Eugenie Sage’s proposed six-fold increase in the levy rate for landfills will not only cost households more but lead to more illegal dumping, National’s Environment spokesperson Scott Simpson says.
The plan was a key policy in the Government’s Waste Discussion Document released today.
“The proposal will have perverse outcomes on both the environment and New Zealanders’ back pockets,” Mr Simpson says.
“Fly tipping is already a huge problem in New Zealand, and knee jerk price hikes like this will only make it worse.
“Sadly people will realise it’s cheaper and easier to dump their rubbish over a bank or into the bush rather than paying the exorbitant fee to use their local tip.
“People in some parts of the country are already paying close to $200 per tonne at their landfill. This will only drive the price even higher.
“Meanwhile expanding the number of landfills to which the levy applies is a belated follow-through on plans National had already announced in Government.
“Eugenie Sage should be investigating practical ways of addressing our waste problem like waste to energy systems used in other countries. Instead she seems happy to indulge her ideological preferences and hit the tax button.”
While it’s positive to see the farming sector partnering with Government, it’s concerning that Labour has given itself a legal backstop to bring agriculture into the ETS as early as 2022, National’s Climate Change spokesperson Scott Simpson says.
“National has a clear criteria that would need to be met before we’re comfortable with agriculture entering the ETS or a similar pricing mechanism. There needs to be science-based mitigation options available for farmers that don’t lead to herd culling and decreased food production.
“National supports farmers farming their way to better environmental outcomes and knows that on-farm improvements are more effective than taxes.
“We’re already the most efficient food producers in the world and if we force food production offshore then we will only be raising emissions globally.
“New Zealand would have the only farmers in the world to be a part of an ETS. It’s important we are not put at a disadvantage to our international competitors or we risk losing our valuable market share to a less sustainable producer.”
National has concerns with the Zero Carbon Bill as reported back and we have outlined the changes we’d like to see, National’s Climate Change spokesperson Scott Simpson says.
National seeks the following changes to the Zero Carbon Bill:
- That the target for biological methane reduction be recommended by the independent Climate Change Commission.
- That the Bill make clear the stated aim of the Paris Agreement is for greenhouse gas reduction to occur in a manner that does not threaten food production. Currently the Bill cherry-picks from the Agreement.
- Strengthen provisions that consider the level of action being taken by other countries and allow targets to be adjusted to ensure we remain in step with the international community.
- That the Bill ensure the Commission consider economic impacts when providing advice on targets and emissions reductions.
- That the Bill ensure the Commission consider the appropriate use of forestry offsets, and have regard for the carbon sink represented by tree crops, riparian planting, and other farm biomass.
- That emissions budgets be split between biogenic methane and carbon dioxide as recommended by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment.
- That the Bill include a greater commitment to investment in innovation and research and development to find new solutions for reducing emissions.
“These changes would improve the Bill and ensure it is in line with National’s climate change principles of taking a pragmatic technological and science-based approach.
“National believes the Bill will negatively impact the New Zealand economy and increase costs to Kiwi families and businesses while slowing GDP growth. We think those negative impacts should be made clear to New Zealanders.
“The changes we are seeking would ensure incentives drive the right long-term change and that the wider impact on economy, jobs and incomes are fully factored in. We need to protect everyday New Zealanders as our emissions reduce.”
The Prime Minister’s Green Investment Fund appears to be doing the complete opposite of investing, with not one cent allocated after 17 months meaning it will lose money, National’s Environment spokesperson Scott Simpson says.
“Despite their being no tangible investment from the fund, taxpayers’ money is still being spent with absolutely no return.
“The fund has operating costs of $5 million a year, but is only expected to return $3 million annually. It’s bizarre that a fund expected to lose $2 million a year is considered a good ‘investment’ of taxpayers’ money by this Government.
“James Shaw said the fund would be ‘a commercially focused investment company which will work to invest with business to reduce emissions while making a profit’. But all it has been so far is a drain on taxpayers with nothing to show for it.
“Despite failing to invest a single dollar in 17 months, the Green Investment Fund is holding a glamourous cocktail function next month at the New Zealand Academy of Fine Arts, paid for by the taxpayer.
“The Green Investment Fund is yet another case of this Government failing to deliver on its promises, and is so far a complete waste of taxpayers’ money.”
Today’s announcement that investigative work has begun on developing a container deposit scheme is underwhelming and has taken too long, National’s Environment spokesperson Scott Simpson says.
“Rather than implementing a tangible scheme that is actually going to address our rubbish problem, The Government has instead set up yet another working group, this time with local councils being contracted to do the work for them.
“National proposed a Container Deposit Scheme in our Environment Discussion Document earlier this year, and when the Minister was asked if she supported it then she said it was not one of her priorities.
“While it’s good the Minister has realised we were correct, it’s disappointing she is only just starting work on it now.
“National supports the implementation of a container deposit scheme to address our mounting landfill issue, but we would actually do the work to execute it in a timely manner, rather than contracting development work on it out to another working group, and in this case two councils.”
The Government is struggling to justify its water policy as its guesses around costs are increasingly at odds with expert estimates, National’s Agriculture spokesperson Todd Muller and Environment spokesperson Scott Simpson say.
“While Minister of Agriculture Damien O’Connor stated in Parliament the cost to farmers of meeting the Government’s proposed new water policies would be just one to two per cent, LandCare has estimated the drop in farm revenue for a case study catchment would be more likely to fall between seven and 46 per cent,” Mr Muller says.
“An AgFirst report, commissioned by the Ministry for the Environment states shifting to a five metre fencing setback on a Waikato Bay of Plenty dairy farm will come at a cost of 40 per cent of earnings over a ten year period.
“Both Local Government New Zealand and LandCare report that over half of the Waikato-Waipa catchment and almost 100 per cent of the Clutha catchment would need to be converted to permanent forestry to achieve the policy’s bottom lines.”
“Environment Minister David Parker first seemed unaware of these estimates, dismissing them as nonsensical scaremongering. Today he claimed that they were wrong, despite the report being linked on the consultation website,” Mr Simpson says.
“Farmers are rightly feeling confused and worried. Mr Parker assured New Zealanders ‘Trust me, I know what I’m doing’, but he has released 2,000 pages of technical reports with various costs and impacts. The suggestion that the reports don’t all apply just adds to the confusion.
“The LandCare report clearly states that the substantial costs incurred by farmers may drive farmers to change their land use or shift their employment to non-agricultural work all together.
“Releasing 2,000 pages of material during calving and lambing is not fair on farmers. Ministers need to extend the consultation period to twelve weeks and provide clearer analysis of what the impacts of the proposals will be.”
The proposals in the Government’s Freshwater Discussion Document released today are short-sighted and will severely limit our most profitable sector, National’s Environment spokesperson Scott Simpson says.
“While we encourage the constant improvement of our waterways, many of the changes proposed will have perverse effects on our primary sector and the wider economy.
“Despite David Parker making freshwater a key part of his election campaign, it’s taken two years to finally see some proposals.
“The Essential Freshwater proposals will limit the flexibility of New Zealand farmers to adjust to market conditions and change their land use. The effects of this would be far reaching and could restrict farmers from innovating, which is one of New Zealand’s key advantages.
“Water is a both a critical strategic asset and a source of recreation in New Zealand, and we all know it must be abundant, healthy, clean and cost effective.
“National established a comprehensive National Policy Statement whilst in Government and worked alongside our primary sector to clean our waterways, which have been steadily improving, as shown by the Government’s own data from Land, Air, Water Aotearoa (LAWA). This is a major achievement of our farmers but not a story David Parker wants to tell.
“The primary sector has already taken responsibility for water with dairy farmers fencing off over 98 per cent of waterways and spending over $1 billion in environmental investment over the last five years. National applauds these efforts while acknowledging there must be more done.
“This document will only add to farmers’ and growers’ uncertainty as there is still no clarity as to what might be coming down the pipeline for them. And further tinkering with the RMA will do nothing for public or business confidence.
“The Government is taking a complex issue that requires a measured, science-based approach and is instead proposing we hamstring our most profitable sector, which accounts for 60 per cent of our exports. We all want improved water quality but this drastic action will smash the economic engine of our country.”
The Minister for Climate Change needs to come clean on where the revenue generated from the Emissions Trading Scheme is going, National’s Climate Change spokesperson Scott Simpson says.
“Funds collected by the Government from the emissions trading scheme have ballooned up to $420 million this year, compared to just half a million dollars the previous year.
“Prior to the election James Shaw was vocal about how this revenue should be used to implement tax cuts, stating that ‘every single Kiwi over 18 will also get a $250 dividend bonus at the end of the year based on the carbon tax revenue.’
“When questioned in Parliament today his tune changed considerably, stating that the money would be held as an asset on the Government books.
“This doesn’t wash. The Government is planning to introduce an emissions trading auction scheme, meaning they will continue to use the ETS to raise hundreds of millions each year. They need to explain where this money will go and how it will be spent.
“New Zealanders are paying about five cents on every litre of petrol to the ETS, but they’re not seeing any of it back, let alone where it’s going.
“As usual this Government is failing to deliver on its promises, and this money now looks like it will get sucked up into the Government’s excessive spending on things like fees free, Kiwibuild and Shane Jones’ slush fund.”
It has been revealed the Government ignored official advice from the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) when setting the methane target for the Climate Change Amendment Act Bill, National’s Climate Change spokesperson Scott Simpson says.
“Briefings obtained under the Official Information Act show that MPI advised that a reduction of 25 per cent would represent a realistic emissions reduction that can be achieved with technologies currently under development and avoiding significant land use change.
“Anything further would come at significant cost and moves into the realm of far more speculative technological advances.
“National has been strongly opposed to the onerous and poorly researched target of up to 47 per cent in the Climate Change Amendment Act Bill, as we believe it will have perverse effects on the primary sector, and that targets should be based on solid scientific reasoning.
“The Minister of Climate Change has said that the briefing provided ‘bad advice’, but in reality it is just another example of him only listening to advice that suits his narrative.
“Previously he has dismissed reports from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment on the methane target, and he refused to listen to the Climate Change Chief Executives Board, who advised him that the methane target should be given to an expert group such as the Climate Change Commission.
“National accepts the need to reduce emissions and support global efforts to do so, but we must also be aware of the potential costs and ensure decisions are backed by solid scientific reasoning.”
Government members of the Environment Select Committee have today voted down the opportunity for a one month extension to the Zero Carbon Bill process, which would have given New Zealanders more opportunity to be heard, National’s Climate Change spokesperson Scott Simpson says.
“This piece of legislation is important and people deserve to have their say. It has already had over 12,000 submissions and 1,500 requests from the public to appear in front of the Committee. The current timeframe affects the ability to hear and consider these submissions.
“A one month extension would have meant there was still time to enact the Bill by the end of 2019, but would also have given the Select Committee the time to properly assess the many submissions.
“Now there is going to be a truncated regional Select Committee programme, with as few as two MPs present at times. An extension is needed to allow the Committee time to properly hear regional submissions.
“Regional submitters are concerned by many parts of the Bill. The methane target of a 24 – 47 per cent reduction goes beyond what many believe farmers can achieve, and forecasts of over a third of pasture being converted to pine for forestry offsets have caused alarm.
“The Government has claimed their priority is to inform the public of the ‘just transition’ to lowering emissions, but by not allowing the Bill to be properly considered they are doing the exact opposite.
“It appears that this Coalition Government is so concerned with being first, fast and famous on the matter of climate change they’re failing to consider the impacts the Bill could have on everyday New Zealanders.”