Source: New Zealand Police
Police can now release the name of the woman who died following a crash on Waipapa Road, Mangakino on 21 April.
She was 64-year-old Woonkyung Lee, from the Republic of Korea.
Our thoughts are with her close ones at this difficult time.
ENDS
Issued by Police Media Centre
Source: Govt’s austerity Budget to cause real harm in communities
Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I do want to just begin by emphasising the need, as Rachel Brooking has pointed out, for a review period. Because what we see in Schedule 1AA refers to, potentially, a large number of projects, perhaps some that are active authorisations, some that are under way, and it is important, given the retrospectivity of this, that there is a review period.
The second point that I want to make, and a question for the Minister, is about the number of those projects. Now, we’ve seen, as I’ve mentioned previously in this debate, that there is no regulatory impact statement; there is no proactively released Cabinet paper. So we don’t have a huge amount of detail that, previously or in other situations, were this not being passed through all stages under urgency, we would have had access to. I have seen some media reporting that basically says that in the past 12 months, the Department of Conservation (DOC) has granted 85 similar permits to project applicants, and that, in total, 315 applications are under way where a section 53 permit or authority could be granted. So my question would be whether the Minister can confirm those figures, and also whether new Schedule 1AA in Part 2 would then apply to all of those—the 85 plus the 315 that are in train as well.
The third point that I want to make is in lieu of a select committee process, all we have—previously we would have submitters, many of whom have done a fair bit of work in this space in terms of reviewing the Wildlife Act and making suggestions on what should be changed within the Act. We would have ordinarily heard from them through a select committee process; we, of course, haven’t, given that we are sitting in urgency, and so all we have to go on are some of the press releases that have been put out on this particular piece of legislation. And I do want to check: there is one from the Environmental Law Initiative—of course, the lawyers who judicially reviewed the decision have said that, basically, it increases the burden on those who are, I guess, pushing those projects through—the 85 and the 315, if, in fact those numbers are correct. And I would be keen for the Minister’s view, given what’s in Schedule 1AA, on whether he agrees that it actually does increase the administrative burden both for DOC but also in terms of the legal tests that now those projects have to be put against.
There was also another comment, and I can’t find it in front of me at the moment, around the fact that, potentially, what DOC should have done—and, again, it’s just been two months since the High Court ruling; that is a point that has been made before: there hasn’t been a huge amount of time. Had this been either delayed a little bit or had there been a slightly lengthier process, or some select committee process, there potentially could have been time for DOC to then go through the cases, on a case by case basis. We are here because the High Court ruling ruled that in that particular case, the Mt Messenger Bypass case, the authority that was given under section 53 didn’t actually meet the purpose of the Wildlife Act as it was written back in 1953, and, therefore, just this carte blanche approach to now changing the law to change, ostensibly, the purpose of this Act so that the permits that were given retrospectively will now be legal does not necessarily mean that those who are shepherding those projects through have taken reasonable steps to protect biodiversity.
So there is an argument put forward that what DOC should be doing is to look at those 85 cases where there is legal uncertainty and try and work out whether reasonable steps have been taken to protect biodiversity in each of those cases. And I would really like to know what the Minister’s view on that is, but, also, what advice he received on that point: is that something that DOC could actually have done? Was there consideration around the time period that it would have taken for DOC to be able to go through all of those cases on a case by case basis?
Source: Govt’s austerity Budget to cause real harm in communities
Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I do want to just begin by emphasising the need, as Rachel Brooking has pointed out, for a review period. Because what we see in Schedule 1AA refers to, potentially, a large number of projects, perhaps some that are active authorisations, some that are under way, and it is important, given the retrospectivity of this, that there is a review period.
The second point that I want to make, and a question for the Minister, is about the number of those projects. Now, we’ve seen, as I’ve mentioned previously in this debate, that there is no regulatory impact statement; there is no proactively released Cabinet paper. So we don’t have a huge amount of detail that, previously or in other situations, were this not being passed through all stages under urgency, we would have had access to. I have seen some media reporting that basically says that in the past 12 months, the Department of Conservation (DOC) has granted 85 similar permits to project applicants, and that, in total, 315 applications are under way where a section 53 permit or authority could be granted. So my question would be whether the Minister can confirm those figures, and also whether new Schedule 1AA in Part 2 would then apply to all of those—the 85 plus the 315 that are in train as well.
The third point that I want to make is in lieu of a select committee process, all we have—previously we would have submitters, many of whom have done a fair bit of work in this space in terms of reviewing the Wildlife Act and making suggestions on what should be changed within the Act. We would have ordinarily heard from them through a select committee process; we, of course, haven’t, given that we are sitting in urgency, and so all we have to go on are some of the press releases that have been put out on this particular piece of legislation. And I do want to check: there is one from the Environmental Law Initiative—of course, the lawyers who judicially reviewed the decision have said that, basically, it increases the burden on those who are, I guess, pushing those projects through—the 85 and the 315, if, in fact those numbers are correct. And I would be keen for the Minister’s view, given what’s in Schedule 1AA, on whether he agrees that it actually does increase the administrative burden both for DOC but also in terms of the legal tests that now those projects have to be put against.
There was also another comment, and I can’t find it in front of me at the moment, around the fact that, potentially, what DOC should have done—and, again, it’s just been two months since the High Court ruling; that is a point that has been made before: there hasn’t been a huge amount of time. Had this been either delayed a little bit or had there been a slightly lengthier process, or some select committee process, there potentially could have been time for DOC to then go through the cases, on a case by case basis. We are here because the High Court ruling ruled that in that particular case, the Mt Messenger Bypass case, the authority that was given under section 53 didn’t actually meet the purpose of the Wildlife Act as it was written back in 1953, and, therefore, just this carte blanche approach to now changing the law to change, ostensibly, the purpose of this Act so that the permits that were given retrospectively will now be legal does not necessarily mean that those who are shepherding those projects through have taken reasonable steps to protect biodiversity.
So there is an argument put forward that what DOC should be doing is to look at those 85 cases where there is legal uncertainty and try and work out whether reasonable steps have been taken to protect biodiversity in each of those cases. And I would really like to know what the Minister’s view on that is, but, also, what advice he received on that point: is that something that DOC could actually have done? Was there consideration around the time period that it would have taken for DOC to be able to go through all of those cases on a case by case basis?
Source: NZ Music Month takes to the streets
Good morning and a warm welcome to everyone, it’s a pleasure to be here.
Let me start by thanking AML Solutions for giving me the opportunity to speak on the 10th anniversary of the AML Summit.
I know you have a busy and interesting schedule to look forward to over the next couple of days. This year’s conference theme is aptly named “The evolution of Risk”. I understand that the presentations will focus on supporting reporting entities to understand what best-practice compliance looks like under a reformed risk-based and flexible AML/CFT system.
This theme is future-focused – and touches on issues I have spent a lot of time thinking about and planning for since becoming responsible for the AML/CFT portfolio in my role as Associate Minister of Justice.
You will likely know that last year Cabinet approved my plans for an AML/CFT reform programme. The objectives of legislative reform are to meet the objectives this government committed to in our coalition agreement: and that is to tackle organised crime and cut red tape.
How can New Zealand reform AML/CFT regulation to reduce burden on industry and support a common-sense approach to compliance; while still ensuring we are well placed to tackle organised crime and protect our international reputation as a trusted place to do business?
How do we equip ourselves to deal with new and emerging challenges and threats in this space? How can we harness new technologies to help us fight crime more effectively and make it easier and cheaper for businesses to defend themselves against money laundering?
How will we ensure that we, as a country, are doing our part in this inherently global fight – in a fractious world where the nexus of organised crime and international conflicts is growing?
Over the last year I have taken advice and considered many of the challenges facing the sector in detail. Many of you in this room, or online, will have been involved in and contributed to this advice. I am so grateful for your hard work and specialist contributions. Your expertise is invaluable – it enables robust discussion and informed decision-making.
Now is the time to deliver on our coalition commitments. The Act has now been in force for 11 years and we know the current system is not delivering as well as it could for New Zealanders, businesses, or for law enforcement.
This is because the laws and requirements are highly complex and not sufficiently risk based. As a result, they can be repetitive and unnecessarily burdensome. I have heard from many New Zealanders that the requirements are confusing, obstructive, and costly.
Some of the examples they have given me illustrate how absurd these requirements can be. I ’ve heard from mothers who’ve told me they cannot open bank accounts for their child unless they are able to prove where their child lives. I’ve heard from elderly widows, who had relied on their husbands to take care of bills and are now unable to have a bank account in their own name because they have no written proof to say they live in their own home. These are clear indications of how the system is failing to take a properly risk-based approach.
Multiple reviews of the current system have also identified deficiencies that make it harder for the system to effectively deter and combat the criminal activity that we know is taking place in New Zealand.
At New Zealand’s latest mutual evaluation, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) reported on several strengths in the New Zealand system but also highlighted that there is room for significant improvement.
I know you will be aware that compliance with international standards is incredibly important for New Zealand’s global reputation and financial standing. We know that FATF recommendations are now tougher, and that there are still many actions from our last evaluation that we need to address. Regulatory reform is needed to ensure we do well at our next evaluation.
But let’s not belabour what we already know about the deficiencies. Let’s instead focus on opportunities for the future and what we can achieve through this reform programme. To me, reform presents a great opportunity to enhance the strengths of our system, and to address identified concerns.
We know, for example, that the wider Financial Crime Group do excellent work, especially relating to asset recovery. We only need to cast our eyes to very recent news stories – I’m thinking of the announcement last September of the highly successful operation against the Comanchero gang which saw $5.8 million worth of assets restrained – to know law enforcement across the system is working hard and achieving remarkable successes through their work. A look at the latest Police annual report shows that over $72 million of assets were restrained from organised and financial crime, and 379 money laundering investigations resulted in prosecution.
We also know there is sound domestic cooperation and coordination on monitoring possible terrorist financing – the FATF told us so, at our latest mutual evaluation.
The FATF have also noted that we are known internationally for our high-quality responsiveness to cooperation requests.
In other words, New Zealand already does lots of things well. Our focus is therefore on improving the AML/CFT system to enhance these strengths. Let’s enable the system and its actors to achieve the intended outcomes: to detect and deter money laundering and terrorism financing.
This Government is about quality regulation. We want regulation that achieves intended outcomes, regulation that makes sense and is workable for all. This means getting rid of unnecessary red-tape– if regulation isn’t providing the results we are after, there is no point to it.
In the case of the AML/CFT system, regulation needs to contribute to the fundamental purpose of the system: tackling crime. To do that effectively, we need an agile, streamlined system that is laser focussed on real risk.
A truly risk-based system will better enable law enforcement to crack down on organised crime by providing the financial intelligence needed to go after criminal organisations. A truly risk-based system is more aligned with international obligations and standards. A truly risk-based system will provide regulatory relief for lower risk businesses and the public.
My reform programme, therefore, will be undertaken in three parts. The first phase is already well-advanced and will deliver immediate regulatory relief via two bills – the first, the Statutes Amendment Bill, has already been reported back from Select Committee to the House of Representatives, and is likely to come into effect in the coming months. The second, the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill, is currently before select committee.
The changes made through these bills include removing both address verification requirements for many customers, and relaxing enhanced customer due diligence requirements for lower-risk trusts. This will help make it easier for mums and dads to set up bank accounts for their kids, and easier for vulnerable kiwis – including the elderly – to get access to essential financial services.
This first set of reforms aims to make immediate changes, to make the AML/CFT system more risk-based and ease the regulatory burden on businesses.
These changes alone already represent the most significant regulatory relief in the history of the AML/CFT regime. But we do not intend to stop there.
The second phase of changes focuses on structural reforms for the regime. Cabinet has agreed that, as part of these structural reforms, we will be implementing a single AML/CFT supervisor structure within the Department of Internal Affairs. This will replace the current three-supervisor model.
This move will create a more efficient, effective, and risk-based supervisory structure – one that reduces unnecessary compliance costs for lower-risk businesses and transactions, removes the need for multi-supervisor coordination efforts – thereby reducing costs – and streamlines decision-making.
A single supervisor can be more resource responsive to the ever-changing risk environment. A single supervisor will be better able to deliver consistent and timely guidance to support reporting entities.
This will help to ensure that businesses have the confidence to take a more flexible approach to implementing their AML/CFT obligations and lower the barrier to accessing financial services for low-risk customers.
A single supervisor with overview of the wider AML/CFT environment will also be better able to look for and realise opportunities as they arise. For example, I’m sure we all agree that there are opportunities and benefits to be gained in the digital identity and open banking areas. In addition, the emergence of AI could herald improved, and more cost effective, electronic Know Your Customer (eKYC) functions, risk assessments, and suspicious activity reporting.
Everyone here will be aware that in a world of increasing demands, the AML/CFT system in New Zealand is currently underfunded. My phase two structural reforms will also see us work towards introducing a sustainable funding model for the system.
The new hybrid funding model will establish an industry-levy. I will ensure that this levy is designed in a way that distributes the costs in a risk appropriate and equitable way, so that it targets the highest risk sectors – such as large international banks – and does not place an undue burden on small businesses.
This hybrid funding model will provide sufficient resourcing for core regulatory functions and deliver substantial savings to the Crown. This approach is in line with what has been done in other like-minded jurisdictions, like Australia, the United Kingdom and Canada.
As part of the work on the funding model, a work programme and a National Strategy will be developed in partnership with industry and agreed by Cabinet to ensure that the system is focussed on industry priorities. Any changes to the levy will also need to be informed by the AML/CFT National Strategy.
Now, I know that many of you in this room will have opinions and views on the approach we have taken to these structural reforms. I look forward to engaging with you and drawing on your sector expertise as we get stuck into the detail of this change process.
The structural changes in phase two of my reforms will result in an amendment Bill that I aim to have introduced by the middle of this year. Officials are currently working on the details of developing and implementing the levy, but I expect that the earliest it would be in place is by 2027.
The third phase of these reforms will deliver wider legislative changes to implement international standards outlined by the FATF. This Bill will be introduced later in this Parliamentary term.
Doing this international compliance work will have a natural flow on effect that improves New Zealand entities’ ability to carry on with business and sharpens our law enforcement tools. Importantly, it includes amendments to provide further flexibility for businesses to take a more risk-based approach to their AML/CFT obligations.
The work programme was designed to address specific areas that were identified through robust stakeholder consultation during the 2022 Statutory Review of the AML/CFT Act and further targeted engagement has been undertaken since then.
I am aware there is room for improvement in other areas as well – and some of you may be disappointed that more statutory reforms are not currently being progressed.
In arriving at my current statutory reform programme, I have taken a pragmatic approach – the current fiscal environment dictates that we are smart and outcomes-focused with our reforms. Right now, this means prioritising the changes that will give us the biggest bang for our buck in terms of regulatory relief, while ensuring compliance with international expectations and supporting law enforcement to tackle organised crime and delivering regulatory relief.
We need to prioritise this legislative work programme first to ensure that changes to the law are made and the system is properly set up to take a risk-based approach in time for our next mutual evaluation in 2028. I am excited and proud that this reform programme is on track to deliver the most significant regulatory relief since the Act came into force in 2013.
But, like you, I want to do more, if I can. I am committed to look for opportunities to do just that, not only through reforms to legislation, but also through considering potential exemptions and regulations that will support a more risk-based AML/CFT system.
I look forward to working with you all as we move forward with all the parts of this reform programme. To me, the key to successfully strengthening the AML/CFT system through these reforms is collaboration and leveraging expertise in the sector.
I encourage you all to participate in consultation when these opportunities come up. We need people with experience and knowledge to get involved – we need you. I look forward to hearing your views on how we can make the laws work for you.
Thank you for having me today, it’s a pleasure to be here with you all. Enjoy your time here at the conference.
Source: NZ Music Month takes to the streets
Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop and Regional Development Minister Shane Jones have welcomed the formation of the first two Fast-track expert panels.
“At this year’s Infrastructure Investment Summit we announced that the first project applications had been accepted by the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA),” Mr Bishop says.
“Judge Borthwick, the Panel Convener, and Helen Atkins, Associate Panel Convener, have now appointed expert panels to assess the Maitahi Village project and Delmore project applications respectively. These panels will commence their work on Monday 12th of May.
“Maitahi Village is a retirement village development in Nelson of around 180 residential dwellings (50 being Iwi-led housing), a commercial centre, and a retirement village with approximately 194 townhouses and 36 in-care facility units, and Delmore is an Auckland project of approximately 1,250 residential units, including features such as parks.
“Each expert panel will assess the project, decide whether to consent it, and apply any relevant conditions. Final decisions are expected for these applications by the 12th of September.
“The expert panels include members with technical expertise relevant to the project and expertise in environmental matters.
“This Government is serious about growing our economy, and doing its part to make infrastructure and housing quicker, easier, and cheaper to build in New Zealand. I am pleased to see the formation of these panels and look forward to watching the process move forward.”
Notes to editor:
More details on the applications can be found here: www.fasttrack.govt.nz
Maitahi Village (Nelson):
Development of approximately 180 residential dwellings (50 to be Ngāti Koata iwi-led housing), a commercial centre, and a retirement village (approximately 194 townhouses, 36 in-care facility units, a clubhouse, and a pavilion).
Maitahi Village Expert Panel:
Honourable Lyn Stevens KC (chair)
Andrew Whaley
Glenice Paine
Sam Flewellen
Delmore (Auckland):
Subdivision and development of approximately 1,250 residential dwellings and associated features such as parks, including delivery of the State Highway 1 Grand Drive interchange and Wainui area connection.
Delmore Expert Panel:
Helen Atkins (Chair)
Lisa Mein
Nigel Mark-Brown
Source: Secondary teachers question rationale for changes to relationship education guidelines
Three Auckland train stations where there have been dozens of near misses between pedestrians and trains during the past decade will have their pedestrian level crossings replaced by modern, accessible overbridges, Auckland Transport (AT) says.
New pedestrian overbridges at Glen Innes, Takaanini and Te Mahia stations will improve safety and support more frequent and reliable train services when the City Rail Link opens.
The Government and Auckland Council have brought forward funding to allow construction of the three pedestrian bridges to be fast-tracked, with work starting at Labour Weekend when the rail network is closed and continuing during the summer rail closure.
From this week, AT is asking for feedback on the proposed bridge designs for Glen Innes, Takaanini and Te Mahia stations.
Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board Chair Maria Meredith says it will be great to have safer access for the Glen Innes community.
“The City Rail Link will enable more efficient travel times from the Glen Innes station, but more importantly, the removal of the level crossing will also enable a far safer environment,” she says.
“By removing level crossing incidents, we’ll have a more efficient and safer network for all users.”
Papakura Local Board Chair Brent Catchpole says removing level crossings will help keep people moving safely.
“Many crossings were built back when there were less people and less trains operating,” he says.
“As our community grows and more people live near train lines, removing level crossings will help keep people moving safely with less congestion.”
Manurewa Local Board Chairperson Matt Winiata says he is pleased to see AT progressing plans for the replacement of the pedestrian level crossing at Te Mahia Station.
Te Mahia bridge design concept.
“The new pedestrian bridge will allow safer access to and from the station platform from both Great South Road and Ferguson Street,” he says.
“This follows significant investment by the Local Board in the Te Mahia pedestrian plaza, transforming a train station with a once uncertain future into a notable transport hub for the surrounding area.”
Auckland Transport Director of Infrastructure and Place Murray Burt says the new pedestrian bridges will make it safer to access the stations and are part of a broader level crossing programme that will support more frequent and reliable train services when the City Rail Link opens.
“Every single incident at a level crossing has an impact that can be deadly or life-changing, taking a huge toll on train drivers and those who narrowly miss a collision,” Mr Burt says.
Mr Burt says these three level crossings have been prioritised for replacement with accessible overbridges because of how busy the rail network is through those areas.
“Takaanini and Te Mahia stations have been prioritised because that section of the Southern Line is the busiest on the Auckland rail network with a large number of freight and passenger trains,” Mr Burt says.
“Removing the level crossing at Glen Innes Station is needed because it is the last remaining level crossing on the Eastern Line, which will have trains every five minutes at peak after City Rail Link opens.”
The designs for the three bridges have been developed to provide good access to the train stations, improve pedestrian safety, and to deliver value for money for ratepayers.
“We now want to hear feedback from our passengers and local communities about what the designs will mean for access, connection, and safety,” Mr Burt says.
This feedback will be used to finalise the bridge designs and to help with AT’s plans to integrate the bridges and station access into the wider neighbourhoods nearby.
Level crossings increase safety risks for pedestrians and people in vehicles and make travel time longer for both people travelling on trains and those wanting to cross the tracks.
Level crossings restrict train frequencies and have safety, productivity and accessibility implications on the road network, particularly when barrier arms need to be down longer.
AT, KiwiRail and NZTA are working together to remove or replace all remaining 42 level crossings in Auckland over the next 10-30 years.
The phasing of removals is driven by a range of factors including the frequency of trains, traffic delays, safety, available funding and future passenger growth in the years after City Rail Link opens.
Following the removal of crossings to support increased train frequencies when City Rail Link opens in 2026 the priority order of removals is:
Takanini – three new road bridges to replace level crossings. Funding has been confirmed and AT is beginning the detailed design, consenting, property acquisition and construction phase.
Inner Western Line and other high priority crossings on the Western Line from the 2030s when passenger numbers have grown.
Remaining Western Line crossings.
Southern Line Papakura to Pukekohe – aligned with KiwiRail’s four tracking.
Source: PISA results continue to show more to be done for equity in education
Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere is open to the sea following a successful attempt to open the lake on Monday, 5 May.
Attempts to open the lake on Saturday, 3 May and again on Sunday, 4 May were unsuccessful due to persistent large sea swell.
Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere is the largest lake in Waitaha/Canterbury and has no natural outlet to the sea. The lake is normally opened two to three times a year and closes naturally.
Openings are jointly managed by Ngāi Tahu and us and governed by the National Water Conservation Order and a suite of resource consents.
The cut made on Monday, 5 May remains open and is flowing well, although changing conditions could impact this.
“The sea is much calmer than it has been over the last week, which means the cut has developed well and scoured out from an initial width of 15 metres to 100 metres now”, says Leigh Griffiths, general manager hazards.
“While we can say the lake is open once we’ve made a connection to the sea, the cut can take a few days to scour out and fully develop. We consider the lake opening successful once the cut survives at least two high tides.”
The connection will be monitored over the next few days, and staff and machinery will remain onsite in case conditions change.
“Many things need to line up for an opening to be successful, including conditions set in the
National Water Conservation Order and the ability to safely mobilise people and machinery,” says Leigh.
The cost of each opening ranges from $20,000 to $200,000 depending on the amount of work. The operation is funded through targeted, works and services, and general rates. Central Plains Water Trust also contributes to the operation.
For more information, visit:
Source: PISA results continue to show more to be done for equity in education
Ken said the older he got the more he noticed environmental decline, particularly the loss of biodiversity and it was a nice feeling to help regenerate the area and help restore birdlife.
Since retiring, he has become passionate about conservation and raising awareness about the indigenous biodiversity in the area.
“It’s not until you get involved in conservation that you find there’s so many people doing similar work. You might think you’re not doing much but together we’re actually doing quite a lot.”
The rest of the South Rakaia Hut holders, about 70 people based between Ashburton and Christchurch, have been providing funding to Ken to support his efforts.
The local community have also been getting behind the project by planting and maintaining hundreds of natives along the reserve and within the settlement.
As a result of the planting and trappings, more native birds have been spotted in the area which was surrounded by streams, wetlands, regenerated forests, and the ocean.
Ken said there were now about a dozen breeding pairs of korimako (bellbirds) who were there all year round and in the last 18 months, there had been two kererū (wood pigeon) as well as tui, bittern and a white heron who visited every so often.
“We’re seeing a lot more birdlife, and everyone is noticing it,” Ken said.
One of Ken’s biggest motivations was protecting the dotterels that nested on the beach. He hoped his trappings would ensure a successful breeding season, which was due to start in July.
“They nest right on the stones, so they are really a free feed for the weasels.”
To support Ken and the community’s conservation work, we have funded signs to help educate the community and visitors about the birds, and to make them aware of trappings in the area. The signs had been designed by Braided Rivers New Zealand.
Land management and biodiversity advisor Jess Cochrane said the signs showed pictures of all the different bird species to help visitors identify any they might see.
“We included the Māori and English names of each of the birds to encourage use of te reo Māori for our indigenous species,” Jess said.
Conservation work would continue in the area with the hope of one day eliminating the predators and encouraging more birds to call South Rakaia home.
Source: PISA results continue to show more to be done for equity in education
Volunteers recently completed the project’s fourth beach clean-up.
Twenty volunteers took part in the beach clean-up.
The effort helped prevent pollution from entering the ocean or lagoon and harming wildlife.
Further inland, farmers in the catchment are working closely with our biodiversity advisors on restoration work on their land.
This work is being done with both the environment and future generations in mind.
A recent field day organised by local landowners and Living Landscapes, and supported by Our Waitarakao was a great day out and a fantastic opportunity for the 50 or so participants to share ideas and build relationships.
We thank Living Landscapes and landowners for inviting us along to share in such a positive event.
At the same time, community predator trapping initiatives are gaining momentum.
We’ve had a great response from businesses and residents in a target area around the lagoon who have volunteered to host traps and monitoring equipment, which will be distributed in the next few weeks.
This is to support the trapping work we’re doing in the lagoon, and to help prevent reinfestation of that wildlife refuge.
There’s lots more happening, including Timaru schools incorporating the lagoon and Our Waitarakao into their learning, and we’re progressing a crucial investigation that will support a blueprint for the future lagoon, as per the first objective of the strategy.
Our staff and project partners are working alongside the community, supporting practical action with a shared vision for a healthier, more resilient catchment.
What’s happening in Waitarakao is more than just environmental work—it’s a partnership between people and place.
Learn more about the
Our Waitarakao – actions and projects underway and how you can get involved.
Environment Canterbury © 2025
Retrieved: 10:52am, Thu 08 May 2025
ecan.govt.nz/get-involved/news-and-events/2025/action-gets-underway-at-waitarakao/
