Have your say
7. Add your comments, ideas, and feedback here.
You can identify the questions you are answering, or provide general comments.
The opening statement of the value and protection of our natural wetlands is in contradiction to the proposed amendments.
The definition of "natural wetland" should not be compromised to include land use and development. This does not bring it "in balance", but puts it out of balance, as it can't be a wetland if it is developed or used for other purposes. With 90% of our wetlands lost, any remaining should be improved. There should be no compromise.
There should be NO ROOM for additional consenting pathways, as this will affectively destroy the wetland. This is not balance. This is the destruction of our very precious ecosystems.
The definition of "natural wetland" should not be compromised to include land use and development. This does not bring it "in balance", but puts it out of balance, as it can't be a wetland if it is developed or used for other purposes. With 90% of our wetlands lost, any remaining should be improved. There should be no compromise.
There should be NO ROOM for additional consenting pathways, as this will affectively destroy the wetland. This is not balance. This is the destruction of our very precious ecosystems.