies pills and interfering medical treatment keeping us alive for 10 years or more beyond when we would have died naturally.

    There aren’t enough eggs and dildos in this country to arm the protest that politicians are earning, central and local thick and dickheads, complacently, smarmily, going on their way dealing in this addictive substance, water. Time to get definite, stop mewing like kittens, roar like lions, and bite them on the ankles like the mean little lapdogs that pollies think we are. We need to snarl and show them our little teeth and shock them in their tracks.

  7. One Anonymous Bloke 7
    13 April 2017 at 12:23 pm

    Moneywrench the pipeline and keep on doing so, throughout its construction, and once it is finished. Persistent, relentless vandalism until such time as the perpetrators can be driven into the sea.

  8. DoublePlusGood 8
    13 April 2017 at 1:38 pm

    This is so obviously a stupid idea that dodgy money must be flying around to facilitate it going ahead. The only other explanation is that the relevant officials are grossly incompetent.

  9. saveNZ 9
    14 April 2017 at 11:01 am

    Deregulation and exploitation through the RMA process has been allowed and this is the result.

    People are saying there is a class war going on against people vs business, I think it is more a legislative one that allows water and other resources to be exploited by business for little to zero cost. Then the profits are exported and probably zero taxes paid.

    To over turn the decision will be extremely expensive in environment court and you would probably lose anyway.

    The law in NZ has been designed to exploit not to save the environment.

    The Natz think the RMA is too restrictive so fuck knows what’s next to deregulate it further, the TPPA like approach where you have to pay in case business lose a $$ in the future and in their own international courts? Arrest locals if they disagree? Already happening by the sounds of it with Russel Norman.

    Instead of government putting more social and community legislation into RMA in the age of globalism and climate change, they are stripping it out protection to make communities poorer and with less control of their own resources.

    Then there is the financial issues of these cases. Clearly no financial reason for even approving it!

    It’s just money for jam for business and the people organising the exploitation probably have donated or have links to someone in council who arranged for the council support or the council were lazy or scared of litigation to say no.

    DOC is probably under so many restructures it doesn’t know what is going on.

    Neither does the government by the sounds of it.

    Yep, Natz that’s deregulation for you, you don’t know what the fuck is happening anymore with every man and his dog out to plunder from the country for personal gain, like the Natz.

  10. Rae 10
    15 April 2017 at 1:33 pm

    As others have noticed, this is actually a regranting of a consent obtained originally in the early 1990s, the idea back then was that the water would be shipped to the Middle East.
    Personally, I reckon the cost of putting it all together is most likely to be prohibitive, but that is no reason not to oppose.
    My main objections to this go beyond the simple idea of exporting water per se, the area can probably do it without too much effect.
    I have questions about the safety of ballast water in Jackson and want to know how can be certain that ship hulls are clean.
    I do not like the precedent this sets being where it is located.
    I wonder what the electricity requirements are of this scheme, Haast is not connected to the National Grid, relying instead on a small turbine on the Turnbull River that is capable of pushing out about 1,000kw per day, which is probably pretty much all needed now. I expect this scheme would be expecting to draw power from this.
    I would be extremely concerned that some time down the track the whole thing could sell out to foreign interests. Some of the main players here are locals to the area, some even are from a local Runanga, one is an ex-Westland District councillor. They have had a number of schemes, a notable one that did not go ahead was for a large area of ocean to be set aside for mussel spat gathering, they are quite controversial in the area and have their supporters and their detractors. This issue is a bit like the Haast-Hollyford Road in that respect, another thing I hope never becomes a reality.
    My main concern though does not really figure in this in New Zealand and that is that this water will probably be destined for plastic bottles and that’s something I reckon we should be all calling for the end of, those things are contributing to the ruination of the whole damned planet.