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
2 hours ago
- RNZ News
Rats and mice to sort out: Parliament's tiny laws
Photo: VNP / Daniela Maoate-Cox The bills Parliament considers that are heavily reported by the media are generally the most contentious, the most impactful or the most far-reaching, with special emphasis on the most contentious. Bills that generate little animosity get little attention. Bills that will have scant impact receive scant love. And bills with a geographical reach that is negligible, get about that much coverage. As a result, it is easy to assume that all the things Parliament does are big and important. But sometimes Parliament manages the triple-whammy - a bill that everyone agrees on, which has negligible impact, and is also incredibly specific. So let's break with tradition look at it. This is especially true of two less common types of law: the unusual 'local bills' and the rare, and highly specific 'private bills'. These bills can be brought to the House for debate by any MP and each has a very specific impact. Local bills have a geographically specific impact, while private bills deal with a specific thing, an organisation, group, trust, charity, church, or even a specific person. The topics can be so unlikely that they might be accidentally mistaken for a lacklustre political spoof. On Wednesday for example, the House spent more than an hour on third reading speeches for a bill with an encompassing name - the Auckland Harbour Board and Takapuna Borough Council Empowering Act Amendment Bill, but that affected just one single building. It was not riveting stuff. The MP in charge was National's Simon Watts, who-whether intended ironically or not-rather grandly announced, "This is a moment we have all been waiting for". The bill had an admirable purpose - fixing an issue with the ongoing costs and rental income for a community asset; but why did such a local issue need to be debated and passed by the House? It was a fault of history. As always, history has a lot to answer for. The background for many modern local and private bills is very similar - fixing problems caused by historic legal drafting. Local organisations (including local government ones), are sometimes brought into being, empowered, or had constitutions enacted under specific legislation, written and passed by Parliament just for them. That includes many things like clubs, churches, amenities, and charities. Even patches of land or parks. That kind of empowering legislation used to be more common many decades ago, but does still happen. Unfortunately drafters are not prophetic seers, and the very specific rules and purposes included in these old laws inevitably cause issues over time. Now, when such an organisation wants to act outside its early restrictions they need Parliament to amend the original law. Let's consider this week's example. The 1923 Harbour Board etcetera law in question included stipulations for the use of a waterside property. Community activities like swimming and watersports were allowed but private gain was specifically outlawed. Just three years later, it became the Takapuna Boating Club but has since fallen into disrepair because it isn't able to raise money, for example from a café, to help cover maintenance costs. And so a new bill was required to carefully loosen those constraints. As Simon Watts noted during the debate: "It is important that while we preserve the community purpose, we don't pass a law that ends up being too restrictive in the future, meaning that another North Shore MP in a hundred years from now will have to come back and lament on the old laws that we're doing right now." That may all seem bizarrely specific and trivial, but it is, sadly, not unusual. Many local (and especially private) bills only exist to fix archaic legislation. In doing so they offer MPs a debate that is refreshingly amicable and without the usual layers of import and consequence. With so little at stake Parliament can be almost fun. This debate had MPs reminiscing about beach days, eulogising Sir Peter Blake and talking of plans to play Mahjong at the club. Simon Watts revealed his caucus referred to the bill as the "Takapuna Ice Cream Bill". Cameron Brewer suggested the bill's sponsor would get a weekend ticker tape parade through Takapuna's shopping thoroughfare. There were many oddities, but the highlight may have been ACT MP Simon Court enthusing like an awestruck fan over a dreamy possibility. "I would suggest to the member Mr Steve Abel, who spoke before, that on top of mahjong, there might even be a venue where he might be able to play some of his famous songs that he composed when he was a famous New Zealand folk singer." In the Speaker's chair, National's Barbara Kuriger chortled, "One never knows where one's endorsements might come from". The slightly breathless nature of the debate was helped along by the fact that National Party MPs seemed keen to make it last as long as possible, because they weren't in favour of some member's bills due to be debated afterwards. Governing party MPs get very little exercise in extemporising in the House about so very little. For example, Cameron Brewer's speech seemed to dawdle over every topic he could think of vaguely connected with the locality, including ice cream, cafés, local magazines and long-past America's Cups. He was not alone in the approach. When he finally concluded, Labour's Phil Twyford took the next call: "Well, the member Cameron Brewer did well to remain on his feet for nine minutes and 48 seconds, but it came at a terrible human cost. Those of us in the House this afternoon - we're the living evidence of that." *RNZ's The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk. Enjoy our articles or podcast at RNZ. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
3 hours ago
- RNZ News
Mobility parking permit holder Derek Cossey was incorrectly issued fines, revealing a bigger issue
By Tara Shaskey, Open Justice multimedia journalist of Derek Cossey has had one of his fines overturned, but has not received a response from Auckland Transport about a second one. Photo: Sylvie Whinray / NZME Derek Cossey has "old rugby player knees", which significantly limit his mobility. A small relief for the 67-year-old Onehunga man is his parking permit, which - when displayed in his vehicle - allows him to park in dedicated mobility spaces or for double the time shown on time-restricted carparks in Auckland's on-street parking areas. Recently, he has received two infringement notices from Auckland Transport (AT), because its new automatic number plate recognition technology, used for parking enforcement, does not recognise mobility permits. He is not alone. It is a "big issue" and one that "greatly concerns" CCS Disability Action, the primary provider of about 180,000 permits. BJ Clark of CCS Disability Action said other councils also used the technology and he had been contacted by up to 30 permitholders nationwide, who had been incorrectly fined. Clark said CCS was not consulted before AT launched the technology and the service was "desperately" trying to find a solution for its permitholders. AT has recognised the issue and said it was also trying to find a solution. For Cossey, the situation has been extremely frustrating. Last year, he received a fine by post for exceeding the displayed time restriction in an on-street carpark. However, his permit allowed him double the displayed time and he had moved on before that time was up. He managed to have the fine overturned, but said it was not easy. "It must have taken me 4-6 emails backwards and forwards to get them to quash the ticket. "On top of that, it was like they were reprimanding me and saying 'We'll do that in this instance'." Then he got another ticket in the same circumstances more recently. He has yet to have it overturned. Emails, seen by NZME, to Auckland Transport about the ticket went unanswered and the matter was referred to debt collection agency Baycorp. CCS Disability Action issues about 180,000 mobility parking permits nationwide. Photo: Sylvie Whinray / NZME Cossey had to explain the situation to Baycorp and hoped to get that issue resolved. "I've had to go through the wringer." He was concerned about AT's lack of communication in his case, saying he had asked what it was doing to resolve the parking permit issue, but had not received a response. "They never come back and say, 'Look, we're really sorry that this has happened. We didn't think about it in the first place, but we're trying to find a way around it'. None of that. "It's just ignorance. They're a law unto themselves, it's so frustrating to deal with them." Clark said AT launched the technology without consultation with CCS Disability Action. "The first thing we knew about it was when this problem started. It is a big issue and one that concerns us greatly. "I'm intrigued by how the council gets away with issuing a ticket to a person who is legitimately parked. It seems to me a little bit strange." The service has since met AT, but Clark said an agreeable solution had not yet been found. AT's solution of registering number plates against a permit was less than ideal, he said. Parking services group manager John Strawbridge said Auckland Transport was working on a solution to the mobility parking problem. Photo: Chris Gorman / NZME "That sounds like a good way to solve the issue, but from our point of view, it's not. "We issue a permit to a person, not a vehicle number plate, and we don't want people to be able to have more than one vehicle being permitted to use that one permit. "It opens up the system to abuse." Clark said registering vehicles could also pose a problem for older permitholders, who might not remember to use the right vehicles, if they had multiple registered vehicles. Permitholders visiting Auckland might not be recognised. "It restricts the ability for people to use the permit in the way that we give it out," Clark said. "That is, it shouldn't be controlled to one vehicle, it should be controlled to wherever that person is." The service made other suggestions to AT, like rolling out permits that a mounted device on the council's vehicles could scan, but Clark said that method would need to be developed and there were questions about who would bear the costs. "We are desperately trying to find a solution." AT, which launched the technology in 2019, recognised it was a "complicated situation". John Strawbridge, its group manager of parking services, said: "Our preference is to manage mobility spaces by a parking officer, on foot, so that they can sight whether a vehicle has a current mobility permit displayed. "Sometimes the permits are hard to spot. "However, our camera cars also issue fines to vehicles parked in a mobility spot, with or without a permit, as we do not have access to digital data on active permits." The issue was that the permit was for a person, not a vehicle, and the person could ride in multiple vehicles. "We know this isn't a great experience for mobility permitholders and we encourage anyone who has received a fine in error to contact us to see if it warrants being waived." Strawbridge said AT was working on a solution that would allow Auckland permitholders to apply for a digital permit through AT's Park app. The e-permit would enable people to add all vehicles they intended to use to the AT Park app and switch between them. AT has also sought access to the CCS database to confirm active permits. "Our proposed solution will address many of the challenges experienced by permitholders and, when it's ready to be rolled out, we will be reaching out to them to provide more information. "There may be some more improvements needed and we are committed to making continuous improvements." AT confirmed the first of Cossey's fines was waived, but maintained it had not received any correspondence from him on the second. However, after "a bit more digging", it found his emails. It said it would review the matter and respond directly to Cossey. -This story originally appeared in the New Zealand Herald .
RNZ News
4 hours ago
- RNZ News
US refuses to budge on 15 percent trade tariff imposed on NZ
Trade and Investment Minister Todd McClay says President Trump's 15 percent trade tariff on New Zealand will be harmful. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone Trade Minister Todd McClay has spoken with the United States trade representative to make the case against increased tariffs, but Jamieson Greer appears unlikely to budge. On Friday, the US announced a new 15 percent tariff on exporters , which McClay called a "blunt tool". Speaking to delegates at the National Party conference in Christchurch, McClay said he spoke to Greer on Saturday morning. "I made the case that it is not reasonable and it should not be happening to New Zealand, and it is going to be harmful for some of our exporters, and we would ask them to look at that and reconsider it," he said. However, Greer had made it clear that President Donald Trump had made a decision, if a country had a trade deficit with the United States, it would be hit with the 15 percent tariff, wherever they were. Top trade diplomat Vangelis Vitalis will travel to Washington on Sunday, while McClay intended visiting in coming weeks. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said New Zealand had underscored it did not believe tariffs were good for the world economy. "The reality is, as a small trading nation, our job is get out there and hustle, and create opportunities for New Zealand businesses," he said. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
