Mike's Minute: It's not the taxpayers' job to "clean up" businesses

So we have Golden Bay Cement and we have New Zealand Steel. 

In their own way, both companies that make things we need as a country and would struggle without. 

One of them said they would close because of the ETS cost of producing cement locally, and the other is now making steel with its renewable powered electric furnace. 

Neither paid for their improvements. We did. 

Is this good business? 

In talking to Contact, the power supplier to NZ Steel, they say yes and they say yes because of the jobs; local manufacturing and local jobs and a better climate. 

They also supply the electricity for the furnace, so why wouldn’t they say yes? 

So what is the price of the climate? The odd bit about the cement is imported cement doesn’t attract the same ETS cost as the local sort. That seemed, and seems, odd. 

It doesn't seem like a level playing field. You might remember I asked the Government at the time why we didn’t just carve out the product from the ETS like we carve out farmers. 

The Prime Minister said we didn’t want to mess with the ETS, despite the fact we had messed with the ETS. 

When I asked the bloke at the steel factory whether they would have paid for the furnace themselves he wasn’t keen to be overly clear. So I still don’t know. 

But why would you pay if you can get someone else to? In this case it was $140 million from the previous Labour Government. 

The steel, by the way, reduces this country's overall emissions by 1%. Is that worth it? Is any of it worth it? 

So two stories, two companies, and $200 million of taxpayer's money to allegedly address two pressing climate problems. 

Mind you, they did the same yesterday in New South Wales for an aluminium operation to the tune of $2.5 billion to save 1000 jobs, so clearly it’s a new age thing. 

What is the return on that for any of us? What materially changes apart from the concept? And that is all it is – the concept. 

That we produce cleaner products, which of course is a good thing, but it would also be a cleaner environment if the Government bought me an EV and paid for my solar. But they're not going to, are they? 

If business in the cement case becomes untenable, is the climate worth it? 

Or if business would like to, as in the steel, but won't, why should we? 

Is it now the taxpayer's job and obligation to clean up every business that wants it? 

And if so, how is that good business? 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
So we have golden based cement, right, We've got New
Zealand Steel, both companies in their own way that make
things we need as a country and would struggle without.
One said they would close because of the ETS cost
of producing cement here locally. The others, now making steel
with its renewable powered electric furnace, neither paid for their improvements.
We did my question to you this Friday morning. Is

(00:21):
this good business? In talking to contact who are the
power supplier to New Zealand Steel, they said, oh, yes, yes,
this is a good business. It's because of jobs and
local manufacturing, local jobs and better climate. They also supply
that electricity for the furnace. So why wouldn't they say yes?
So what price the climate? Ah? The odd bit about
the cement is important cement, as I'm sure you're well
aware by now, it doesn't attract the same ETS cost

(00:42):
as the local sort. That seemed and seems odd. Doesn't
seem like a level playing field to me. You might
remember I asked the Prime Minister at the time about that.
Why don't we just carve out the product from the
ets we carve out farmers. The PM said, we didn't
want to mess with the ets, despite the fact, of
course we've messed with the ets. When I asked the
bloke at the steel factory, they would have paid for
the furnace themselves. It wasn't very keen to be overly

(01:03):
clear on that one. So I still don't know. Why
would you pay? Think about it, Why would you pay
if you can get someone else to pay? In this case,
it was one hundred and forty million dollars from the
previous labor government. The steel, by the way, reduces this
country's over all emissions by one percent? Is that worth it?
Is any of this worth it? So you got two stories,
two companies, and two hundred million dollars of taxpayers money

(01:23):
to allegedly address two pressing climate problems. Mind you, they
did exactly the same thing yesterday in New South Wales.
It was an aluminium operation. They tossed two and a
half billion dollars at it to save a thousand jobs.
So clearly this is some sort of new age thing.
What's the return on that for any of us? What
materially changes apart from the concept, and that's all it
is the concept that we produce cleaner products, which, of

(01:45):
course I suppose is a good thing. But it would
also be a cleaner environment if the government brought me
an EV or paid for my solar. But they're not
doing that, are they. If business in the cement case
becomes untenable, is the climate worth it? Or if business
would like to as in the steel case but won't,
why should we And is it now the taxpayer's job

(02:05):
and obligation to clean up every business that just basically
wants it And how is that good business? For more
from The Mic Asking Breakfast, listen live to News Talks
at B from six am weekdays, or follow the podcast
on iHeartRadio.