Dear Minister,
In December 2021, Waipā District Council and Waikato Regional Council received resource consent
applications to build and operate a waste-to-energy plant.
The fol owing September, Waimate District Council and Canterbury Regional Council (ECan)
received resource consent to build a waste-to-energy plant.
While both proposals share a common process and technology, the Waimate proposal stands out
with more than double the processing capacity of the Te Awamutu project.
After considering SIRRL's proposal, Waimate DC and ECan requested that Former Environment 1982
Minister David Parker cal in the Waimate waste-to-energy proposal. After taking direction from
the EPA, in August 2023, Parker cal ed in the proposal, stating that it was of "national significance"
and referred it to the Environment Court.
Act
In an identical move, Waipā District Council and Waikato Regional Council requested that current
Environment Minister Penny Simmonds cal in the Te Awamutu waste-to-energy proposal. After
receiving direction from the EPA in August 2024, Simmonds cal ed in the proposal, stating it was
"of national significance" and referred it to a board of inquiry.
However, that's where the similarities end.
Less than two months after Minister Simmonds decided to cal in the Te Awamutu proposal, the
government released the list of 149 projects selected for fast-tracking, including SIRRL's Project
Kea waste-to-energy proposal.
Information
This decision raises questions about government inconsistency. Why was the Waimate proposal
removed from the Environment Court and included for fast-tracking just weeks after the Te
Awamutu proposal was referred to a board of inquiry by the same government?
Surely, if both proposals are of national significance, and use similar processes with similar effects,
they should both be subject to the same level of scrutiny. In fact, given that the Waimate proposal
is more than twice the size and, therefore, has twice the impact, it's essential that the proposal is
Official
subjected to the highest level of scrutiny available.
Furthermore, as you are likely aware, in 2023, WWW successfully applied for Environmental Legal
the
Assistance funding of $50,000. This funding was al ocated to legal representation and expert
witnesses to contest SIRRL's Environment Court hearing.
WWW has been informed that the current government has removed the Environmental Legal
Assistance Fund, and existing contracts wil not be honoured. This would, of course, includes
WWW's funding. under
This suggestion is hugely disappointing and a blow to WWW's dedication and hard work. Over the
past three years, WWW has fought tirelessly to have this proposal heard in the Environment Court,
where it would be scrutinised as a proposal of national significance.
Not only has the Fast-Tracking of Project Kea removed this proposal from the much-needed court
scrutiny, but it has also removed local communities' input into the process. Now It is with
deep disappointment and frustration that we learn of the potential removal of our ELA funding by
the government.
Released
Please answer the fol owing questions:
1.Can you confirm that WWW wil no longer have access to the ELA funding it acquired last
year?
2.Please provide a full explanation as to why the ELA funding has been scrapped.
3.Please explain the inconsistent approach. Why did you choose to cal in the Te Awamutu
proposal (half the size of the Waimate proposal) for a board of inquiry, and yet the
Waimate proposal was removed from the Environment Court and selected for fast-tracking
by the government?
Regards
Robert Ireland
Why Waste Waimate
1982
www.whywastewaimate.com
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
From:
9(2)(a)
To:
9(2)(a)
Cc:
9(2)(a)
Subject:
RE: Project Kea incinerator.
Date:
Wednesday, 22 January 2025 2:17:59 PM
Attachments:
image001.jpg
Very good, was concerned I missed an OIA for a moment.
Kind regards,
9(2)(a)
P
(Administration) | Office of Hon Penny Simmonds
Minister for the Environment | Tertiary Education and Skills
Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment
1982
P: 04 817 6815
Private Bag 18041, Parliament Buildings, Wellington 6160, New Zealand
Authorised by Hon Penny Simmonds, Parliament Buildings, Wellington
Act
Disclaimer: The information in this email (including attachments) is confidential and may be legally privileged. If an addressing or transmission error has
misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email and destroy the message. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure,
copying or distribution is prohibited and may be unlawful.
From: 9(2)(a)
@parliament.govt.nz>
Sent: Wednesday, 22 January 2025 2:17 PM
To: 9(2)(a)
@parliament.govt.nz>; 9(2)(a)
@parliament.govt.nz>
Cc: 9(2)(a)
@parliament.govt.nz>
Subject: RE: Project Kea incinerator.
Yeah9(2)(a) I don’t think its an OIA, it’s a “please explain” so I think a letter is the best way to respond.
Information
Cheers!
9(2)(a)
From: 9(2)(a)
@parliament.govt.nz>
Sent: Wednesday, 22 January 2025 2:16 PM
To: 9(2)(a)
@parliament.govt.nz>
Official
Cc: 9(2)(a)
@parliament.govt.nz>; 9(2)(a)
@parliament.govt.nz>
Subject: RE: Project Kea incinerator.
It’s asking more for opinions (rather than information), so maybe a letter is better?
the
Kind regards,
9(2)(a)
(Administration) | Office of Hon Penny Simmonds
Minister for the Environment | Tertiary Education and Skills
Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment
P: 04 817 6815
under
Private Bag 18041, Parliament Buildings, Wellington 6160, New Zealand
Authorised by Hon Penny Simmonds, Parliament Buildings, Wellington
Disclaimer: The information in this email (including attachments) is confidential and may be legally privileged. If an addressing or transmission error has
misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email and destroy the message. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure,
copying or distribution is prohibited and may be unlawful.
From: 9(2)(a)
Sent: Wednesday, 22 January 2025 2:15 PM
To: 9(2)(a)
@parliament.govt.nz>
Released
Cc: 9(2)(a)
@parliament.govt.nz>; 9(2)(a)
@parliament.govt.nz>
Subject: RE: Project Kea incinerator.
Just having another read of this email.
Would you consider this to be an OIA request (the 3 questions as the end)?
It has been treated as correspondence.
We also have another OIA from Robert.
1982
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
proposal.
This decision raises questions about government inconsistency. Why was the Waimate proposal removed from
the Environment Court and included for fast-tracking just weeks after the Te Awamutu proposal was referred to a
board of inquiry by the same government?
Surely, if both proposals are of national significance, and use similar processes with similar effects, they should
both be subject to the same level of scrutiny. In fact, given that the Waimate proposal is more than twice the size
and, therefore, has twice the impact, it's essential that the proposal is subjected to the highest level of scrutiny
available.
Furthermore, as you are likely aware, in 2023, WWW successfully applied for Environmental Legal Assistance
funding of $50,000. This funding was allocated to legal representation and expert witnesses to contest SIRRL's
1982
Environment Court hearing.
WWW has been informed that the current government has removed the Environmental Legal Assistance Fund,
and existing contracts will not be honoured. This would, of course, includes WWW's funding.
Act
This suggestion is hugely disappointing and a blow to WWW's dedication and hard work. Over the past three
years, WWW has fought tirelessly to have this proposal heard in the Environment Court, where it would be
scrutinised as a proposal of national significance.
Not only has the Fast-Tracking of Project Kea removed this proposal from the much-needed court scrutiny, but it
has also removed local communities' input into the process. Now It is with deep disappointment and frustration
that we learn of the potential removal of our ELA funding by the government.
Please answer the following questions:
1. Can you confirm that WWW will no longer have access to the ELA funding it acquired last year?
Information
2. Please provide a full explanation as to why the ELA funding has been scrapped.
3. Please explain the inconsistent approach. Why did you choose to call in the Te Awamutu proposal (half the
size of the Waimate proposal) for a board of inquiry, and yet the Waimate proposal was removed from the
Environment Court and selected for fast-tracking by the government?
Official
Regards
Robert Ireland
Why Waste Waimate
www.whywastewaimate.com
the
under
Released
From:
9(2)(a)
To:
9(2)(a)
Subject:
PS-COR0978 | Commissioning | Follow up on PS-COR0923
Date:
Monday, 10 February 2025 11:37:37 AM
Attachments:
image001.jpg
image002.jpg
Kia ora Ministerials,
For logging and response please, 15 working days, thank you.
Ngā mihi,
9(2)(a)
Private Secretary Environment
1982
Office of Hon Penny Simmonds
Minister for the Environment | Minister for Vocational Education
Associate Minister for Social Development & Employment
G-025 Parliament Buildings
Act
Mobile: 9(2)(a)
From: Why Waste Waimate <[email address]>
Sent: Wednesday, 5 February 2025 7:49 PM
To: Environment Portfolio <[email address]>
Subject: Re: PS-COR0923 | Letter from Minister Penny Simmonds
Dear Minister
Information
Thankyou for your reply to my questions regarding SIRRL's FTAA and ELA funding.
I am pleased to know that WWW funding for ELA assistance is still in place for this term. If SIRRL's application is still
with the Environment Court, then WWW with gratefully use these funds to best effect in the court process.
Can you clarify when this funding term expires?
Official
Your reply states that Global Contracting Solutions Limited (GCSL) did not submit an FTA application for it's Te
Awamutu Waste-to-Energy project.
According to the FTA Advisory Panel Report to Ministers, GCSL was included in the schedule 2 list of projects
recommended by the Advisory Group for schedule 2 inclusion (FTA217). There was also an analysis of the GCSL
the
project completed by MfE https://environment.govt.nz/assets/what-government-is-doing/Fast-Track-
Unlisted/Paewira/217.05-FTA217-Paewira-Sch-2A-MfE-assessment-form-Stage-1 Redacted.pdf, so I am rather
astounded by your response that your ministry did not receive a FTA application by GCSL.
Project location
under
project is to reduce the amount of waste being sent to landfill. The facility would be the first of its kind in New Zealand. 2. The facility
would accept approximately 480 tonnes daily (166,000 tonnes annually) of
environment.govt.nz
So, given that GCSL did indeed submit a FTA application which was recommended for inclusion by the advisory
group, I return to my original question;
Can you please clarify why GCSL was not included in the list of 149 projects released by the Government on
Released
October 6, and yet SIRRL's application was? GCSL's absence from the list of 149 projects included for
schedule 2 of the FTA suggests that a decision was made to remove the project after assessment was carried
out by the FTA advisory Group which recommended the project for inclusion.
Who made the decision to remove GCSL from schedule 2 of FTA, and on what grounds was that determination
made?
As Environment Minister you made the decision to call-in the GCSL application and refer it for a BOI on 17
August 2024. This came after the Advisory Group Report to Ministers on 2 August, 2024. Therefore, when
making your decision you should have been aware that GCSL had made an FTA application and that its
application had been recommended for inclusion on schedule 2 of the FTA by the FTA Advisory Group.
Thank you for your time.
Regards
1982
From: Environment Portfolio <[email address]>
Sent: Monday, February 3, 2025 11:22 AM
To: [email address] <[email address]>
Subject: PS-COR0923 | Letter from Minister Penny Simmonds
Act
Dear Robert,
On behalf of Minister Penny Simmonds, please see the attached letter.
Kind regards,
Office of Hon Penny
Information
Simmonds
Environment Portfolio
Minister for the Environment |
Minister Vocational Education
Associate Minister for Social
Official
Development & Employment
Website: www.beehive.govt.nz
Private Bag 18041, Parliament
the
Buildings, Wellington 6160, New
Zealand
Disclaimer: The information in this email (including attachments) is confidential and
may be legally privileged. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this
email, please notify the author by replying to this email and destroy the message. If
you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure, copying or distribution is
prohibited and may be unlawful.
under
Released
From:
9(2)(a)
To:
Subject:
PS-COR1005 | Commissioning | NZ economy
Date:
Friday, 21 February 2025 10:38:08 AM
Attachments:
image001.jpg
Kia ora team
Please could you prepare a response to this correspondence, within the usual timeframes.
Thanks
9(2)(a)
| Private Secretary Environment
1982
Office of Hon Penny Simmonds
Minister for the Environment | Minister for Vocational Education
Associate Minister for Social Development & Employment
G-025 Parliament Buildings
Act
Mobile: 9(2)(a)
From: 9(2)(a)
@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 19 February 2025 9:03 PM
To: Nicola Willis (MIN) <[email address]>
Subject: NZ economy
Information
Hi,
I typed a prompt into Chat GPT and I thought I'd email you its answer since I found it interesting, if for no reason than
food for thought, since I realise you're looking for more immediate solutions currently.
The question was "Do you think with the right investment New Zealand could create an industry around the
processing of global garbage?"
Official
"Yes, with the right investment, New Zealand could definitely create a profitable industry around processing global
garbage, particularly by focusing on recycling, waste-to-energy, and upcycling. New Zealand's relatively small
the
population and landmass could make it an efficient hub for advanced waste processing technologies, especially if
the country capitalized on its renewable energy resources to power waste treatment facilities. The key would be
making the infrastructure sustainable and building partnerships for exporting waste or products made from recycled
materials. Given the global push toward reducing waste and managing plastic pollution, New Zealand could position
itself as a leader in eco-friendly waste solutions, turning garbage into a revenue stream. However, it would require
significant upfront investment in technology, policy support, and international partnerships. It’s a risky but
under
potentially lucrative venture"
My reason for asking that question was thus: we need a way to combat climate change as well as a way to combat
the excessive amount of global garbage, particularly in places where the Western countries used it like a garbage
dump in the past.
Also, human garbage is in endless supply. Even if we were to clean up the rest of the planet's excess garbage
(unlikely) the global population is such that there will always be more garbage. In addition, large scale waste dumps
that have been around since the 20th century are likely to have some amount of rare minerals that could be
reclaimed.
Released
Regards,
Anthea
Media query form
Office of Hon Penny Simmonds
Date of initial
Monday, 24 February 2025
media query
Journalist’s
Chris Gardner
contact details
Senior Writer - GOOD LOCAL MEDIA LTD
M: 9(2)(a)
E: [email address]
W: cambridgenews.nz teawamutunews.nz wbn.co.nz
1982
Media query
Hi 9(2)(a)
We have received the fol owing email.
Act
Is the Prime Minister able to answer Mr Fitzpatrick’s questions?
Wil he conduct a review?
Ngā mihi | Kind regards
Chris Gardner Senior Writer - GOOD LOCAL MEDIA LTD M: 9(2)(a)
E: [email address]
W: cambridgenews.nz teawamutunews.nz wbn.co.nz
Information
CAMBRIDGE NEWS | KING COUNTRY NEWS | TE AWAMUTU NEWS | COUNTRYLIFE |
KING COUNTRY FARMER | WAIKATO BUSINESS NEWS From:9(2)(a)
Sent: Thursday, 20 February 2025 5:27 pm
To: Christopher Luxon <[email address]>
Subject: Waste to energy incinerator- “you can rol a turd in glitter but it’s stil a turd”
Official
Dear Prime Minister
the
I am a local resident and business owner with interests in sheep, bees, dairy cattle, grazing,
building, property development, and property investment and I believe our family have
contributed significantly to the local and national community and economy over the
years however I am currently very disappointed in the way in which our community and our
companies are suffering as a result of the Waste to Energy Proposal - to take a quote from
under
an earlier submission “you can roll a turd in glitter but it’s stil a turd”
On 17 August 2024, the Minister for the Environment “called in” the resource consent
application for the Incinerator- This means it will be decided as a proposal of national
significance under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA).
At todays pre hearing EPA meeting I understood that the board of inquiry does not have the
authority to commission or request the applicant supplies comprehensive independent
reviews / reports for al of the impacts highlighted in the submissions and all of the issues
raised by councils and other authorities even though this is not a permitted activity under the
Released current district plan. For example the key issues raised by Waipa DC,Fonterra, Waikato
Thoroughbred Racing Board, FENZ, Tainui and even my own submission:
https://www.epa.govt.nz/assets/FileAPI/proposal/NSP000048/Key-Issues-reports-
manual/Waipa-District-Council-Key-Issues-Report-1-November-2024.pdf
In addition other areas for independent reporting would include:
2
● Hazardous substances
● Risk, likelihood and consequences including fire, explosion and floods
● Economic development and impact local y and nationally as highlighted by Fonterra
● Human health
● Land and water contamination including the management of col ected /used contaminated
water
● Climate change and impacts
● Air quality
My question is how do we expect the BoI to make an informed decision on something of such
local and national significance without this information?
1982
I appreciate that there is a process to fol ow but as the leader of our country I am asking you
if you are prepared to step in and review this as the potential impacts and risks to our country
highlighted by Waipa DC,Fonterra, FENZ and Tainui and hundreds of other submissions are
Act
massive and in my opinion something that warrants intervention.
To me this is more important than whether or not classic cars get warranted every 6 months
or every year and deserves a comprehensive review and a national strategy.
Happy to discuss anytime and look forward to a positive response that puts an end to this
ludicrous proposal so we can al get on with helping to turn the economy around and
improving everyone’s quality of life.
Regards
9(2)(a)
Information
Date of Minister’s
Monday, 24 February 2025
email response
Minister’s email
Kia ora Chris,
response
Thanks for your email.
Official
Please see the statement below in response to your query.
the
Statement from Hon Penny Simmonds, Minister for the Environment
“I am aware that there is considerable interest in this proposal, especial y from Waipā District
residents.
“I am mindful that the submission process for this proposal, managed by the Board of Inquiry
under
that was established for this process, is still in progress.
“It is important that this independent process takes place as intended within the parameters
of the Resource Management Act.”
Background information
This information about Boards of Inquiry that are established by the Minister for the
Environment may also be useful.
Released Ngā mihi,
9(2)(a)
Response
9(2)(a)
Sign off
3
Portfolio Private
9(2)(a)
Secretaries sent
email copy of final
response
Background
Background
information to
inform Minister’s
• On 17 August 2024, the Minister for the Environment 'called in' the resource consent
response
applications for a waste-to-energy plant in Te Awamutu and referred it to a Board of
Inquiry for decision.
• The Board of Inquiry was appointed on 26 November 2024.
1982
• Currently, the Board of Inquiry is considering submissions on this proposal.
Submitters wil be able to speak to their submission at the Hearing that is schedule
for June 2025.
Act
• Yesterday a pre-hearing meeting took place to establish matters of procedure leading
up to the hearing and the hearing itself.
• Most submissions are opposed to the proposed plant.
• The EPA acts as secretariat to the Board of Inquiry. It has no influence over any
decision the Board might make on this proposal.
Lines to support a response the media query
• I am aware that there is considerable interest in this proposal, especial y from Waipā
District residents.
• I am mindful that the submission process for this proposal, managed by the Board of
Inquiry that was established for this process, is still in progress.
• It is important that this independent process takes place as intended within the
Information
parameters of the Resource Management Act.
• This information about Boards of Inquiry that are established by the Minister for the
Environment might be useful.
EPA’s response to Mr Gardner (sent) As you’re aware, the purpose of yesterday's pre-hearing meeting was to iron out the
procedural aspects leading up to the hearing itself. The Board of Inquiry minute, due out
shortly, wil address the issues raised at the pre-hearing meeting including the question about
Official
independent review and reports. The Board minutes are published here.
You can read more about how Boards of Inquiry operate within the proposals of national
significance process here. More specific information about the Te Awamutu Waste to Energy
the
Plant consultation process is available here.
under
Released
1982
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
1982
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
From:
9(2)(a)
To:
9(2)(a)
Subject:
MINISTRY"S PROPOSED RESPONSE TO PS-COR0978/CORM-3481 - South Island Resource Recovery Ltd’s (SIRRL) Project Kea proposal and Environmental
Legal Assistance Fund
Date:
Thursday, 6 March 2025 11:30:39 AM
Attachments:
image001.jpg
image002.jpg
CORM-3481 Robert Ireland.docx
Hi 9(2)(a)
Please find attached the Ministry’s proposed response to PS-COR0978/CORM-3481.
Ngā mihi,
9(2)(a)
1982
Advisor | Kaitohutohu
Ministerial Services
Act
From:
Environment Portfolio <[email address]>
Sent on:
Sunday, February 9, 2025 10:37:37 PM
To:
9(2)(a)
Subject:
PS-COR0978 | Commissioning | Follow up on PS-COR0923
Categories: Rosie
Kia ora Ministerials,
For logging and response please, 15 working days, thank you.
Ngâ mihi,
Information
9(2)(a)
| Private Secretary Environment
Office of Hon Penny Simmonds
Minister for the Environment | Minister for Vocational Education
Associate Minister for Social Development & Employment
G-025 Parliament Buildings
Mobile: 9(2)(a)
From: Why Waste Waimate
Sent: Wednesday, 5 February 2025 7:49 PM
Official
To: Environment Portfolio
Subject: Re: PS-COR0923 | Letter from Minister Penny Simmonds
Dear Minister
Thankyou for your reply to my questions regarding SIRRL's FTAA and ELA funding.
the
I am pleased to know that WWW funding for ELA assistance is still in place for this term. If SIRRL's application is still
with the Environment Court, then WWW with gratefully use these funds to best effect in the court process.
Can you clarify when this funding term expires?
Your reply states that Global Contracting Solutions Limited (GCSL) did not submit an FTA application for it's Te
Awamutu Waste-to-Energy project.
According to the FTA Advisory Panel Report to Ministers, GCSL was included in the schedule 2 list of projects
under
recommended by the Advisory Group for schedule 2 inclusion (FTA217). There was also an analysis of the GCSL
project completed by MfE https://environment.govt.nz/assets/what-government-is-doing/Fast-Track-
Unlisted/Paewira/217.05-FTA217-Paewira-Sch-2A-MfE-assessment-form-Stage-1 Redacted.pdf, so I am rather
astounded by your response that your ministry did not receive a FTA application by GCSL.
Project location
project is to reduce the amount of waste being sent to landfill. The facility would be the first of its kind in New Zealand. 2. The facility
would accept approximately 480 tonnes daily (166,000 tonnes annually) of
environment.govt.nz
Released
So, given that GCSL did indeed submit a FTA application which was recommended for inclusion by the advisory
group, I return to my original question;
Can you please clarify why GCSL was not included in the list of 149 projects released by the Government on
October 6, and yet SIRRL's application was? GCSL's absence from the list of 149 projects included for
schedule 2 of the FTA suggests that a decision was made to remove the project after assessment was carried
out by the FTA advisory Group which recommended the project for inclusion.
Who made the decision to remove GCSL from schedule 2 of FTA, and on what grounds was that determination
made?
As Environment Minister you made the decision to call-in the GCSL application and refer it for a BOI on 17
August 2024. This came after the Advisory Group Report to Ministers on 2 August, 2024. Therefore, when
making your decision you should have been aware that GCSL had made an FTA application and that its
application had been recommended for inclusion on schedule 2 of the FTA by the FTA Advisory Group.
Thank you for your time.
Regards
From: Environment Portfolio <[email address]>
Sent: Monday, February 3, 2025 11:22 AM
To: [email address] <[email address]>
1982
Subject: PS-COR0923 | Letter from Minister Penny Simmonds
Dear Robert,
On behalf of Minister Penny Simmonds, please see the attached letter.
Kind regards,
Act
Office of Hon Penny
Simmonds
Environment Portfolio
Minister for the Environment |
Minister Vocational Education
Associate Minister for Social
Development & Employment
Website: www.beehive.govt.nz
Private Bag 18041, Parliament
Buildings, Wellington 6160,
New Zealand
Disclaimer: The information in this email (including attachments) is confidential and may
be legally privileged. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email,
Information
please notify the author by replying to this email and destroy the message. If you are not
the intended recipient, any use, disclosure, copying or distribution is prohibited and may
be unlawful.
Official
the
under
Released
Out of scope - date range
1982
Act
Information
Official
From: 9(2)(a)
Sent: Wednesday, March 5, 2025 8:49:59 PM
the
To: Christopher Luxon <[email address]>
Cc: Barbara Kuriger <[email address]>; Susan O'Regan <Susan.O'[email address]>; Dale-Maree
Morgan <[email address]>; Mike Montgomerie <[email address]>; Lou Brown
<[email address]>; Sally Whitaker <[email address]>; Chris Gardner <[email address]>;
Teawamutu.nsp <[email address]>; Mark Chrisp <[email address]>; Chris Hipkins
<[email address]>; [email address] <[email address]>;
[email address] <[email address]>; [email address] <[email address]>
under
Subject: Re: Waste to energy incinerator- “you can roll a turd in glitter but it’s still a turd”
Hi Chris
Thought you might be interested to know that from my checks this looks like the jokers who are trying to get a
consent to build an incinerator for this type of rubbish next to Fonterra plant, Manuka Health , Te Awamutu College
, our homes and our businesses.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/auckland-fire-crews-tackle-large-blaze-at-papakura-scrap-metal-
yard/QOEGQMCN6BEBBDN2R6V3YQS5NE/
Surely you could put a moratorium on WtE until it's been reviewed at a national level.
Released
regards
9(2)(a)
Get Outlook for iOS
From: 9(2)(a)
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2025 5:26:47 PM
To: Christopher Luxon <[email address]>
Cc: Barbara Kuriger <[email address]>; Susan O'Regan <Susan.O'[email address]>; Dale-Maree
Morgan <[email address]>; Mike Montgomerie <[email address]>; Lou Brown
<[email address]>; Sally Whitaker <[email address]>; Chris Gardner <[email address]>;
Teawamutu.nsp <[email address]>; Mark Chrisp <[email address]>; Chris Hipkins
<[email address]>; [email address] <[email address]>;
[email address] <[email address]>
Subject: Waste to energy incinerator- “you can roll a turd in glitter but it’s still a turd”
Dear Prime Minister
I am a local resident and business owner with interests in sheep, bees, dairy cattle, grazing, building, property
1982
development, and property investment and I believe our family have contributed significantly to the local and
national community and economy over the years however I am currently very disappointed in the way in which
our community and our companies are suffering as a result of the Waste to Energy Proposal - to take a quote
from an earlier submission “you can roll a turd in glitter but it’s still a turd”
Act
On 17 August 2024, the Minister for the Environment “called in” the resource consent application for the
Incinerator- This means it will be decided as a proposal of national significance under the Resource Management
Act 1991 (RMA).
At todays pre hearing EPA meeting I understood that the board of inquiry does not have the authority to
commission or request the applicant supplies comprehensive independent reviews / reports for all of the impacts
highlighted in the submissions and all of the issues raised by councils and other authorities even though this is
not a permitted activity under the current district plan. For example the key issues raised by Waipa DC,Fonterra,
Waikato Thoroughbred Racing Board, FENZ, Tainui and even my own submission:
Information
https://www.epa.govt.nz/assets/FileAPI/proposal/NSP000048/Key-Issues-reports-manual/Waipa-District-
Council-Key-Issues-Report-1-November-2024.pdf
In addition other areas for independent reporting would include:
● Hazardous substances
● Risk, likelihood and consequences including fire, explosion and floods
● Economic development and impact locally and nationally as highlighted by Fonterra
Official
● Human health
● Land and water contamination including the management of collected /used contaminated water
● Climate change and impacts
the
● Air quality
My question is how do we expect the BoI to make an informed decision on something of such local and national
significance without this information?
under
I appreciate that there is a process to follow but as the leader of our country I am asking you if you are prepared
to step in and review this as the potential impacts and risks to our country highlighted by Waipa DC,Fonterra,
FENZ and Tainui and hundreds of other submissions are massive and in my opinion something that warrants
intervention.
To me this is more important than whether or not classic cars get warranted every 6 months or every year and
deserves a comprehensive review and a national strategy.
Happy to discuss anytime and look forward to a positive response that puts an end to this ludicrous proposal so
we can all get on with helping to turn the economy around and improving everyone’s quality of life.
Released
Regards
9(2)(a)
1982
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
1982
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
1982
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
