Comment by John Lawson of Whaingaroa Environmental Defence
Raglan based Whaingaroa Environmental Defence expressed its surprise that local environmental champion, Fred Lichtwark, wasn’t among the candidates endorsed by Sustainable Waikato for the Waikato constituency of Waikato Regional Council. Fred has spent over 20 years improving the water quality in Whaingaroa Harbour and many other waterways. The Whaingaroa Harbour Care group he has managed has planted over 1.5 million trees and won many prestigious awards for its pioneering environmental work.
WED Secretary, John Lawson, said, “It surprised me even more when I saw that Sustainable Waikato had endorsed rival candidate, Jenny Hayman.” He went on to draw attention to articles on local website, Raglan23, in which Jenny had said, “Late in 2015 I became aware that the two current Councillors for the Waikato constituency would probably not stand again” and listed Peter Buckley as her agent. Mr Lawson said, “Both of those statements suggest she has close links with the former Rates Control councillors, who have cut back on environmental spending and abolished the name ‘Environment Waikato’.
.
Just on Saturday, in a Raglan 23 posting, Jenny drew attention to the Healthy Rivers Wai Ora Proposed Plan Change. On Friday, that plan had equal numbers of Regional Councillors voting for and against it, only being carried on the chair’s casting vote. Voting for clean water were Bob Simcock, Alan Livingston, Lois Livingston, Paula Southgate, Stu Kneebone, Tipa Mahuta and Timoti Bramley. Against were Hugh Vercoe, Stuart Husband, Kathy White, Clyde Graf, Jane Hennebry, Theresa Stark and Peter Buckley (Jenny’s agent). Jenny emphasised the need for “carrots as well as sticks” and said she didn’t know enough about the plan to say how she would have voted.
WED also called into question Jenny’s policies, contrasting her statement that, “I am not sure how council policies might “mitigate” climate change”, with Fred Lichtwark’s statement, “Agriculture is the largest climate change driver . . . Waikato Regional Council is also responsible for the second largest driver of climate change – transport”. WED supports the view that Regional Council policies could do a lot to mitigate climate change, whereas Jenny appears to have doubts about climate change.
Sustainable Waikato also claimed that personal contributions were taken into account. WED disputed this. John Lawson said, “I can only find two references to Jenny’s work on Hauraki Gulf Forum, and those simply saying she was on the Forum. However, Fred has numerous references to his extensive work, which has included talking to the Forum.”
WED has asked Sustainable Waikato for an explanation. SW has promised to do so, sometime after the weekend.
Great followup John. Thanks keep us abreast.
Hi John & Co.
This is from facebook answering a constituents query on why they voted as stated by Clyde Graf as follows:-“To be clear – we didn’t vote against the Healthy Rivers Plan Change. We voted that it go back to the CSG and or the Committee, for further consideration, and to consider peoples rights – rate payers rights. Generations of Waikato farmers have toiled with the land, broken it in, and endured the difficulties that come with it. This plan change – that the other 7 councillors voted be notified – means that farming families all over the Waikato will immediately be faced with heavy restrictions on what they can do ON THEIR LAND. The changes came into immediate effect. We just wanted to delay the decision to notify until further investigation could be undertaken on the financial, and social impacts. The other seven councillors were arrogant in their decision (in my opinion) – and happy to condemn many honest, hardworking farming families to the scrap heap. Most farmers are keen to improve their methods of farming, to improve water quality, and have been doing so for many years under Council planning. The other thing that bothers me was the decision by the 5 river IWI to ignore the impacts of 1080. They chose to NOT to include the spreading of the deadly pesticide in with their four focus contaminants (E-Coli, Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Sedimentation) – when the poison is being dropped directly into ALL waterways in the headwaters of the Waikato and Waipa rivers that the Healthy Rivers Plan Change was meant to address. In the opening pages of the plan change it is stated that water is very special to Maori, and it’s spiritual. Well, the decision of the 5 river IWI to ignore the aerial spreading of 1080 in the contaminants is (in my opinion) an insult to ALL Maori in the history of Aotearoa. I mentioned this at the Council decision table, suggesting Maori had been disrespected, without realising that the River IWI had actually chosen to ignore the use of 1080 – and I didn’t realise that they were, in effect, supporting its use, when they could have addressed it. Once again, we didn’t oppose the Plan, we wanted to have new information considered, that is all. Cheers.”
Secondly my opinion on Sustainable Waikato. This group comes out of the woodwork at each local body election with a bias. I stood for the Rates Control Team for Waikato Regional Council 3years ago. It appears even if this name is mentioned you are condemned by Sustainable Waikato on this basis. People think if you stand under this banner you are anti-environment. I am certainly not and neither are any other candidates. I am for prudent spending of ratepayer money on projects that are cost effective and not a gravy train to be taken advantage of.
Who in Sustainable Waikato stands to gain monetarily by pushing their agenda and having people elected by their influence? People matter too and I am not willing to see people “rated out” of their homes because they cannot afford our ever increasing rates.
Environment Waikato used to cost us about $50 per annum in the beginning. This year it is $366. Where is the value for the money? Most of it would be spent on bureaucrats for sure.
I have been an organic gardener since I was 11 years old when I became a serious gardner. I was in the Hamilton Permaculture Trust since 1999 and been a volunteer, Trustee and a facilitator for them. I was called a conspiracist and another name by Prof. Bruce Clarkson because I stated that the carbon tax was a scam and Agenda 21 was about loss of property rights and personal freedoms. This man seems to have a lot of influence in Sustainable Waikato and when it comes to politics and decisions made by councils. I find it rather ironic that this ecology professor is in favour of using a lethal toxic poison namely 1080 poison which kills all breathing organisms that absorb it and thus condones poisoning of our lands and waterways. It’s another fluoride poison placed in our drinking water and in harms way. Further, why is the Healthy Rivers project not being testing for toxins such as Roundup/glyphosate, fluoride (hydrofluorosilicic acid) and 1080 poison (monofluoroacetate) – fluorides are enzyme poisoners to humans and other wildlife. Last year we had visiting health experts say that if we do not cease the use of glyphosates we will see 1 in every 2 children inflicted with autism hence the Healthy Rivers project scope is not good enough is it?
If councils are left to increase debt and our rates through ill-conceived schemes such as the Healthy River project said to cost us BILLIONS we are going to finish off our farmers and other food producers with costs. Everyone in New Zealand will become tenants/homeless in our own country! We ALL need to wake up and do further research on these so-called projects. In my considered opinion Healthy Rivers is a Trojan horse used to steal everyone’s property rights. I say wake up and vote carefully…..
Good evening. If I could just put this perspective across as one of the councillors that voted on te Healthy Rivers. We didn’t vote against the Healthy Rivers Plan Change. We voted that it go back to the CSG and or the Committee, for further consideration, and to consider peoples rights – rate payers rights. Generations of Waikato farmers have toiled with the land, broken it in, and endured the difficulties that come with it. This plan change – that the other 7 councillors voted be notified – means that farming families all over the Waikato will immediately be faced with heavy restrictions on what they can do ON THEIR LAND. The changes came into immediate effect. We just wanted to delay the decision to notify until further investigation could be undertaken on the financial, and social impacts. The other seven councillors were amiss in their decision (in my opinion) – and happy to condemn many honest, hardworking farming families to the scrap heap. Most farmers are keen to improve their methods of farming, to improve water quality, and have been doing so for many years under Council planning. The other thing that bothers me was the decision by the 5 river IWI to ignore the impacts of 1080. They chose to NOT to include the spreading of the deadly pesticide in with their four focus contaminants (E-Coli, Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Sedimentation) – when the poison is being dropped directly into ALL waterways in the headwaters of the Waikato and Waipa rivers that the Healthy Rivers Plan Change was meant to address. In the opening pages of the plan change it is stated that water is very special to Maori, and it’s spiritual. Well, the decision of the 5 river IWI to ignore the aerial spreading of 1080 in the contaminants is (in my opinion) an insult to ALL Maori in the history of Aotearoa. I mentioned this at the Council decision table, suggesting Maori had been disrespected, without realising that the River IWI had actually chosen to ignore the use of 1080 – and I didn’t realise that they were, in effect, supporting its use, when they could have addressed it. Once again, we didn’t oppose the Plan, we wanted to have new information considered, that is all. Regards, Clyde Graf