Retired Pharmacist And Business Owner, David Ross, Selected As ACT Local Candidate For Motueka Ward
After more than four decades in healthcare, business, and rural advocacy, Mahana local Dave Ross has put his name forward to represent the Motueka community on the Tasman District Council.
A retired pharmacist and experienced business owner, Dave has long been involved in rural healthcare and governance. He and his wife have lived on their lifestyle block in Mahana for the past 20 years, and raised three children — now with three grandchildren of their own.
He says the decision to stand came from a desire to see greater accountability and real consultation in local government.
'I'm standing for the Tasman District Council because our community deserves to be heard,not sidelined by bureaucracy or ideology. After years in pharmacy, business, and health advocacy, I know what it takes to listen, to lead, and to deliver results. I want to bring that experience to the table and help make sure ratepayers are treated with the respect they deserve.' – David Ross
Earlier this year, ACT New Zealand announced it would be standing Common Sense Candidates for local government for the first time — after hearing from New Zealanders across the country who are sick of rising rates, ballooning budgets, and councils that ignore the basics while chasing ideological vanity projects.
When you vote ACT Local, you know what you're getting:
ACT Local Government spokesperson Cameron Luxton says:
' ACT Local candidates are community-minded Kiwis who've had enough of wasteful councils treating ratepayers like ATMs. It's time to take control on behalf of ratepayers — to restore accountability and deliver real value for money. ACT Local is about getting the basics right: maintaining roads, keeping streets clean, and respecting the people who pay the bills. Our candidates won't divide people by race or get distracted by climate vanity projects. They're here to serve, not lecture."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
2 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Govt forces Sport NZ to ditch transgender guidelines as NZ First threatens funding cut
In 2023 coalition negotiations, National and NZ First agreed to ensure publicly funded sporting bodies supported fairness that wasn't compromised by gender-based rules. Sport NZ chief executive Raelene Castle released a statement this morning. Photo / Photosport Last year, former Sports Minister Chris Bishop asked Sport NZ to review the guidelines. It's understood Sport NZ completed the review recently and offered new draft guidelines for current Sports Minister Mark Mitchell to assess. In a letter to Sport NZ on Tuesday, Mitchell said the policy in the coalition agreement meant Sport NZ should 'no longer have guiding principles published and should leave that decision-making and judgment up to individual sports and community organisations'. 'The Government has a role in making sport accessible to all New Zealanders by creating opportunities, not in providing principles as to who should be included and how,' he said. In her statement, Castle said the guiding principles had been removed from Sport NZ's website and advised sporting organisations to 'make their own decisions on the participation of transgender people in community sport'. Castle declined to be interviewed. In April last year, Sport NZ reported to the Government it had no evidence of a code-specific policy position or set of rules that prohibited fair competition. However, anecdotal reports and specific cases had prompted public debate, such as weightlifter Laurel Hubbard and mountain biker Kate Weatherly, who had both competed against women. NZ First leader Winston Peters wants to see fairness prioritised in community sport. Photo / Mark Mitchell Speaking to the Herald, Peters referenced both examples as he explained his party opposed inclusion being prioritised over fairness in sport. 'We faced all sorts of woke nonsense about how we couldn't do this and it was unfair,' he said. 'The very point that we're pushing is fairness.' Peters then claimed he would seek to pull funding from codes that didn't comply. 'We're saying to the sports out there, 'Well, if you want to ignore it, don't expect public or taxpayer funding'.' He affirmed his intention to cut all public funding for any sporting codes that didn't align with the Government's position. Peters also claimed Mitchell agreed with his position. Peters' threat would likely turn heads at New Zealand Cricket, given it allowed trans women to compete in female competitions at a community level. New Zealand Rugby's head of community rugby participation, Mike Hester, said its policy was still being developed, but the organisation believed 'ideally allowing people to play in the gender with which they identify'. Netball NZ required transgender women to provide documentation proving gender reassignment and hormone therapy before allowing them to play. Umpires had the discretion to assess whether a player's actions aligned with safety expectations. Mark Mitchell is the Minister for Sport. Photo / Mark Mitchell While Peters might want to cut funding, the relevant legislation might stop him. The Sport and Recreation New Zealand Act 2002 said the minister – Mitchell – could not direct Sport NZ in relation to the allocation of funds. The Government retained the ability to change legislation and determine the level of funding Sport NZ received. In the event a sporting code didn't align with the Government's position, it's understood Mitchell could reiterate his expectations to Sport NZ. Adam Pearse is the deputy political editor and part of the NZ Herald's press gallery team based at Parliament in Wellington. He has worked for NZME since 2018, reporting for the Northern Advocate in Whangārei and the Herald in Auckland.
NZ Herald
2 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Climate Change: The culture of complaint is alive and well
Its leaders are currently running a high-profile campaign, calling for New Zealand to withdraw from the Paris Climate Change Accord. This is despite Fonterra committing to being net zero by 2050 and this season introducing incentive payments for farmers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But Groundswell has found support in the Beehive with both Act and NZ First, with the latter's leader, Winston Peters, supporting the call to pull out from Paris. Act has targeted rural New Zealand - and it has paid off. In the 2023 election, its top three party vote percentages were in Kaikōura, Rangitikei and Southland: all usually National Party rural fortresses. Waikato, Waitaki, Tukituki and Taranaki were all in Act's top 10 party vote electorates. National knew this was happening - not surprising given that the party could not find a working farmer to be their agricultural spokesperson in Opposition between 2020 and 2023. So, the party deliberately set out to select farmer candidates for the 2023 election. Four of them, Grant McCallum, Suze Redmayne, Mike Butterick and Miles Anderson, are now in the caucus. Last year the MPs launched a new National Party special interest group, Rural Nats to rank alongside the Blue Greens and Super Blues as influencers within the party. And in Government, National set out very deliberately to implement the Federated Farmers 12-point 2023 election manifesto. This has been most obvious with the moves it has made in reforming the Resource Management Act to accommodate rural interests. Thus, the current consultations on proposals to amend the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management. The policy statement was the target of the original Groundswell 'Howl of a Protest' tractor protest four years ago. There have been other moves like enabling more water storage, abolishing the ute-tax, restricting carbon farming and reviewing the methane targets, which were all part of the Feds' manifesto. Richard Harman National has had to concede to Act the requirement that councils must compensate landowners when they designate part of a farm a Significant Natural Area. But apart from that, it was all National's work. It showed up in a Federated Farmers Curia poll released at Fieldays, which showed 54% support for National farmers against 19% for Act. Nevertheless, there was one Feds' manifesto proposal that is causing some concern, not for the Government, but for the Feds themselves. The manifesto called for the Government to embrace new technology, including gene editing 'that could solve many of the challenges we face as farmers'. The Government obliged with the Gene Technology Bill, which would liberalise the approval process for crops like the Ag Research-developed genetically edited ryegrass, which is currently being tested in the United States to determine its ability to lower methane production in cows. Under present regulations it cannot be grown here. In a surprise move in April, Federated Farmers president Wayne Langford told the Health Select Committee that even if the law was changed, it might not be possible to approve the grass because it could spread to neighbouring properties that were marketing their produce as GE-free. 'Our members' views on issues are as diverse as their farming systems,' he said. 'Most farmers are in support, some are neutral, and some are opposed. 'Federated Farmers' job is to navigate those differences in opinion, to present a credible and consistent view, which we try to do.' Langford's comments reflected the dilemma his organisation constantly faces, that there is no universal consensus among farmers on most major policy decisions. Nowhere has this been more evident than on climate change. Farming as a whole has always been concerned about the 2050 methane targets requiring a reduction of between 24 and 47 per cent on 2017 emission levels. They are thought to be difficult to achieve whereas the 2030 target of a 10 per cent reduction is thought likely to be met. A Government-initiated review by a science panel last year suggested that a smaller 2050 target reduction, potentially 14%-15%, could be consistent with 'no added warming' from methane emissions. The Government has given itself until the end of this year to respond to this but now Groundswell has stepped up its campaign, not to change the target, but to completely pull out of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. Meanwhile, Fonterra has taken the issue into its own hands. Through agreements with Nestlé and Mars, two of its biggest customers, it has committed to being responsible for net zero emissions by 2050 and this season has begun paying a bonus to farmers who meet the emission reduction targets it has set. This has not topped Groundswell, which has been closely aligned with the Taxpayers' Union and whose Facebook site is now a reservoir of conspiracy theories and wild claims about climate change and other favourite ultra-right causes like UN Agenda 2030 and the WHO. Groundswell has broadened their campaign to now answer questions about how to restrain farms being converted to forestry for carbon farming by simply saying we should pull out of Paris. Unlike Act and New Zealand First, National is standing well clear of them and its spokespeople have used the argument that reducing emissions is simply a requirement from our markets. Wairarapa MP Mike Butterick clashed with Groundswell Environment spokesperson Jamie McFadden. Butterick reminded McFadden about the economic situation facing farmers. 'In terms of some of the pressures on sheep and beef farming, number one has been profitability,' he said. 'We're in a really good spot right now; record product prices all on the back of those lucrative markets that do have those (climate change) agreements, that profitability would be at risk.' Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has been similarly emphatic. 'Do not be naive and think there will not be implications if we leave a global commitment,' he told farmers at Fieldays last month. Though Federated Farmers did an online poll earlier this year and found that 69 per cent of respondents favoured pulling out of the Paris Agreement. But a remit calling for NZ to withdraw from Paris at the Feds' annual meeting last month was defeated. It marked a new sense of realism within the Feds, in part inspired by more contacts with experts like our trade negotiators. An example was the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade deputy secretary, Vangelis Vitalis, the country's lead trade negotiator, speaking at the DairyNZ Farmers' Forum at the end of May. He said more than 85% of the discussions on trade agreements have climate at their heart. Langford, obviously took messages like this to heart. Speaking after the remit defeat, he said the Government had been very clear, as had our trade negotiators and largest exporters, that it would be total economic sabotage to withdraw and farmers would pay the price. That is not stopping Groundswell or Act's Climate Change spokesperson, Simon Court. Groundswell are now encouraging farmers to erect highly professional billboards saying 'The Paris Agreement is Destroying Us' on their farms. Court used his every question opportunity at a recent Select Committee hearing on limiting afforestation on farmland for carbon farming to try and get the submitter to agree that the obvious answer would be to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. National must press ahead with complying with Paris - in part because that is what Fonterra's customers and the country's trade agreements are increasingly demanding, and in part because its campaigners have looked across at Australia and know that the easiest way to lose the centrist urban female vote is to be soft on climate change. Whether Groundswell can persuade Act to make withdrawal a bottom line at the next election may well become one of the big political stories of the next 18 months.
NZ Herald
2 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Agribusiness and Trade: NZ food security at risk as dairy, meat prices soar, says KPMG
Using dairy products as an example, he says in the interests of food security and protecting New Zealand's 'brand' – an export marketing feature on which it heavily leans - farmers could opt into voluntary domestic pricing initiatives through their milk processors with a portion of their production priced to meet Kiwis' needs for healthy and nutritional food at a reasonable cost. In the interests of food security and protecting New Zealand's 'brand' – an export marketing feature on which it heavily leans - farmers could opt into voluntary domestic pricing initiatives through their milk processors with a portion of their production priced to meet Kiwis' needs for healthy and nutritional food at a reasonable cost. Photo / Bloomberg The carrot to any buy-in by farmers will be the reassurance that New Zealand is investing in bioeconomic tools and systems to ensure the whole of their farming system - not just the milk or meat - is monetised, Proudfoot says. He cites the wine industry as an example of where an entire farming system could be monetised. In wine production only about 2% of the product becomes wine. All the leafy matter, and the woody matter left over from pruning vines has had 'huge' money invested in their production but becomes unutilised waste, he says. 'It could be a bioenergy source. It could be thinking about what's an active ingredient in the leaves that we can extract? It could be thinking about how we use the grape waste creatively? 'If we can say to farmers we are investing in a bioeconomy which offers all these other business opportunities, then the idea of finding circular solutions for everything they are growing and asking them to give up a small percentage of their price on a small percentage of their production starts to make sense.' To the suggestion that farmers, already burdened by high costs, would throw their hands up in horror at the idea, Proudfoot says on the contrary, he is sure some would like to protect the New Zealand brand and help build resilient domestic food security. 'If we don't have the ability to be resilient, to ensure that our people here in New Zealand have food security, it can very quickly become a part of how the food we export is viewed – are we exporting at the expense of our society?' Proudfoot says food security is still under-prioritised among the 200 agribusiness leaders whose insights formed the 2025 Agribusiness Agenda, despite an increased global focus and action on food security challenges. 'Food security is national security', he says, and despite data showing higher food insecurity among Kiwis due to the cost-of-living crisis, the subject recorded the lowest-score since surveys started. Biosecurity ranked top priority for the 15th year running. On whether farmers would support a domestic price, Proudfoot says internationally, initiatives haven't stopped because they didn't get 100% support. 'The price of food is under constant direct or indirect regulatory pressure ... in some countries it is set by the Government , you can't sell it for more than that price. But in many other countries what we are seeing, and that's definitely the case in New Zealand … is governments are looking to manage the cost of living because of the political consequences and they are putting pressure on supermarkets in particular not to increase the price of food. We're basically seeing it all over the world. 'It's not a question of will the farmer be able to generate enough money from selling their food. We think the answer to that is probably no, but actually how you ensure the farmer is able to monetise the full value of their farming system and be able to gain a return for 100% of what they grow. 'How do you monetise and get a return for the biomass you grow alongside the food you're targeting to produce, how do you ensure you are paid for the way you act in your farming system, the way you grow, look after biodiversity, water. 'It's the answer for a much more secure farming and food system and it also enables us to think much more about how we ensure local domestic food security.' Proudfoot's Agenda this year also calls for a national food and fibre data exchange to unlock value and accelerate innovation, with surveyed agribusiness leaders citing poor data quality, challenges integrating technologies into farming systems and unclear returns-on-investment as barriers. He says it's time New Zealand 'started having the sort of conversation the rest of the world has been having for a number of years' about bioenergy and a bioeconomy. Overseas, agribusiness leaders talk about the three Fs - food, fibre and fuel, he says. 'Why are we only able to talk about food and fibre, not the fuel part of the equation? 'When I sit down with clients all over the world, so often the conversation hasn't started with how much butter has been exported or what countries they're exporting to, but very often it's what the farmer is doing with farmer and grower partners in connecting them up to energy. People are starting to work out that a big part of the answer to our energy challenge sits within the farm gate. Ian Proudfoot 'There's a lot of talk about green co-ops in villages and towns in Europe and a lot of talk about investment into anaerobic digestors or other forms of bioenergy. You come back to New Zealand and the conversation just hasn't been happening. 'We must be one of the best places in the world to grow biomass, and climate change makes us even better. People are starting to work out that a big part of the answer to our energy challenge sits within the farm gate.' Proudfoot reckons the most important job in New Zealand agribusiness right now is held by Mark Piper, chief executive of the New Zealand Institute for Bioeconomy Science, launched this month. A public research organisation, it was formed by merging four Crown Research Institutes, AgResearch, Landcare Research, Plant & Food Research, and Scion. 'The priority of this organisation is how we ensure we connect our farmers to the bioeconomy, whether it be the energy part or the animal feed part, other forms of fuel replacement or whatever. It is so important because that is the future for a resilient food sector.' Proudfoot says a stark message relayed to him by KPMG offshore agribusiness teams was that 30% of farmers in 14 key food-producing countries in Europe plan to quit farming in the next 10 years because it doesn't make economic sense any longer. 'I've tested that in New Zealand, Australia and the US and it's probably the same. We have that risk of people deciding it's not worth farming any longer ... if we can't make farmers economically resilient they will stop making food, and if food doesn't arrive at the back door of the store, it's not available at the front door.' Ian Proudfoot: Opening up opportunities Some years, Ian Proudfoot looks back at the KMPG Agribusiness Agenda he's just published and thinks: 'Why are they just not getting it?' Why are agribusiness leaders whose insights form the Agenda not 'getting' that food security or energy, for example, should rate higher on their top-of-mind issues? 'But that just means I'm not communicating properly and I have to do better,' says KPMG's global head of agribusiness, lead author of the project that recently marked its 16th year. The Agenda is Proudfoot's baby. He created it and writes most of it. It's a love-hate relationship, he says. Writing up the priority issues of the 200 agribusiness leaders surveyed can be an all-consuming grind. But gathering the information and knowledge that goes into the publication is a joy. 'They are fascinating conversations. We start with a blank piece of paper and you never know what themes will come out. 'People look forward to the Agenda. They engage with the content ... it has helped change the perspective of people towards not just thinking about volume and price but the broader opportunities … 'It has contributed to change in the narrative in the food and fibre sectors. Some of the things talked about have been adopted and are now accepted. 'But there are still some areas we've got to keep banging away on. 'I'll keep banging away on the fact we have to focus on how to build a vibrant, growing, sustainable ocean economy. 'The bioeconomy is a massive opportunity but one we are underplaying, I think.'
