Transport is responsible for 39% of Aotearoa's carbon emissions, and measures to reduce pollution from high-emissions vehicles are a key step towards the urgent climate action New Zealand needs to take. The scheme is broadly supported by environment groups, the Productivity Commission, the Motor Industry Association, and New Zealanders across the country. If we are to ensure a liveable planet for ourselves and for future generations, every nation and every Government must take action to reduce emissions, and that includes a transition to a transport fleet powered by clean, renewable energy. New Zealand First has made a commitment to the Zero Carbon Act, and this must be honoured through backing the clean car feebate. The election is approaching, and New Zealanders prioritize environmental policies in deciding their vote. New Zealand First must honour their commitment to the Zero Carbon Act and support the clean car rebate.

Aotearoa New Zealand has a waste problem that we can’t recycle our way out of. Single-use disposable serviceware belongs to the outdated ‘take-make-dispose’ linear economy, which accelerates our global and local waste crisis, fills up our landfills to produce methane and toxic leachate, and increases litter pollution. Extracting natural resources to make endless streams of single-use items is also unsustainable in the face of resource depletion and climate change, which threaten the planet’s mauri (life-force) and our mauri as descendants of the planet. We need visionary personal, business and policy solutions that prevent and reduce waste in the first place, and that replace throwaways with non-toxic reusable alternatives that work for all people. These upstream solutions will create less waste and fewer greenhouse gas emissions than recycling, composting or landfilling. Transitioning to a circular economy won’t be easy; it makes sense to start with low-hanging fruit. While some single-use items remain unavoidable for some applications (such as certain medical contexts, accessibility needs or civil emergencies), most single-use disposable serviceware for food and drink is relatively easy to prevent if we choose to reuse. Many individuals, businesses and communities in Aotearoa New Zealand are already embracing reusables. We can take this further and mainstream reuse with Government policy that removes throwaway options and replaces them with scaleable and accessible reusable alternatives. We recognise that single-use disposable serviceware often has accessibility-friendly characteristics that enable the independence of people with access needs, including the disabled community, the elderly and young children. Reusable alternatives must balance environmental outcomes with the need to maintain and promote accessibility. Government and business must work meaningfully alongside people with access needs to design products and reuse systems that incorporate universal design principles to function well for everyone. For more information, see the Takeaway Throwaways campaign website. *The time to be bold is now. Ko tēnei te wā.* Until recently, phasing-out throwaway food and drink packaging and serviceware would have seemed radical. However, times are changing. New Zealanders want more action on waste. Banning plastic shopping bags was a first step. New proposals to phase-out PVC and polystyrene takeaway cups and containers prove the Government’s willingness to take action on waste. The time has come to be more ambitious: we must tackle the root of the problem, which is the single-use mindset, not the particular materials involved. The Government has a role not only in taking away a wider range of throwaways, but in boosting the availability and uptake of accessible reusables. When combined, these two actions have the power to mainstream reuse. Ultimately, we are all responsible as kaitiaki for Aotearoa New Zealand and the global environment we depend upon. With integrity, determination, and a collaborative and inclusive spirit we can transform how we serve food and drink ‘on the go’, move our country towards true circular, zero waste solutions, and cast ourselves as a bold, global leader committed to a healthier, greener, more caring and connected world. Follow the Takeaway Throwaways campaign and get involved: www.takeawaythrowaways.nz www.instagram.com/takeawaythrowaways www.facebook.com/takeawaythrowaways

The New Zealand Government has been ignoring their own laws and policies, therefore having a negative impact on our Environment, People, Culture and future generations. I have also created a personal Website ANIHWAA.com highlighting these issues via video No one owns the land No one owns the water No one owns our Forest No one owns our oceans Ban 1080 Ban 5G Ban Mining Ban Ignorance As we the people and communities of Aotearoa / New Zealand are the Protectors / Kaitiaki E TU NGATI PU "He aha te mea nui o te Ao? He tangata, he tangata, he tangata" "What is the most important thing in the world? The people, the people, the people Accountability He Pai ki muri, he Pai ki mua, he Pai ngaa mea katoa

This is a public health concern as well as a transparency concern. The council was happy with allowing the public to believe that Roundup was no longer being used in public spaces but this is not the case. We have a right to know which streets are still being sprayed and when. There are alternatives; the continued use of a probable carcinogen is inexcusable. New Zealand regulators are focussing on studies relating to glyphosate specifically, but it is also the combination of other chemicals, such as adjuvants, used in the Roundup formula that have the potential to make the final product even more harmful than glyphosate alone. There is no excuse to not be using the precautionary principle when it comes to public health. This time the typical kiwi 'she'll be 'right' attitude is not ok and the fact that New Zealand regulators think they are above those of many European countries who have already banned the chemical is disappointing and concerning.

This would help reduce plastic pollution on land and in our oceans, as well as save countless lives of birds, turtles, and many other wildlife species that come in contact with plastic debris. Procrastination won't help the next generation. Plastics are forever. We desperately need a change.

Teacher aides, admin, other support staff and Kaiarahi i te Reo are on the front line of student support. They are an essential cog in day to day workings of our schools. They need to be paid fairly for the hard work that they do! Add your name to this open letter to the Associate Minister of Education and Minister of Manukau East Jenny Salesa saying that support staff have waited long enough for fair pay.

1. Outdated: - The vision suggests that economic growth will be created by its implementation while providing minimal short-term, unsustainable economic growth in Hong Kong. - In school, we’re taught the importance of sustainable, green development Hong Kong needs to explore a sustainable future where economic growth happens as a part of sustainable development as we are taught within our education. - Reclamation is no longer a viable solution! It requires a large amount of sand for it to happen. However, as the world has begun running out of sand, sand prices have doubled since the Airport Expansion began, pushing its completion date back further and further. The LTV would need even more sand, so it’s price tag will either increase or it will be stopped halfway through. 2. Destructive to HK’s fragile environment: - Hong Kong has one of the most biodiverse aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. There are overall 1000 marine fish species and 80 hard coral species. This is more than the Caribbean Sea. However, infrastructure projects (mainly the HKIA Expansion and the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau Bridge) have caused many species to die. Building the LTV will be the final nail in the coffin. - Important endangered animals are residing within the area in which the LTV envisions developed. So far, the population of Chinese White Dolphins in HK waters fell from 188 to 32 between 2003 to 2018, 33 Finless Porpoises were found dead in 2018, making up 12% of the total population. If the LTV happens, they will go extinct. 3. Too expensive: - It would be one of the biggest economical gambles ever made in the world. More realistic plans and policies should be taken to make progressive development such as enacting the "Land Resumption Ordinance" to take back 859 hectares from 3 developers while compensating them fairly, or even redeveloping old and underused buildings. We, the undersigned, condemn the motion for the LTV's destructive nature on the environment during and after its development. What we need is a sustainable land solution that will last for generations to come. We, the people, demand that the LTV not be passed and realized for sake of Hong Kong, and future generations. 1. 過時 - 預測 LTV 會帶來香港經濟增長。可惜，它只是一種短暫而不能持久的增長。 - 簡單而言，計劃是行不通的。在學校裡，我們學到的是香港持久綠色發展的重要性，如何從中發掘商業機會來促進經濟發展。 - 填海已經不是一個有效可行的方法。在填海過程中需要大量的沙。而沙在世界供應開始短缺，其價錢已升至機場擴建時的一倍。此外，隨著預計完工日期的延誤，沙的價格會隨之而上升。工程甚至會因沙短缺而被迫停止。 2. 破壞香港脆弱的生態環境 - 香港的海岸是世界出名的生物多樣性海洋生態，有超過1000種魚類和80種珊瑚，種類超越加勒比海。可是，多年來的基建已經引致很多海洋物種死亡。LTV 的興建會是宣佈牠們死亡的最後一句。 - 在興建 LTV 的範圍裡，生活了很多臨危物種，例如中華白海豚和江豚。其中中華白海豚的數目由2003年的188條下降至2018年的32條。相信興建 LTV 之後，牠們將會絕種了。 3. 太昂貴 這是世界上最大的經濟投資賭博。我們應該回歸現實。例如加強執行土地收回條例從3個發展商收回859公頃土地，或是重新發展舊樓和棄置未有用途樓宇。 我們重申，堅決反對LTV 破壞環境的建設。它只會用去我們最少60%香港儲備，但解決不了眼前嚴重土地短缺的問題。 我們需要的是一些可以與環境生態並存的可持續發展的土地方案。

New Zealand currently imports more than 250 000 tonnes a year of virgin plastic resins with 60% made into rigid and soft plastic packaging - the things that mostly go to landfill. We currently ‘recycle’ around 20% of all plastics each year, though this is largely by exporting large volumes to other countries and making it their problem. Right now, the global oil industry is investing US$180 billion in new plastic production plants and upgrades in order to increase virgin plastic production by 40% in the next 10 years with an increase of oil diverted into plastic production from 6% now up to 20%. There is no question that the global mass expansion of virgin plastic production will lead to further massive increases in single-use plastic packaging products here in New Zealand as that plastic finds a market. We have already experienced an explosion of single-use plastic products as virgin plastic production has more than trebled since 1990. We simply cannot Recycle out of the current and exponentially growing plastics tsunami and waste minimisation policies and legislation must focus on the Reduction of these products coming into the economic system in the first place. Plastic packaging and pollution, therefore, is not an individual Consumer Issue, it is a Production Issue which requires regulation of packaging manufacturers and food & beverage companies. This means Government intervention and makes plastic packaging a political issue. As consumers we cannot realistically hope to write to the 100s and 1000s of individual companies to ask them to change out of single-use plastic packaging and we cannot individually push back against the millions of marketing dollars creating markets for these plastic products. With plastic recycling rates at around 20%, recycling is not a solution - it's an ambulance with flat tyres and no driver. We must focus on Reduction targets imposed by Government to force industry to change their packaging products and move out of polluting plastics. Please sign my petition to the Minister and then join me at my campaign sending a strong message to all MPs in Parliament at: https://www.facebook.com/groups/plastic2parliament

Te Waikoropupū Springs are a national and international taonga (treasure). The springs have some of the clearest water ever measured on earth. That clarity is under threat from rising nitrate pollution - the signature of industrial dairying. The main source of the pollution is dairy farms in the recharge area of the aquifer, which apply hundreds of tonnes of synthetic nitrogen fertiliser each year, mainly urea. For over three years Golden Bay volunteers have meticulously monitored nitrate levels at the Springs. The undeniable trend is upward. By September 2019 the levels were 30% up from 2016 - and rising. Increasing nitrate levels are a threat to the unique ecosystem of Te Waikoropupū Springs. Elevated nitrate levels create ideal growing conditions for ugly algal blooms and pond slime. Recently a mat of ‘filamentous green algae’ was observed by DOC at the Dancing Sands Spring. This contaminant is typically found in nitrate rich waters. Rising nitrate levels also threaten the tiny creatures (stygofauna) that create the sparkling clear water in the aquifer. Te Waikoropupū Springs are of immense cultural, ecological and spiritual importance to New Zealanders. They are a Wāhi Tapu (Sacred place) to Māori. They are visited by more than 90,000 people a year. The upward trend in nitrate readings is a call to urgent action! We the undersigned ask that Minister for the Environment David Parker and the New Zealand Government acts urgently to ban synthetic nitrogen fertiliser from the recharge area of the Arthur Marble Aquifer.

ALTERNATIVES: We submit that the site was selected based on altered scores, due almost entirely to inappropriate political pressure on the CCO as a result of sustained media coverage, resulting in the most optimal site from being selected. We submit that the first principle of the RMA to AVOID irreversible adverse environmental effects has not been satisfactorily achieved with the project being proposed in this location. It is also inconsistent with the relevant objectives and policies of the Auckland Unitary Plan. VEGETATION REMOVAL: Noting that Auckland Council declared a climate emergency on 11th June 2019 we submit the removal of thousands of trees is irresponsible and out of step with best practice. The ecology reports confirm this site forms linkages and corridors for wildlife with adjoining regional parkland including the North-West Link, furthermore edge effects will compromise the trees that remain outside of the construction site. We submit that proposed buffer zones are totally inappropriate in size, additionally at the Reservoir 2 site all high integrity bush inside the “buffer zone” will be removed, and replaced by low value vegetation. Watercare already plan that that new vegetation may need to be removed in the future for pipe maintenance. The shaft of the NH2 is inside the area of highest ecological value, and within riparian margins. This “creep” of add-ons is indicative of further encroachment over time. This is further demonstrated by the Watercare statement: “Revegetation of the decommissioned WTP site is not proposed, in order to preserve the long term resilience of the water supply system through allowing space for future refurbishment and/or expansion of the plant" EFFECTS ON BIODIVERSITY: We submit that due consideration has not been made to: The impact of noise on surrounding wildlife. Furthermore in our view a satisfactory understanding of the underlying wildlife habitat that will be disturbed has not been established. Eg, a single bird survey period of December-January is inadequate. The bat survey was also inconclusive and further investigations are warranted. After the applicant was notified on 10 June 2019 of the discovery of new insect species and the presence of other rare insect species, further investigations were warranted before the application was lodged. KAURI AND KAURI DIEBACK: Large parts of the Waitakere Ranges are closed to prevent the spread of kauri dieback yet 3.5ha of land are to be cleared within this protected area. We would like to point out that: Only those kauri with a trunk diameter >20cm have been counted during site surveys, leaving smaller regenerating kauri unaccounted for. No investigations specific to the proposed development have been undertaken and the Ecological Report does not address the sensitive root systems of kauri and the impact of stress on vulnerability to kauri dieback. The SOPs for kauri dieback were not designed for projects of this scale and all soil from the project site must be considered as contaminated for the purpose of the potential spread of kauri dieback disease to kauri beyond the project footprint treated in accordance with this assumption. IMPACTS DOWNSTREAM OF THE SITE We submit that sediment controls are inadequate and the risk of failure could be catastrophic. Titirangi-Laingholm Catchment Modelling, including flood profiling is still underway giving insufficient information regarding the risk. Failure Mode 1 does not adequately address the evacuation or warning systems with downstream residents or the school which tests water in Kopai Gully. Given all soil is assumed to be contaminated such an event would risk healthy and genetically diverse kauri downstream. It would also risk the population of inanga at Little Muddy Creek. TRAFFIC IMPACT: This proposal has a 8year construction period. Consideration must be made of the impact not only for local traffic that use these roads every day, but for tourist traffic, school buses and cyclists. Pedestrian safety for school children and recreational and dog walkers will be compromised. Vibration damage of homes along the truck routes will be an additional cost to the project not budgeted for. TOURISM AMENITY IMPACTS The proposed construction site is at the gateway to the Waitakere Ranges and would be a very visual scar and tarnish our international image. THE PROPOSED TRUST: Titirangi Protection Group opposes mitigation regarding it as a blunt archaic tool and out of step with progressive thinking to development in our city. We submit that this is only compensation (and should in no way be referred to as “mitigation”) and is focused on Biosecurity not Biodiversity. Mitigation is over and above what is currently planned or supported. We note there are multiple groups in the proposed zone who have support to increase biodiversity in the area via Auckland Biodiversity expertise and Auckland Council Grants. The NETR has increased this support. Any Trust should be in existence for the whole operational life of the plant, not just the period whilst being built and commissioned. The expected high level of engagement in the catchment is based on the aspirations of the community in relation to the Muddy Creeks Local Area Plan, however this does not take into account the resistance of many in the catchment who oppose the project and want no part in perceived blood/hush money. WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT? The site is almost completely covered in native vegetation and has been identified as a Significant Ecological Area (SEA) in the AUP. The site is only one of a small number of SEAs in Auckland that meet all 5 of the conditions required to be a SEA. Studies show direct connections between spending time in a forest atmosphere and the lowering of the stress hormone cortisol. The loss of forest, together with the noise and disruption will be distressing for the community over a long period of time.

This petition is on behalf of the residents of The Avenues, Tauranga South, TAURANGA, which is made up of a wide cross section of age groups, individuals, couples and families, a small business community, a Primary School, an early Childhood centre and two worship centers are greatly concerned about the proposal to build a new Department of Corrections facility at 36 Burrows Street, Tauranga South, to serve all of Tauranga. This is a residential area with a major traffic ‘hotspot’. A ‘hotspot’ that Tauranga City Council is struggling to come up with a solution for. Therefore, increasing the traffic through this residential area with an approximate 660 persons per week (including 100 staff) on a weekly basis and Saturdays, is just one of the significant problems that will be created. The figure of 660 persons (including staff) per week at 36 Burrows Street, Tauranga, does not take into account the projected growth of Tauranga Corrections services over the next three, five, ten, twenty years. The Department of Corrections have stated that these facilities will not create an adverse situation to the residents and public as the facility will only be visited by ‘low level’ offenders. However, those who live and work in the Avenues area that will be affected and those who work adjacent to existing offices have a different opinion to those of the Department of Corrections. Let’s do all we can to stop this centre being developed so close to people’s homes, schools, daycare centres and businesses. Tauranga has numerous industrial areas much more suited to this type of facility. Even Tauranga CBD, which is a central transportation hub, would be more suitable. Please sign the attached Petition to stop the proposed Department of Corrections Consolidated Probation facility at 36, Burrows Street, Tauranga South, 3112, Tauranga

The New Zealand taxpayer has spent $489,208.00 on the mandated review of the Veterans Act 2014 but are not being informed of the well-spent monies results. I believe they should be informed, and then asked what they wish to do with those results. Professor Paterson, former NZ Parliamentary Ombudsman, learned findings should be looked at and considered better than a quick Amendment, he’s even told us how to fix the Act. Having looked over the shoulder of the smart kid we should be getting an A but we are failing, government giving public the appearance of solidity to pure wind. A seemingly ridiculous extreme to settle an arguably minor grievance. Except, there are 64. In the last 50 years we have: • Put a man on the moon • Cloned a sheep • and, Decoded the Human genome Only once have we looked at the way we care for our Veterans. The Veterans Act 2014, has a provision for review of effectiveness after 2 years. Professor Paterson and his team were appointed in June 2017, completing their task by March 2018 giving 64 recommendations for urgent change. This achievement backed by the Right Honourable Ron Mark statement at the time “I have asked officials to begin work on these immediately”, leading the New Zealand Veteran Community towards false hope. With no provision for detailed command and control, and failed promises, 17 months later there is still no action on the 64, urgent, recommendations. (In May 2018) Ron Mark acknowledged the term Veteran, as a fundamental part of the Act, assuring a decision on its complex nature by the end of June. Which June is not clear, has he missed this year as well? How is that Royal Decree for Section 9 and the definition of a veteran? Veterans Affairs definition of the word Veteran is purposefully complex allowing them to impose stringent, sometimes unattainable conditions on our military, both serving and retired. Veterans that never deployed, yet dedicated an enormous part of their life to New Zealand, repeatedly do not meet the unfeasible heights required by Veterans Affairs to be recognised as, a Veteran. I think it is only right to remind the people, of the often-dangerous circumstances. Circumstances in which we expect our security forces, while under effective enemy fire, to; Evaluate a situation. Judge the risks to their own lives and those of others, and act appropriately within the law. Often in a matter of seconds, or less. Do not underestimate the difficulties they face! Should not a sense of honour and dignity then be afforded to the Veteran as defined by the Dictionary? Discrimination and inequality have eroded the foundations of the much-needed care and support our services have earned. There is no need for a tier system, for any veteran seeking help. Ever. Where you served and for how long should not be a criteria, signing the Oath of Allegiance is enough. The government agree that when the Veterans time is done they will receive indisputable support and entitlements accepting that Veterans Right to live independently, in their own home, where neither travel nor administration shall prejudice, sadly not in practice. We must favour verifiable evidence over private feeling, otherwise we leave ourselves susceptible to those that would obscure the truth. Each Veteran should be treated with respect and wrap-a-round assistance based upon their individual needs after meeting the only criteria they need; they wore the uniform! Any dispute with Veterans Affairs, is decided by Veterans Affairs, if Veterans Affairs agree they have done something wrong in the first place. The veteran is not allowed to attend. Surely a judgement made by Veterans Affairs, about Veterans Affairs, in a closed meeting is either illegal, unethical or both? The criteria to meet Veterans Affairs definition of the word Veteran is so ridiculous that decades of service, wars and numerous tours is not enough, I dread to think of the pressure placed upon the younger Veteran, and those still to come knowing what little safety net they actually have should their service to New Zealand injure them in any way. The Veteran community have shown courage and conviction and have said Enough. Enough indecisiveness and lethargy towards the very definition of, their word. The Homework has been done for us. Should we not now ask New Zealand how they wish to acknowledge the service of their military? The Minister for Veterans, when asked this same question chose to take a political view rather than that befitting an Officer of Her Majesties Armed Forces. Conversely, as a veteran of 2 wars and numerous deployments I have earned the Right to ask New Zealand how they wish to acknowledge their military, using the 64, urgent, recommendations made by Professor Paterson in the mandated Review known as the Warrant of Fitness. Sid Gould – Ngati Tumatauenga