Debate over Labour’s water tax continues
MORE than 3.5 million tourists visit New Zealand every year. Try to estimate how much water hotels and restaurants use for baths, showers, hotel pools, spa visits, watering of hotel gardens etc? The tourists’ deposits into sewerage systems would be considerable. Yet, hotels would be exempt from any water tax.
But fruitgrowers in Central Otago, who don’t pollute rivers, grow healthy food, grow trees which are environmentally important as they sequester carbon, would get hit with a tax. Fruitgrowers spent large sums of money on irrigation systems on the basis that it was always understood that water is not owned by anyone or any government.
Labour keeps on insisting it is ‘‘commercial’’ users only it is going to tax. Perhaps it should explain why city commercial users would be exempt? How much water is used commercially in cities and towns? The least it can do is give us some figures.
For example, there are likely more than a million people in NZ getting hair trimmed, or dyed and washed monthly. How much water is being used for this activity alone and what happens to all the chemicals going down the drains? Labour’s water tax plan is just plain dishonest, and incredibly cynical.
Elisabeth Hinton
Alexandra
IF the Otago, Southland and Canterbury regional councils deem the computer program ‘‘Overseer’’ accurate enough to assess farming nitrogen emissions, then it surely must be good enough for a basis for ‘‘polluter pays’’. If we are to have a form of tax on agricultural damage to the environment consider this: Overseer would say a Central Otago irrigating sheep and beef farmer would emit around 7kg of nitrogen per hectare per year, and could pay $20,000$60,00 under the royalty proposed.
A dairy farmer in nonirrigated Southland, South Otago or Waikato would emit around 30kg of nitrogen per hectare per year and pay nothing. Where is the level playing field in that? Nitrogen, leached into the water table, travels under fences and riparian plantings to emerge at the lower levels of rivers and streams further down. It is simply windowdressing.
Bill Gordon
Alexandra
SOME time ago I lived in MidCanterbury. Part of my work took me on its many back country roads. All too often I drove down roads covered with water, overspill from farmers’ irrigation, resulting in many thousands of litres of water draining not on to paddocks but on to roads and ditches. Also, farmers have very long sprinkler systems that are kept going even in the middle of heavy rain. When I asked why all this should happen, I was told, ‘‘We have an allocation so we use it even if it runs along the road’’. It’s against the law to misuse a water allocation, but noone has ever gone to court over its misuse. Anyway, I was told the water is free. A blatant misuse of water, a valuable lifegiving resource. Let’s tax it to see if that makes a difference.
Ron Gilder
St Kilda
I WAS born in Morrinsville. Worked in dairying in the 1980s; the rivers were dirty then. I’ve lived in cities since the 1990s — our waterways are pretty gross here too. I’m with Jacinda on this — it’s not a citycountry divide. We all need to work together to fix the mess. Farmers, you are better than this. Play your part, lead the way; you will inspire the townies to do the same.
Steve O’Connor
North East Valley