Intervention: Motutangi-Waiharara Water Users Group

(MWWUG)
22 November 2017

Application number: REQ. 5811721

Proposal: 17 Groundwater Takes For Horticultural Irrigation

Tuhia ki te rangi, tuhia ki te whenua, tuhia ki te ngkau o te tangata,

Ko te mea nui ko te aroha tihei mauri ora!

(Her Excellency The Rt Hon Dame Patsy Reddy,
GNZM, QSO, Governor-General of New Zealand, 20172)

GENERAL NATURE OF INTERVENTIONS

1. The general nature of our intervention is that we OPPOSE MWWUGs applications.

PART 1 - PROCEDURAL MATTERS GOOD

DECISION-MAKING
[Civil society] is at a crossroads: we have the choice to either create a
Utopia [] or allow a Dystopia to be created by others.
(Chle Swarbrick, Green Party List MP,
Community meeting, Kerikeri, 13 November 2017)

As the leaders of their communities the Mayors and Chairs of New

Zealand declare their continuing and absolute commitment to valuing and
managing water as a precious resource. We want New Zealand to be world
leaders in sustainable water management and will work with our
communities and partners towards that goal.
(Signatories to the 9 October 2017
Local Government Leaders Water Declaration,
including Hon John Carter Mayor, Far North District Council)3

INCLUDING THE AFFECTED COMMUNITY - LEGAL OBLIGATIONS DOMESTIC

REGIME
2. As described below, we believe NRCs resource consent process fails on several counts
to meet the basic standards of natural justice, democracy and good decision-making,
in particular with regards to meaningful inclusion of the affected community.

Page | 1
The Local Government Act 2002

3. The purpose of the LGA 2002 is ...to enable democratic local decision-making and
action by, and on behalf of, communities and to promote the social, economic,
environmental and cultural well-being of communities, in the present and for the
future. (our emphasis).

The Resource Management Act 1991 - Part 2, sections 5-8

RMA Purpose s5

4. The purpose of the RMA 1991 is (s5(1)) to promote the sustainable management of
natural and physical resources. Section 5(2) states that sustainable management
means:

managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources in
a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their social,
economic, and cultural well-being and for their health and safety (while achieving
values set out in ss(5)(2)(a)-(c)) (our emphasis).

4.1. We emphasize that:

a. The RMA has only one purpose that NRC is bound to uphold: i.e. the sustainable
management of natural and physical resources, which includes empowering
communities to provide for our social, economic, and cultural well-being and for
our health and safety; and
b. NRC must uphold this sole purpose by considering the overall impact of the
applications, not merely by achieve a balance between suggested benefits and
adverse effects.4

Other critical RMA considerations, ss6-8

4.2. In addition, RMA ss6-8 state the following hierarchy of considerations:

6 Matters of national importance: In achieving the purpose of this Act, all

persons exercising functions and powers under it, in relation to managing the
use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources, shall
recognise and provide for the following matters of national importance:

(a) the preservation of the natural character of the coastal environment

(including the coastal marine area), wetlands, and lakes and rivers and their
margins, and the protection of them from inappropriate subdivision, use, and
development:

(b) the protection of outstanding natural features and landscapes from

inappropriate subdivision, use, and development:

(c) the protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant

habitats of indigenous fauna:

Page | 2
 (d) the maintenance and enhancement of public access to and along the coastal
marine area, lakes, and rivers:

(e) the relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral
lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, and other taonga:

(f) the protection of historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision, use, and
development:

(g) the protection of protected customary rights:

(h) the management of significant risks from natural hazards. (our emphasis).

a. We contend that our community has a significant interest in the proposed effects
of MWWUGs proposed activities as relates to the RMA s6, in particular, to the
above emphasized matters of national importance.

7 Other matters: In achieving the purpose of this Act, all persons exercising
functions and powers under it, in relation to managing the use, development, and
protection of natural and physical resources, shall have particular regard to

(a) kaitiakitanga:

(aa) the ethic of stewardship:

(b) the efficient use and development of natural and physical resources:

(ba) the efficiency of the end use of energy:

(c) the maintenance and enhancement of amenity values:

(d) intrinsic values of ecosystems:

(e) [Repealed]

(f) maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment:

(g) any finite characteristics of natural and physical resources:

(h) the protection of the habitat of trout and salmon:

(i) the effects of climate change:

(j) the benefits to be derived from the use and development of renewable
energy. (our emphasis).

b. We contend that our community has a significant interest in the effects of

MWWUGs proposed activities as relates to the RMA s7, in particular, to the
above emphasized other matters.

Page | 3
 8 Treaty of Waitangi: In achieving the purpose of this Act, all persons
exercising functions and powers under it, in relation to managing the use,
development, and protection of natural and physical resources, shall take into
account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi).

c. We contend that our community has a significant interest in the effects of

MWWUGs proposed activities as relates to the RMA s8, particularly with respect
to:

i. Our community members who are of Te Hiku iwi descent, particularly

those who whakapapa to Ngti Kuri and Te Rarawa who are two of six iwi
claimants to the WAI 262 Flora and Fauna/ Mtauranga Mori Waitangi
Tribunal claim5 (which made findings and recommendations in Volume
One of its 2011 report6 concerning the Crowns obligation to uphold te
Tiriti rights concerning the taonga of water); and

ii. Our community members who, due to their tangata whenua status, are
awaiting:

The findings and recommendations of the Waitangi Tribunal WAI 2358

Freshwater Inquiry (regarding Mori commercial interests in water),7
and therefore would not wish to see NRC prejudicing their tangata
whenua rights by over-allocating the resource to the extent that they
could not in the future exercise their water rights; and
Development of the new Labour Government policies regarding
freshwater management and protection of Mori rights to
freshwater.8

RMA s6(e): the relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral
lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, and other taonga

4.3. To further elaborate on s6(e), the National Iwi Chairs Forum9 has undertaken
considerable consultation with Mori constituencies across New Zealand (including Te
Hiku iwi) between 2010 and 2017 concerning freshwater management and
allocation.10 We emphasise the following Mori values and perspectives that emerged
clearly from these years of consultation11 which we contend NRC shall recognise and
provide for as a matter of national importance:

Tangata whenua values

a. Wai Mori/ freshwater is a taonga.

b. Tangata whenua are connected to water not just through our mana whenua
(authority derived from our whakapapa/ genealogy to the land), but also through
our mana Atua (authority derived from our whakapapa/ genealogy to the Gods),
and therefore our subsequent and corresponding kaitiaki (stewardship/
guardianship) obligations;

Page | 4
 c. Protecting water integrity (Te Mana o te Wai) and whnau, hap and kinga
access to clean drinking water must be top priority - with the implication that
economic and industrial uses of water must come second. The balance between
these values currently favours industrial use. This is unacceptable and must be
corrected;
d. Each water catchment is unique, and should be treated as such (i.e. there is no
one size fits all);

Tangata whenua perspectives

4.4. The violation of Mori values by failed resource management policy and procedure is
already at critical levels:

a. Some whnau living in their traditional rohe (areas) are already unable to access
clean drinking water;
b. Regional Councils are perceived to implement a first come first served allocation
approach to our taonga wai which perversely results in inequitable distribution
and over-allocation of our water;

4.5. Our concerns are emphasized by the Ministry for the Environment (August 2017) 12:

We acknowledge that the complexity of Northland iwi relationships makes

engagement a challenge for NRC. We are also aware that capacity and capability
issues can prevent iwi and hap from taking full advantage of the opportunities
presented by NRC to be involved. Nevertheless, while not all iwi and hap in the
region participated in the review hui, those that did had strong views about what
they see as a negative approach of NRC toward Mori, in particular, a lack of
capability, desire or effort to understand Mori values.

4.6. Therefore, Mori seek effective freshwater management, including better local
governance that13:

Engagement in decision-making
a. Provides for tangata whenua participation in governance and decision-making
including setting robust natural resource use/allocation limits;
b. Recognizes iwi rights and values in decision-making, including hap and iwi
inalienable customary / te Tiriti catchment-based right to water;
Environmental and human rights14
c. Ensures full realisation of:
i. Te Mana o te Wai the right that wai Mori /freshwater itself has, as a
living entity with its own mauri (energetic life force), to be respected and
protected from violation (such as pollution or depletion by anthropogenic
causes to unsustainable levels); and
ii. The human right of all natural persons to, among other things:

Page | 5
 An environment and natural habitat that is healthy enough to
support human life; and
Clean drinking water, including whnau and communities free (i.e.
no financial payment required) access to the same to meet their
basic health and sustenance needs as both individuals and collectives
of individuals;
Management standards
d. Recognizes that a paradigm shift is required, including acknowledgement that all
standards need to be reviewed to ensure they are fit for purpose to radically
develop resilience in these times of increasing climate crisis uncertainty and
environmental shocks;
e. Should NRC over-allocate our water (despite best efforts to mitigate and avoid
that outcome), enforces a reduction of all users water take including industrial
users with the proviso that the human rights and environmental wellbeing
needs are given top priority;
f. Prohibits the practice of grand-parenting (i.e. preference given to existing
users);
User assessments
g. Adopts, in partnership with tangata whenua, a threshold for user historical
compliance with environmental and human rights standards that applicants are
required to meet; and
h. Implements a transparent and effective assessment of industrial water users in
particular, as regards their:
i. History of compliance with (or, as the case may be, violation of) recognized
environmental and human rights standards; and
ii. Capacity (e.g. necessary systems and infrastructure) to fulfil all consent
conditions (e.g. utilizing the natural resource responsibly), bearing in mind
that determining thresholds as such is a more nuanced exercise in these
times of increasing climate crisis uncertainty where previous standards
may no longer be fit for purpose;
i. Meaningfully-weights the abovementioned user assessment in every resource
consent decision-making process, with the expectation that applicants who fail
to meet the prerequisite threshold will be required to take corrective action
before a consent may be granted;
Monitoring & compliance
j. In partnership with affected hap and iwi, (a) accurately measures and monitors
our water use, and (b) only allocates what is demonstrably needed for priority
purposes (i.e. excludes allocation of buffer volumes to industrial users); and
k. Ensures, with particular regard to industrial users, that the costs of water use
(i.e. the environmental, social and other externalized costs of production) is
borne by the user.

Page | 6
RMA Part 5: Mana Whakahono a Rohe Provisions

5. The Resource Legislation Amendment Act 2017 (RLAA) came into effect in April 2017.
One of the key changes of the RLAA was the introduction of a new Subpart 2 to Part 5
of the RMA.15 This part provides broad scope for iwi involvement in resource
management matters,16 most notably through a new Mana Whakahono a Rohe
(MWR) mechanism.

5.1. The purpose of MWR17 is to:

a. Provide a mechanism for iwi authorities and local authorities to discuss, agree,
and record ways in which tangata whenua may participate in resource
management and decision-making processes under the RMA; and
b. Assist local authorities to comply with their obligations under the RMA.

5.2. Its further noted that: A MWR may specify when and how a local authority is to
notify iwi authorities or hap about new resource consent applications or consult with
them on applications. A MWR may also describe circumstances (eg, what constitutes
an adverse effect) for when an iwi authority or hap is given limited notification as
an affected party.18

5.3. Some notable guidelines include19 that, in initiating, developing, and implementing a
Mana Whakahono a Rohe, the participating authorities must use their best
endeavours:

(b) to enhance the opportunities for collaboration amongst the participating

authorities, including by promoting
(i) the use of integrated processes:
(ii) co-ordination of the resources required to undertake the
obligations and responsibilities of the parties to the Mana
Whakahono a Rohe:
(c) in determining whether to proceed to negotiate a joint or multi-party
Mana Whakahono a Rohe, to achieve the most effective and efficient means
of meeting the statutory obligations of the participating authorities:
(d) to work together in good faith and in a spirit of co-operation:
(e) to communicate with each other in an open, transparent, and honest
manner:
(f) to recognise and acknowledge the benefit of working together by sharing
their respective vision and expertise

5.4. The MWR mechanism is an expression of Aotearoas ongoing efforts to meet its te
Tiriti and internationally recognized obligations to Mori, especially in terms of
ensuring meaningful tangata whenua engagement in decision-making that affects
their rights and interests.

Page | 7
5.5. We acknowledge that Te Hiku iwi have yet to establish MWR mechanisms with NRC.
However, the MWR is part of the national backdrop of where Aotearoa as a nation is
trending in terms of freshwater management under the RMA with respect to
protecting and progressively realizing Mori rights and interests. Therefore, we
contend that the inevitability of this new MWR approach (and the expectations it
creates among iwi Mori), means that NRC is duty bound under the current
application process to show true leadership in this space and be proactive in its
decision-making approach by:

a. Giving significant weight these developments; and

b. Showing good faith by recognizing the imperative for better Mori engagement,
and voluntarily improve its efforts now to achieve the same (it just makes good
governance sense).

National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management

6. Local Government Leaders, including FNDC Mayor John Carter, remind us of the
obligation on NRC to respect Mori value in decision-making and the importance of
working in partnership with communities regarding freshwater management issues
that affect them20:

Water is a taonga and our lifeblood. Iwi have a special relationship with
freshwater and this is reflected in the statutes and in the National Policy
Statement for Freshwater Management (NPSFM). Specifically, the NPSFM
requires that freshwater is managed to give effect to Te Mana o te Wai, an
integrated approach to freshwater management that recognises the association
of the wider community with the rivers, lakes and streams but also the
relationship of iwi and hap and their values with freshwater bodies. (our
emphasis).

6.1. We call on NRC to join FNDCs Mayor, John Carter, in signing up to, and committing to
the urgent implementation of, the Local Government Leaders Water Declaration
(2017).

Regional Policy Statement for Northland

7. We contend NRCs resource consent process has failed to meet community

consultation standards as contained in the Regional Policy Statement for Northland
(RPS). The RPS provides a broad direction and framework for managing Northland's
natural and physical resources. These include land, water, air, soil, minerals, plants,
animals and all built structures.21

Integrated management

7.1. The RPS is about the integrated management of Northlands natural and physical
resources. This means considering the environment as a whole (as per the very
broad definition of environment in the RMA s222).

Page | 8
7.2. By failing to meaningfully consult the affected community in all the ways covered in
this intervention, NRC has failed to include and give serious consideration to (among
other matters)23:

a. The full range of amenity values and social, economic, aesthetic, and cultural
dimensions and their interactions24 which only the affected community can
authentically comment on;
b. the various sets of understanding about resources and how they should be
managed including sufficient engagement and integration of kaitiakitanga and
matauranga Mori methodologies; and
c. the policies, plans and actions of all those involved in resource management
(government agencies, regional and district councils, iwi, and the community)
and how these ought to be co-ordinated.

7.3. NRC must complete quality consultation that complies with its RPS integrated
management obligations before determining the MWWUG application.

Pukenui-Houhora Community Development Plan25

7.4. With Far North District Council assistance, extensive community consultation
produced this planning instrument looking 15-20 years out. It includes the Vision
Statements and detail on the following matters:

a. GENERAL: Pukenui-Houhora is a safe place where friendly people of diverse

backgrounds value the special attributes and opportunities provided by their
unique climate and environment.
b. ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT: Zoning and permitted development in the village
and its hinterland occurs in a sensitive and controlled manner, so as to conserve
the atmosphere of a seaside village and its surrounding countryside. All
development recognises and balances environmental, social and cultural values of
the community.
c. HARBOUR AND ENVIRONMENT: We preserve and enhance the unique character of
the harbour and its catchment, while balancing commercial and recreational
interests in an ecologically sustainable way:
i. Goal 2.4 in particular states: Development in catchment and hinterland
managed in a sustainable way; and
ii. Actions that include: 1) Ensure development and management practices
of primary and secondary industry reflect best practice, a High priority
with milestone Local industries follow best practices as in Commissioner
for Environments report Growing for Good. (with NRC, FNDC, DoC and
community as Key partners);
d. TRANSPORT AND INFRASTRUCTURE: Planning takes account of present and
foreseeable increases in demand on infrastructure that threaten conservation of
the special attributes of the area, in particular in the areas of roading, water
supply and waste disposal:

Page | 9
 i. Goal 3.2 in particular states: Conserve aquifers (underground water
sources); and
ii. Actions that include: 1) Continue to monitor size and quality, a High
priority with milestone Regular reporting required (NRC as Key
partner).
e. ECONOMIC AND COMMERCIAL: We recognise the ever-increasing opportunities
for employment in primary industries, adding value to local produce; and in
boutique industries and tourism.
f. HEALTH AND RECREATION: We encourage the creation and maintenance of a
clean, healthy environment in which there are abundant opportunities for leisure
and recreation. We ensure that people of all ages and abilities have access to
facilities that promote personal development and good health.

7.5. This existing planning instrument clearly establishes that the whole community has an
interest in all of these aspects of community development, particularly as pertains to
water which obviously is critical for human health and community wellbeing.
Therefore:

a. NRCs affected parties definition should include any/every local community

member; and
b. NRC is bound to have regard for the priorities and matters as expressed in this
community plan.

Legal Personhood of Rivers

8. Reinforcing the imperatives mentioned above for protection of Te Mana o te Wai and
human rights, we remind NRC of the ground-breaking legal precedent created in
March this year wherein the Government granted the Whanganui River the same legal
rights as a human person. 26 Therefore:
8.1. We invite NRC to imagine the most severe legal consequences of abusing or harming
(or worst case scenario, murdering) our aquifer, given the growing jurisprudential
support for treating freshwater as a legal person.

INCLUDING THE AFFECTED COMMUNITY - LEGAL OBLIGATIONS

INTERNATIONAL REGIME

9. Following are a number of international human rights standards which we contend

NRC ought to give meaningful consideration of when deliberating on resource consent
applications.

Human rights - General

9.1. Citizens have recognized universal human rights27 to the necessities that would enable
them to freely live healthy, safe, dignified lives including the human right to water
and sanitation. For example:

Page | 10
 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights28
a. Article 1:
1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they
freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social
and cultural development.
2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and
resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international
economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and
international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of
subsistence.
3. The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having
responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories,
shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect
that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United
Nations.
b. Article 47: Nothing in the present Covenant shall be interpreted as impairing the
inherent right of all peoples to enjoy and utilize fully and freely their natural
wealth and resources.

Water rights29

c. In November 2002, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

adopted General Comment No. 15 on the right to water. Article I.1 states that
"The human right to water is indispensable for leading a life in human dignity. It is
a prerequisite for the realization of other human rights". Comment No. 15 also
defined the right to water as the right of everyone to sufficient, safe, acceptable
and physically accessible and affordable water for personal and domestic uses;
and

d. On 28 July 2010, through Resolution 64/292, the United Nations General

Assembly explicitly recognized the human right to water and sanitation and
acknowledged that clean drinking water and sanitation are essential to the
realisation of all human rights. The Resolution calls upon States and international
organisations to provide financial resources, help capacity-building and
technology transfer to help countries, in particular developing countries, to
provide safe, clean, accessible and affordable drinking water and sanitation for
all.

Tangata whenua/ indigenous peoples rights

9.2. As an elaboration of te Tiriti o Waitangi, New Zealand also has obligations to protect
tangata whenua rights as protected under the United Nations Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples 2007.30 In particular:
a. Article 19: States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous
peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to

Page | 11
 obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing
legislative or administrative measures that may affect them;
b. Article 25: Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their
distinctive spiritual relationship with their traditionally owned or otherwise
occupied and used lands, territories, waters and coastal seas and other resources
and to uphold their responsibilities to future generations in this regard;
c. Article 28:
1. Indigenous peoples have the right to redress, by means that can include
restitution or, when this is not possible, just, fair and equitable compensation,
for the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned or
otherwise occupied or used, and which have been confiscated, taken, occupied,
used or damaged without their free, prior and informed consent.
2. Unless otherwise freely agreed upon by the peoples concerned, compensation
shall take the form of lands, territories and resources equal in quality, size and
legal status or of monetary compensation or other appropriate redress;
d. Article 29: 1. Indigenous peoples have the right to the conservation and
protection of the environment and the productive capacity of their lands or
territories and resources. States shall establish and implement assistance
programmes for indigenous peoples for such conservation and protection,
without discrimination; and
e. Article 32:
2. States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples
concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their
free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their
lands or territories and other resources, particularly in connection with the
development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources.
3. States shall provide effective mechanisms for just and fair redress for any such
activities, and appropriate measures shall be taken to mitigate adverse
environmental, economic, social, cultural or spiritual impact.

Little or no iwi consultation

10. In addition to that mentioned above, several data points indicate that NRC has not
only failed to consult with tangata whenua who may be affected by the harmful
effects of aquifer water allocation (especially over-allocation), but have arguably
impeded such consultation. For example:

10.1. NRC Group Manager Regulatory Services, Colin Dall, advises 10 October 2017 that no
consultation had yet occurred with iwi31;

10.2. The Ngti Kuri Trust Board on 14 November 2017 advised Ngati Kuri entities and
marae were not notified about the MWWUG application32; and

10.3. Waiora marae members say that they were not consulted on this application.33

Page | 12
Business and Industry

10.4. The Guidelines on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations
Protect, Respect and Remedy Framework (2011)34 are a set of 31 principles
directed at States and companies that clarify their duties and responsibilities to
protect and respect human rights in the context of business activities and to ensure
access to an effective remedy for individuals and groups affected by such activities. 35
These principles relate to such matters as:
a. The relationship between responsible States and companies;
b. The State duty to protect;
c. Corporate responsibility; and
d. Groups vulnerable to adverse impact and human rights abuses.

10.5. The United Nations states that:

Protecting human rights against business-related abuse is expected of all States, and
in most cases is a legal obligation through their ratification of legally binding
international human rights treaties containing provisions to this effect. The State duty
to protect in the Guiding Principles is derived from these obligations.36

10.6. On this basis (i.e. being that such protection is not just voluntary, but an obligation on
States), it is incumbent on NRC to actively give effect to these obligations in its
resource consent processes for example, by supporting meaningful engagement
with the affected community, including supporting resource consent applicants to
engage meaningfully with said affected communities.

10.7. There also exists the Best Practice Guidelines for Engagement with Mori37 which
NRC might overlay on the Business and Human Rights Guidelines and otherwise adapt
to offer advice to resource consent applicants.

INCLUDING THE AFFECTED COMMUNITY SOCIAL LICENSE

Freshwater Rescue Plan (2017)

10.8. Moreover, we agree with:

a. The Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand,38

b. Greenpeace,39
c. The World Wildlife Fund,40
d. The Tourism Export Council of New Zealand,41
e. Pure Advantage,42
f. Numerous Freshwater ecology, cultural and public health experts, and
g. The growing number of other Supporters of the Freshwater Rescue Plan
(launched 8 June 201743):-

Page | 13
 who advocate that:

Healthy rivers, lakes and fresh water that is safe for people and wildlife can
be achieved with meaningful regulation supported by science and puts the
health of people and the environment as its first priority;44 and

irrigation is a direct pre-cursor to more intensive agricultural systems and

there is a direct link between irrigation and increased adverse effects on
water bodies, including multi-dimensional effects for groundwater levels,
with the result that the potential risks to the health of citizens can
outweigh the probable financial benefits to a few people. Further, that
Taxpayer money must not be spent on subsidising irrigation schemes which
will make New Zealands freshwater problems worse.45 (our emphasis46).

10.9. These and other reasons are why our new Government has committed to the
following policy47:

Existing Crown investments in irrigation will be honoured, but government

support for irrigation will not grow.

10.10. In other words, given the significance of this matter that affects us, environmental
and social justice groups, experts and wider civil society agree that all members of our
affected community have the right to have a say about this resource consent.
Activities that have significant implications for our environment and human rights
(including the human right to water and health) shall only proceed with our free, prior
and informed consent.

INCLUDING THE AFFECTED COMMUNITY NRC ENGAGEMENT

11. Bearing in mind all of the above, the following table compares and contrasts NRC
engagement with the applicants, as opposed to the affected community. The table
demonstrates a lack of good faith engagement by NRC which we contend:

11.1. With respect to community engagement, violates:

a. NRCs LGA, RMA and international obligations; and
b. The social license of the affected community; and

11.2. Has prejudiced the affected communitys ability to meaningfully engage in NRCs
resource consent process:
# NRC Engagement with Applicants NRC Engagement with Community
1. The resource consent application Engagement with the affected community
process began in mid-201648 when NRC began September 2017 when affected
received 17 MWWUG applications to community members heard unofficially
abstract groundwater for irrigation of about the applications. Those community
avocado orchards on the Peninsula. members then instigated engagement with
NRC by mobilizing the community and
requesting information. NRC then gave

Page | 14
 limited notification on 27 October 2017
about the resource consent (some affected
parties received notification as late as 30
October 2017). NRC acknowledged it held
incomplete information about permitted
activity takes and that its bore log
database is not complete.49 Therefore it
sent out over 1,000 notification letters to
ensure wide property owner notification,
despite NRCs limited notification status
meaning many of those contacted will be
ineligible to make submission on this
application.
2. Since the resource consent began in The affected community sought to obtain
2016, the applicants engaged with NRC information about the applications and
to secure advice about how to the resource consent process from NRC so
successfully lodge their applications, that they were empowered to engage
including having access to NRC staff meaningfully, including making fully
and technical expertise. This resulted informed interventions on the applications.
in MWWUGs consultants, Williamson However, the quality of engagement has
Water Advisory (WWA), lodging with been very mixed: sometimes helpful, but
NRC an assessment of environmental other times staff have been unhelpful or
effects (AEE) and supporting not responded to requests at all.
documentation in June 2017.50
We add that it is negligent and borderline
passive-aggressive NRC behaviour (towards
citizens seeking to engage) for NRC to
approve annual leave for their Consents
Manager during this critical MWWUG
submissions period with apparently no
back-up official in place to cover resource
consent inquiries and other business while
that Consents Manager is absent.51
3. According to NRCs website,52 NRC gave How can NRC have sufficient information
limited notification about MWWUGs on defining affected parties when:
resource consent application on 27 As one resident points out, [t]here
October 2017. may be many members of the
community who will or are considering
putting down domestic bores that are
at this point in time a permitted activity
under both the operative and proposed
plan, and
We, so many of the informed wider
affected communities, tangata
whenua, residents and citizens are
feeling so strongly and legitimately
upset and prejudiced by NRCs

Page | 15
 exclusion of us?
4. In its limited notification, NRC advises The due date for interventions on the
that the due date for submissions is 24 applications gives too short a time
November 2017. (especially when compared to the time the
great length of time applicants have had to
prepare their case) for the affected
community to:
mobilize affected community
awareness and action about the
resource consent process (including our
own community engagement meetings,
use of social media and other
communications);
educate themselves and do our own
research on the process and all the
application materials; and
draft and send in to NRC our
comprehensive interventions.
5. NRC engaged with all 17 applicants. NRC limited the number of community
members who had standing to engage as
affected parties in applications
submissions process. NRC did this by
defining affected persons with standing
to make interventions as property owners
and occupiers within the Houhora,
Motutangi and Waiharara areas who have
an existing water take from either a bore
or surface water body.53 The result is that
as the general public and other interested
persons cannot make a submission on
these applications. This is effectively
suppressing democracy.

Official Information and miscellaneous requests to engage the community

12. Several affected ratepayers requested information and sought wider community
engagement on this application. NRC and/or the applicants either failed to provide
satisfactory answers, failed to reply in a timely way,54 failed to reply at all,55 and /or
refused to accommodate community calls to be included (i.e. NRC refused to budge
on its limited notification status of the resource consent application).

Obligation of NRC despite permissive nature of RMA

12.1. NRCs standards, policy and practice in terms of community consultation are
somewhat contradictory. On the one hand, NRC implies it has a high standard of
consultation where it argues that it only makes its decisions on all affected persons
and notification of an application once its satisfied that it has sufficient
information.56

Page | 16
12.2. On the other hand, indications are that NRC seems to accept a low RMA standard of
consultation, for example: Consent authorities and, for that matter, consent
applicants are not required to consult with other persons about resource consent
applications under the Resource Management Act 1991.57

12.3. To complicate matters, NRC seems to none the less acknowledge it has a duty to do
better and exercise its power to improve upon weak RMA consultation provisions for
example: the Northland Regional Council encourages applicants to consult with
persons potentially affected by their applications as this is good practice.58
Acknowledging it has a higher duty beyond the RMA strictly speaking is perhaps NRC
realizing that it also has community consultation obligations under other triangulating
instruments such as the LGA and the Pukenui-Houhora Community Development Plan
(at least, wed like to think so and if NRC doesnt, it should).

12.4. In any event, despite a weak RMA that (in our view) sets an unacceptably low
consultation standard, NRC should not use such weak regulatory provisions as an
excuse to do the absolute minimum required to meet that low standard. Thats just
institutional laziness on NRCs part, and cherry-picking NRCs legal obligations as is
convenient to accommodate whatever its priorities and agenda of the day might be.
What NRC ought to be doing is upholding its legal and moral meaningful consultation
obligations with the affected community (affected in the wider sense of the word,
not just in terms of an NRC limiting definition of affected party to a resource consent
matter).

12.5. We contend that, regarding our right to be consulted on the MWWUG aquifer
application, NRC:
a. Demonstrably failed to correctly determine who should be affected parties; and
b. Ought to take urgent action to correct and bring integrity back to its decision-
making process by, for example widening (not limiting) the application
notification to include the wider community.

Legal risk

13. We reinforce that violating the legal obligations mentioned above creates a
contingent reputational and financial risk for NRC. This is a risk we imagine any
reasonably-minded, competent Council would want to avoid or at least mitigate, lest it
incur the wrath of ratepayers and the wider affected community.

13.1. We would like to know who actually bears the legal and financial risk of compensating
citizens should NRC make a bad resource consent decision (e.g. one that leads to over-
allocation with a worst-case scenario of our community running out of clean
freshwater, as has happened in other parts of Aotearoa and the world)? The obvious
way for NRC to avoid/ mitigate such risk is to fully comply, in good faith, with its legal
obligations.

13.2. Given NRCs resource consent process falls short of fair democratic decision-making in
the aforementioned ways (both severally and in the aggregate) which equates to

Page | 17
 suppression of democracy and violating NRCs legal and moral obligations, both
domestic and international, we therefore call on NRC to:
Extension of application process
a. Extend the public consultation period to provide the affected parties with a fair
amount of time, all things considered, to produce fully informed interventions
on the application; and
b. Widen the definition of affected parties to be inclusive of all who have a
significant interest in the application, i.e. all (a) Te Hiku peninsular ratepayers
and (b) affiliated tangata whenua;

VALUES FRAMEWORK, SYSTEMIC BIAS

14. NRC needs to be actively aware of risks that undermine the integrity of its decision-
making, and to be responding meaningfully to mitigate those risks. As with conflicts
of interest, even the perception of a lack of procedural integrity detracts from the
public acceptability and support for the decision. When the lack of trust hits critical
levels, public demands for accountability of decision-makers will escalate causing
social disharmony and conflict, and certainly result in consequences for elected
council representatives. So the best preventative measure NRC can take is to ensure a
fair and level playing field in all respects right from the outset, as between the
business and industry applicants (who are seen to have the lions share of money and
influence) and the affected community (the under-dogs, the little guys).

Economic bias

Anyone who believes in indefinite growth on a physically finite planet is

either mad, or an economist.
(Sir David Attenborough, 201159)

14.1. Yesterdays myopic economic GDP-centric60 values around what a countrys success
looks like are no longer fit for purpose in an uncertain world of converging climate,
environmental, socio-economic and other crises. Yet these and other outdated
economic values are obviously still driving policy development and decision-making.

14.2. The problem with GDP is that while it recognizes metrics that can be measured in
monetary terms (like consumables, and means of production), it fails absolutely to
account for the things money cant buy61:

Too much and for too long, we seemed to have surrendered personal
excellence and community values in the mere accumulation of material
things. Our gross national product, [] if we judge the United States of
America by thatcounts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and
ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our
doors and the jails for the people who break them. It counts the destruction
of the redwood and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl. It
counts napalm and counts nuclear warheads and armored cars for the police

Page | 18
 to fight the riots in our cities and the television programs which glorify
violence in order to sell toys to our children. Yet the gross national product
does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or
the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the
strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the
integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage,
neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our
devotion to our country, it measures everything in short, except that which
makes life worthwhile.(Senator Robert Kennedy, 1968).

14.3. This destructive mentality trickles down to express itself at the corporate level also,
but with even more bad news:62 a 2013 United Nations study found that if companies
took environmental externalities into account, none of those companies would be
profitable.63 In other words, the environment and wider society are basically
subsidising business and industries profits. And if a full accounting was done
including societal externalities, the situation would be even worse.

14.4. Indexes and models of

different varieties exist
that take a more
comprehensive account of
the metrics for overall
wellbeing,64 including the
now famous doughnut
model65 (image right), and
even our New Zealand
Treasury Departments
own Improving Living
Standards model
(2012).66

A full assessment of effects and

accounting?

14.5. We have yet to see a

comprehensive
accounting by the
applicants of the full range
of environmental, social,
cultural and economic effects. In the absence of this accounting, there can only be a
partial assessment of effects of the proposed activity. This is insufficient to make a
fully informed decision about whether the proposed activity meets the necessary LGA,
RMA and international standards.

a. NRC needs to recognize (a) that systemic economic-related bias in decision-

making exists, and (b) the real risk that bias presents for NRCs ability to meet its
LGA, RMA and other legal and moral good governance responsibilities regarding
protection of the environment and human rights; and

Page | 19
 b. Take active steps to neutralize that bias to ensure uncontaminated, objective
decision-making of integrity.

Moneys excessive influence over decision-making

14.6. In 2014 Princeton University studied the relative influence in the United States of the
average citizen compared with the wealthy elite class on public policy. The study
revealed that average citizens only get what they want if economic elites or interest
groups also want it. In other words, "economic elites and organized interest groups
play a substantial part in affecting public policy, but the general public has little or no
independent influence."67 I.e.68:

the preferences of the average American appear to have only a miniscule,

near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy. Corporate
opinion, in contrast, had a direct impact: if the vast majority of the top 10
percent of income earners opposed a policy, it had a near-zero chance of
passing. The paper concludes that the U.S is a civil oligarchy where money-
interests dominate policy.

14.7. The trend exposed in this study is replicating itself all around the globe at both local
and central government level. As with many other socio-economic trends, there is
every reason to believe that the same phenomenon could easily take root here in
Aotearoa, and indeed there is ample evidence to show that the influence of money in
decision-making69 is already eating away at the foundations of Aotearoas central and
local democratic institutions.

14.8. As concerns the current application process, this insidious influence of money
manifests in at least two ways:

Consent application process

a. In the case of substantially-sized corporations or wealthy applicants, they are
able to finance access to expert legal, technical, cultural or other advice, and
human resources to (a) produce their applications, and (b) counter any public
objections. An opposing public, on the other hand, generally and in comparison
has significantly fewer resources with which to make their compelling case.
Promises of economic benefit
b. Applicants often woo councils into focusing on the isolated data around
significant economic (monetary) benefits that will accrue for the affected
community and/or region. However as mentioned above,70 the important
metric is whether an activity provides NET benefits to affected communities
and the MWWUG applicants have not demonstrated net benefits. Therefore,
we must assume MWWUGs activities will produce quite the opposite, i.e. a NET
loss. This is consistent with companies externalizing hidden environmental and
social costs onto affected communities and wider society. Perversely, this
equates to financial corporate and private profit-making welfare subsidised by
ratepayers, taxpayers and all citizens (i.e. protecting corporate and private
profit-making privilege ahead of the environment and human rights).

Page | 20
14.9. Therefore, NRC needs to be absolutely certain it is meeting its LGA and RMA
obligations by ensuring:

a. Applicants prove net environmental, social, cultural and economic benefits will
result from the proposed activity; and
b. The affected community have sufficient time and effective access to technical
assistance to develop their interventions in response to the applications (at least
on an equitable footing with time and technical assistance afforded to the
applicants).

PART 1 - SUMMARY

15. To summarise, given the significance of this matter that affects us, under the LGA and
the RMA, all members of our affected community have the right to have a say about
this resource consent. Activities that have significant implications for our environment
and human rights (including the human right to water and health) shall only proceed
with our free, prior and informed consent.

15.1. This imperative was emphasised recently by the New Zealand Governor-General71:

There are other environmental challenges to be faced. This government is

conscious of increasing pressure on our natural resources, as environmental
pressure points are reached. It is clear New Zealand needs to improve the
way it manages natural resources.

Our lakes and rivers need to be protected and restored, which can only
happen if all water users and the government work together. (our
emphasis).

1
https://www.nrc.govt.nz/Consents/Notified-resource-consents/limited-notification-motutangi-waiharara-
water-users-group-mwwug/.
2
Delivered by Her Excellency The Rt Hon Dame Patsy Reddy, GNZM, QSO, Governor-General of New Zealand,
on the occasion of the State Opening of Parliament, 8 November 2017. Full speech accessible at
https://www.beehive.govt.nz/speech/speech-throne-2017. Translation is as follows: Write it in the sky,
write it in the land, write it in the hearts of the people: the greatest thing (in this world) is love - Behold there
is Life!
3
Full copy available at http://www.lgnz.co.nz/assets/Uploads/LG-Leaders-Water-Declaration-25-October-
2017.pdf.
4
Local Government New Zealand and Ministry for the Environment, Making Good Decisions A Resource for
RMA decision-makers, pp32-33.
5
See Ko Aotearoa Tnei: Report on the Wai 262 Claim Released at
https://waitangitribunal.govt.nz/news/ko-aotearoa-tenei-report-on-the-wai-262-claim-released/.
6
Downloadable at
https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/WT/wt_DOC_68356416/KoAotearoaTeneiTT2Vol1W.pdf.
7
See Mori Law Review (September 2012), Mori rights in water the Waitangi Tribunals interim report,
accessible at http://maorilawreview.co.nz/2012/09/maori-rights-in-water-the-waitangi-tribunals-interim-
report/.
8
See HortNZ sees both positives and negatives for the sector under new government (1 November 2017), at
http://www.freshplaza.com/article/184179/HortNZ-sees-both-positives-and-negatives-for-the-sector-under-

Page | 21
new-government; and Where the water wars will go next (25 October 2017) at
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2017/10/24/55556/where-the-water-wars-will-go-next.
9
See website here: http://iwichairs.maori.nz/.
10
For more information on the Iwi Chairs Forums work in this area, see their Freshwater website at
http://iwichairs.maori.nz/our-kaupapa/fresh-water/.
11
See also Forum Agenda for the Iwi Chairs Forum meeting at Te Manuka Tutahi, Whakatane, 3-4 August 2017:
Allocation section, beginning p29 and Mana Whakahono a Rohe section, p32.
12
See NPSFM Implementation Review: Northland Te Tai Tokerau (August 2017), p26.
13
These values and perspectives continue to evolve, but we communicate the gist of them here in the spirit of
good faith information-sharing. Some items weve added to, to provide a Te Hiku-community specific
perspective.
14
See below for more on human rights.
15
See RMA link here:
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1991/0069/latest/DLM7236238.html?search=qs_act%40bill%40reg
ulation%40deemedreg_resource+legislation+amendment+act_resel_25_h&p=1.
16
See New Zealand Local Government Magazine, 15 things you need to know about the Resource Legislation
Amendment Act & iwi participation (1 June 2017), at https://localgovernmentmag.co.nz/lg-
magazine/legal/mana-whakahono-a-rohe/.
17
RMA, s58M:
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1991/0069/latest/DLM7236257.html?search=qs_act%40bill%40reg
ulation%40deemedreg_resource+legislation+amendment+act_resel_25_h&p=1.
18
See New Zealand Local Government Magazine, 15 things you need to know about the Resource Legislation
Amendment Act & iwi participation (1 June 2017), at https://localgovernmentmag.co.nz/lg-
magazine/legal/mana-whakahono-a-rohe/.
19
See RMA s58N Guiding Principles, at
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1991/0069/latest/DLM7236258.html?search=qs_act%40bill%40reg
ulation%40deemedreg_resource+legislation+amendment+act_resel_25_h&p=1.
20
See Local Government Leaders Water Declaration (9 October 2017) - full copy available at
http://www.lgnz.co.nz/assets/Uploads/LG-Leaders-Water-Declaration-25-October-2017.pdf.
21
See NRC website, https://www.nrc.govt.nz/Your-Council/Council-Projects/New-Regional-Policy-Statement/.
The RPS is downloadable at
https://resources.nrc.govt.nz/upload/23198/May%202016%20Regional%20Policy%20Statement%20for%20No
rthland%20-%20operative%20(except%20GE)%20(Web).pdf.
22
Section 2 states environment includes

(a) ecosystems and their constituent parts, including people and communities; and
(b) all natural and physical resources; and
(c) amenity values; and
(d) the social, economic, aesthetic, and cultural conditions which affect the matters stated in paragraphs (a) to
(c) or which are affected by those matters
23
RPS, p7.
24
RPS, p7.
25
February 2007, downloadable at https://www.fndc.govt.nz/your-council/strategic-planning/community-
development-plans/Pukenui-Houhora-CD-Plan.pdf; with appendices downloadable at
https://www.fndc.govt.nz/your-council/strategic-planning/community-development-plans/P-H-CDP-
Appendices.pdf.
26
New Zealand Parliament, Innovative bill protects Whanganui River with legal personhood (28 March
2017), at https://www.parliament.nz/en/get-involved/features/innovative-bill-protects-whanganui-river-with-
legal-personhood/.
27
See the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, accessible at http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-
human-rights/index.html.
28
ICCPR accessible at http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CCPR.aspx.
29
See United Nations page for the International Decade for Action Water for Life 2005-2015, at
http://www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/human_right_to_water.shtml.

Page | 22
30
New Zealand endorsed this instrument in 2010. The declaration is downloadable at
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf.
31
Ref email from concerned citizen dated 9 November 2017 advising that NRC CEO Colin Dall notified on 5
October 2017 that his reply to said citizens MWWUG query would be delayed another week as the consents
manager was away on annual leave.
32
Ref email to C Murupaenga-Ikenn.
33
Ref conversations with marae members at a Ngti Kuri conservation wnanga 15-17 November 2017.
Several prominent members voiced concern regarding the MWWUG application.
34
Downloadable at http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR_EN.pdf.
35
United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
ABOUT THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS (2014), p5: document downloadable at
http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/FAQ_PrinciplesBussinessHR.pdf.
36
United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
ABOUT THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS (2014), p9: document downloadable at
http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/FAQ_PrinciplesBussinessHR.pdf.
37
Te Rnanga o Ngati Ruanui Trust, August 2014: document accessible at
38
http://www.forestandbird.org.nz/about-us.
39
http://www.greenpeace.org/new-zealand/en/.
40
https://www.worldwildlife.org/about.
41
http://www.tourismexportcouncil.org.nz/about/.
42
http://pureadvantage.org/about/.
43
For official launch livestream, see https://www.freshwaterrescueplan.org/press-conference-live-stream.
44
The Freshwater Rescue Plan advocates seven steps. The quote is taken from Step 1. Protect the health of
people and their waterways by setting strict and enforceable water quality standards, based on human and
Ecosystem health limits.: see https://www.freshwaterrescueplan.org/the-plan.
45
These quotes are taken from the Freshwater Rescue Plans Step 2. Withdraw all public subsidies of
irrigation schemes, As they increase pressure on waterways.: see https://www.freshwaterrescueplan.org/the-
plan. The quotes relate in particular to the Canterbury water crisis.
46
A similar argument may be made that ratepayer money should not be misused in this way.
47
Her Excellency The Rt Hon Dame Patsy Reddy, GNZM, QSO, Governor-General of New Zealand, on the
occasion of the State Opening of Parliament, 8 November 2017. Full speech accessible at
https://www.beehive.govt.nz/speech/speech-throne-2017.
48
According to the SUMMARY DOCUMENT FOR COMBINED APPLICATIONS FOR NEW GROUNDWATER TAKES
FROM THE AUPOURI AQUIFER SUBZONES: HOUHORA, MOTUTANGI AND WAIHARARA downloadable at
https://www.nrc.govt.nz/contentassets/214dbdaa2cf84b9692fdf35b135485b3/nrc-summary-of-
applications.pdf.
49
17 Nov 2017 email from Angela Stride, Water & Wastes Management Officer, Regulatory Services, to S
Ferens titled, Information request re MWWUG applications REQ.581172.
50
According to the Land Water People (LWP) peer review report (19 September 2017), downloadable at
https://www.nrc.govt.nz/contentassets/214dbdaa2cf84b9692fdf35b135485b3/document-4---lwp-peer-
review-report-for-mwwug_aupouri-gw-applications-17-october-2017-website.pdf.
51
Ref email from concerned citizen dated 9 November 2017 advising that NRC CEO Colin Dall notified on 5
October 2017 that his reply to said citizens MWWUG query would be delayed another week as the consents
manager was away on annual leave.
52
https://www.nrc.govt.nz/Consents/Notified-resource-consents/limited-notification-motutangi-waiharara-
water-users-group-mwwug/.

53
NRC limited notification page.
54
E.g. concerned Ngti Kuri tangata whenua resident in Te Hiku emailed 7 November for information regarding
iwi consultation. NRC never responded, and on 14 November the MWWUG representative responded that
hed forward the request on to NgiTakotos representative, Rangitane Marsden. At the time of drafting these
interventions, the requestor is still waiting for a response.

Page | 23
55
For example Facebook post by concerned community member dated 31 October 2017 states her requests
for information to both FNDC and NRC were not answered.
56
Ref 13 November 2017 email from NRC Colin Dall to S King.
57
Ref 13 November 2017 email from NRC Colin Dall to S King.
58
Ref 13 November 2017 email from NRC Colin Dall to S King.
59
Broadcaster and Naturalist (Royal Society of the Arts, 16 March 2011 presentation, People and Planet at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sP291B7SCw).
60
Gross Domestic Product. GDP is shorthand for the size of the economy, and represents the total monetary
value of all goods and services produced over a specific time period.
61
Daniel Christian Wahl, GDP as an insufficient economic indicator & some more systemic alternatives (17
February 2017), at https://medium.com/@designforsustainability/gdp-as-an-insufficient-economic-indicator-
some-more-systemic-alternatives-91d2e8c093df.
62
See None of the worlds top industries would be profitable if they paid for the natural capital they use (17
April 2013) at http://grist.org/business-technology/none-of-the-worlds-top-industries-would-be-profitable-if-
they-paid-for-the-natural-capital-they-use/.
63
The report by Trucost, Natural capital at risk: the top 100 externalities of business (April 2013) states at p7
that water use is 25% of the majority of all unpriced natural capital costs on the planet which were included
in the study, second only to greenhouse gas emissions at 38%. The cost value of the three most significant
impacts was US$4.7 trillion - being GHGs (36%), water use (26%) and land use (25%). This indicates great
uncertainty around the true price of industrial water use, and correspondingly an area which has huge
potential to make efficiency gains. Trucosts report is accessible at http://naturalcapitalcoalition.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/07/Trucost-Nat-Cap-at-Risk-Final-Report-web.pdf.
64
Many are included in Daniel Christian Wahl, GDP as an insufficient economic indicator & some more
systemic alternatives (17 February 2017), at https://medium.com/@designforsustainability/gdp-as-an-
insufficient-economic-indicator-some-more-systemic-alternatives-91d2e8c093df.
65
See presentation by Kate Raworth, Doughnut Economics (18 October 2012), at
https://www.thersa.org/discover/videos/event-videos/2012/10/doughnut-economics.
66
http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/media-speeches/speeches/livingstandards/sp-livingstandards-
paper.pdf.
67
Vox, Study: Politicians listen to rich people, not you (28 January 2015), at
https://www.vox.com/2014/4/18/5624310/martin-gilens-testing-theories-of-american-politics-explained. The
full study is accessible at https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-
theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-
citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B.
68
Counter Punch, The Case For Not Voting: In Defense of the Lazy, Ungrateful, and Uniformed (17 June
2016), at https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/17/the-case-for-not-voting-in-defense-of-the-lazy-
ungrateful-and-uniformed/.
69
See for example the Mining, Drilling, Arresting, Imprisoning Simon Bridges commentary regarding the
National Governments controversial legislation (dubbed the Anadarko Amendment by environmental
groups) which criminalises protesting at sea (23 May 2013) at https://fmacskasy.wordpress.com/tag/simon-
bridges/, and Scoops The dangers of deep sea oil drilling (1 October 2013) at
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1310/S00008/the-dangers-of-deep-sea-oil-drilling.htm.
70
See None of the worlds top industries would be profitable if they paid for the natural capital they use (17
April 2013) at http://grist.org/business-technology/none-of-the-worlds-top-industries-would-be-profitable-if-
they-paid-for-the-natural-capital-they-use/.
71
Her Excellency The Rt Hon Dame Patsy Reddy, GNZM, QSO, Governor-General of New Zealand, on the
occasion of the State Opening of Parliament, 8 November 2017. Full speech accessible at
https://www.beehive.govt.nz/speech/speech-throne-2017.

Page | 24