Colin Hurst retweetledi
It’s been several weeks since the Government released its two new bills to replace the broken Resource Management Act.
Since then, a lot of farmers have been asking the same question: what does Federated Farmers think of what’s been proposed?
With more than 700 pages of legislation to wade through – and a Christmas break in the middle – our team has been very busy getting their heads around what’s really in these bills.
First, it’s important to state Federated Farmers is completely on board with the aims of the reform.
The promise of a stronger focus on property rights, a tighter scope, fewer resource consents, more standardisation and less litigation all sound like the reset farmers have been calling for.
But as we’ve worked through the detail, it’s become clear that what officials have delivered does not always match Cabinet’s intent.
As currently drafted, the new system may be more permissive where environmental limits are comfortably met, but potentially more restrictive where a catchment is at its limit or in breach.
Given councils often set limits that aim to maintain current water quality levels, this could mean most catchments are immediately at or beyond environmental limits from the outset.
As the Natural Environment Bill is more restrictive when catchments approach environmental limits, that could actually mean more resource consents for farmers, not fewer.
This is on top of requirements for all farmers to also have a Freshwater Farm Plan.
Federated Farmers supports the shift to a farm plan approach, but only if this is taking the place of, not in addition to, a resource consent.
Last year we welcomed the Government’s commitment to ensure compensation is provided where restrictive overlays – such as Outstanding Natural Landscapes and Significant Natural Areas – are imposed on our farms.
But again, the proposed compensation regime is narrower than many expected.
It relies on proving a “significant impact on the reasonable use of land”, meaning compensation could be very limited and will be dependent on how future court cases interpret that threshold.
Water Conservation Orders remain largely untouched, despite being an outdated planning tool.
And much of the most important detail in the Natural Environment Bill – like the meaning of key goals, the scope of regulation, and what regional plans must contain – is deferred to future national direction set by the Minister.
That creates a ‘trust us and wait’ model and opens the door to wildly different interpretations by future governments.
Most concerning of all are provisions allowing freshwater rights to be auctioned, tendered, or levied – effectively enabling freshwater to be taxed.
Federated Farmers is alarmed at clauses in the bill that give future Ministers sweeping powers to tax water to manage demand.
That is not something Federated Farmers can or will support.
I will be seeking urgent clarification from the Beehive – because any reform that allows water taxes by stealth is completely unacceptable.
And rest assured, we’ll be lodging a strong submission on your behalf to point out weaknesses in the two bills.
English
