Another hole in water tax bucket

Canterbury farmer and former National Minister and MP, Kate Wilkinson pokes another big hole in Labour’s water tax bucket:

This is my “office”. No cows. Actually no rivers. Actually no streams. I am a sheep/arable farmer – trying economically to keep cows off my farm. But…… the latest Labour Party policy to tax me over $8000 a year may force me to consider dairy grazing. Where is the sense in that??? PS I already pay for the privilege of accessing water at a rate of some $6000 plus per month whether or not I access water. AND I pay for water I actually use.

Image may contain: sky, outdoor and nature

This shows so clearly that the policy is based on emotion not facts, sentiment not science, politics not practicality.

We all want clean waterways.

The water tax won’t help improve water quality.

It will take money from farmers like Kate who aren’t even near a waterway.

It will take money from farmers who have been spending, and continue to spend, their own money ensuring they are doing everything possible to keep waterways clean.

It will use the money to take responsibility from those who aren’t doing what they should be.

One Response to Another hole in water tax bucket

  1. Mr E says:

    The water tax(es) are both stupid and clever at the same time.

    They are clever because they are appealing populist thinking.
    The brigade of:
    Anti- foreign business / investment
    Anti water interaction

    Jacinda clams “Our waters are dying and we have to do something about it.”

    So the plan is to take water from ‘industrial’ users of water and put it back to the Councils/Iwi for water improvements.

    Sounds great to populist thinkers. People who believe our water is dying,it’s heart is weakening, its lungs are giving out – only that is not what is happening.

    Our waters are not dying. That claim is dishonest. Monitoring shows us that 10 yrs trends are stable or improving for nearly every contaminant in nearly every region.

    Lets imagine for just a second that NZers want regulation to improve water quality. Which is also publically likely. Is it right to tax irrigators?

    Lets have a look at Canterbury as an example. The biggest irrigation region. Ecan has established rules that uses the nutrient model Overseer to restrict/limit farm intensification. Overseer treats irrigation farmers deferentially to non-irrigation . So what we have is irrigation farmers already being regulated to manage their water pollution at a differential rate to other farmers. So they are even – yes.

    And we are going to add another tax to that. That’s unfair. Stupid.

    NZers need to get their head around that water is not deteriorating. And they need to get their head around the fact irrigators are already deferentially regulated for pollution. A water tax is just populist thinking that might win votes but won’t help anything.

    I don’t think there is time for this mindset to change before the election.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: