Hi people. The title is probably abit over the top, but consider all I have written since the start of my blog site . Think about the giant leap backwards the Mc Gilicuddy party are seeking,  all that Trendy green out comes, whilst the urban environment that most of them live in get away scot free. Consider the report I am to publish below  and think about the news items this week, the 6-12th August, defending the right to free speech, and in particular the vice chancellors attitude to Dr Don Brash invitation to speak at Massy University. NO!!!!!. Have I not said there is a University or more churning out political, environmental and religious activists, all very nice people, but determined to achieve the outcomes they desire. 

Think on about the Advisory Group report published 2 mths ago, (from which I got a record number of hits). Can it get worse? Well read on. Here is a Horizons Regional Council report where a councilor, my self, is asking questions of the regulatory manager Dr Nic Peete of the Advisory Group activities in the Environment Court.. This was before the High Court decision and indeed before the Appeal was notified by Hort NZ and Fed Farmers. It is my view he told councilors  fibs. I could be more direct and say he lied.

Read Justice Ko,s decision reported in the Advisory Groups Post. Do not believe it? Them dial it up on the MoJ web site. 

I have noticed that there are 1847 malicious attempts to hack my site to date. Most of these are over the last month. Somebody is trying to stop the truth from being told. Can it be traced to Massy University. The last successful attempt was traced by my new moderator to a IP address at ,YES, at Massy University. Both of us complained to the local Police man Conrad Smith. Alas . Too busy. Read on

Yesterday MPI ,Horizons and Darthvaders sister Lynn Neeson (Federated Farmers) fronted meetings held in Kaitieke and Kurakau. Early this year a weather bomb hit those 2 districts especially the bottom ends, close to the National park.  causing a lot of damage to pastures tracks and roading. Remember the Steeles had a give alittle page asking for donations to get back on track. The MPI chaps said we are here to offer help to fortify your business against such happenings in future. Plant trees. Richard Steele immeadiately jumped up and did his greeny speal. Claiming farming in the whole district(s) is over, Climate change bla bla is real, no use carrying on, Bees and carbon is the future. And by the way we have a thriving touristy business going.

Horizons and Neeson clapped . No pressure said the MPI. Stated there were poplar poles available and a % free. Subsidised planting.  One local farmer went up to a Horizons official after the meeting enquiring about poles only to be told . None left.  

Yep no pressure. Look up the environment court version of the One Plan Plan. No I will not tell you where, you have to read the doc for your self. But It says. If the process of encouragement does not achieve the desired outcomes, Regulation Will be used.

Now it is my view that the Steeles are helping that along, by the conversion of farmed land to treed cover. Remember A Dons report. Higher rainfall and stream flows under treed cover. Esp indigenous.

Fake news. Wednesday morning AM show. Really poking it at Judith Collins. Really bad. Not to be tolerated. Oh yes. The AM Show and other media reported on just that with gusto pre the 2017 elections. They even had a commentator on early in the piece saying just that. It will happen.(Fake news) Agriculture. Sure did. YET here they are now slamming Ms Collins. Bigotry at its worst. Ms Collins must have seen the same AM morning show.

Well James Shaw has been to the fore with his climate change bill. His Mates the Feds got their bums kicked supporting his discussion doc, and now are seeking amends. What about the 1.8 million hec of indigenous forest lands on private land. No need for the 2 billion trees again targeted at private land. And I see a wool industry commentator has joined the fray stating that the wool industry is based on carbon. That sheep sequester up to 6kg of carbon in a fiber called WOOL. Pure and natural. 20 million sheep at say 3/4 kg each 60 million tons Crikey. Looks to me as if the Govt owes the NZ farmer. But I believe I reported on such a claim some time ago. 

So if this is true, and believe me it is then why the need to tax farmers and all the bad press that goes with it. My, with carbon heading to $100 a ton, NZ farmers should be on the pigs back. So why is the govt of every colour so determined on achieving carbon neutrality when it seems we are already there and what is better, farmers will be very wealthy money go rounders as a consequence. Plus they will follow the market and grow more, creating even more jobs across the economic spectrum. But alas no. Have I not given you the answer in previous bogs? Can this be the reason for such a low level of business confidence?

12:1 = Report No 13-19 12 March 2013 Information Only – No Decision Required

4.2 – QUESTION 1
Who made the decision to reconvene ”a” hearing panel to hear new evidence with regard to chapter 6 Water, and associated chapter, chapter 13 Discharges to Land and Water and in particular the Nitrogen leaching allowances and associated priority catchments contained in the rules table 13.2 Agricultural Activities.
4.3 No one made a decision to reconvene a hearings panel. The hearing panel was defunct once it issued the Decisions Version of the Proposed One Plan. The statutory process, once the appeals on the Decisions Version were lodged, was for the Environment Court to hear evidence put before it by all parties to the proceedings.

4.4 – QUESTION 2
What authority did the council Appeals Advisory Group have in January 2012 or there about? 2012. To hear new evidence and then amend the One Plan decision version and introduce that to the Environment Court.

4.5 The Appeals Advisory Group had no statutory authority to hear new evidence or amend the One Plan as only the Environment Court has that authority. The Environment Court has that authority under Part 11 of the Resource Management Act 1991. All parties to the Environment Court proceedings were required to provide legal submissions and expert witness evidence in relation to the points made in the appeals lodged and not in relation to any extraneous matter.

4.6 The role of an expert witness is set down by the Environment Court in its Code of Conduct Practise Note. Section 5.2 of the Code stipulates that an expert witness has an overriding duty to assist the Court impartially and they must not act as an advocate for the party who engages the witness. This Code applies to all witnesses presenting evidence before the Court including council staff who appear as a witness.

4.7 The Councillors approved the establishment of the Appeals Advisory Group on 8 February 2011. Included in Annex B is a copy of the 8 February item and Council resolution. The purpose of the Group was to discuss the matters that required a substantive decision in mediation or hearings and to guide the Chief Executive or staff. The Council delegated to the Chief Executive any functions and powers under the RMA necessary to resolve the appeals. The Chief Executive was also directed to report back on progress and on-going costs and prospects of resolution with respect to dealing with One Plan appeals. Fifteen update reports were provided to Council during the appeal resolution period (I.e. March 2011 to August 2012). Each of these update reports set out the issues being canvassed through mediation and in the lead up to the Court process.

4.8 An Advisory Group meeting was held following the Environment Committee meeting on 8 February 2012. The purpose of the meeting was to provide information on the approach taken by MWRC expert witnesses in evidence to the Environment Court on land and nutrient management topics. Expert evidence on the nutrient management topic was lodged with the Environment Court on 14 February 2012. Evidence on other topics, such as land, were filed earlier.

4.9 – QUESTION 3
Who gave the council Advisory Group the authority to make the decision that they did? At that time.

4.10 The Advisory Group had no statutory authority to hear new evidence or amend the One Plan as only the Environment Court has that authority. The Environment Court has that authority under Part 11 of the Resource Management Act 1991. All parties to the Environment Court proceedings were required to provide legal submissions and expert witness evidence in relation to the points made in appeals lodged and not in relation to any extraneous matter 4.7. As noted in paragraph 4.5 above the Council resolved on 8 February 2011 what the functions of the Appeals Advisory Group were. The functions of the Group did not extend to instructing an expert witness what to say in their evidence. Indeed that would flout the Court process which requires independent, professional, considered and uninfluenced evidence to be placed before it.

4.11 The Council could have chosen to withdraw evidence and engage another expert who may be prepared to say what they wanted. This did not occur.

4.12 – QUESTION 4 and 5
What written authority to amend the Council One Plan (decisions version) did the council officer Clare Barton have in the way that she has?

4.13 Council staff including Ms Barton, had absolutely no power to amend the Plan as this power rests with the Environment Court. The Environment Court did not accept the expert witnesses from Horizons Regional Council (HRC). Ultimately, the Environment Court was persuaded to the changes proposed by both Fish and Game and the Department of Conservation.

4.14 As outlined above evidence presented to the Court must be arrived at independent of influence and having considered the available factual information. As the Decisions Version of the One Plan nutrient management rules were appealed, because all parties were not content with them for a variety of reasons, it would be unwise in evidence to pretend the Decisions Version was the most appropriate approach. Indeed even Federated Farmers in their appeal opposed Rule 13.1 and raised specific concerns with the use of reasonably practicable farm management practices in the rules and how this would be interpreted. Federated Farmers were then seeking changes to the provisions contained within the Decisions Version One Plan.

4.15 Having considered the appeals, including the appeal of Federated Farmers, Ms Barton in her role as expert witness proposed the following changes to the Decisions Version nutrient management rules for the Courts consideration;
(a) For inclusion within a policy in chapter 13, guidance as to what reasonably practicable farm management practices covered. This was an attempt to address the concerns raised by Federated Farmers regarding the uncertainty of reasonably practicable farm management practices.

(b) Contrary to the Decisions Version HRC staff in their role as expert witnesses proposed the re-inclusion of the dates the rules came into force in each water management sub-zone. Knowledge around implementation of the rules and the need for staggered implementation if there was to be engagement with farmers prior to consents being required, resulted in this suggested change.

(c) Offering a potential approach within the controlled activity rule for nutrient management which gave certainty as to nitrogen numbers that would need to be met. For consistency with the rule for dairy conversions in the Decisions Version it was proposed that the single line of LUC numbers also apply to existing dairy farms. Federated Farmers response was to suggest a single nitrogen leaching number.
4.16 These changes were not accepted by the Court.

Guess who is answering Cr Plowman’s Questions. Yep the Regulatory Manager Dr Nick Peete. In view of the content of this report as published in my last post, On Behalf of the Rural Communities. And the High Court Decision . Both of which were made public after these questions were put before council. It would seem to me that Dr Peete lied to council. And that the CEO and the Chair have hung Dr Peete out to dry. 

These are questions of a very significant process that has bought Horizons Regional Council into disrepute. Yet they are treated as insignificant. Information only. 

Who is Dr Nick Peete. Came to council from DoC. Being the area manager for the Whanganui Conservancy. Maori involved in the Treaty Settlement Process made the comment that he was there for ????. But would not elaborate any further. I will say it is to bring about the out comes sought. He is a very important person to Govt Officials,  driving the settlement outcomes through the Regional Plans. Horrendous is it not. These people had a set back in the High Court, but they will persist. Hill country farm land is now firmly in their sights. Trees.  1678 hec annually is needed to achieve 30% of the region in forest cover by 2050. Trees. Imagine the environmental degradation as depicted in the Tasman heavy rainfall event earlier this year. What about Tolager Bay and the regular unidation of the beach at the mouth of the Whanganui River. All well published, but are the Officials driving political change going to listen. NO.

So there it is. Local Govt is BROKEN. It has fallen prey to treasonous behavior. To many councilors are sitting there letting it happen. Nodding their heads, eating their lunch and holding out their hands on Wednesday. If they stand up to these people, they are removed from council.

The Media. They play a important part in this. They no what is going on but are captured by the authors of the process. Turning a blind eye, and being used to belittle and denigrate publicly any councilor who stands up against the outcomes sought. More on this later.

Bye for now