www

On September 27, 2023, at a public pre-election meeting in Waimate, Miles Anderson, National candidate for Waitaki, was asked whether he supported the Waimate incinerator proposal. His response was no. On an earlier occasion, following the re-lodgement of SIRRL’s resource consent application, Anderson was asked whether he would submit against the proposal if the Waitaki electorate opposed it. His response was “Yes, it’s my job.”  However, in an Otago Daily Times article about the incinerators’ inclusion on the fast track list, Mr Anderson commented on the need for the plant. What’s changed? Anderson meets with Why Waste Waimate Waitaki National candidate Miles Anderson was invited to meet with WWW in 2023. At this meeting, Mr Anderson was asked whether he supported the SIRRL waste incinerator proposal. He stated that, at the time, he wasn’t opposed to W-t-E in theory. However, he didn’t support the current proposal as it stood. He said it didn’t make sense, highlighting trucking waste to the site from all over the South Island and the impact on already poor-quality roads with insufficient passing lanes to support the extra heavy traffic. He questioned SIRRL’s ability to acquire enough waste within the South Island, given that it was already spoken for by waste management companies. He also questioned the proponents’ history and couldn’t see how a National government could support it as it currently stood, given the level of unanswered questions about the proposal.He was asked whether he would submit against the proposal if the Waitaki electorate opposed it.His response was, “Yes, it’s my job”. Pre-election position Mr Anderson attended a pre-election meet-the-candidates meeting at the Waimate Event Centre on Sept 27, 2023. A member of the audience asked all candidates to provide a yes/no answer to the following question: Are you for or against the project Kea proposal? Mr Anderson’s response was no, he did not support the plant. Post-election  In May 2024, Mr Anderson was invited to meet with the WWW committee to discuss the possibility of the Waimate incinerator being fast-tracked. Six Glenavy farmers were also in attendance. Anderson reiterated his previous pre-election comment that he would oppose the incinerator as currently proposed. He didn’t think the government could fast-track anything already earmarked for the Environment Court and expressed doubt that they would support it as it didn’t fit their renewable energy manifesto. He considered that mining and aquaculture projects would be of much higher importance.  Anderson was presented with concerns about the importation of waste, as the Berl report suggested there was insufficient waste within the South Island to fuel a plant of this size. He was also made aware of Fonterra’s submittion against a similar incinerator proposal in Te Awamutu, which stated there was no place for an incinerator in a food producing area. Mr Anderson was also informed of previous proposals by the same proponents who intended to import waste from the Pacific Island’s and Australia, highlighting any importation of waste would be a biosecurity risk.  Miles said he did not think the importation of waste would be economically viable. Four farmers told Anderson that they would sell up and leave if the plant went ahead due to the threats it imposed on their farms and their children’s health. He expressed his view that he did not believe the proposal would proceed. Anderson said he would follow up on the following; Asking if SIRRL had applied for fast track status and whether the company had lobbied the three fast track ministers. Would the Prime Minister consider placing a moratorium on all waste to energy plants? Anderson was later prompted for a follow-up response, which came via email from his PA on July 11, 2024. The email stated Miles did not know if SIRRL had applied for Fast Track status and was unaware of ministers lobbying or being lobbied for this. Also, Miles does not intend to ask the Prime Minister for a moratorium on incineration as this is a very broad subject. The email concluded, “Miles is very interested in keeping up to speed with this, but there has been nothing we are aware of other than it being at the EPA stage.” ODT Article An ODT article dated 11 October 2024, regarding the incinerators’ inclusion on the Fast Track list, quoted Mr Anderson as saying there was a need for more electricity generation. With its hydro scheme, the Waitaki electorate generates 1700MW of renewable energy. The 30MW electricity output projected by SIRRL would amount to around 2% of that figure or 0.3% of NZ’s total electricity generation. However, with the company’s proposed plasma furnace and supply of steam to nearby industries, that figure could drop by as much as half.  SIRRL relies on burning high-calorie fossil fuel-derived plastic waste and vast volumes of auxiliary diesel to generate electricity. In contrast, the equivalent $350 million spent on a wind farm would return seven times the amount of energy and be 100% renewable. Even SIRRL excluded itself as an energy project on the fast track list, so Mr Anderson has completely missed the mark with his ODT comment. The ODT article also quoted Anderson as saying the plant’s environmental impacts were “debatable.” If Mr Anderson believes this to be true, then surely he must agree that the best place to debate the environmental impacts of this proposal is the Environment Court. However, his government’s fast-track selection panel has dismissed the Ministry for Environment (MfE) and the Environmental Protection Authority’s advice and removed SIRRL’s application from the Environment Court. Why?  Mr Anderson should front up to the Waimate community and explain the about-face. Did he lie to appease voters, or has he been forced to toe the party line to the detriment of his electoral obligations? Show some backbone, Mr Anderson, and stand against the Waimate incinerator. As you said yourself, it’s your job to do so. “We need to back our farmers like we back the All Blacks.” Miles Anderson’s profile on National.org states, “As Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said recently, we need to back our farmers

South Island Resource Recovery Ltd (SIRRL) has emerged in the Canterbury quotient of the long-awaited Fast Track Approvals Bill list. You could reasonably predict that many in the long-suffering Waimate community will feel cheated and disgusted at the consideration of a gigantic rubbish-burning incinerator on precious farmland as critical infrastructure. For three years, the company that wants to build the huge ‘Project Kea’ waste-to-energy incinerator has publicly made known its intention to request public notification of its consent applications. This gives the community a crucial right to make submissions in the consenting process. However, it has become clear that SIRRL, with the assistance of a public manipulations firm, Convergence Communications, has been actively working to exclude the community from the process by seeking to expedite its resource concerts under the fast-track legislation. The Overseas Investment Office (OIO) approved the land sale for the incinerator site in March. It was endorsed by Finance Minister Nicola Willis as not contrary to New Zealand’s national interest. An OIA request revealed a curious move by Willis to remove a condition imposed on the consent by the OIO; her decision not limiting but effectively allowing the company to import waste. When asked by Newsroom journalist David Williams about that decision, Minister Willis’s response was that it was a matter best handled by the Environment Court, as directed by previous Environment Minister David Parker. Advice from a cross-agency panel from MfE, MBIE and Te Whatu Ora was included but a critical human health assessment by Te Whatu Ora was also to be bypassed directly to the Environment Court. The MfE advice to Willis suggested that the proposal had many potentially adverse environmental effects, including undermining government waste minimisation policies, monopolising NZ’s waste management infrastructure, and threatening NZ’s global greenhouse gas commitments. The report rightfully questioned the proposal’s validity within a NZ context, the applicant’s character, and the credibility of its calculations. Large parts of the report relating to national security were redacted, including material about the Chinese shareholder company CNTY and its Chinese government ownership. Still, the government added the proposal to its fast-track list, stating that the fast-tracking determination process running parallel to the OIO was thorough and included input from MfE, yet advocating a path that did not require Environment Court scrutiny. When questioned on her waste importation allowance, Willis said “I don’t recall being lobbied on the matter.” Given that Convergence, SIRRL’s public relations firm prides itself on being a ‘government lobbying specialist’ with a representative strategically planted in Wellington for that purpose, it’s fair to presume they were in the government’s ear.

In February, Finance Minister Nicola Willis had to decide if the acquisition of 15 hectares of South Canterbury farmland and significant business assets was contrary to the national interest of New Zealand. 60% Chinese owned South Island Resource Recovery Limited (SIRRL) lodged a consent to purchase the land in May 2023 through the Overseas Investment Office. Willis was required to determine whether the investment was contrary to New Zealand’s national interests as the application was deemed to be of national interest by former Finance Minister Grant Robertson. Willis determined that the investment was not contrary to New Zealand’s national interest. The Minister was provided with a national interest assessment report completed by Land Information New Zealand (LINZ). The LINZ prepared report included input from a cross-government panel of advisors, including the Ministry for the Environment (MfE), the New Zealand Intelligence Service (NZSIS), the Ministry of Agriculture and Trade (MFAT), the Department of Conservation (DOC), and Health NZ/Te Whatu Ora. The report provided special conditions from LINZ. One of these conditions was that the company must not import waste feedstock from outside the South Island. The report stated that the applicant was willing to accept that condition. However, Willis removed the condition.  Newsroom asked Willis’ office: Why did she veto the condition? Was it because of lobbying from the company? If not, what other advice led to that decision? Willis responded: “Having read the assessment report, I formed my own view which was that the Environment Court was better placed to assess any impacts through the resource management consent process. I do not recall having been lobbied on this matter.” Willis’ actions inconsistent The national interest report provided to Willis stated that the investment relied on the company to acquire resource consent to build and operate the proposed W-t-E plant. The report also suggested that the applicant may struggle to source the waste entirely from the South Island. Whatever the reason for Willis to remove that condition, her decision removes a significant hurdle for the applicant if the condition remains in place. The Minister stated in her Newsroom response that her view was “The Environment Court was better placed to assess any impacts through the resource management consent process”. However, the national interest report contained several other special conditions to accompany SIRRL’s consent, which Minister Willis did not remove. Surely, if the Environment Court had been better placed to assess impacts regarding the importation of waste, it would also have been better placed to determine all the effects raised in the special conditions.