Labour’s environment spokesman David Parker showed up yet more flaws in the party’s water tax policy on Q&A yesterday:
. . . No, look, you know, if there’s a cost of cleaning up our rivers, cos I think it’s your birthright and mine to be able to swim in our local river in summer, and for our kids to put their head under without getting crook, there’s a cost to that cleanup. As Nick Smith said last week, he thought that the cost for central government was going to be about $100 million per annum. Now, who should pay that? Should we tax pensioners? Or working people? Or should the farmers who are polluting make a contribution? . .
As a general rule, polluters should pay and farmers who pollute now do pay if successfully prosecuted by regional councils. Prosecutions can be not just for actual pollution but also for potential pollution from, for example, effluent spills which could reach waterways, even if they don’t.
But problems with waterways aren’t always the result of current practices, they’ve built up over years, even decades. It is unfair to tax all irrigators now for damage done in the past for which many wouldn’t have been responsible.
It is equally unfair to tax irrigators who aren’t contributing to pollution to clean up after those who are and to tax those in one area to repair damage done in another.
This tax isn’t going to be levied just on polluters it’s going to be levied on all irrigators no matter how good their farming practices and environmental stewardship are.
Then there’s the inconsistency of charging some commercial water users but not all:
. . . CORIN Here’s the thing – you’ve targeted farmers. But why are you giving an exemption to Coca Cola and various other businesses in the cities?
DAVID Well, what we’ve said is that domestic and stock water will never pay. We’re not interested in the municipal sources of water. You know, Coca Cola, they already pay a dollar per cubic metre or a dollar per thousand litres to the Auckland Council for the water they drew. We’re not going to charge them twice. . .
Good grief! Does he think irrigation water arrives at the farm gate for free?
To get water from the North Otago Irrigation Company (NOIC), farmers have to buy shares and pay a cost of about $
80 $800 per hectare per year. That covers the infrastructure and delivery costs, which are the same costs Coca Cola pays for council water.
If Labour isn’t going to charge Coca Cola twice, why is it going to charge farmers twice?
. . .CORIN But it does feel, there will be many in the farming sector who will be frustrated and feel they’re being singled out.
DAVID It is them who are polluting our rivers, so I don’t know how that’s unfair.
CORIN Well, they’re certainly a contributor.
DAVID Well, no. Let’s deal with one of the issues that Steven Joyce said. He said, ‘Look at the cities.’ You know, over the last decade, cities have improved their quality.
CORIN But they do pollute waterways as well.
DAVID Not nearly as much as they did in recent decades. And who’s paid for the cost of that cleanup? The people in the cities. They’ve paid for better sewerage treatment; the factories have cleaned up. And over those same decades, the rural sector rivers are getting worse. Now, who should pay? Should the polluter pay or should we tax pensioners? . .
It doesn’t matter how many times or different ways he says it. Problems have built up over decades and not all are caused by those irrigating now.
Most farmers have changed their practices to stop pollution, to repair damage and enhance waterways.
Labour’s policy won’t give them any credit for that, will charge all irrigators regardless of whether or not they are causing problems, and will tax farmers in one place to clean up water in another.
And not all the problems in rural rivers are caused by irrigation.
Water quality in Otago has been good so far this summer, Otago Regional Council (ORC) seasonal recreational water quality testing shows.
Three sites have had alert/amber warnings at certain times since the summer round of testing began at the beginning of December, but readings for those sites at other times and for all other sites have been considered safe for swimming. . .
This summer the Kakanui River at Clifton Falls Bridge is the only site to have its most recent reading in the amber/alert range, recording 510 parts of E. coli per 100ml of water on December 28.
ORC duty director Scott MacLean said there was a large colony of nesting gulls at the site, in rugged terrain, about 5km above the Clifton Falls bridge.
“Unfortunately, these nesting gull colonies are likely to continue to cause high E. coli concentrations in the upper Kakanui River, particularly during the breeding season.”
Other amber readings were recorded in the Taieri River at Outram on December 12 and 19, and in the Taieri River at Waipiata on December 15.
Mr MacLean said the Outram spikes were caused by high river flows on December 12 and heavy localised rainfall on December 19, and the Waipiata spike was caused by rising flows at the time of sampling, due to rainfall on December 12.
Readings at both sites had since fallen to the green band of fewer than 260 E. coli parts per 100ml of water, which was considered very safe for swimming, Mr MacLean said. . . .
Seagulls and heavy rain, not irrigation, caused spikes in pollution and the poor water quality after the rainfall lasted only a few days. Nature caused that problem and nature fixed it without any political interference or tax.
And not all councils have paid for better treatment.
The state of the Invercargill City Council’s stormwater system has been called a “dirty little secret” that has been allowed to exist for years.
Federated Farmers had a crack at both the city council and Environment Southland about the city’s stormwater system at a resource consent hearing on Thursday.
Federated Farmers executive David Rose, at the hearing, said: “It was a revelation to us, this dirty little secret in Invercargill hidden from Invercargill ratepayers, how rundown the stormwater system is”.
“The ratepayers of Invercargill are our cousins, our family and our friends. It’s a big shock to the farming community also.”
In the council’s own evidence, it accepts stormwater was contaminated with sewage, Rose said.
The council has applied to discharge water and contaminants from stormwater systems into surface water bodies and into open drains, for a term of 35 years.
A total of 147 discharge pipes draining to the Waikiwi Stream, Waihopai River, Otepuni Stream, Kingswell Creek and Clifton Channel are covered by the application.
But Environment Southland says the consent should be turned down, because receiving waters and the New River Estuary will be effected.
Environment Southland principal consents officer Stephen West’s report says, “With the known sewage contamination of the stormwater network, including the engineered overflow points, it is likely that the discharges will have more than minor adverse effect on the environment”.
Effects on water quality within the receiving waters and in the New River Estuary appeared to be more than minor, it says. . .
No farm would apply for consent which would allow it to pollute waterways for 35 years.
But there’s nothing to be gained by widening the rural-urban divide as Labour is attempting to.
We all want clean water.
That won’t be achieved by Labour’s policy which will raise issues around Maori ownership of water.
The most effective way of improving water quality on or near irrigated farms is for farmers to make changes on-farm and to invest in new technology. Labour’s policy takes money from productive uses like that and channels it through a bureaucracy. In doing so it takes responsibility and accountability away from farmers and worse provides a disincentive for them to make improvements to their practices.
So far the announcement has raised more questions than it answers:
“The Labour Party’s glib and misleading announcement this week about a new water tax was disappointing for all New Zealanders,” says IrrigationNZ Chief Executive, Andrew Curtis.
“Farmers are clear that a tax on irrigation would affect all New Zealanders through higher food prices but Labour has failed to address this, even though many of their voters cannot afford to pay more for groceries,” he says.
“We think the tax is inconsistent in treating water used for irrigation differently to other types of commercial water use and there are a range of complex issues associated with how it would be implemented which appear not to have been thought through at all,” he adds.
“Kiwis have a right to understand the tax before they vote.”
IrrigationNZ requests that Labour provides written answers to the questions below so that voters can understand the impact of this new tax on all New Zealanders.
“Labour – Let’s Answer This” – New Zealanders deserve answers on water tax!”
What is the impact of Labour’s water tax?
- How much tax will be charged per unit of water?
- Who will be charged?
- What impact will the tax have on price increases for food eg fruit, vegetables, meat, milk, beer, bread, wine, ice-cream, and how will poorer households afford price increases?
- How many jobs would be lost across New Zealand due to our food becoming unaffordable at home and not competitive internationally?
- How will a water tax enable local communities to implement solutions to their environmental issues?
How is Labour’s water tax fair?
- Who owns New Zealand’s water?
- Who will the tax be paid to?
- Why is it fair to tax some types of commercial water use and not tax others?
- Exporters already pay income tax – why should they pay twice?
- Why is Labour not going to introduce a sewage tax in town water supplies when the Our Freshwater 2017Report found that E.coli and nitrate-nitrogen concentrations are highest in urban catchments?
How is Labour’s water tax proposal workable?
- If the tax varies depending on water scarcity, water quality and weather conditions then how many different tax rates will there be?
- Which organisations have you consulted on the tax?
- Can Labour confirm that those affected by the tax will set the new tax level as suggested by the Leader?
- If tax payers have a different view to Labour will the tax payers’ view prevail?
How will Labour’s water tax address the impacts of climate change and existing investment?
- How will taxing water used to grow food increase New Zealand’s resilience to climate change?
- Over the last 5 years there has been $1.7 billion investment in modern efficient irrigation infrastructure – what impact will the tax have on this?
Honest answers to these questions would kill the policy, which is what it deserves for being so inconsistent and unfair.
Water quality is an issue all over the country, not just where there’s irrigation and it can be more of an issue when the water falls straight from the sky as rain than when it’s controlled through irrigators.
All farmers should, and most do, play an important role in improving the health of waterways.
Picking on just some of them with a tax will hinder the good work already being undertaken, provide a disincentive to do more and open a can of worms over water ownership.