Butter Should Be Cheaper in New Zealand

In New Zealand, the land of dairy abundance, the price of butter has become a bitter pill for Kiwis to swallow. A 500g block now costs an arm and a leg, a staggering 46.5% increase in the year to June 2025 and a jaw-dropping 120% higher than a decade ago. The stats are even worse when you compare the April 2024 with April 2025 prices, a 65.3% increase. For a nation that produces a third of the world’s trade in dairy products, this is nothing short of scandalous.

The National-led coalition, under Chris Luxon and Finance Minister Nicola Willis, has failed to address the cost of living crisis, with the price of butter in particular an affront to household budgets, instead offering hollow platitudes and tax tricks while the ability of voters to purchase basic necessities worsens. It’s time to demand real relief, starting with making butter affordable again.


On August 6, Stuff reported:

 

Global butter prices have dropped by 3.7%, this is what it means for us

The Global Dairy Trade (GDT) revealed that butter prices had dropped 3.8%, but what does that mean for shoppers?

Butter prices are up around 47% annually in the past year according to Stats NZ, with the average price of 500g sitting upwards of $8.

A tub of butter worth a whopping $18.29 was even spotted at an Auckland supermarket in early July.

Brad Olsen, Chief Executive and Principal Economist of Infometrics, said butter prices dropped or held steady during the last three GDT auctions, declining around 8.6% since the second half of June.

So if global prices have fallen, will we start to see cheaper butter?

Nowhere, not immediately at least.

New Zealand’s dairy industry, led by Fonterra, is a global powerhouse, yet ordinary Kiwis are paying international prices or higher for a staple produced in their own backyard. Export parity pricing means we’re hostage to global market rates, driven by demand from China and the Middle East, despite our five million dairy cows grazing local pastures and polluting local rivers. We're paying a premium to ship our own dairy products abroad.

This system prioritises Fonterra’s yearly NZ$22.82 billion revenue over the needs of New Zealanders struggling to afford the basics.

Nicola Willis, whose past ties to Fonterra as a senior manager raises questions, has become conspicuously silent on challenging this dishonest pricing model. Her refusal to consider a fairer two-tiered system, where domestic consumers pay less than export markets, smacks of loyalty to corporate interests over constituents, and flies in the face of their pre-election promises.

Willis’ claim that supermarkets, not Fonterra, set retail prices dodges the core issue: a lack of competition in the grocery sector, dominated by Foodstuffs and Woolworths, allows unchecked margins to inflate costs further. But all we get from the coalition of chaos is promises of doing something, not any real quantifiable action.

The National-led coalition’s broader economic mismanagement has only worsened the cost-of-living crisis. Luxon’s repetitive mantra, “people are doing it tough,” rings hollow when paired with policies that fail to deliver any tangible relief. Two-thirds of New Zealanders, according to ConsumerNZ, have low confidence in this government’s ability to tackle the affordability of basic necessities...and they're not wrong.

Removing GST from dairy, as some have suggested, was dismissed by Willis due to a supposed $3.3bn–$3.9bn revenue hit, an excuse that prioritises fiscal optics over struggling families, struggling families that will still spend any savings from cheaper butter on other basic necessities. In effect there's no net loss for the government in making butter prices cheaper for consumers, raising a valid question about whom exactly Nicola Willis serves?

The coalition’s tax cuts, touted as relief, have done nothing for low-income households facing skyrocketing prices for essentials like butter, which isn't just a spread but a cultural staple in Kiwi baking and cooking.

In a country that produces enough food to feed 40 million people, no one should be going hungry. Yet 500,000 New Zealanders are accessing food banks or food support services each month, indicating a complete failure by the current system to distribute the nations wealth equitably. Impoverished kids, people the Prime Minister views as "bottom feeders," cannot simply make a Marmite sandwich when their school lunches are inedible if there's no butter in the house, Mr Luxon.

Small businesses, like Kayes Bakery in Southland, are being crushed, forced to import cheaper Australian butter or raise prices, risking declining revenues and closure. This irony, importing butter into a dairy nation, highlights the absurdity of the status quo, and the absurdity of National's neoliberal policies that ensure many New Zealanders miss out.

Consumers are resorting to desperate measures, from driving hours to Costco to churning butter at home, reflecting a deep frustration with a system that feels entirely rigged.

Then there's the environmental cost of intensive dairy farming (polluted rivers, cancer causing aquifers and increased climate emissions) adding insult to injury, as Kiwis pay a premium while bearing the ecological fallout and costs.

The high butter prices aren't helping to pay for the cleanup. Instead, they're effectively subsidising the dairy industry’s massive profits and increased farmer payouts, which aren’t being spent in the struggling economy. Instead, much of these profits service debt, which only enriches foreign-owned banks.

Luxon’s rhetoric and Willis’s inaction are emblematic of a government out of touch with ordinary New Zealanders. We need bold action: regulate supermarket margins, explore domestic price controls, remove GST off of essential items and challenge Fonterra’s export-driven model that is turning New Zealand into a wasteland, all while providing dairy products only the wealthy and sorted can afford.

Willis’s Fonterra connections demand scrutiny...her reluctance to confront the dairy giant suggests a conflict of interest that undermines public trust. But the crux of the matter is that butter should be cheaper in New Zealand, not just for affordability but as a matter of fairness in a dairy-rich nation.

Butter Economics: The Great Kiwi Rip-Off Exposed

The dairy industry's spin machine has been working overtime lately, desperately trying to convince New Zealanders that paying through the nose for butter is somehow good for us.

Media personalities like Ryan Bridge and industry apologists such as Dr Jacqueline Rowarth have been peddling this economic fairy tale with all the enthusiasm of a Fonterra shareholder.

Their argument essentially boils down to this: high butter prices mean more export revenue, which creates jobs and drives economic growth. Bridge claims that because New Zealand exports 441 tonnes of butter compared to Australia's 9.4 tonnes, we're simply "more susceptible to international market prices."

Meanwhile, Rowarth touts the magical multiplier effect, claiming every dairy dollar generates seven times its value in the economy and creates over eight full-time equivalent positions. 

But scratch beneath the surface of these cherry-picked statistics, and you'll find an economic model that's fundamentally broken for ordinary New Zealanders.
 

Yesterday, the NZ Herald reported:

Dairy exports vital for NZ economy despite butter price concerns: Dr Jacqueline Rowarth

A considerable amount of time and energy is spent marketing and positioning to achieve the best price possible for the product.

The money keeps people in employment, funds repairs, maintenance and infrastructure development, and also funds research into new products.

The bulk of the export income goes to the dairy farmers so that they, too, can employ people and create vibrant businesses, while also funding farm research through their levy contribution to industry good bodies such as DairyNZ and Beef + Lamb NZ.

The most damning evidence against the "high prices are good" narrative is the stark reality of food insecurity, a travesty in a country that produces enough food to feed 40 million people. 

Research shows that economic changes since the 1980s, combined with global dairy demand, have created an environment where a significant proportion of New Zealanders now experience financial difficulty purchasing basic dairy products like milk. 

When butter prices surge 65.3% in twelve months, jumping from $4.48 to $6.67 for a 500-gram block, we're witnessing the export success model pricing out locals from their own food production.

 

The income streams give everybody more choice, including the Government through tax-take investment.

Every dairy dollar created by New Zealand cows and sold offshore generates over seven times the value in New Zealand and increases employment by over eight Full Time Equivalent positions.

The $27 billion in export dollars is $5400 for every New Zealander, which multiplied by seven is almost $40,000.

The claimed seven-times multiplier effect that Rowarth champions lacks any credible verification and sounds like more trickle down economics rubbish! If dairy's $18.6 billion export value truly generated seven times its worth, it would represent over 35% of New Zealand's GDP. It obviously doesn't. In reality, dairy represents 5.3% of nominal GDP and 23% of total export values, which is somewhat impressive, but hardly the economic miracle being portrayed.

What Bridge and Rowarth conveniently ignore is the regressive nature of high food prices. A 65% butter price increase represents a devastating blow to lower-income households who spend a higher percentage of their income on food. We're essentially witnessing a wealth transfer from consumers, often those who can least afford it, to dairy industry stakeholders and shareholders.


Last month, Newztalk ZB reported:

Ryan Bridge: Why expensive butter prices are actually a good thing

1) We export a hell of a lot more to the world than the Aussies do.

In 2023, they exported 9.4 tonnes. We exported 441 tonnes. They exported 2% of the quantity we did.

That means our price is more susceptible to the international market price. We export most of our butter, we pay the international price.

Australia on the other hand, eats a lot more of its own and exports less.

This is good and bad. It mean we pay the trade price, yes, but it also means when the price is high, as it has been lately, our largest company Fonterra does well. Our farmers do well. They spend money here and drive growth in our economy which we all benefit from.

The environmental costs of this export-obsessed model are equally damning and largely subsidised by the public. Since 1990, nitrogen fertiliser use, often sourced from questionable providers, has increased by 629%, from 62,000 to 452,000 tonnes annually. The result? Two-thirds of monitored rivers and streams now suffer from impaired ecological health. About 85% of waterways in farming catchments are now polluted, with some areas seeing sensitive species disappearing entirely because of pollution from dairy farms.

The true cost of producing a litre of milk can reach up to 11,000 litres of water when accounting for nitrate pollution impacts. Meanwhile, 40% of New Zealanders rely on groundwater for drinking water, with nitrate contamination worsening in many aquifers. These environmental and health costs, from water treatment to ecosystem restoration to cancer treatments (consumption of nitrate in drinking water is associated with several cancers), are borne by New Zealand taxpayers, not the dairy industry.

The employment argument also falls apart under scrutiny when we consider opportunity costs. Could the same land, capital, and labour create more jobs or higher wages in other sectors? The industry presents their employment figures without comparative analysis, ignoring what economists call the "opportunity cost" of resources tied up in dairy production.

How do we stage an intervention? Someone posted today that NZ butter is as low as $3 in some paces in Australia. Can we organise a butter protest? 😅😭 pic.twitter.com/S5ehKVsTrc

— Don't be a dick 🐦 (@fizzanddumpling) April 28, 2025

Perhaps most galling is the disconnect between domestic and export markets. While New Zealand dairy products command premium prices internationally for being "grass-fed" and "sustainable," Kiwi families are forced to pay international prices for locally produced essentials. This suggests fundamental market failure where domestic consumers subsidise export profits.

The reality is that the dairy industry's argument represents a classic case of privatising profits while socialising costs. Export success benefits shareholders and industry stakeholders while ordinary New Zealanders face food insecurity and environmental degradation. A truly beneficial economic model would balance export success with domestic affordability, ensuring New Zealanders aren't priced out of their own country's food production.

Bridge's comparison with Australian gas contracts is particularly revealing, acknowledging that producers often prioritise large international contracts over domestic needs. This isn't a bug in the system; it's a feature. The question is whether New Zealand's economic model should prioritise export revenue over the basic nutritional needs of its own citizens.

The dairy industry's propaganda machine wants us to believe that expensive butter is a sign of economic success. In reality, it's a symptom of an economic model that has lost sight of its primary purpose: serving the people of New Zealand, not just the balance sheets of multinational corporations.

Government must ban synthetic fertilisers

ECan’s science director Dr Tim Davie

Now I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the use of synthetic fertilisers on farms is polluting our water supplies. In fact the problem has become so bad that in some areas high levels of nitrates have made the water carcinogenic to drink.

But what’s even worse is that the regional councils tasked with keeping people safe by monitoring the levels of pollution in our water are fudging the stats in order to try and hide the true extent of the problem.

They are in effect placing the profits from intensive farming ahead of the health and wellbeing of the general population, which is of course an entirely unacceptable thing for duly elected officials to do.

Yesterday, Newsroom reported:

‘Tricky’ council masks nitrate effect, Mike Joy says

Environment Canterbury is ignoring its own data to cover-up nitrate pollution, freshwater ecologist Dr Mike Joy says. It’s a claim the regional council rejects.

Last Friday, ECan, as it’s known, released its annual groundwater quality survey, which showed that between 2011 and 2020, 47 percent of wells (118) had either likely increasing or very likely increasing nitrate-nitrogen concentrations.

This is important because high nitrate in groundwater can pose health risks to people drinking it. When it flows through to waterways and lakes it can kill fish, and cause excessive weed growth and algal blooms.

Intensive farming is one of the main reasons why New Zealand has such polluted waterways. It’s also why we have such high levels of colorectal cancer, because nitrate pollution has been shown to be carcinogenic to human beings.

So you can understand why certain people, including councils that are predominated by old white farmers, would want to downplay or cover-up this kind of information.

Some ECan well records stretch back to 1989 but the data are not used. In that way, Joy says, the “snapshot” survey uses “tricky stats”.

When he ran the numbers on ECan’s groundwater data two years ago, he found the trends for degraded wells were more pronounced than were being reported, at about two-thirds.

“They’re doing everything they can to gild the lily,” Joy says. “And if they were to stop that, and actually use the full-time record, and not try to do this ‘just 10 years’ bit, then they would actually get some truth around what’s happening.”

(The ECan report also notes its trends differ from those on the Land, Air, Water Aotearoa website because it uses different time periods and sampling frequencies. “It’s the same data,” Joy says with bewilderment. “LAWA isn’t a separate body that collects its own data, it’s a housing point for regional council data.”)

The Canterbury Regional Council can therefore not be trusted to factually report on the true extent of the problem, and like most councils, have been caught using selective data in order to try and hide what is a major environmental and health catastrophe for New Zealand.

This isn’t just a problem in terms of polluted groundwater either; it’s a legal liability issue as well. Because without accurate data showing exactly how polluted the water has become, proving that synthetic fertilisers are the cause of people’s ill health is even more difficult.

A Danish study published in the International Journal of Cancer three years ago, which followed 2.7 million people over 23 years, found increased risk of colorectal cancer for those exposed to high nitrate concentrations.

New Zealand has one of the highest rates of bowel cancer in the world.

Environmental groups in this country are using the Danish study to call for a 1 milligram per litre limit for nitrate in waterways. (The study, which suggests a threshold of 0.87mg/L for nitrate nitrogen, found a statistically significant increased risk above 3.87mg/L.)

The World Health Organisation (WHO) drinking water standard is 11.3mg/L, adopted as this country’s maximum acceptable value, after which bottle-fed babies are at an increased risk of blue baby syndrome.

In my opinion, the New Zealand Government should listen to the latest science on this issue and adopt a 0.87mg/L nitrate limit. This will of course render most of our aquifers unusable for tap water. But that’s a better price to pay than having numerous people suffering from ill health from pollution that is costing millions if not billions of taxpayer dollars each year to treat.

Clearly clean drinking water should be a fundamental human right and farmers should be the ones to pay for taking it away. But instead of realising that they’re legally liable for polluting our water and causing people cancer, the farmers are continuing to use synthetic fertilisers like there's no tomorrow.

Greenpeace has recently run nitrate testing in various parts of rural Canterbury, at which 450 samples have been tested, and in Southland. Abel, who has attended the testing, says people shouldn’t be left wondering.

“People trust the health limit is 11.3mg/L, that if they’re under that limit then, so far as the official word is, they’re avoiding health risk. The emerging science tells us something very different to that.”

ECan says it contacted the owners of all wells with concentrations over 11.3mg/L. (The highest recorded concentration was 22mg/L.) Most are not used for drinking water, groundwater science manager Carl Hanson said last week. Some owners have installed filters, others have replace their wells.

…

“The authorities need to stop worrying about covering their arses and think about their first obligation,” Abel says, “which is to make sure that the public are properly informed and advised of the potential health risks.”

He adds: “They need to face up to the fact that what we’ve done with 30 years of a near seven-fold increase in synthetic nitrogen fertiliser use and a doubling of the dairy herd, is we are in the process of turning people’s drinking water carcinogenic.”

The aquifers will remain polluted though, perhaps for thousands if not millions of years. That’s why it’s imperative that synthetic fertilisers aren’t allowed to pollute the few remaining untainted groundwater supplies we have left in New Zealand, or continue to make the situation worse in aquifers that have already been polluted.

The only way to effectively do that is for the Government to place a total ban on the use of synthetic fertilisers. Because without a ban, the farmers and councils will assuredly continue to place profits ahead of people's health and wellbeing, which is something that must not be allowed to continue indefinitely.

Winston Peters hijacks National's protest

There was a lot of anticipation surrounding a farmer’s protest in Morrinsville yesterday, a protest over Labour’s proposed levy of 1 to 2 cents per 1000 litres of water used for irrigation.

Federated Farmers and Dairy NZ in particular have been campaigning strongly for the National party this election, and trying to rally the rural troops against any water levy or pollution tax, often by pitting town against country.

You could tell Labour was a bit worried about what a protest of this nature could signify, because a similar protest in 2002 gained the nations attention and solidified many farmers against Helen Clark's government.

New Labour leader Jacinda Ardern even held a meeting in Hamilton to front foot the issue.

On Sunday, the NZ Herald reported:

Jacinda Ardern takes proactive stance on planned Waikato farmer protest

Labour leader Jacinda Ardern has taken a pre-emptive strike against Waikato farmers planning a protest meeting tomorrow, saying Waikato rivers are among the worst polluted.

Ardern has been criticised for policies targeting the primary sector such as water charges to pay for river cleanups and bringing agriculture into the Emissions Trading Scheme.

Speaking at a campaign rally in Hamilton, Ardern was unrepentant, saying New Zealand had to ensure its environment was as clean and green as it claimed.

Back in the day when farmers could work their way into farm ownership, National MP Bill English campaigned for the agriculture sector by sitting on a tractor outside Parliament buildings and displaying a sign that read; ‘The mad cow shouldn’t have signed’.

The offensive message was in relation to Labour agreeing to reduce New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions, which in hindsight and considering the devastation climate change is causing around the world, looks even more unbecoming today.

National's recent attempt to reignite their negative fart tax campaign is similarly repugnant. All it tells us is that English is pining for the past.

Fast forward to 2017 and the tractor Myrtle he posed on is still the centre of attention. But it didn’t take long for the wheels to fall off National’s much vaunted Morrinsville protest.

The first signs of a malfunction occurred when farmers held up more signs clearly designed to cause offence. Verbal arguments ensued between National and NZ First supporters.

Then, after Bob Appleton drove Myrtle the tractor at a group of NZ First supporters, catching one on the foot, the unthinkable happened... Winston Peters grabbed the loud hailer and stole National’s fart tax thunder.

ELECTION'17NEWS:@winstonpeters Hijacks Farmer Morrinsville Protest & NZF Waikato candidate StuHusband has foot run over by TractorMyrtle😂😂😂 pic.twitter.com/Fp63yV0BmJ

— NZ ELECTION2017 NEWS (@nzgeoffbooth) September 18, 2017

Some news agencies put the protest numbers at 500 to 600 people, most of them close to retirement. Others who attended said there were around 200 to 300 people, many of them NZ First supporters.

This is extraordinary being that the event received widespread advertisement on both our main broadcasting networks as well as a number of widely read publications.

The main reason National's protest failed to fire is because English overcooked the issue.

On Sunday, Scoop reported:

Q+A: Bill English

I mean, there is one answer – slaughter the dairy herd. I suppose that would help. Then next thing they’ll be talking about how to depopulate cities because they cause pollution. Well, that doesn’t make sense.

Because of his apocalyptic statement the Prime Minister continues to be the butt of many a fine joke. In fact he’s looking decidedly isolated because of National’s pro-pollution position.

One of the reasons for a low turnout at National’s protest is because the Labour party has always held rural communities and the industries that make them tick in high regard. It’s arguable that Labour under Helen Clark did more for farmers than the National party ever has, particularly in regards to tax reform and trade agreements.

English looks terribly foolish by trying to convince farmers that their businesses won't be viable if Jacinda Ardern and Labour win the election. Over-inflating the proposed levy and running negative attack adds about a fart tax simply doesn’t wash in a world where information on the actual numbers and Labour's policy is freely available online.

Who exactly is National trying to convince with such adverts anyway?

After nine long years of stagnation many rural communities will be looking for better environmental and economic solutions. In the last few days it’s become even more apparent that only a change of government will provide them.

Farmers shouldn’t fear the Greens

The Green party often comes up with policy solutions that the two main parties end up adopting. In fact they’ve been a very politically influential party on the cross-benches, helping government’s develop and implement good social and environmental ideas into workable solutions.

Their Clean water, great farming (PDF) policy is no different, and will likely be embraced by the next National (to a degree) or Labour led government, even if the Green’s aren’t a part of it. In this way the Green's have been the most effective opposition party in New Zealand's short political history.

On Saturday, Stuff reported:

Greens to tax pollution to help fund sustainable farming

The Greens are promising a tax on pollution, set to raise $135 million to be reinvested back into sustainable farming.

Green Party leader James Shaw said the policy would introduce a nitrate pollution levy charged on dairy farmers who "continued to pollute our soils and waters".

"There's no point spending money cleaning up rivers if you don't look at what's making them dirty in the first place," Shaw said on Saturday.

Shaw said the revenue from the levy on nitrate pollution from agriculture would raise about $136.5m a year, starting with intensive dairying, and would fund a package of "game-changing support measures" farmers could use to reduce their impact on the environment.

This is a fantastic and practical policy that will actually help farmers pay for things like riparian planting and other measures to reduce nitrates entering our waterways.

By rolling the policy out over a number of years the government could boost farmers who are already working towards sustainable farming practices.

In fact the farmers who are reducing their pollution levels now will be rewarded under the Greens’ scheme.

The levy would initially be set at $2 per kilogram of nitrate that was lost to land and water per hectare of farm, per year. Initially, the levy would apply only to dairy farms but a "fair pollution levy" would be extended to all forms of agriculture and horticulture over time.

"Dairy intensification over the last three decades is directly linked to rapidly declining water quality," Shaw said.

In other measures, the Greens would extend the Sustainable Farming Fund with an extra $20m a year and invest $210m over three years to create a Transformational Farming Partnership Fund, to focus on issues such as farming for clean water and adapting to climate change.

The party also promised to increase funding to the Landcare Trust to $16m over three years, reward tree planting by farmers and landowners, allow accelerated depreciation on dairy farm equipment to help farmers free up capital, and support organic farming through a new national certification scheme with new funding of $5m a year.

As well as being good for the environment, this policy looks set to help add value to our dairying sector. The world is crying out for organic products, which gain a premium price wherever they're sold.

Of course the largest lobbying group for farmers has opposed any type of restriction on nitrates from entering our waterways.

On Saturday, Radio NZ reported:

Farmers reject Greens' farming-pollution policy

Federated Farmers has slammed a Green Party plan to put a levy on nitrate pollution from dairy farming, saying it would actually cost the environment.

Federated Farmers vice president Andrew Hoggard said the idea was "unfair", "full of holes" and likely to actually cost the environment.

"They also come from other types of farming and they also come from urban sewage treatment plants. So if we're going to be fair about this than you've got to tax all of those, not just tax one sector of society.

I don’t see a problem with starting at the top first. Intensive dairying is by far the worst polluter, and should help pay to clean up the environmental damage they're causing.

It seems as though Hoggard didn’t actually read the policy release properly, because the levy would eventually be extended to all forms of agriculture and horticulture.

Furthermore, urban sewage plants treat their waste in a process that reduces environmental impacts. Invariably, people pay for that waste through their rates, so what is Hoggard talking about? It’s the leaching of nitrates directly into waterways that needs to be addressed.

Mr Hoggard said DairyNZ and others already offered research and expertise, and no government fund would be able to give better advice.

The levy isn’t just about advice… it’s about remedial measures to actually reduce pollution.

"Farmers are actually doing a hell of a lot in this space already, we're already doing quite a bit of work on this and if we're just going to be taxed for it, it's going to take away money which we would otherwise have spent on the environment and quite frankly I think they'd probably end up spending most of the revenue they get on policing it."

He said by his calculations it would cost his farm $12,000 a year, which could be spent on solutions.

What is Hoggard talking about? The money raised will go towards solutions, like making our waterways swimmable again by giving farmers a financial incentive to reduce pollution.

The problem for National is small farm holders will actually benefit from this policy. Most farmers will have additional funds available and any development to reduce pollution they undertake will likely increase their properties value.

A majority of farmers, especially those who adopt the scheme early, will reap the rewards of becoming more eco friendly businesses.

Most farmers have nothing to fear from the Greens' clean water policy. It’s large-scale intensive dairying that is being targeted with this great Green party initiative.

National would tax water as well

Politics is a strange beast… it requires people to attack others over what they believe, usually because they think it's the best course of action to promote their party. Often those beliefs are founded on a real desire to make people’s lives better, and sometimes those beliefs are founded on a sense of entitlement.

That seems to be the case with the water debate, where the National party has openly criticised the Labour party for proposing a small charge of 2 cents per 1000 litres for irrigation. National has made their attacks public because much of their support comes from the farming community, one of the largest users of water for irrigation in the country.

However National's position on taxing water is entirely false.

Today, Politik reported:

National working behind closed doors on its own water pricing plans

The Government has had its officials working behind closed doors for some time now on proposals to put a price on water.

This is despite its loud opposition to Labour’s proposals to do exactly that.

The Ministry for Environment's Technical Advisory Group's (TAG) investigation into how to allocate water is supposed to complete the latest phase of its work in November – safely after the election.

The group is chaired by former Labour Minister, David Caygill, who didn’t want to comment last night on the progress the group is making.

And Environment Minister Nick Smith has not responded to a number of requests for comment.

Typical response by National politicians when the questions are hard is to ignore them.

But in March Prime Minister Bill English referred to the possibility of putting a price on bottled water for export to the group.

Since then nothing has been heard from them.

But their terms of reference specifically ask them to consider “pricing mechanisms to improve efficiency” in the allocation of water more generally.

However English has been sceptical about this arguing that it would be too hard because of the likelihood of Maori claims once a price was out on water thereby implying ownership.

There’s no question that the National party, if re-elected, will put a price on water for irrigation. Of course their announcement of a water tax would be well managed as to not incite the farmers against them.

The problem for the National party is that they’ve been caught out attacking a policy they're developing in secret themselves. While they criticise Labour for proposing a small fee for using a common resource, who knows how much the National party would charge? They will effectively have carte blanche for putting a tax on water if re-elected.

Combine this prospect with the fact that National have been highly secretive about developing a tax on water and they could be losing core supporters over such duplicitousness.

Farmers and other large users of our water resources clearly want a firm policy and what they can expect from each political party… not back room deals that will likely result in businesses paying far more than what the Labour party is currently proposing.

A vote for National is a vote for a tax on water; they’re just not being honest about it.

One woman vs Shell

One woman is squaring up to Shell. Stand with her.

http://amn.st/60058ouD3

Nigeria’s Esther Kiobel is taking on one of the world’s biggest oil companies – Shell – in a final fight for justice over her husband’s killing. She’s pursued them for 22 years, accusing Shell of colluding in her husband’s 1995 execution.

Shell’s quest for oil has devastated the once fertile land in the Niger Delta. Communities have been left destitute from decades of pollution. Oil spills have ravaged farmland and rivers, contaminating their water and putting their health at grave risk. In the 1990s, Shell seemingly would stop at nothing to make sure they were turning a profit. The company urged Nigeria’s military government to deal with environmental protests – knowing full well what that could mean. The military killed and tortured people in a brutal crackdown that culminated in the 1995 sham trial and hanging of nine Nigerian men, including Esther’s husband, Dr Barinem Kiobel.

Losing her husband tore Esther’s world apart. Fearing for her life, she fled Nigeria with her children. She never stopped struggling to have her husband’s name cleared.

This month, Esther is taking Shell to court in the Netherlands in what will be a tense David vs Goliath face-off. Shell wants to belittle her claims and keep her complaints out of the public eye. But Esther won’t let them make her feel small. Neither should we.

Tell Shell you’re with Esther.

Send us your message and we will make sure Shell gets it – and that Esther knows you’re standing with her.

Marlborough's water woes

You would expect New Zealand, with its unparalleled natural resources, to have some of the best water supplied to households in the developed world.

However because of bad planning, a lack of development, lacklustre testing and infrastructure that is seldom properly maintained, our tap water throughout the country is often too contaminated to drink.

That appears to be the case in Seddon, where they’ve even managed to cultivate a new type of super algae.

Yesterday, the Marlborough Express reported:

New algae in Seddon stream survives without sunlight

The algae clouding Seddon's water has never before been found in the stream where the town sources its drinking supply.

Small, brown bits of algae have plagued the town's water for the past month, and Marlborough District Council scientists say the algae strain is a new discovery in the Black Birch Stream.

The outbreak is the first of its kind to affect the town's water, and has been clogging up pipes and blocking water filters.

This might seem like a small issue, but a new strain of algae that can survive where others previously haven’t has huge implications for New Zealand, especially if it migrates to other waterways.

The supply did not provide clean filtration for households, and a boil water notice was in place for the township.

The chemical composition of the stream had changed since the November earthquake, with a rise in alkalinity noted by council scientists.

"That change may be encouraging or making the water more favourable for this type of algae," Rooney said.

It remained to be seen how the algae strain was introduced to the stream, Rooney said.

The council maintained there were no health concerns with the algae.

There are no health concerns but there’s a boil water notice? This contradiction is ridiculous and just goes to show how inept most council’s are at dealing with polluted water supplies.

So what exactly is the Marlborough District Council doing to contain this new algae strain?

The algae was an inconvenience to people and the council was working to remove the organism from the water supply, Rooney said.

Machinery to deepen the stream's intake pipe would be at the site within the next fortnight. It was hoped this would prevent the algae from entering the water, Rooney said.

Hope isn’t a word I like to see when it comes to construction techniques to try and eradicate biological invasions.

The council really should be looking at other sources of contamination for this type of problem… because without knowing the exact cause, the Marlborough District Council cannot really hope to fully eradicate the new type of algae.

When pipi beds, mussel and ouster farms are having to close all over New Zealand because of similar water contamination and parasite problems, you would expect authorities to be doing something substantial to ensure these industries survived. Unfortunately that doesn't appear to be the case.

Perhaps the National led government just doesn't give a damn about our waterways and the industries that rely on them?

National useless on used tyres

You may have noticed that one of the biggest National party procrastinators of all time about environmental issues is Nick bloody Smith. Not only has this bullshit artist been the government’s propagandist when it comes to the housing crisis, the bad excuse for an environment minister is also the go to guy when it comes to our highly polluted waterways.

In election year it’s no surprise that the bold faced liar Smith is once again trumpeting National’s (non-existent) plan concerning the growing problem of what to do with all those used tyres.

On Saturday, Stuff reported:

NZ's tyre mountains keep growing in the absence of recycling scheme

Every year, New Zealand creates 5 million waste tyres, and every year 70 per cent of them end up in landfill, or unaccounted for. Ged Cann looks at why Kiwis are so bad at recycling tyres, and the fire and environmental risks that creates.

They're dotted around the country.

Pockets of land that house mountains of old, unwanted car and truck tyres. And the longer these millions of tyres lie there, the more dangerous they become, posing environmental and fire risks.

A plan to tackle the issue of waste tyres is slowly gathering pace, all while the pile of tyres grows.

Slowly being the operative word there. In fact glacial or non-existent might be better ways to describe the National led government’s lack of action.

With every year that passes without a comprehensive recycling regime, tens of millions of landfill or improperly stored tyres degrade so much that they can no longer be recycled, according to a key player in the industry.

Two years ago Environment Minister Nick Smith opened applications for funding grants to help companies find a viable solution, but he is still unable to give specifics of what recycling schemes might look like, or even when they might begin.

"Commercial negotiations are under way with grant applicants, and you can never be absolutely sure when agreement will be reached. Our best estimate is in the next two months," he said.

Two months eh? If you believe that I have a used car you might be interested in.

Contrary to Smith's rhetoric the Product Stewardship Foundation started working on their plan to recycle end of life tyres way back in 2011. Consultation happened during 2012 and implementation for a way to recycle the growing problem of waste tyres was meant to have started in 2013.

So how many years does a National led government need before they actually do something about all those used tyres?

The Ministry for the Environment released the Waste Tyres Economic Research report in 2014, revealing the sheer scale of the problem. Since then the number of vehicles on our roads has only increased.

The same report said investment in recycling is hampered by a limited market for recycled tyre products, and a lack of scale and funding.

What makes this all the worse is that National actively dismantled a plan that was meant to have started recycling used tyres in 2013 and then another in 2015. What a pack of dumb shits!

Its pretty obvious the mealy-mouthed Nick Smith doesn’t give a rat’s arse about protecting the environment. The current government is simply too busy trying to convince gullible reporters and the public that they’re doing something about the numerous environmental problems in New Zealand rather than actually working towards reducing pollution.

It will be a cold day in hell before a National led government implements any type of proper measures to reduce the amount of pollution going into our waterways. The used tyre issue is just one of many examples showing the only thing National really cares about is money and being re-elected.

Clean water is a simple issue

Yesterday, Stuff reported:

People need to understand that clean water is a complex issue, says Bill English

The prime minister says people have "high expectations" for clean waterways, but need to understand the complexity of the problem.

Bill English made the comments during a visit to meet constituents in Manawatu.

English said there was "quite high community expectations" for standards of waterways, but there were difficult long-term issues to be dealt with.

I really don’t accept Bill English's excuses. The issue of polluted waterways isn’t really that complex at all. If you pollute waterways they will be polluted. Simple!

The problems arise because there are so many polluters making vast amounts of money from environmental degradation and no real foresight or proper financial investment by the government. Certainly not enough to undo any of the damage the many decades of polluting our waterways has caused.

English said people also needed to be aware of the "size and complexity" of the task.

It’s about as complex as having less cows shitting in the water. Of course initiatives like proper fencing away from waterways can actually save farmers some cash. The loss of a cow worth $1500 in a waterway is equivalent to the cost of fencing approximately 650 metres of stream for instance.

However apart from a bit of farmer’s initiative and a small amount of token government and council funding, riparian planting isn’t anywhere near what it needs to be. So how complex exactly is planting some trees Bill English?

It is a topical issue for Manawatu, with Horizons Regional Council recently found to not be enforcing water quality regulations properly.

But English played down the recent Environment Court case. "I'm not surprised that regional councils run into some roadblocks. There are others round the country and most of them have found this pretty challenging."

English said he still had faith in councils to do their jobs. "It is important [regional councils] get the support."

The government throwing their hands up in the air and going "the issue is too complex" is just a cop-out. National passing the financial buck onto council's simply isn't going to work.

Unfortunately National has no intention of properly funding councils so they're able to address our polluted waterways. Likewise, councils have little interest in protecting the environment or enforcing the law because most councillors have vested interests in farming.

The sad truth of the matter is that while National is in power we will see little if any real change in terms of our polluted waterways. That’s because they’re the farmer’s party and won’t do anything to upset their core constituency.

So it’s not really a complex issue at all. If you want cleaner waterways that you can swim in without fear of getting sick, that you can go fishing in and actually catch some fish and that doesn’t scare our tourists away with green sludge and bad smells…don’t vote for National. It’s as simple as that.

This summer…take the plunge

H/T @nintendoug

Auckland waterfront polluted by Mobil

Today, the NZ Herald reported:

A petrol company says it should not have to pay clean-up costs for decades of petrochemical pollution on prime waterfront land.


The civil case by the Auckland Waterfront Development Agency against Mobil Oil New Zealand began in the High Court at Auckland yesterday before Justice Sarah Katz.

The agency claims Mobil is liable for $17.9 million in clean-up costs for two sites in Wynyard Quarter, part of the former tank farm.

The sites were used by Mobil or related companies for petrochemical storage and more recently other bulk chemicals and lubricants.

This is typical of Mobil who is known internationally for damaging the environmental and then fighting tooth and nail through the courts to not have to pay for the clean up.

Mobil vacated the sites in 2011, and Waterfront Auckland plans to redevelop the area with parks, apartments, shops and commercial premises.

Both parties agree the site is now significantly polluted but disagree on the contamination's source and Mobil's liability for the clean-up.

What's the bet that the taxpayer will end up having to pay.

One of the main issues here is that the 'significantly polluted' soil won't be treated...it will simply be dug up and moved somewhere else to potentially be an environmental hazard in the future.

Some of the pollution comes from fill material used when the land was originally reclaimed, including waste from the old Auckland gas works.

Agency counsel Alan Galbraith, QC, said it was seeking remediation costs only for Mobil's contamination, not for the gas works' waste.

Mr Galbraith said the case hinged on new leases signed in 1985, when the new pipeline from Marsden Pt to Wiri was commissioned and oil companies were expected to progressively pull out of the tank farm.

Those leases expired in 1993, but Mobil and Ports of Auckland were unable to agree on new terms relating to site remediation, so the leases continued on a periodic basis under existing terms until 2011.

So why are we only just finding out about this now? With the site being significantly polluted surely it shouldn't take ten years before something is done about it.

That's ten years whereby contaminants were likely to be leaching into Waitemata Harbour and ten years when people could have been adversely affected from being inadvertently exposed to the contamination. There certainly weren't signs warning the public or adequate fencing to keep them out.

The 1985 leases, unlike earlier versions, included a clause related to keeping the land clean and tidy.

Mr Galbraith said that meant Mobil was obligated to return the land "in good condition and that means free of contamination".

Even if there was no clause within the lease that stated the land should be clean and tidy upon it's return, Mobil is still obligated to clean up their pollution.

For Mobil, Michael Ring, QC, said there was no breach of the tenancy contract, and the company was not liable for costs. He said the "clean and tidy" clause was never intended to require Mobil to remove historic sub-surface contamination.

Firstly, Mobil will need to prove that any of the sub-surface contamination wasn't caused by them or their subsidiary companies during any of the lease periods. If they cannot do that conclusively, they should be made to pay for the sites remediation.

Mr Ring said that in 1985 it was not envisioned the site would be used for anything other than heavy industry.

It was already heavily contaminated from reclamation fill, which included lead, arsenic and cyanide pollution. "This was not a pristine green meadow that somehow has been destroyed by sub-surface contamination." APNZ

Whether the site wasn't intended to be lived on or that there was already some pollution before Mobil started to contaminate the area is beside the point. There simply is no excuse for continued spills of hazardous materials, especially in a built up area such as Auckland. Just because the area was designated heavy industry doesn't mean Mobil can pollute to its hearts content.

Along with remediation costs, I would slap the dirty bastards with a hefty fine as well. After all, there are laws that pertain to polluting New Zealand with petrochemicals, but unfortunately they're hardly ever applied.

Stop poisoning bees

Today, an industry associated lobby group for most of the major agrochemical businesses in New Zealand, AGCARM, released a so-called Fact Sheet On Neonicotinoids (PDF), which is filled with inaccuracies and blatant lies.

This is in response to the European Commission deciding to impose restrictions on three neonicotinoid compounds (imidacloprid, clothianidin and thiamethoxam), all of which have been shown to cause adverse effects in bee populations.

The restrictions are being imposed because the EFSA identified a number of risks to bees by these three neonicotinoid based insecticides.

But despite their findings, AGCARM thinks it knows best:

The report did not indicate whether the potential theoretical risks to bees should be deemed acceptable or not.

Which is completely untrue! The European Food Safety Authority concluded that the three products pose a ‘high risk’ to honey bees in many crops producing nectar and pollen. That's why their use is being restricted.

EFSA's research is extensive, and despite there being gaps in the available data, they have categorically found that neonicotinoid based pesticides cause adverse effects on bees.

Other peer reviewed research also comes to the same conclusion. But despite a large body of research showing the same thing, AGCARM claims:

Neonic products have been widely used in New Zealand for over 20 years and there is no evidence that they have any adverse impacts on the health of our bee populations.

DDT and 245T were also used for a long time in New Zealand with the manufacturers claiming there were no adverse health effects. We later learned they were lying, who along with the government tried to hide the extent of the damage being caused.

With 80 per cent of all pollination due to the activity of bees, applying neonicotinoid based pesticides to the detriment of this essential part of the ecosystem is madness! Therefore there should be a ban on the use of this scientifically proven unsafe substance in New Zealand.

The manufacturers should need to prove that their products are safe before they are used, and there currently is no unbiased data to this effect.

Scientific consensus on climate change

Yesterday, the Guardian reported:

A survey of thousands of peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals has found 97.1% agreed that climate change is caused by human activity.

Authors of the survey, published on Thursday in the journal Environmental Research Letters, said the finding of near unanimity provided a powerful rebuttal to climate contrarians who insist the science of climate change remains unsettled.

The survey considered the work of some 29,000 scientists published in 11,994 academic papers. Of the 4,000-plus papers that took a position on the causes of climate change only 0.7% or 83 of those thousands of academic articles, disputed the scientific consensus that climate change is the result of human activity, with the view of the remaining 2.2% unclear.

Clearly the protestations that climate change isn't man made are entirely wrong!

The study blamed strenuous lobbying efforts by industry to undermine the science behind climate change for the gap in perception. The resulting confusion has blocked efforts to act on climate change.

It's not just lobbying, it's the huge amount of money polluting industries have available to spend on buying politicians and trying to mislead the public.

In 2004, Naomi Oreskes, an historian at the University of California, San Diego, surveyed published literature, releasing her results in the journal Science. She too came up with a similar finding that 97% of climate scientists agreed on the causes of climate change.

She wrote of the new survey in an email: "It is a nice, independent confirmation, using a somewhat different methodology than I used, that comes to the same result. It also refutes the claim, sometimes made by contrarians, that the consensus has broken down, much less 'shattered'."

We can therefore say with absolute certainty that the scientific consensus that climate change is man made has not changed and any claims to the contrary should simply be dismissed.

Fight breaks out in EU parliament

Why National is toxic for the environment

Kelly Slater's Organic Life

How climate change is destroying the Earth

Created by: LearnStuff.com

Solid Energy down the gurgler

Today, the NZ Herald reported:

Solid Energy is at a crisis point, with a Government bailout almost inevitable, mine closures possible and further job cuts likely in another restructure to try to salvage the debt-ridden coal mining company.

The state-owned enterprise yesterday revealed it was in talks with its banks and the Government over its future after its debt rose to $389 million and a further "significant loss" would be in its half-year result.

Know we know the reason Solid Energy CEO resigned earlier this month... The company was going down the gurgler under Don Elder's mismanagement, and just like Jenny Shipley with Mainzeal, the coward Elder has turned tail and run.

No longer is there any accountability for the mismanagement that has caused these businesses to go into such debilitating debt... Instead the perpetrators simply get off scott free with a huge wad of cash to boot.

In 2012 Elder received performance pay of $304,129 on top of his $805,640 pay packet at the same time Solid Energy posted a $40 million loss and sacked 437 workers.

You would expect that such a huge amount of money would ensure the proper management of these companies, and that performance pay was related to them actually performing well... But alas that's not the case.

Finance Minister Bill English said the banks had taken action because they were concerned about getting their money back - and he would not rule out a bailout by the Government, saying it would not let the company fall into receivership.

He would also not rule out job losses among the workforce of 1200 and mine closures in a future restructure aimed at returning the firm to its core business of coal mining but with much lower overheads.

So National is planning to throw good money after bad and bail out another failing business... How stupid!

With the demand for coal likely to continue falling because of the huge increase in renewable energy projects around the world, which are increasing by more than 80% per year, Solid Energy's future is clearly in doubt. There's simply no future in coal and the sooner the government wakes up to that fact the better.

Mr English said the SOE was now worth "a lot less" than the $1.7 billion it was valued at last year, but he did not know whether it was worth more than its $389 million debt.

WTF! A company that was valued at $1.7 billion last year is, according to the Finance Minister, now only worth around $389 million? Even accounting for the 40% decline in coal prices the company should not have devalued that much.

This looks to be yet another case of asset stripping and making questionable investments to businesses that the board knew would never pay off. I guess the National cronies will do just about anything to get their hands on even more public money... What a bunch of bludgers!

Levi Hawken's I Will if You Will's challenge