Tasman District Council - Drinking Water Regulation Changes

Tasman District Council, Richmond, Tasman.

 

Council to host webinar on major drinking water regulations changes

Tasman District Council is running an online information session to highlight proposed significant changes to rules and regulations surrounding drinking water.  

Council Group Manager of Community Infrastructure Richard Kirby says this year, our community’s water supplies will become subject to greater scrutiny and will need to meet higher standards for safety and environmental stewardship. 

He says "the new Government water services regulator Taumata Arowai is charged with making sure all drinking water supplies meet the new requirements and will have some strong enforcement powers to ensure councils and private water providers comply." 

Making sure our water is safe to drink

Taumata Arowai and the Water Services Act 2021 are a direct result of the Havelock North drinking water crisis in 2016, when an outbreak of gastroenteritis because of contaminated drinking water saw 5000 people fall sick. 

Richard Kirby says "there will be implications for us as a Council, including increased costs, but there will also be significant ramifications for many members of our community with private water supplies."

“The new rules apply to any water scheme that supplies more than one household – affecting anyone with a bore or storage tanks that even one or two neighbours also draw water from.”

 
He says "this could include the likes of farms supplying water to worker accommodation. However, it doesn’t apply to properties that have a private water supply solely for the use of a single household." 

Is this your drinking water supply?

Residents have until 2025 to register their supply then until November 2028 to meet the new standards.

They are:   
•    Drinking Water Standards 
•    Drinking Water Quality Assurance Rules 
•    Drinking Water Aesthetic Values 
•    Drinking Water Acceptable Solution for Roof Water Supplies 
•    Drinking Water Acceptable Solution for Spring and Bore Water Supplies 
•    Drinking Water Acceptable Solution for Rural Agricultural Water Supplies 
•    Drinking Water Network Environmental Performance Measures 

Public submissions close on 28 March. 

But prior to this, Tasman District Council is hosting a webinar to brief the community.

Richard Kirby, Group Manager Community Infrastructure, Tasman District Council

Richard Kirby says "it is extremely important that everyone on a private water supply in Tasman is aware of the implications, so a webinar is being held on Wednesday 16 March from 6.30pm and will be hosted by two senior members of the Taumata Arowai management team." 

Registration for the webinar can be found on the Tasman District Council website www.tasman.govt.nz Full information about the proposed legislation is available at www.taumataarowai.govt.nz 

 Additional information from the editor:

Taumata Arowai  is a Crown entity established under the Taumata Arowai–the Water Services Regulator Act 2020. 

The establishment of Taumata Arowai as an independent regulator for drinking water and  to administer new legislation in the form of the Water Services Act 2021 (replacing Part 2A of the Health Act 1956) are integral parts of the Government’s Three Waters Reform Programme.  

Questions and answers:

Q: Is Taumata Arowai involved in the three waters plan to transfer water assets from councils to four new entities? 

A: No. Taumata Arowai is not involved in the creation of new regional water entities or the shift of functions from local authorities to them. Our role is to regulate rather than to determine any future changes to the water supply delivery system. We will work with drinking water suppliers in whichever form they take. 

Q: Is Taumata Arowai part of the government’s three waters reforms? 

A: The establishment of a dedicated water service regulator (Taumata Arowai) is the first of three pou (pillars) of the Government’s Three Waters Reform programme. The second pou is the Water Services Act 2021, which provides the legislative framework for reforms. The third pou is service delivery reform, which proposes to transfer management of large water supplies from councils to four regional entities. 

Q: What does Taumata Arowai mean? 

A: The name Taumata Arowai was gifted to us by Minister Nanaia Mahuta. It conveys the weight, responsibility, and authority of us as a regulator. Taumata is a term associated with a summit, symposium, or congress. Taumata invokes a sense of protection, leadership, and wisdom. Aro means to give attention to, to focus on, or be in the presence of. Wai is water.    

Q: How is Taumata Arowai governed?  

A: Taumata Arowai is governed by its Board, established under the Taumata Arowai–the Water Services Regulator Act 2020. The Board was appointed on 17 February 2021 by the Minister of Local Government and is chaired by Dame Karen Poutasi. 

The Māori Advisory Group was appointed by the Acting Minister of Local Government on 20 May 2021 and is chaired by Tipa Mahuta. 

The Māori Advisory Group is established under the Taumata Arowai–the Water Services Regulator Act 2020 and advises on Māori interests and knowledge as they relate to the objectives, functions, and operating principles of Taumata Arowai and the Board’s collective duties. This includes: 

• developing and maintaining a framework that provides advice and guidance for Taumata Arowai on how to interpret and give effect to Te Mana o te Wai. 
• providing advice on how to enable mātauranga Māori, tikanga Māori, and kaitiakitanga to be exercised. 
• any other matters as agreed by the Māori Advisory Group and the Board.  

Q: What is Te Mana o Te Wai? 

A: Te Mana o Te Wai provides a pathway for Crown agencies and other people with statutory functions, powers, and duties to recognise and respect the kaitiakitanga obligations of mana whenua, in a manner that aligns with māturanga-a-iwi.  

Its application will vary from place to place and community to community, in accordance with local responses to the principles it embodies.  

While Te Mana o Te Wai is defined in a document created under the Resources Management Act 1991, Taumata Arowai must consider and apply its meaning and operation for the purposes of the Taumata Arowai-the Water Services Regulator Act 2020 and the Water Services Act 2021. 

Q: What is the Water Services Act 2021? 

A: The Water Services Act 2021 provides a new regulatory approach for drinking water. It gives Taumata Arowai a legal framework and tools which we can use to regulate the water services sector and improve its performance. Most of its provisions commence on 15 November 2021. 

Q: What role will the Ministry of Health and Public Health Units play once Taumata Arowai becomes the regulator? 

A: The Ministry of Health and Public Health Units (PHU) will continue to play a vital role in protecting public health. Taumata Arowai will work closely with PHU staff, particularly during drinking water incidents and events.  

Editor comments:

Simply, a whole new independent Crown entity 'Taumata Arowai' has been established to be a regulator for drinking water and  to administer new legislation in the form of the Water Services Act 2021 (replacing Part 2A of the Health Act 1956).

Pigeon Post News 2022

AVERTISEMENT

Contact Anne-Maree at: pilates@tangolibre.com

Ukraine: UN's 'Responsibility to Protect'?

Gaunt, exhausted faces Ukraine

 Ukraine: the UN’s ‘responsibility to protect’ doctrine is a hollow promise for civilians under fire

Peter Lee

Professor of Applied Ethics and Director, Security and Risk Research, University of Portsmouth 

Comments:

Images of gaunt, exhausted faces of people fleeing bombardment and death once again dominate global news. From Mariupol to Irpin, Russian artillery attacks on Ukrainian civilians have kept them trapped in hell.

Every day, the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky pleads for help. He begs for military support to save his people from Russian aggression. Every day, world leaders find new ways to say that they will not intervene militarily. The line is drawn at warm words and humanitarian aid.

So, what has happened to the UN’s much-vaunted “responsibility to protect” – or “R2P” – doctrine? That willingness to use force to protect populations from genocide, war crimes and ethnic cleansing. United States secretary of state Antony Blinken has already claimed “very credible” reports of Russian war crimes. The Ukraine invasion shows R2P to be the hollow promise it has always been.

 

People feeing bombardment

What is R2P?

Responsibility to Protect (R2P) was affirmed at the 2005 UN World Summit. World leaders agreed to protect civilians from the kind of atrocities that are now unfolding in Ukraine. R2P would be “an emerging international security and human rights norm”.

The then secretary-general of the UN, Kofi. Annan announced that the world had taken “collective responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity”. A new era in international cooperation had apparently arrived.

Russan Tank

R2P emerged as a response to the atrocities in Rwanda and Srebrenica in the 1990s. Its aims were humanitarian, well-intended and optimistic. In 1999, Tony Blair captured the zeitgeist when he declared: “We are all internationalists now.”

Blair suggested five principles for military intervention to protect civilians on humanitarian grounds:

• The case must be proven
• All diplomatic options must have been exhausted
• There must be sensible and prudent military operations to be undertaken
• It’s a long-term commitment
• Do we have national interests involved?

In 2000, prompted by events in Kosovo, Bosnia, Somalia and Rwanda, the Canadian government stepped forward. It established the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS). It reported on the so-called “right of humanitarian intervention”. That is, the right to use military force to protect people at risk in other states.

Ukraine Children's Hospital

The problem with R2P

Since affirming R2P in 2005, the UN has failed to prevent atrocities in Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Myanmar and elsewhere. Now it is failing to protect civilians in Ukraine.

The problem is, R2P was set up to fail. At the heart of the principle exists an unresolvable geopolitical tension. There are five permanent members of the UN Security Council: the US, Russia, China, UK and France. Each can veto UN military or R2P action. Everyone protects their allies and their own interests, so the track record is damning.

After all the optimistic talk in 2005, by 2009 there had been little progress in implementing R2P. The then UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, reported that the UN and member states were “underprepared to meet their most fundamental prevention and protection responsibilities”.

Ukraine soldier

By 2018, fighting in Syria had been underway for eight years, and the UN reported the conflict had led to 400,000 dead, 5.6 million refugees and 6.6 million internally displaced people. Yet Russia and China still refused to invoke R2P. Russia and China also vetoed UN attempts to refer Syria and the perpetrators of war crimes to the International Criminal Court.

If such levels of human suffering could not prompt a UN-sanctioned R2P-based military intervention, what will?

War in the suburbs of Kyiv Ukraine

The optimists

Despite mounting evidence against it ever being used when it is needed most, R2P has its supporters. In November 2020, Gareth Evans from the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect set out a positive case for R2P. A former Australian foreign minister, Evans helped conceive R2P, and described it as a new norm of international behaviour which “overwhelmingly, states feel ashamed to violate, compelled to observe, or at least embarrassed to ignore”.

Ukraine devastation

But such optimism seems misplaced in light of the harsh realities on the ground in Ukraine. The current UN secretary-general, António Guterres, has stated that protecting civilians “must be priority number one”.

But the real priority is not protecting Ukrainian civilians but to avoid a third world war by preventing a clash between Russia and the west. Plus, protecting Ukrainian civilians by intervening with massive military power would be costly – politically, financially and in terms of military lives lost.

There is little evidence that electorates in western liberal democratic states want their leaders to deploy such military force. UK polling in early March indicated only 28% support for military intervention in Ukraine. Similar polling in the US showed 42% support for military intervention.

The political limits of R2P have been reached. The possibility of military intervention on humanitarian grounds has, in practice, already be consigned to the history books. It would be kinder, and more honest, to stop offering desperate Ukrainians false hope. We should admit R2P was a principled idea whose time never came.

The Conversation theconversation.com

cc creative commons

Pigeon Post News

ADVERTISEMENT:

Contact Anne-Maree at: pilates@tangolibre.com

NELSON POLICE

NZ POLICE

 ANOTHER NELSON HOMICIDE - VICTIM NAMED

In just over two weeks there is another Nelson Homicide.

In a statement released today the 11 March 2022 by Detective Senior Sergeant Anthony McCoy the victim was named.

“Police can now name the man who was found dead at a rural property in Hope on Wednesday. He was 56-year-old Simon Allan Bevers. Mr Bevers' family have been advised.”

Enquiries started into the unexplained death of a 56-year-old man located deceased at a rural property in Hope on the 9th March. 

Tasman Police arrived at the property on Edens Road at 7:30am on Wednesday.

A homicide investigation, has been launched after the death of the man.

Enquiries are underway to establish exactly what occurred and to identify those responsible.

The forensic examination at the Edens Road property, involving Police investigators, ESR and other specialists, is ongoing and expected to be completed during the weekend.

Police would like to speak with anyone who might have information about the incident or those involved.

Anyone with information which could assist Police in their investigation should call 105 and refer to case number 220309/6803.

You can also share information anonymously through Crime Stoppers on 0800 555 111.

Pigeon Post News

Advertisment

Contact Anne-Maree at: pilates@tangolibre.com

Ukraine crisis: how do small states like New Zealand respond in an increasingly lawless world?

Article by:

Alexander Gillespie Professor of Law, University of Waikato

New Zealand’s official response to Russian aggression and violations of international law have so far been strong – but they could go further.

While no NATO-aligned country can – under any circumstances – put boots on the ground in Ukraine (which could lead to world war), New Zealand must do everything tangibly possible to oppose the Russian invasion.

To that end, New Zealand’s sanctions regime must be nothing less than those of its allies. This should extend to passing legislation under urgency to allow sanctions beyond those mandated by the United Nations (UN).

Avoiding the need for UN approval is essential because of Russia’s Security Council veto. As other like-minded countries provide military hardware to Ukraine, New Zealand should also consider offering logistical support, with non-lethal military aid such as body armour and medical packs being a minimum New Zealand should continue to strengthen its relationship with NATO and consider seeking to become an “enhanced opportunity partner” as Australia did in 2014. Finally, the government needs to reflect on whether its current defence spend and strategic focus are adequate for the world we now live in.  

The United Nations. Photo supplied

Decline of the UN

These measures are warranted, given the state of the United Nations Charter. Designed to prevent the scourge of war and uphold international law, there are now tank tracks all over it.

In theory, UN member states promise to settle disputes by peaceful means and refrain from the threat or use of force against other sovereign nations. Those commitments are supplemented with bilateral arrangements.

Just such an arrangement underpinned Ukraine’s decision in 1994 to hand its nuclear arsenal over to Russia in return for Russia promising to respect its independence, sovereignty and existing borders.

But two decades of decline lie behind today’s crisis. Since the end of the 1990s we have witnessed the continued destabilisation of the international architecture designed to keep peace.

Ukraine citizens holding back a tank. Photo supplied

Erosion of international law

We can trace this decline to the US withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia in 1999. That same year, NATO (whose member states regard an attack on one as an attack on all) began to expand eastward.

The UN’s effectiveness was dealt a serious blow by the unlawful US invasion of Iraq in 2003, while further NATO expansion in 2004 added to Moscow’s anxiety. But Russia appeared to learn by example.

Military interventions in Chechnya and Georgia, and support for the Assad regime in Syria from 2011, were followed by Russian recognition of breakaway eastern regions of Ukraine in 2014 and its illegal annexation of Crimea the next year.

Russia then withdrew from the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe and in 2016 quit the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (which the US has never even joined).

Meanwhile, then-US president Donald Trump pulled out of the Intermediate Nuclear Range Treaty (which kept intermediate range nuclear weapons out of Europe) and then exited the Open Skies Treaty which gave European and allied nations the ability to verify arms control commitments.

Putin. Photo supplied

Putin’s impossible demands

The net result is today’s parlous situation. Whether Russia will try to annex all or just some of Ukraine we cannot say. But before the invasion Putin put peace offers on the table in the form of two draft treaties, one for the US and one for the other NATO states.

Essentially, Putin is proposing the removal of collective defence guarantees by NATO in eastern Europe. He believes this is fair, based on the unwritten promises after the Cold War that former Soviet bloc countries would not join NATO.

Those promises were never made into a legally binding treaty, however, and Putin now wants that changed. Specifically, he wants a rollback of NATO forces and weaponry in the former Soviet allies to 1997 levels.

Russia also wants the US to pledge it will prevent further eastward expansion of NATO, and a specific commitment that NATO will never allow Ukraine or other bordering nations (such as Georgia) to join the western alliance.

But the prospect of a nuclear power like Russia dictating what its neighbour states can or can’t join is untenable in 2022. If anything, applications to join NATO are more likely to increase in the wake of the Ukraine invasion.

Hon Nanaie Mahuta Foreign Affairs Minister. Photo Supplied

Where now for NZ?

These are sobering times for small countries like like New Zealand that rely on a rules-based international order for their peace and security.

With the failure of various treaties and the basic principles of international law to deter Putin, and the UN rendered virtually impotent by Russia’s veto power, New Zealand needs other ways to respond to such superpower aggression.

Until a semblance of normality and respect for the UN Charter and international treaties return, small states must focus on their core foreign policy values and finding common ground with friends and allies.

By being part of a united front on sanctions, military aid, humanitarian assistance and defence, New Zealand can leverage its otherwise limited ability to influence events in an increasingly lawless world.

Alexander Gillespie

Professor of Law, University of Waikato

The Conversation

Pigeon Post News

ADVERTISEMENT

Contact Anne-Maree at: pilates@tangolibre.com

Police descend on Parliament as Anti-mandate protest enters 23rd day

Police outside Parliament trying to arrest demonstrators. Photo R Therkleson

The Commissioner of Police Andrew Coster has just made a statement concerning the Police major operation to clear the streets around Parliament.

Police have made 60 arrests this morning as part of the pre-planned operation to remove protesters from Parliament.

There were rowdy scenes of protesters fighting with police and at least three suffered injuries. Many protesters were also sprayed with pepper spray.

Statement from Police Commissioner on operation underway: 

 

Police are today undertaking a major operation to clear the roads and restore order to the Wellington area affected by protest activity.

The operation is the result of significant planning and the commitment of several hundred staff from around the country.

Our intent is to reclaim public roads and restore order.

This morning you will have seen we have urged protesters who have not already departed, to leave now. 

Our message to those who do not wish to be caught up in our operation is, please go home. We have staff on stand-by to assist their safe departure from the protest area.

We were clear from the start that de-escalation was the preferred option. And during a period of engagement with protest leaders we were able to get in place tactics that de-escalated both the number of people and vehicles at the site.

However, we reached the stage where protest leaders were either unwilling, or unable, to affect meaningful change to the behaviour and the impact of the protest on Wellington.

In the last week we have a changing mix in the make-up of the crowd at the protest – in particular we became concerned that those with good intentions were outnumbered by those with a willingness to use violence to effect their means.

We have observed an escalation in concerning behaviour which has resulted in today’s action.

This has never been about preventing lawful protest, but this particular protest has reached a stage where the harm being done far outweighs any legitimate protest.

By approximately midday today, we have confirmed 36 arrests, for a range of offences including wilful trespass, obstruction, wilful damage, assaults police, possession of a weapon, and refusing to provide identifying details.

Firemen and others cleaning up the mess left by the protesters. Photo R Therkleson

We have towed 15 vehicles including a number of vans, campervans and trucks. These have been seized and will not be returned in the immediate future.

Three of our staff have received injuries, two with abrasions and one with paint thrown in the face. All received medical attention at the scene and are back working in operation.

We will continue to arrest and charge people where necessary and will continue seizing vehicles through the day.

However, public safety is our priority and where possible we are helping people to leave the area safely. 

Cleaning up. Photo R Therkleson

We have been assisted today by a number of partner agencies including Wellington City Council, Corrections, Oranga Tamariki, Fire and Emergency NZ, NZDF, and Wellington Free Ambulance.

I would like to close by extending my thanks to all the staff involved in today’s operation. This is challenging and difficult work and they have been professional and measured through out. 

Pigeon Post News

THE PRIDE COMMUNITY HEART BROKEN AS THE PRIDE BALL AND ROCK STAR JACK PANTHER CANCELLED

The Nelson Pride Ball Cancelled. Photo supplied

While most Pride events across the country have been cancelled like many other events, due to the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, so too has Nelson Pride Inc., had to cancel their second Pride Ball and special guest Pop Singer JACK PANTHER.

Nelson Pride announced before the 19 February “that in light of the Omicron cases detected in the Nelson region, and the Government’s decision to go to Red, we have made the heart-breaking decision to cancel The Love is Love Ball (The Pride Ball).”

 

As many event organisers have decided, it is simply unsafe to run a large-scale event in this environment with so many uncertainties.

"Since this event had already been postponed in September 2021, and in line with decisions made by other organisations like Auckland Pride, we believe the most appropriate course of action is to cancel.”

Many of the ticket holders were disappointed but are looking forward to the next possible Pride Ball.

Nelson Pride are looking forward to the smaller scale in-person and virtual events they will be holding as part of the 2022 Pride Festival in April.

Nelson Pride said “thank you so much for the support the community have offered us and recognise the excitement you all shared with us about hosting the Ball.”

Nourish Catering were booked in to provide the Pride Ball participants with snacks, canapés, and charcuterie. Also locked in to provide Chante's signature "Jarcuterie" to cover the covid-conscious requirements too.

"Jarcuterie" Photo supplied

"Jarcuterie," means pretty much exactly what it sounds like: all the delicious trappings of a charcuterie board packed into a jar of some sort. Really, the trend is just about creating an individual serving size, no matter how you present it in these Covid19 times.

Not only did the Pride crowd miss out on individual "Jarcuterie"at the Pride Ball but they missed out on the queer emerging artist developed in the Wellington scene and based in Auckland, Jack Panther.

Nelson Pride were so pleased that they could support Jack but it wasn’t to be. Perhaps in the future they will be able to entice him to Nelson.

Jack Panther who is already turning heads in the music industry uses his craft to blend tones of melancholy with pop.

Jack Panther - New Zealand's revered and promising 

creator of queer pop. Photo supplied

With his experimentation in poetry and self-taught piano, his poetry evolved into rhythms, hooks and then fully fleshed songs. Artists such as Arctic Monkeys, Lykke Li and Sky Ferriera have deeply fuelled Jack. He prides himself in his mixture of noir, candid, cool pop that flows through his melodies and rhythms.

At the age of 24, Panther has developed through mentoring by industry greats, Andrew Scheps (Adele, Red Hot Chilli Peppers), Stuart Hawkes (Ed Sheeran, Lorde) and Ian Barter.

2020 was a mammoth year for Jack, releasing 4 singles and his debut solo EP, ‘this dream i had’ a collaboration alongside UK based producer, Ian Barter, who has worked in developing artists including Amy Winehouse, FKA Twigs and Paloma Faith.

His latest single ‘Blue Boy’ features a queer, aesthetic music video shot by visionary director Veronica Crockford-Pound (Vogue, i-D) featuring models Rob Tennent, Roxie Mohebbi and Panther himself.What seemed like a difficult situation Panther turned the 2020 pandemic into an opportunity. Teaming up with director Charlotte Evans (BENEE, Aldous Harding), they created an introspective music video to his debut single ‘This Dream’, shot by cinematographers from around the world, showcasing common themes of isolation.

Spanish Magazine NEO2, describes Jack as “new idol of queer pop”. 

Jack’s catalogue of performances include multiple venues around Wellington, Radio Stations ZM, The Hits and RadioactiveFM, and has been working towards his next set at the Michael Fowler centre for Wellington’s Pride Festival 2022 which now has been postpone as well. 

We hope that 2022 will see an even bigger year for Panther, already planning his next moves with a NZ tour and a more confident, heavier sound. We would like to see him in Nelson.

Thanks to

Nelson Pride Inc.

Jack Panther

Pigeon Post News