logo
Oil And Gas Bill Passed, Taxpayers Left On The Hook For Decommissioning Gas Wells

Oil And Gas Bill Passed, Taxpayers Left On The Hook For Decommissioning Gas Wells

Scoop4 days ago
31 July 2025. Climate campaigners say the government's Crown Minerals Amendment (CMA) Act is a 'golden parachute for big polluters—and a lead weight for the rest of of'. The Act clears the way for new fossil fuel exploration while gutting safeguards that ensure existing oil and gas companies pay for their clean-up. While the Act passed through the house, climate climbers took action at the largest coal mine in the country, and are still there (five days in) as this goes to print.
350 Aotearoa Co-Director Alva Feldmeier says, 'This bill is a legislative match tossed into a climate tinderbox. It doesn't just open New Zealand up to new climate-killing oil and gas drilling — it strips away financial safeguards, leaving taxpayers on the hook for future decommissioning costs. Without these financial securities and trailing liability, the government is at a higher risk of having to pay to decommission – or plug – a failed oil well. This is no hypothetical - the fossil fuel industry previously left the taxpayer with a $443 million bill to decommission the Tui oil field. The oil lobby is clearly writing the script— the Government is just reading their lines.'
'As floods and storms ravage across the world and climate scientists run out of adjectives to describe how urgent the situation is, Luxon's Government is forging ahead with reckless plans to search for new oil and gas, dig up more coal and shelve every initiative to reduce emissions that they can. It's another time we can peek through the drawn curtains of this government - a government run by shady lobbyists writing policy and being appointed to key positions.'
Shane Jones said in Parliament on Tuesday that 'only the oil and gas industry was an 'affected party' that needed to be consulted on this bill'. Nelson local and 350 campaigner Adam Currie responds, 'We put it to him that those of us in Whakatū Nelson, cleaning up from the last climate-fuelled storm are an affected party. How dare he claim we are not an affected party, the very same week we were working together as a community to clean up the silt and the mess from climate-fuelled storms driven by the very gas drilling this bill would enable? We put it to him that every New Zealand taxpayer is an affected party, for the public will now hold increased liability for cleaning up oil companies' mess.'
Feldmeier says, 'This bill does nothing for New Zealand's energy security. We know that new oil drilling would take over a decade to come online, and the International Energy Agency tells us that global demand for oil, gas, and coal is on track to peak well before then. It doesn't have to be this way. The people of Aotearoa have a historic opportunity to move away from fossil fuels to a clean energy future powered by wind and solar, which would mean more affordable, cleaner and reliable energy for New Zealanders. Instead of fiscally irresponsible false solutions, the government should be focused on creating a long-term energy strategy that charts a path away from this broken, fossil-fuelled system that is responsible for rising energy poverty and workers losing their jobs.'
Fenton Lutunatabua, 350.org Pacific Interim Team Lead says, 'Instead of securing a safe future for all countries in the Pacific, the New Zealand government has decided to hammer nails into our coffins. Many will feel this bill is a betrayal to Pacific neighbours, but it is in fact a betrayal of their own future generations as well. We see the increased flooding in New Zealand, and we mirror that pain in our own storm surge and coastal inundation. How the Luxon government thinks that repealing the oil and gas ban is the right decision for any of our futures is absurd.'
Feldmeier says, 'This bill repealing the oil and gas ban has forced NZ out of the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance (BOGA) - an alliance that we were part of creating. Aotearoa once claimed to be a climate leader—today, we are an international embarrassment. Aotearoa helped build the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance. Today, we've walked out on our own future—and become an international embarrassment. If climate destruction were a crime, this Government would be caught red-handed.'
'The Government is also jeopardising fresh trade agreements with the UK and EU, for MFAT advice confirms that restarting oil and gas exploration likely breaches these agreements.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Govt forges ahead with foreshore and seabed change
Govt forges ahead with foreshore and seabed change

Otago Daily Times

time28 minutes ago

  • Otago Daily Times

Govt forges ahead with foreshore and seabed change

By Craig McCulloch of RNZ The government is forging ahead with plans to change the law governing New Zealand's foreshore and seabed, despite a Supreme Court ruling last year that appeared to undercut the rationale for the change. The proposed legislation stems from a clause in National's coalition deal with NZ First, which promised to revisit the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act. That commitment was driven by fears that a 2023 Court of Appeal decision could have made it significantly easier for Māori groups to win recognition of customary rights over parts of the coastline. The government introduced a bill to Parliament last year to prevent that, but it hit pause in December after the Supreme Court effectively overturned the earlier ruling. At the time, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith welcomed the development and said ministers would take time to reassess their plans. Today Goldsmith confirmed to RNZ that Cabinet had agreed to press ahead with the law change regardless, and to pass it before October. "Everybody in New Zealand has an interest in what goes on in the coastline, and we're trying our best to get that balance right." Goldsmith said he was not convinced that the Supreme Court ruling had set a high enough test for judging whether customary rights should be granted. "We've had a couple of cases that have been decided since then - which have shown almost 100 percent of the coastline and those areas being granted customary marine title - which confirmed to us that the Supreme Court test still didn't achieve the balance that we think the legislation set out to achieve." Asked whether he expected an upswell of protest, Goldsmith said that had been an earlier concern but: "time will tell". "There's been a wide variety of views, some in favour, some against, but we think this is the right thing to do." The legislation was one of the key objections raised by Ngāpuhi leaders last year when they walked out on a meeting with Prime Minister Christopher Luxon in protest. More than 200 applications for customary marine title are making their way through the courts. Under the amendment bill, any court decisions issued after 25 July 2024 will need to be reconsidered. That would appear to cover seven cases involving various iwi from around the country. "I understand their frustration over that," Goldsmith said. "But we believe it is very important to get this right, because it affects the whole of New Zealand." Goldsmith said the government had set aside about $15 million to cover the additional legal costs. The Marine and Coastal Area Act was originally passed by the National-led government in 2011, replacing the controversial Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004, which had extinguished Māori customary rights in favour of Crown ownership. The 2004 law - introduced by Helen Clark's Labour government - provoked widespread protest and led to the creation of the Māori Party, now known as Te Pāti Māori. National's 2011 replacement declared that no one owned the foreshore and seabed but allowed Māori groups to seek to recognition of their rights - or "Customary Marine Title" - through the courts or in direct negotiations with the Crown. Customary title recognises exclusive Māori rights to parts of the foreshore and seabed, provided certain legal tests are met, including proving continuous and "exclusive" use of the area since 1840 without substantial interruption. The 2023 Court of Appeal ruling, however, declared that groups only needed to show they had enough control over the area that they could keep others from using it, and that situations where the law itself had prevented them from doing so could be ignored. The Supreme Court subsequently overturned that, saying the Court of Appeal had taken an unduly narrow approach in its interpretation.

Govt going ahead with foreshore and seabed change
Govt going ahead with foreshore and seabed change

Otago Daily Times

time28 minutes ago

  • Otago Daily Times

Govt going ahead with foreshore and seabed change

By Craig McCulloch of RNZ The government is forging ahead with plans to change the law governing New Zealand's foreshore and seabed, despite a Supreme Court ruling last year that appeared to undercut the rationale for the change. The proposed legislation stems from a clause in National's coalition deal with NZ First, which promised to revisit the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act. That commitment was driven by fears that a 2023 Court of Appeal decision could have made it significantly easier for Māori groups to win recognition of customary rights over parts of the coastline. The government introduced a bill to Parliament last year to prevent that, but it hit pause in December after the Supreme Court effectively overturned the earlier ruling. At the time, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith welcomed the development and said ministers would take time to reassess their plans. Today Goldsmith confirmed to RNZ that Cabinet had agreed to press ahead with the law change regardless, and to pass it before October. "Everybody in New Zealand has an interest in what goes on in the coastline, and we're trying our best to get that balance right." Goldsmith said he was not convinced that the Supreme Court ruling had set a high enough test for judging whether customary rights should be granted. "We've had a couple of cases that have been decided since then - which have shown almost 100 percent of the coastline and those areas being granted customary marine title - which confirmed to us that the Supreme Court test still didn't achieve the balance that we think the legislation set out to achieve." Asked whether he expected an upswell of protest, Goldsmith said that had been an earlier concern but: "time will tell". "There's been a wide variety of views, some in favour, some against, but we think this is the right thing to do." The legislation was one of the key objections raised by Ngāpuhi leaders last year when they walked out on a meeting with Prime Minister Christopher Luxon in protest. More than 200 applications for customary marine title are making their way through the courts. Under the amendment bill, any court decisions issued after 25 July 2024 will need to be reconsidered. That would appear to cover seven cases involving various iwi from around the country. "I understand their frustration over that," Goldsmith said. "But we believe it is very important to get this right, because it affects the whole of New Zealand." Goldsmith said the government had set aside about $15 million to cover the additional legal costs. The Marine and Coastal Area Act was originally passed by the National-led government in 2011, replacing the controversial Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004, which had extinguished Māori customary rights in favour of Crown ownership. The 2004 law - introduced by Helen Clark's Labour government - provoked widespread protest and led to the creation of the Māori Party, now known as Te Pāti Māori. National's 2011 replacement declared that no one owned the foreshore and seabed but allowed Māori groups to seek to recognition of their rights - or "Customary Marine Title" - through the courts or in direct negotiations with the Crown. Customary title recognises exclusive Māori rights to parts of the foreshore and seabed, provided certain legal tests are met, including proving continuous and "exclusive" use of the area since 1840 without substantial interruption. The 2023 Court of Appeal ruling, however, declared that groups only needed to show they had enough control over the area that they could keep others from using it, and that situations where the law itself had prevented them from doing so could be ignored. The Supreme Court subsequently overturned that, saying the Court of Appeal had taken an unduly narrow approach in its interpretation.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store