Coalition parties call for opposition not to re-ban oil and gas exploration
Photo:
RNZ / Mark Papalii
Coalition parties are calling for the opposition not to re-ban oil and gas exploration in the hope more political consensus will bolster the industry - but those pleas seem to be falling on deaf ears.
The
legislation scrapping the 2018 ban
passed through Parliament on Thursday night with Labour, the Greens and Te Pāti Māori pledging to restore it if they win power - a stance that could yet keep oil companies from investing in exploring for new wells.
The repeal fulfils election promises from both National and ACT, though New Zealand First's Shane Jones has been leading the effort.
Jones stood alongside Jacinda Ardern in 2018 to announce the ban. But in a media statement after the bill passed his boss Winston Peters
rubbished as "flimsy"
official reports suggesting the cost of the ban could be up to about $8 billion, and said using less fossil fuels would lower emissions.
Jones in a statement on Thursday however said the ban was "ill-fated" and "has exacerbated shortages in our domestic gas supply by obliterating new investment in the exploration and development needed to meet our future gas needs".
"New Zealanders are bearing the brunt of this constrained gas supply, and energy security concerns are impacting investor sentiment ... we are seeing businesses in the regions closing as a result with Kiwis losing their jobs, and we're
importing hundreds of tonnes of Indonesian coal
to meet peak energy demand.
"This legislation is just one of many actions we are taking to get the right settings in place to resuscitate sector confidence, shore up energy supply and protect electricity affordability."
He was absent from Parliament on Thursday, leaving the main government speech to the National Party's Simon Watts - the minister for Energy and Climate Change.
Watts said the opposition's argument that reversing the ban would not yield new gas for a decade was "a distraction".
"The immediate signal that this bill sends to investors is critical now. It encourages immediate investment in long-term exploration and in maximising production from our existing fields, which can deliver benefits far sooner.
"New Zealand is committed to a clean-energy transition and meeting our emissions targets. We have committed to deliver net zero by 2050, including by doubling renewable electricity, and removing consenting barriers. Natural gas remains critical to our energy security. Without gas, we would need to either rely on more coal, which results in around twice the carbon dioxide emissions than natural gas, or face energy insecurity and higher prices."
His Labour Party counterpart Megan Woods, however, said the evidence showed record investment in existing fields after 2018.
"For this government to claim that it had a chilling effect on investment is simply wrong. What we had was those offshore oil and gas operators looking for every last bit they could eke out of the existing fields and it is not there.
"Then we had Shane Jones saying that this will open up opportunities off the East Coast of the South Island. Well, news flash: billions of dollars
have been spent
looking for that particular El Dorado ... this government is going to give $200 million to offshore companies to go and have a look again where they've already decided there are not commercial finds available."
She pointed to official analysis showing reversing the ban would add 14.2 million tonnes of emissions, and "a bit that should have been redacted from the regulatory impact statement" showing it could affect trade.
"Let me read from that: 'Legally privileged: Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade assessed that reversing the 2018 ban would likely be inconsistent with the obligations in several of New Zealand's free-trade agreements' - so farmers need to be worried, our access to the EU and the UK are being put at risk."
Green Party spokesperson for just transitions Steve Abel was also sceptical the oil industry could be attracted back.
He was part of the Oil-Free Seas Flotilla in 2011 that harried Petrobras' surveying ship for 42 days, welcomed to the area by a 500-strong haka "said by Te Whānau-a-Apanui, the iwi greeting us, to be the biggest haka since James Cook had arrived in that part of the country - I'm hoping we were more worthy of it than he was", he said.
He listed off a series of oil companies that exited New Zealand before the ban came into place: Exxon Mobil abandoning its southern oil and gas hunt in November 2010 after three years, Petrobras in December 2012, Texan driller Anadarko exiting its permit on the North Island's west coast in May 2014, Statoil quitting its Northland permit in October 2016, and Shell selling its remaining assets to OMV in March 2018.
He said the ban was the "final nail in the coffin of an industry that was already declaring its own demise in this country, because they came, they prospected, they found nothing, and they found nothing but overwhelming public opposition from the people of this country".
Echelon Resources - the company formerly known as New Zealand Oil and Gas, last month
told RNZ the best wells are typically drilled first
, so new drilling will be more difficult and expensive.
Its managing director Andrew Jeffries said other countries had more political consensus, making New Zealand an even more unattractive option for investment.
ACT Party MP Simon Court said the repeal would restore certainty, credibility and confidence, but called on Labour not to re-impose the ban if it won power.
"Today marks the end of an era - a really bad one. It marks the end of a six-year reign of economic vandalism and energy illiteracy by the previous New Zealand Labour government.
"Even the Honourable Shane Jones said at the time - bless his soul - that ending oil and gas exploration 'is the only scenario'. When he stood at that podium, I was shocked, but I'm pleased that minister has come to his senses - but profoundly disappointed that the Labour Party still has not."
His leader David Seymour said it was "very possible that they won't find the gas, but the impediment to people getting cheaper energy should not be our own government, and that's why I say if New Zealand First can change their mind then Labour should be able to do that too".
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
9 hours ago
- RNZ News
The people quietly preserving a place for cash
The Reserve Bank is doing its once-every-two-year survey to understand how New Zealanders use, store and spend cash. Photo: 123RF As Kiwis' cash use comes under scrutiny, shopkeepers and emergency savers are among those quietly preserving a place for physical currency. At present, the Reserve Bank is doing its once-every-two-year survey to understand how New Zealanders use, store and spend cash. Dunedin residents, unscientifically surveyed by RNZ on Tuesday, said they were using cash for everything from groceries to public transport, pocket money, cheese rolls and, in Sheryn Wilson's case, to give to the less fortunate. "Occasionally, I'll get out $20 in change and give it to my granddaughter to give to the people along here. That's basically all I use it for. To give the homeless... but that's it," Wilson said. Physical money remained second preference to using a bank card, although she believed it was worthwhile to have a backup stash for emergencies. "It feels strange now to use cash. It feels old-fashioned and kind of dirty," she said. Clive Cockle said he always carried cash but tended to default to swiping his card. He said he also kept at least a few dollars for emergencies. However Daniel, who did not want his last name identified, said he actively avoided cash to try to restrain his spending. "I find it hard to save money if I've got cash lying around - I'll just spend it straight away. If I've got cash, every time I open my wallet, it's gone," he said. Clive Cockle said he keeps at least a few dollars for emergencies. Photo: VNP / Daniela Maoate-Cox This year, the Reserve Bank's random postal survey would ask people how they preferred to pay, how often they used cash, how easy it was to deposit and withdraw coins and notes, and whether they stored cash - and why. Reserve Bank's cash manager Ian Woolford said people's habits were shifting. The last survey found fewer people using cash day-to-day, but those who did used it more often and more people said they valued it for privacy and safety. "The work that we're doing is to make sure that consumers - citizens - can use it when and as they please," he said. The Dairy and Business Owners Group said it was becoming harder for shopkeepers to manage cash. Chairperson Ankit Bansal said some people were relying on dairies for small cash withdrawals when there were not banks nearby. But the reduced number of bank branches and the increase in 'cashless' banks made it hard for shopkeepers to maintain a float. Bansal said stores needed easy bank access because holding money on site was a safety risk. "Banks - this is their job. Essentially we're seeing them picking and choosing what services they're providing. So I hope to see some action on the banks," he said. Retail New Zealand chief executive Carolyn Young said cash was on the way out, although not in the near future. Fewer than one in ten nationwide retail transactions were now in cash, she said. "It's certainly always diminishing, but how long that tail is, we're not sure," Young said. Shopkeepers were not supportive of New Zealand First's recent members' bill, which would require making it mandatory for stores to take cash for purchases up to $500, she said. "Retailers... understand that cash is important, but they don't want to be dictated - that it's mandated. Part of it is what do people want and how do we make sure that that's working. It's not broken at the moment. We don't think that it's necessary," Young said. Jamie Jermain, the co-founder of the SquareOne app that helps children understand finance and managing their money, found some children didn't know what cash was. He said a tool kit was needed to teach children about money and it's value when cash is increasingly invisible in a digital world. "In this day in age, what kids are getting more and more used to seeing is their parents essentially tapping this magic wand on a terminal. They [young people] don't have that connection with money, they don't see how it works on a day-to-day basis," Jermain said. Educating children on how to earn, save and responsibly spend money is crucial for learning good money habits when children get older, Jermain said. "Those lessons are with them for life," he said. The Reserve Bank's survey closes on 10 October. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
9 hours ago
- RNZ News
Labelling rules ease for genetically-modified food made without new DNA added, amid reform
Food Safety Minister Andrew Hoggard. (File photo) Photo: RNZ / Angus Dreaver The appetite for food made with the use of gene technologies will be tested in New Zealand, amid ongoing regulatory reform and an easing of food labelling requirements. Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) approved updated definitions for genetically-modified (GM) food in the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code in June for review, following public consultation. In late July, Food Safety Minister Andrew Hoggard and his Australian counterparts decided to adopt them. Food produced using new breeding techniques, including gene editing, will not need to be labelled as "GM" on the food label, if novel or new DNA was not introduced in the process. Simultaneously, the government was considering a new regulatory regime for gene technologies used outside the laboratory, after it attracted 15,000 submissions during select committee earlier this year. Minister Andrew Hoggard told RNZ last week, there was some vocal opposition to FSANZ's P1055 proposal during public consultation from those who "don't believe in [genetic engineering]." "There was still some vocal opposition, so that was taken onboard. Obviously, there was support from a lot of industry and scientific groups," he said. Andrew Hoggard said producers could still choose to disclose gene technologies to label it as such. (File photo) Photo: 123RF Hoggard said in removing the requirement, producers could still choose to disclose gene technologies used throughout production on the label. "There's nothing stopping anyone who is producing food that doesn't have any new breeding technologies to label it as such. We're not outlawing that people don't have to put these labels on." He said it came down to consumer's choice. "So if the organic sector, for example, doesn't want to allow these new breeding techniques in their production, then people who also think they don't want to consume food that's had new breeding techniques used in them, then they can just buy organic and know that 'okay, that hasn't been used'. "If this is something you're not worried about, then just go ahead shopping as normal," he said. "If it is something you are concerned about, producers who will be using the old methodologies will still be able to highlight on the packaging that, 'hey, we don't use the X, Y and Z' or 'we don't do this or that'. And you just need to go and look for that food." Hoggard said to the best of his knowledge, no health issues had been raised from the consumption of GMO products, like soya bean for example. Meanwhile, GE-Free New Zealand spokesperson Jon Carapiet said the eased labelling requirements took informed choices away from the consumer. GE-Free New Zealand spokesperson Jon Carapiet. Photo: RNZ "It's really fundamentally unethical to take away the ordinary consumer's choice in the supermarkets," Carapiet said. "It's all about trust, and to say 'we're not gonna even trust you to make your own decisions anymore'... is really wrong." He said the assertion that shoppers concerned about GM food would simply buy organic food instead was "disingenuous". "The average consumer certainly can't afford to go and buy organics on everyday basis. I wish they could, but they can't," he said. "So to say all the ordinary people of New Zealand don't deserve the right to choose, I think that's very wrong." Carapiet said supermarkets could ask their suppliers to disclose the use of gene technologies throughout production to ensure transparency and to inform shoppers about the product they were buying. "I think that in the coming months, if this does go ahead, companies will have to go above and beyond the food authority standards. "If the food authority FSANZ says 'no you can have GM crops and GE foods unlabelled in the supermarket', then it's going to be for the supermarkets to voluntarily label it." In a written statement, a Foodstuffs spokesperson said it took food safety "very seriously" and complied fully with the Australia and New Zealand Food Standards Code, including all labelling requirements. "Customers have the right to know what's in the food they're buying," they said. "As part of our supplier agreements, we require partners to disclose country of origin information, and any environmental or social claims must be accurate and substantiated." They said the same approach applied to food made using gene technologies, including GM ingredients. "Any changes to regulation in this space will be carefully reviewed, and we'll continue to ensure our labelling provides customers with accurate and transparent information, so they can make informed choices." A Woolworths New Zealand spokesperson said it will make sure its retail items complied with labelling rules. "If the labelling rules in New Zealand change then we would ensure all products comply with labelling requirements," they said. A government report on the Gene Technology Bill was expected on August 22. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
9 hours ago
- RNZ News
Waimakariri's new councillors may get 22% pay bump
Deputy Mayor Neville Atkinson and Mayor Dan Gordon. Photo: Waimakariri District Council. Photo: LDR / SUPPLIED Waimakariri's mayor and councillors are set for pay rises of up to 22 percent after October's election. Councillor pay rates will jump from $58,110 to $71,026. Speaking at a council meeting on Tuesday, outgoing Deputy Mayor Neville Atkinson said councillors were "well worth" the increased pay rate. The mayor's salary is set to rise 4 percent, from $158,057 to $164,728, while the deputy mayor's salary is proposed to jump 22 percent, from $74,674 to $91,271. The pay jumps are due to an increased remuneration pool. Atkinson said voting on pay rises is "silly" when it is already set by the Remuneration Authority. "It is imposed on you and it has always seemed silly to me that we have to vote on this, when it is already imposed on us. "If you want to give it to charity you can, but if you want to take it, then good on you - you are well worth it." Atkinson said there was plenty of commentary on social media about what bonuses councillors allegedly claimed. "It talks about the bonuses which we actually don't get. We don't get flying allowances - we don't want them, and we don't get lunch allowances - we don't want them. "We want to look after ratepayers' money. "But this extra money will allow people to make a conscious decision of whether they want a full-time job alongside being a councillor or not." Retiring councillor Al Blackie said while councillors did not do it for the money, they did have a big workload. ''A little bit more money in the pot can only be a good thing in encouraging young people and particularly young women to stand.'' Councillor Tim Fulton said his only concern was the ''gaps'' in the childcare allowance, which will increase from $6000 a year to $7500 a year per child. He said it did not take into account the sacrifices a spouse of an elected member might have to make when arranging childcare. Waimakariri District Council governance manager Sarah Nichols said the childcare allowance could not be used to pay a partner or grandparents. ''It is generally used for an independent person or for childcare facilities. ''We have had a handful of members who have claimed it in the time we've had it, and it has never been for anywhere near the total amount allowed.'' The Hurunui District Council last week voted against offering a childcare allowance, despite the support or four councillors. There was no opposition expressed by the 10 councillors or Mayor Dan Gordon to the remuneration package presented, which also includes payrises for community board members. The Remuneration Authority recently completed a review how it determines local government remuneration and well recommended no changes. It considers population, economic growth and the geographic area of the district when setting the remuneration pool for the deputy mayor councillors' salaries. Pay rates across the country vary from about $20,000 at the lower end, to more than $300,000 for Auckland mayor. The payrises for the deputy mayor and remaining nine councillors will be finalised after the local government elections on October 11. LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air.
