She's lucky it's only cost $60 million. We still don’t know the terms, but we need to.
This is Golden Bay Cement, and the Government has come to their rescue.
Without this help, allegedly, they would have closed.
There is only one supplier in the country – this in and of itself would seem to be an issue. They produce 60% of what we use.
Is the other 40% cheaper? And what of the climate mitigation issues Fletchers speak of? Why do we worry about the 60% and not the other 40%?
Why is climate so important in the cement business, and is climate worth worrying about if it means the closure of business and the loss of jobs?
That is one of the questions of the age, especially given the Europeans over the weekend signalled their intentions to pull back on climate expectation for businesses for exactly the same reasons.
Climate versus jobs? We quite like the work, thanks.
Fletcher Building is the owner and a company with no shortage of drama around their reputation and activities, but not a business desperate, you wouldn't have thought, for $60 million.
But, and here is the crunchy bit, they're a company that in straightened times is perfectly entitled to pull the pin on things that aren't working.
So, a good business decision, or blackmail?
Is the business run as they claim? In other words, it's not workable, or are they a bit useless?
Britain is having the same conversation currently over a nationalised steelworks involving the Chinese and a water company that’s on its knees.
The trouble is the specifics and the precedent. Every story is unique.
Can a government write a cheque for one-offs? Maybe.
Does it set a potential precedent? Yes.
Should the Government be in cement? No.
Should we be more resilient in the basics of things like building materials? Yes. We have just had that debate by cleaning out an old tank at Marsden. Resilience is important.
So I don’t mind this as a one off.
But is it a bad business or is it a business hampered by dumb rules around climate? And if it’s the latter, would a change of rules fix the problem better than a bailout cheque would?
Mike Hosking is a New Zealand television and radio broadcaster. He currently hosts The Mike Hosking Breakfast show on NewstalkZB on weekday mornings - where this article was sourced.
There is only one supplier in the country – this in and of itself would seem to be an issue. They produce 60% of what we use.
Is the other 40% cheaper? And what of the climate mitigation issues Fletchers speak of? Why do we worry about the 60% and not the other 40%?
Why is climate so important in the cement business, and is climate worth worrying about if it means the closure of business and the loss of jobs?
That is one of the questions of the age, especially given the Europeans over the weekend signalled their intentions to pull back on climate expectation for businesses for exactly the same reasons.
Climate versus jobs? We quite like the work, thanks.
Fletcher Building is the owner and a company with no shortage of drama around their reputation and activities, but not a business desperate, you wouldn't have thought, for $60 million.
But, and here is the crunchy bit, they're a company that in straightened times is perfectly entitled to pull the pin on things that aren't working.
So, a good business decision, or blackmail?
Is the business run as they claim? In other words, it's not workable, or are they a bit useless?
Britain is having the same conversation currently over a nationalised steelworks involving the Chinese and a water company that’s on its knees.
The trouble is the specifics and the precedent. Every story is unique.
Can a government write a cheque for one-offs? Maybe.
Does it set a potential precedent? Yes.
Should the Government be in cement? No.
Should we be more resilient in the basics of things like building materials? Yes. We have just had that debate by cleaning out an old tank at Marsden. Resilience is important.
So I don’t mind this as a one off.
But is it a bad business or is it a business hampered by dumb rules around climate? And if it’s the latter, would a change of rules fix the problem better than a bailout cheque would?
Mike Hosking is a New Zealand television and radio broadcaster. He currently hosts The Mike Hosking Breakfast show on NewstalkZB on weekday mornings - where this article was sourced.
10 comments:
Let me get this straight. One government department charges Golden Bay millions of dollars that they can’t afford for generating carbon dioxide, while another government department gifts this company $60 million to stay open.
Unfortunately this game will continue while we tolerate delusional politicians that pay homage to the Net-Zero climate gods and waste tax payer money. Where is the outrage?
How about $60m for the timber industry in NZ to speed up the production and use of mass timber construction, and change the ETS to accommodate sequestration benefits. Nah, better to assist a big emitter to finance their mitigation liabilities.
Fair comment but one question not asked is : How much political influence was involved in (greedy, grasping, completely useless) North Auckland becoming the sole remaining provider of cement in New Zealand?
If that decision was politically influenced the tax-payer largess is simply payoff for New Zealand electing incompetents.
I was going to offer a comment, but Rob Beechey said it all for me. Kate MacNamara in the Herald today writes a good explanation of the dynamics behind the decision. And Mike's final paragraph sums it up.
Agree with all the comments.”I told you so” comes to mind when this ETS comes up; I thought it stank when first we heard about it, and here we are today with businesses closing or in trouble, food production affected and good farming land planted in exotic pines, whilst we send millions of dollars overseas that we have to borrow - how can anyone consider that rational?
NZ Steel , at Glen brook, had electric furnaces.
They changed them to coal.
Our virtue signaling lovely Ardern gave NZ Steel $11M to chuck out the coal furnaces and install new electric furnaces.
Doh !
But our climate emissions dropped by 0.00001%
Do we feel better and oh so virtuous ?
Better that we keep Portland open rather than import all our cement from dubious suppliers.
Can we also discuss importing huge amounts Indonesian coal for Huntley because it does not initiate ETS where we should be mining other NZ coal ( not valuable coking coal ) for Huntley , but that raises our emission profile and we just borrow more to pay for Indonesian imported coal. All Power to David Seymour to reduce the nitwits in the NZ bureaucracy.
60million? Big Deal.That's a tiny % of the freebees that our "indigenous" (NOT) tribes get from all political parties. Maori welfare for what? So the part-Maori elite can spend up big At least cement is something that we ALL can use.
Oh quit your whining, Anon 730. Take responsibility for your own position and move ahead with your life. Yeesh.
And so should anon 9.25. The leftie trying to impersonate a normal person. Game set, match.
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.