A community split in Central Otago as the fast-track panel considers a gold-mine proposal from Australian company, Bendigo-Ophir.  

Santana Minerals estimates it could extract $4.4 billion of gold from hills above the Clutha River with open pit and underground mining 

Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Simon Upton warns it has considerable environmental risk.  

Local mayor Tamah Alley told Andrew Dickens people feel strongly. 

She says many are pro-mining and want the jobs and money, but others are vehemently opposed. 

LISTEN ABOVE 

A community split in Central Otago as the fast-track panel considers a gold-mine proposal from Australian company, Bendigo-Ophir. &nbsp;
Santana Minerals estimates it could extract $4.4 billion of gold from hills above the Clutha River with open pit and underground mining&nbsp;
Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Simon Upton warns it has considerable environmental risk. &nbsp;
Local mayor Tamah Alley told Andrew Dickens people feel strongly.&nbsp;
She says many are pro-mining and want the jobs and money, but others are vehemently opposed.&nbsp;
LISTEN ABOVE&nbsp;

Join Kerre Woodham one of New Zealand’s best loved personalities as she dishes up a bold, sharp and energetic show Monday to Friday 9am-12md on Newstalk ZB. News, opinion, analysis, lifestyle and entertainment – we’ve got your morning listening covered.

Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Tamah Alley: Central Otago Mayor on the community division over the proposed Bendigo-Ophir gold mine

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/0dc684c3-e2df-4781-bdec-b42d000f1f5e/transcript

Thirty years ago, I was the station manager and breakfast announcer at a very small experimental talk station in Auckland called ‘The Point’ on 1476 AM. It lasted for about three years. It was a lot of fun. Now I mention this because I clearly remember 30 years ago a morning when we discussed what happens to New Zealand when the Maui and Kapuni gas runs out, because even then scientists were warning that supplies were limited and they were dwindling. That was 30 years ago, and the alarm bells were already ringing.  

Our failing gas is not some new problem and yet you have to say in the 30 years that have passed, as a country we have done little to pre-empt the impact. In the years since then we have become more efficient at using the gas we've got, we've become more efficient at extracting the gas we've got and so the deadline has been extended, but now it appears we're coming to the pointy end. The end of gas in New Zealand. In the past 30 years we've not found more and we have, you could argue, used our remaining stocks willy nilly. Industries have become more dependent not less.  

Now the last Labour Government was part of the problem. Yes, they curtailed gas exploration, but at the same time nobody found gas for the last 30-50 years and we've been looking. But what the Labour Government did do was suggest a gas transition scheme, and if you've forgotten about it, it was called the Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry fund, GIDI, otherwise known as Giddy. It directly subsidised large businesses using fossil fuels like natural gas and coal to help them switch to renewable electricity or biomass.  

But when the latest government came in two years ago, they scrapped that. They didn't like the way it was sheeted home to the emission reduction plans because that was far too green for them, and they didn't like the way the taxpayer was directly funding industry so they cancelled it. And they banked $640 million that had been set aside for it. But they didn't have anything to replace Giddy with two years ago. Now they do and it's called the Gas Transition Loan Guarantee Scheme. It's worth about $1.2 billion. It will only directly cost the Government about $48 million. They guarantee the loans, right? Well, I'll tell you how it works. They underwrite 80% of each loan which allows banks to offer lower interest rates. The loans can be up to $50 million, must be new lending, it'll run for 10 years, and the budget has set aside $48 million to cover potential costs and losses. So it's much cheaper than the Labour scheme. It depends on the commercial banks to loan to businesses. 

My question to you is will they, would they, can they? The goal of course is to help firms switch to alternative fuels, to protect jobs, and to leave remaining gas —because there is some there— to help the industries that are absolutely dependent on it. The scheme sits within the Government's broader budget focus. They've got four pillars of national security: international security, energy independence, social cohesion, and financial security. And the Prime Minister when announcing all this yesterday said New Zealand cannot compete globally without abundant affordable energy, obviously. To qualify a business must use natural gas and consume at least 1,000 gigajoules a year. That's about 40 times the usage of a typical household. That would be a commercial kitchen in a restaurant, wouldn't it? That'd basically be everybody except those people using gas at home to cook and to heat their water. Eligible sectors include food processors, brewers, hotels, aged care facilities, greenhouse growers. Some of the country's largest gas users they use 300,000 gigajoules annually. The Energy Minister is Simeon Brown and he says the loans will help businesses switch to electricity or bioenergy or other efficient technologies. 

“We are running out of gas very quickly. We have had a 23% reduction in New Zealand's gas reserves in the past year and production this year is now expected to be 15% lower than expected at the beginning of this year. And so that is a significant reduction. That means for those businesses that rely on gas there's less of it going around, prices are increasing, it's harder to get contracts and a lot of this is due to the last government you know putting the one the ban on oil and gas exploration in place and diminishing its role in our economy. And so we've a role to make sure we support those businesses through this transition to make sure that we can protect jobs and industry.” 

He's not wrong. The ban on oil and gas exploration put a bit of a tiahoa on everything, but to find a bit of gas and then to get it out into your into your cooker, that's a 10 to 20 year infrastructure job. So really we should have found the gas ages ago, and as I said right at the beginning, we were warning about this 30 years ago. Alongside the local program, the loan program, the Government will introduce new legislation requiring gas companies to tell us exactly how much gas we've got, and surely that makes sense. Regulations could be in place by the end of the year.  

Are you using gas and if so, why? Why when we knew 30 years ago that it was finite, why weren't we rationing it out from that point of time? What are your thoughts about this the way the scheme works? The previous Government, the Labour Government basically said here's a billion, change. And that was money straight out of your and my pocket as taxpayers. This Government doesn't like doing that and they've said okay commercial banks you loan them the money, we'll underwrite that and we'll put aside some money for those loans that go a little bit south, and that's about $48 million. That's a very crucial difference between two different types of governments. One socialist, the other a bit more capitalist and market based. What do you feel about that? 

Thirty years ago, I was the station manager and breakfast announcer at a very small experimental talk station in Auckland called ‘The Point’ on 1476 AM. It lasted for about three years. It was a lot of fun. Now I mention this because I clearly remember 30 years ago a morning when we discussed what happens to New Zealand when the Maui and Kapuni gas runs out, because even then scientists were warning that supplies were limited and they were dwindling. That was 30 years ago, and the alarm bells were already ringing. &nbsp;
Our failing gas is not some new problem and yet you have to say in the 30 years that have passed, as a country we have done little to pre-empt the impact. In the years since then we have become more efficient at using the gas we've got, we've become more efficient at extracting the gas we've got and so the deadline has been extended, but now it appears we're coming to the pointy end. The end of gas in New Zealand. In the past 30 years we've not found more and we have, you could argue, used our remaining stocks willy nilly. Industries have become more dependent not less. &nbsp;
Now the last Labour Government was part of the problem. Yes, they curtailed gas exploration, but at the same time nobody found gas for the last 30-50 years and we've been looking. But what the Labour Government did do was suggest a gas transition scheme, and if you've forgotten about it, it was called the Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry fund, GIDI, otherwise known as Giddy. It directly subsidised large businesses using fossil fuels like natural gas and coal to help them switch to renewable electricity or biomass. &nbsp;
But when the latest government came in two years ago, they scrapped that. They didn't like the way it was sheeted home to the emission reduction plans because that was far too green for them, and they didn't like the way the taxpayer was directly funding industry so they cancelled it. And they banked $640 million that had been set aside for it. But they didn't have anything to replace Giddy with two years ago. Now they do and it's called the Gas Transition Loan Guarantee Scheme. It's worth about $1.2 billion. It will only directly cost the Government about $48 million. They guarantee the loans, right? Well, I'll tell you how it works. They underwrite 80% of each loan which allows banks to offer lower interest rates. The loans can be up to $50 million, must be new lending, it'll run for 10 years, and the budget has set aside $48 million to cover potential costs and losses. So it's much cheaper than the Labour scheme. It depends on the commercial banks to loan to businesses.&nbsp;
My question to you is will they, would they, can they? The goal of course is to help firms switch to alternative fuels, to protect jobs, and to leave remaining gas —because there is some there— to help the industries that are absolutely dependent on it. The scheme sits within the Government's broader budget focus. They've got four pillars of national security: international security, energy independence, social cohesion, and financial security. And the Prime Minister when announcing all this yesterday said New Zealand cannot compete globally without abundant affordable energy, obviously. To qualify a business must use natural gas and consume at least 1,000 gigajoules a year. That's about 40 times the usage of a typical household. That would be a commercial kitchen in a restaurant, wouldn't it? That'd basically be everybody except those people using gas at home to cook and to heat their water. Eligible sectors include food processors, brewers, hotels, aged care facilities, greenhouse growers. Some of the country's largest gas users they use 300,000 gigajoules annually. The Energy Minister is Simeon Brown and he says the loans will help businesses switch to electricity or bioenergy or other efficient technologies.&nbsp;
“We are running out of gas very quickly. We have had a 23% reduction in New Zealand's gas reserves in the past year and production this year is now expected to be 15% lower than expected at the beginning of this year. And so that is a significant reduction. That means for those businesses that rely on gas there's less of it going around, prices are increasing, it's harder to get contracts and a lot of this is due to the last government you know putting the one the ban on oil and gas exploration in place and diminishing its role in our economy. And so we've a role to make sure we support those businesses through this transition to make sure that we can protect jobs and industry.”&nbsp;
He's not wrong. The ban on oil and gas exploration put a bit of a tiahoa on everything, but to find a bit of gas and then to get it out into your into your cooker, that's a 10 to 20 year infrastructure job. So really we should have found the gas ages ago, and as I said right at the beginning, we were warning about this 30 years ago. Alongside the local program, the loan program, the Government will introduce new legislation requiring gas companies to tell us exactly how much gas we've got, and surely that makes sense. Regulations could be in place by the end of the year. &nbsp;
Are you using gas and if so, why? Why when we knew 30 years ago that it was finite, why weren't we rationing it out from that point of time? What are your thoughts about this the way the scheme works? The previous Government, the Labour Government basically said here's a billion, change. And that was money straight out of your and my pocket as taxpayers. This Government doesn't like doing that and they've said okay commercial banks you loan them the money, we'll underwrite that and we'll put aside some money for those loans that go a little bit south, and that's about $48 million. That's a very crucial difference between two different types of governments. One socialist, the other a bit more capitalist and market based. What do you feel about that?&nbsp;

Andrew Dickens: Gas rationing and transition schemes

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/6c588bbe-4096-4972-899b-b4560014aedf/transcript

I was in the Coromandel over the weekend and I was reading their regional paper which still exists, The Informer, and in it was an article by Jeffrey Robinson, who's a local affairs reporter with decades of experience, and he points out the debate that is happening all over the country. The government is ending New Zealand's two tier regional and district council system, it has to happen by 2028 and every district must choose a new unitary council model.

The only rule is, well you can't go with the status quo. There's got to be change, there's got to be a rationalisation, it's got to be amalgamation, it's got to be smaller.

Now for Coromandel residents, they believe this means choosing between two options. One, create a small eastern Waikato focused council that looks after the Hauraki Plains and the Coromandel Peninsula that reflects the rural and coastal communities of interest, a Hauraki Plains Coromandel unitary authority. Or the other choice is be absorbed into a Hamilton based Waikato super city scenario.

Despite not having asked its ratepayers what they want because there's just not enough time and the government has demanded the action, they're all debating it. And the Waikato Regional Council has already said what it wants: one giant unitary authority based out of Hamilton for the entire region.

I mean it's the 07 isn't it? It's all got the same phone number, let's all have the same council.

Now under that model, the Coromandel with just 32,000 people would hold one seat on a 16 member governing board based out of Hamilton. Hamilton alone would hold seven seats. They have the advantage, they have the influence.

Decisions on rates and infrastructure and environmental management and long term planning would be made far from the Coromandel, while a Coromandel local board with only one seat to represent it would be left with minor matters they'd worry about parking and Christmas decorations, but they think they've got bigger fish to fry.

And, of course, a Hamilton based super block of seat holders would mean that Hamilton would be able to dominate decisions and funding. Yeah we could do a new bridge in the Coromandel, or we could make sure that new suburb of Peacocke has more stuff. I think we'll go for the Peacocke, won't we? What do you think? Yeah, there's only one guy to vote against it, that's what we'll do.

The Coromandel and Thames are very wary of that.

This may be efficient, but they believe it would also be unfair.

This eastern Waikato unitary council by the way, this idea has deep roots. Back in 2012 Coromandel and Hauraki residents gathered more than 1,500 signatures calling for just that, a council that represented Hauraki and Coromandel, keeping the decision making local. And such a model would return regional rates and jobs and environmental management to the communities they actually affect rather than happening in Hamilton, and ensure representatives live with the consequences of their decision.

Thames Coromandel councillors will be discussing this on May 26th. Here's the thing though, have they asked their ratepayers? No they have not, because the government said you've got three months to do this, it's 10 weeks away, you've got to do it, just do it.

They don't have the time to consult. Nobody does up and down the country. And this is happening up and down the country.

In the Wairarapa, Masterton, Carterton and South Wairarapa are considering a combined rural unitary council because they don't want to be ruled by Wellington.

In Taranaki, iwi and local mayors support splitting the region into two unitary councils that represent the natural north south and urban rural division. Hāwera does not want to be ruled by New Plymouth.

Waitomo and Otorohanga are developing a King Country unitary proposal because they don't want to be run by Hamilton.

And in the South Island, Selwyn's mayor also wants to protect Selwyn's identity because there they're talking about the Canterbury councils merging into a Greater Christchurch super city and they are not sure they want that.

The mayor, Lydia, says it's an incredibly short timeframe, we can't consult with our ratepayers but we need to make sure we make the right decision. And they're not happy about it. Waimakariri and Selwyn ratepayers have expressed reservations of being ruled by Christchurch.

And this is a real fear up and down the country. The move to rationalise local government could see the big cities and towns grabbing all the power and money. 

LISTEN ABOVE

I was in the Coromandel over the weekend and I was reading their regional paper which still exists, The Informer, and in it was an article by Jeffrey Robinson, who's a local affairs reporter with decades of experience, and he points out the debate that is happening all over the country. The government is ending New Zealand's two tier regional and district council system, it has to happen by 2028 and every district must choose a new unitary council model.
The only rule is, well you can't go with the status quo. There's got to be change, there's got to be a rationalisation, it's got to be amalgamation, it's got to be smaller.
Now for Coromandel residents, they believe this means choosing between two options. One, create a small eastern Waikato focused council that looks after the Hauraki Plains and the Coromandel Peninsula that reflects the rural and coastal communities of interest, a Hauraki Plains Coromandel unitary authority. Or the other choice is be absorbed into a Hamilton based Waikato super city scenario.
Despite not having asked its ratepayers what they want because there's just not enough time and the government has demanded the action, they're all debating it. And the Waikato Regional Council has already said what it wants: one giant unitary authority based out of Hamilton for the entire region.
I mean it's the 07 isn't it? It's all got the same phone number, let's all have the same council.
Now under that model, the Coromandel with just 32,000 people would hold one seat on a 16 member governing board based out of Hamilton. Hamilton alone would hold seven seats. They have the advantage, they have the influence.
Decisions on rates and infrastructure and environmental management and long term planning would be made far from the Coromandel, while a Coromandel local board with only one seat to represent it would be left with minor matters they'd worry about parking and Christmas decorations, but they think they've got bigger fish to fry.
And, of course, a Hamilton based super block of seat holders would mean that Hamilton would be able to dominate decisions and funding. Yeah we could do a new bridge in the Coromandel, or we could make sure that new suburb of Peacocke has more stuff. I think we'll go for the Peacocke, won't we? What do you think? Yeah, there's only one guy to vote against it, that's what we'll do.
The Coromandel and Thames are very wary of that.
This may be efficient, but they believe it would also be unfair.
This eastern Waikato unitary council by the way, this idea has deep roots. Back in 2012 Coromandel and Hauraki residents gathered more than 1,500 signatures calling for just that, a council that represented Hauraki and Coromandel, keeping the decision making local. And such a model would return regional rates and jobs and environmental management to the communities they actually affect rather than happening in Hamilton, and ensure representatives live with the consequences of their decision.
Thames Coromandel councillors will be discussing this on May 26th. Here's the thing though, have they asked their ratepayers? No they have not, because the government said you've got three months to do this, it's 10 weeks away, you've got to do it, just do it.
They don't have the time to consult. Nobody does up and down the country. And this is happening up and down the country.
In the Wairarapa, Masterton, Carterton and South Wairarapa are considering a combined rural unitary council because they don't want to be ruled by Wellington.
In Taranaki, iwi and local mayors support splitting the region into two unitary councils that represent the natural north south and urban rural division. Hāwera does not want to be ruled by New Plymouth.
Waitomo and Otorohanga are developing a King Country unitary proposal because they don't want to be run by Hamilton.
And in the South Island, Selwyn's mayor also wants to protect Selwyn's identity because there they're talking about the Canterbury councils merging into a Greater Christchurch super city and they are not sure they want that.
The mayor, Lydia, says it's an incredibly short timeframe, we can't consult with our ratepayers but we need to make sure we make the right decision. And they're not happy about it. Waimakariri and Selwyn ratepayers have expressed reservations of being ruled by Christchurch.
And this is a real fear up and down the country. The move to rationalise local government could see the big cities and towns grabbing all the power and money.&nbsp;
LISTEN ABOVE

Andrew Dickens: Local council amalgamation could see less say for smaller towns

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/e93511e9-2abc-4e82-a047-b45401887d4b/transcript

The Government has unveiled a major overhaul of social housing, creating both winners and losers. 

So what is social housing? Social housing provides subsidized rental properties for those who cannot afford private rentals. Homes are managed by Kāinga Ora or various Community Housing Providers (CHPs). Tenants typically pay an Income Related Rent. To qualify, you must be a New Zealand citizen or resident, meet housing need criteria, and fall under specific income and asset limits. 

Single with no kids, income must be under $832 a week after tax. If you’re a couple with two kids, so four of you, you must be earning in the hand, under $60,000 a year before you could actually claim either the accommodation supplement or get onto the waiting list and get yourself into a state house and pay the State rent. For current social housing tenants, minimum Income Related Rent contributions are 25% of your income. But now the Government is changing the rule to make the system “fairer” and more targeted.  

From April 2027, the minimum rent contribution for social housing tenants will rise from 25% to 30% of income. This saves the government nearly $400m, which will be reinvested into higher Accommodation Supplement rates. Those privately renting and receiving the Accommodation Supplement, they'll get a bit more. As a result, 110,000 families renting privately will gain about $15 a week, but 84,000 social housing families will be around $30 worse off. Another 45,000 families receiving Temporary Additional Support will also lose about $11 a week. 

Housing Minister Chris Bishop says the current system is “backwards and inequitable”, with social housing tenants often hundreds of dollars better off than similar families renting privately. The reforms will tighten access to social housing, focusing on people with the most severe and persistent barriers — such as mental health challenges, addiction, disability, or family violence. Affordability alone will no longer be enough to qualify. 

The Government also wants to improve people getting out of social housing. That includes exploring tenancy duration limits, more regular eligibility check-ins, and better support for people who could move into private rentals. Bishop says many tenants will still need lifelong support, but others can transition out — freeing up homes for those in greatest need. 

As a result, 110,000 families renting privately will gain about $15 a week, but 84,000 social housing families will be around $30 worse off. Another 45,000 families receiving Temporary Additional Support will also lose about $11 a week. Bishop says the changes “narrow the gap” between social and private renting, encouraging work and independence. He argues the system must be financially sustainable —with housing supports costing $5.5b last year— and better targeted to those with the highest needs. 

In essence it shows that this Government prefers social housing to be provided by private landlords. But they're wary of a wholesale change because of what it would do to the housing market at a time 20% of townhouses are being sold at a loss. They don't agree with social housing for life. They probably don't agree with the State owning housing stock at all, but they're too chicken to go the whole hog. 

This is all about ideology and the response will come down political lines. Those tending right will support it and feel that finally the Coalition is walking the talk they've talked for years.  And those tending left will reflexively call this the move of a heartless Government who just don't care about poor people. And they are poor people, which is why Nicola Willis' won the lotto comment was so tone deaf and required an immediate apology. 

It is a major shift, but it could have been a lot heavier. What will come from it? Will it bring more private properties into the social housing market? Will it break the back of those people at the edges of society? And what do you think we need to do with social housing and benefit support for housing in our country? 

The Government has unveiled a major overhaul of social housing, creating both winners and losers.&nbsp;
So what is social housing? Social housing provides subsidized rental properties for those who cannot afford private rentals. Homes are managed by Kāinga Ora or various Community Housing Providers (CHPs). Tenants typically pay an Income Related Rent. To qualify, you must be a New Zealand citizen or resident, meet housing need criteria, and fall under specific income and asset limits.&nbsp;
Single with no kids, income must be under $832 a week after tax. If you’re a couple with two kids, so four of you, you must be earning in the hand, under $60,000 a year before you could actually claim either the accommodation supplement or get onto the waiting list and get yourself into a state house and pay the State rent. For current social housing tenants, minimum Income Related Rent contributions are 25% of your income. But now the Government is changing the rule to make the system “fairer” and more targeted. &nbsp;
From April 2027, the minimum rent contribution for social housing tenants will rise from 25% to 30% of income. This saves the government nearly $400m, which will be reinvested into higher Accommodation Supplement rates. Those privately renting and receiving the Accommodation Supplement, they'll get a bit more. As a result, 110,000 families renting privately will gain about $15 a week, but 84,000 social housing families will be around $30 worse off. Another 45,000 families receiving Temporary Additional Support will also lose about $11 a week.&nbsp;
Housing Minister Chris Bishop says the current system is “backwards and inequitable”, with social housing tenants often hundreds of dollars better off than similar families renting privately. The reforms will tighten access to social housing, focusing on people with the most severe and persistent barriers — such as mental health challenges, addiction, disability, or family violence. Affordability alone will no longer be enough to qualify.&nbsp;
The Government also wants to improve people getting out of social housing. That includes exploring tenancy duration limits, more regular eligibility check-ins, and better support for people who could move into private rentals. Bishop says many tenants will still need lifelong support, but others can transition out — freeing up homes for those in greatest need.&nbsp;
As a result, 110,000 families renting privately will gain about $15 a week, but 84,000 social housing families will be around $30 worse off. Another 45,000 families receiving Temporary Additional Support will also lose about $11 a week. Bishop says the changes “narrow the gap” between social and private renting, encouraging work and independence. He argues the system must be financially sustainable —with housing supports costing $5.5b last year— and better targeted to those with the highest needs.&nbsp;
In essence it shows that this Government prefers social housing to be provided by private landlords. But they're wary of a wholesale change because of what it would do to the housing market at a time 20% of townhouses are being sold at a loss. They don't agree with social housing for life. They probably don't agree with the State owning housing stock at all, but they're too chicken to go the whole hog.&nbsp;
This is all about ideology and the response will come down political lines. Those tending right will support it and feel that finally the Coalition is walking the talk they've talked for years. &nbsp;And those tending left will reflexively call this the move of a heartless Government who just don't care about poor people. And they are poor people, which is why Nicola Willis' won the lotto comment was so tone deaf and required an immediate apology.&nbsp;
It is a major shift, but it could have been a lot heavier. What will come from it? Will it bring more private properties into the social housing market? Will it break the back of those people at the edges of society? And what do you think we need to do with social housing and benefit support for housing in our country?&nbsp;

Andrew Dickens: The social housing overhaul creates both winners and losers

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/c70cb9f0-7b8c-4907-91c5-b452000d8706/transcript

Tamah Alley: Central Otago Mayor on the community division over the proposed Bendigo-Ophir gold mine

In 1 playlist(s)

Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips