In mid-February, we wrote to the Prime Minister, various ministers and the mayors and councillors of both QLDC and Christchurch City Council, to ask them three simple but pressing questions about airports proposed for Central Otago, in the face of climate change, the impacts of Covid-19 and concerns about overtourism. The letter is here.

We’ve had initial responses back from the Prime Minister’s office, various MP’s and political parties and the offices of Simon Upton (Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment) and Rod Carr (Chair of the Climate Change Commission). We expect more detailed responses from the PM and others soon.

We have also heard back from all three of the Wānaka Ward councillors, who have provided their unequivocal position on this topic. We are publishing the full response from each below, along with our media release which went out this week.

---

WSG media release 11th March 2021

LOCAL COUNCILLORS IN WANAKA UNITED: IT’S A “NO” TO JET AIRPORTS

(Wānaka, Thursday 11 March 2021) Wānaka’s three local councillors are being congratulated by numerous groups from around the Upper Clutha community for publicly sharing their clear, unequivocal and united views on the future of Wānaka Airport. Statements from Councillors Calum Macleod, Niamh Shaw and Quentin Smith sent to Wānaka Stakeholders Group were made public today.

The statements were made in response to WSG’s letter on behalf of almost 3,500 members to the Prime Minister, MPs and councillors from QLDC and Christchurch last month. The letter was supported by five residents associations, plus Sustainable Tarras, together representing thousands of residents in the area. The recipients were asked to state their views about plans to build airports in light of climate emergency declarations, emissions targets, the impacts of Covid-19 and concerns about the impacts of tourism.

In two emails published by WSG today, Calum Macleod agreed that New Zealand does not need any more jet capable airports: “There is ample airport capacity in the South Island,” he said. When asked about international visitor numbers he said “more is not the answer” and pointed to the recommendations made in Simon Upton’s recent report on tourism. “The discussion demands to be what is the most sustainable – in fact regenerative – way forward for us all.” He added that “there is no reason why Wanaka Airport could not stay as it currently stands.”

Niamh Shaw was equally clear with her answer. “At present, with current information and the global crisis presented by climate change, I personally cannot see any justification for building (or expanding) NZ’s airport infrastructure.” Councillor Shaw said that thus far she had seen “no compelling case put forward for the provision of additional airport infrastructure in NZ beyond response to demand – much of that driven by our tourism marketing which has, over the last ten years, favoured quantity over quality.” She noted that development appears to be “dictated by airlines or the commercial interests of airport corporations.”

Quentin Smith said “With regard [to] effects on our communities, infrastructure and the requirement to reduce emissions, it would be irresponsible to create additional jet capable in airports in NZ.” He noted that “any additional aircraft movements would be completely contrary” to targets to reduce emissions. “We are going to have to come to terms with either a  lesser numbers of flights or dramatically improved technology.”

WSG chair Michael Ross said this morning that he was delighted that all three councillors had noted their public position against any further jet capability in Central Otago, let alone New Zealand. “Against the background of climate change and concerns about both our environment and local community, it is a very positive step that our councillors have chosen to make these unequivocal statements.”

“We hope that all other councillors and mayors of QLDC and Christchurch City Council will follow with equally thoughtful and responsible acknowledgement of this position.” Mr Ross said that WSG had already received initial responses from the Prime Minister’s office as well as various MPs and parties, and hopes that “they all ultimately take the same stand on this issue given its national and international significance, and also given our Prime Minister’s international reputation and credibility.” 

The full letter from WSG to the Prime Minister and central national and local politicians is published in full on WSG’s website, along with the full answers from each of our three Wānaka Ward councillors.

[Ends]

---

Responses from the three Wānaka Ward councillors (unedited)

Initial response from Calum Macleod (WSG’s questions in bold)

Thank you for your e-mail and your invitation to answer your three questions in a sentence.

Can I ask you to note that what you ask is virtually impossible. These are not simple Yes / No, one / two sentence answers. I would be grateful if you could share the above post with your membership. It is longer and an honest attempt to explain my thinking in the detail required. 

I posted this item on Facebook just after Simon Upton released – “Not 100% – but four steps closer to sustainable tourism”

I will now attempt to answer your questions in as few sentences as possible.

1. How can any responsible New Zealand government decision-makers decide to build an additional jet airport in Central Otago? New Zealand itself does not need any more jet capable airports in a country with a population of 5 million.

A – I totally agree! There is currently ample Airport capacity in the South Island.  The best solution is that the NZ Government purchases all Airport shareholding’s and we move to national control of this vital asset. The cash injection can then be invested locally in infrastructure! Airports co-operate not compete, we stop the Tarras debacle, maximise our existing assets and step away from all of the airport companies trying to grab it all!

2. If the only justification for more jet capable airports (as is clearly the case advanced by their proponents) is to enable or facilitate more international tourist arrivals by air (which has the direct effect of facilitating more carbon emissions), how is that consistent with New Zealand’s commitment and urgent need to do its share to tackle climate change?

A – It clearly is not. More is not the answer. In ‘Not 100% … “ the Commissioner for the Environment -Simon Upton – urges NZ to take advantage of the current pause in international tourism to transform the tourism sector. The report has 4 proposals. One – the suggested departure tax to reflect the environmental cost of flying – would help to reduce aviation emissions. It is a viable solution on how to constrain visitor demand. This will also;

• Provide tangible economic benefits
• Provide a revenue source to support climate adaption
• Support our Pacific Island whanau
• Place NZ in an International leadership role 
• Incentivise technological change.

3. Even if it were arguable that, post–Covid, our overseas tourist numbers should return to pre-covid levels in New Zealand’s best economic interests, self-evidently such tourist numbers are already catered for by New Zealand’s existing number of jet capable airports. What is the political and moral case for building more jet airport capacity than we currently have, when this decision will certainly facilitate an increase in tourist flights and therefore in an increase in carbon emissions?

A – First can I please acknowledge that a lot of our Community are currently doing it hard! We will get through this. Moving forward our community MUST rise to the current challenge however the solution cannot compromise our longer-term goals and aspirations.

• We must take a holistic approach – this cannot be simple Economics.  
• This cannot be a swim to the bottom 
• This must take the threat of climate change into account 
• This must prioritise value over volume 
• This must involve as many facets of our community as possible 
• This demands to be a positive discussion 

In order to think and discuss this we need to make some simple but realistic assumptions.

1 – International Tourism will return as a significant focus of NZ’s economic outlook. 

2 – The NZ Government will turn to Tourism $’s to fill NZ’s C19 depleated coffers. 

3 – NZ is an incredibly desirable destination – probably moreso after the C19 experience. 

In 2019 NZ hosted 4 Million tourists. Without a reset the question is not IF inbound tourists will return to these pre-C19 levels – it is a question of WHEN and how long this will take? The discussion demands to be – what is sustainable [In fact regenerative] and what is acceptable? There is no case for building new airports. Establishing and mainatining an upper limit for inbound tourist numbers is essential! NOW is our best ever opportunity!  

Kind Regards

Calum

Calum L M Macleod

QLDC Deputy Mayor, Councillor , WCB Member

Second response from Calum, when asked to explain what he meant by “there is currently ample airport capacity in the South Island”

Please read these comments in combination with all of the other correspondence that I have sent through to you.

I have never fully understood the jet / no jet thing. I have said many times that the decision should be based simply around what is the least impactful!

Wanaka Airport is currently being used by Sounds Air to fly to Christchurch using the Pilatus PC-12. I note that they have recently signed a letter of intent to purchase electric planes with Swedish company Heart Aerospace to use their 19-seat, ES-19 Aircraft allowing them to offer zero-emissions flights. Surely – this is the way forward!

Covid-19 has changed the playing field. In his reports the Commissioner for the Environment argues for NZ to take advantage of the current pause in international tourism to transform the tourism sector. The discussion demands to be what is the most sustainable – in fact regenerative – way forward for us all?

In 2019 we reached almost 4 Million inbound International tourists. This was unsustainable. The pinch was being felt by the community, by the operators and by the inbound market itself. Even TNZ recognised that the impacts had led to demand ‘softening’. Moving from 4 million inbound visitors to a lesser limit would have been impossible. Moving from virtually zero to a specific limit is undoubtedly now achievable.

If NZ were to set an inbound tourist limit – for arguments sake around the 3-4 million number – there is no reason why Wanaka Airport could not stay as it currently stands. It could – indeed it should – strive to become NZ’s first zero-emission airport!

There is currently ample Airport capacity in the South Island. Specifically if we establish an upper limit for inbound tourist numbers. They were handling capacity when we had 4 million inbound tourists! We do however need a more co-ordinated approach in order to effectively utilise this capacity. This points to Central Government leadership and control. 

Establishing and maintaining an upper limit for inbound tourist numbers is feasible. It is the essential discussion! Now is our best ever opportunity to do so!

Kind Regards

Calum

Calum L M Macleod

QLDC Deputy Mayor, Councillor , WCB Member

Response from Niamh Shaw

I hope you are keeping well and many thanks for your letter. At present, with current information and the global crisis presented by climate change, I personally cannot see any justification for building (or expanding) NZ’s airport infrastructure. 

To date, I have seen no compelling case put forward for the provision of additional airport infrastructure in NZ beyond response to demand – much of that driven by our tourism marketing which has, over the last ten years, favoured quantity over quality. Any development appears to be dictated by airlines or the commercial interests of airport corporations. 

It is probably beyond time that a nation-wide plan for the strategic management of airport infrastructure is developed; one that is grounded in reducing aircraft emissions and the carbon footprint generated by visitors.  

It is also my personal belief that – as a nation – we should seize the opportunity currently presented to define what our tourism industry should look like, and plan how to achieve this. In this regard I am grateful for the work undertaken to date by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, and look forward to better outcomes for New Zealanders and our environment.  

Many thanks and kind regards 

Niamh 

Niamh (Neeve) Shaw  |  Councillor  |  Wanaka Ward

Response from Quentin Smith (WSG’s questions in bold)

1. How can any responsible New Zealand government decision-makers decide to build an additional jet airport in Central Otago? New Zealand itself does not need any more jet capable airports in a country with a population of 5 million.

With regard effects on our communities, infrastructure and the requirement to reduce emissions it would be irresponsible to create additional jet capable in airports in NZ.  Most notable our region is serviced by three international grade airports being Queenstown, Dunedin and Invercargill with a lesser populations than Christchurch. Two are which are significantly below capacity. I seen no need for additional jet capable airports in our region. 

2. If the only justification for more jet capable airports (as is clearly the case advanced by their proponents) is to enable or facilitate more international tourist arrivals by air (which has the direct effect of facilitating more carbon emissions), how is that consistent with New Zealand’s commitment and urgent need to do its share to tackle climate change?

Particularly with the regard to the requirement to not just not increase emissions but to significantly reduce emissions over the next 10-30 years any additional aircraft movements would be completely contrary to that imperative.  Prior to COVID also the New Zealand community have been feeling the adverse impact of tourism and further increase in that capacity would be somewhat devastating to the New Zealand way of life.  

3. Even if it were arguable that, post–Covid, our overseas tourist numbers should return to pre-covid levels in New Zealand’s best economic interests, self-evidently such tourist numbers are already catered for by New Zealand’s existing number of jet capable airports. What is the political and moral case for building more jet airport capacity than we currently have, when this decision will certainly facilitate an increase in tourist flights and therefore in an increase in carbon emissions?

In the current infrastructure and environment in NZ it would be hard to imagine that a higher number of tourist arrivals could occur without devastating impacts on our community and under the current technology clearly cannot occur without significantly increase in emissions.  We are going to have to come to terms with a either lesser numbers of flights or dramatically improved technology.  Both the Climate commission and the Simon Upton report on tourism start to paint the picture of the considerations moving forward.  On the plus side kiwis have turned out in their backyard to enjoy NZ with record numbers camping, tramping and enjoying travelling a little closer to home.

Quentin Smith  |  Councillor  |  Wanaka Ward

Chair of Infrastructure Committee