The Government is considering stopping councils from enforcing tough rules on freshwater which were required by the previous Labour administration.
It has not given details on how it will do this, but suggested imposing a halt to new measures by councils pending further work by ministers.
“We may look into whether current requirements to complete a freshwater farm plan could be paused while improvements are developed”, the Associate Environment Minister Andrew Hoggard says, in a statement made alongside the Agriculture Minister Todd McClay.
At issue is a requirement that farmers produce plans to manage fresh water on their properties under a National Policy Statement issued in 2020.
Several regions have already started implementing freshwater farm plans required by these rules, including Waikato, Southland, the West Coast, Otago, and Manawatū-Whanganui.
The move by Otago Regional Council to press ahead was assailed by Federated Farmers last month.
"It’s a poor decision that will result in even more regulation being piled onto Otago farmers in the coming months," the group's environment spokesman Colin Hurst said at the time.
"The last thing farmers struggling through high interest rates, low payouts and drought conditions want to be waking up to is news that more red tape is likely on the way later this year."
Federated Farmers subsequently applauded the latest decision by Ministers Hoggard, a former Federated Farmers president, and McClay.
The two men insist freshwater farm plans must be cost effective and practical.
“A fit-for-purpose freshwater farm plan system will enable farmers and growers to find the right solutions for their farm and catchment,” Hoggard says.
“Farmers faced an avalanche of regulation under the last Government, including its national Freshwater Farm Plans system. Using property and catchment-specific farm plans makes sense because they can be used to identify environmental risks and plan practical on-farm actions to manage those risks."
Hoggard calls the system he inherited costly and complex, and too broadly applied.
"We want to make sure that the cost of completing a farm plan, in both time and money, is matched with the level of risk."
Farm experts believe the current system is aggravated, because councils are required to enforce the law as it currently exists. In addition, they are under close scrutiny from environmental advocates wanting to seize what chances they have to require environmental improvements while they still can.
Farmers, however, say the will of the current government and its intentions to issue reforms should be taken into account, and councils could end up wasting money if they enforce reforms that turn out not to be needed.
As and when a final fix to this problem is worked out, ministers say it will cover stock exclusion and winter grazing rules as well as freshwater management.
Certification and auditing requirements will also be considered, along with any support farmers need to develop robust freshwater farm plans.
Officials are undertaking research on these matters at present.
58 Comments
And will there be compensation paid to those councils who have already invested time and money into implementation of the current law?
This government is crippling councils, and subsequently their ratepayers - first by withdrawing 3 Waters without a viable alternative - second by making the MDRS optional (after most required to do so had already gone through the plan change process) and now this.
Compensation should be demanded by LGNZ and councils should nationwide/collectively withhold GST collected on rates until such time as those compensation demands are met.
The previous governments’s introduction and presentation of their three waters scheme was covert and untrustworthy. Firstly it was virtually surprise legislation without any prior signalling in any manifesto. Secondly elements such as the co-governance were neither satisfactorily explained nor justified. Thirdly the attempt to entrench the legislation was furtive and deceptive and a middle finger to all of NZ(and mostly the then PM & cabinet) in terms of parliamentary protocol and democracy itself. Anything at all that is so poorly conceived and promoted inevitably replicates that in function. For example long ago Muldoon’s interventions such as SMPs in the meat industry. I would wager that the towelling Labour got in the election contained a fair measure of rejection, and the suspicion the electorate carried over their conduct with this fiasco. The new government is now obliged to pick up the pieces and start again.
umm, was it covert?
https://www.dia.govt.nz/Three-waters-review - plenty of stake holder engagement from 2018 all the way through to 2020. this was following on form the work initialed by the previous National government in 2017 in response to the Havelock North water issue where 5000 people got sick. If you care to read the labour election manifesto, it references that they were going to reform water and waste water system. https://www.labour.org.nz/news-labour_2020_manifesto .
The new government made a choice to stop the train and dismantle the tracks that had been laid over the last 4 years.
Exactly. An initiative that was and is still begging for a solution. If the new government wanted to change the governance arrangements (which seemed to be one of the big bug bears with the public) then how easy would that have been! The general public will have to pay for this underinvestment over so many years - so why wouldn't the government use its lower borrowing costs to fund it. the repeal makes no sense whatsoever to me.
Water assets are liabilities, not assets. And given they are treated as assets on council balance sheets - not only do we pay more in interest to build and renew them but then get the double whammy of depreciation of those new "assets".
Throwing the problem over to some sort of public-private partnership model is simply the worst option imaginable. Though to be fair they haven't really enunciated exactly what that is supposed to look like yet. Instead, I think they're just doing a wait and see regarding paying for this via LG rates and/or more 'creative' user-pay mechanisms being introduced.
Hope springs eternal, eh?
Yeah, well their 'ideas' touted so far don't give me any hope whatsoever.
In the meantime, local government has an 'idea' for immediate relief while they 'take all the time they need';
https://www.lgnz.co.nz/news/media-releases/govts-billion-dollar-tax-tak…
Yep, exactly the sort of scaremongering that got us to the impossible place we are now in.
Your darling coalition could have changed that aspect of the legislation with a strike of the pen. But they didn't - instead they threw the baby out with the bathwater.
I'd be keen to understand your opinion as to why?
Its flaws went far beyond the issue of co-governance. The explanation you need is right here. Mr Hickey, Interest.co.nz 9 August 2022 outlining the Auditor General’s blistering condemnation of the proposal. Samples from that. “Auditor General called out its underpinning lack of accountability to tax payers and rate payers.” “ too clever for its own good.” That report I submit again endorses the disingenuous and clandestine mission that Labour Government embarked on and whilst there may be criticism of this coalition at least they made it starkly clear to the electorate that it would be repealed and as far as coalitions go I would bet you my last shirt that this piece of double dealing would never have gone anywhere at all during the coalition of 2017 and ask yourself why.
Yes, but repealed without a clue about how to address the problem. Same as with the RMA replacement legislation - and to address the problem they're bringing in a 'three Minister's get to choose favorites' Bill.
No matter which way you look at it - this new government is so far from being classically liberal or libertarian - instead it's a government of subsidies, tax breaks, PPPs and consents for the 'old boys' network. And look who agrees with me;
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/election-2023-act-founder-sir-ro…
Well according to transactional’s post above the genesis for the reforms was established prior to 2017, and accordingly, the new government has that as a starting point. My view, supported by the Auditor General I suggest , is that Labour, but only after 2020, were wayward, deceptive and undemocratic in their interpretation and process from that point. In the face of that you now elect to broaden the argument into criticism of the current government in general. Fair enough, this site hosts those opinions from all sides willingly, but nonetheless you have here, done no more than go out of context.
Labour, but only after 2020, were wayward, deceptive and undemocratic in their interpretation and process
Never seen anything so undemocratic as the 'Three Minister's decide' Bill. Not even Muldoon's earlier National Development Act 1979 - as at least he was just side-stepping legislation for his government's Think Big projects.
This version of 'Three Minister's decide' has been extended to "decide in favor of the old boys network, as well" - no offence to old boys intended, it's just that the expression suits (everyone will get what I mean).
This is like WP and the racing elite on steroids.
In my time I have met NZ Prime Ministers, Ministers & MPs. I couldn’t count on one hand, from any government, those that I would either admire or recommend. While you may have in your opinion valid argument(s) criticising this lot or previous lots, it is entirely counterproductive to justify the bad actions of one by pointing to worse actions of another. But if you think the apple you have taken out of the barrel is less rotten than the other, then you should enjoy it.
Oh yes you can review & regurgitate negative political history until the cows come home. But here you have earlier asserted that one government could easily have scrapped just one feature of existing legislation when in fact as explained by no less than the Auditor General, there were even greater underlying problems. With scarce acknowledgment of that you then go off in a tangent comparing ills of one side to that of the other. Appreciate your energy and expertise and humour and ideas that are often expressed here but do hope that your submissions as you have mentioned here, remain on topic somewhat better. With regard to counterproductivity, you are more than capable of working out how to and how not to set standards for oneself, in that excusing yourself or giving yourself a lift by being superior to something known to be inferior, is hardly much of a challenge.
everything the A-G criticized could have been fixed via amendments. Not sure where you are going here - amendments are standard fare for incoming governments;
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/472474/auditor-general-urges-accou…
As I said, instead they threw the baby out with the bathwater - and here we are with no solution in sight.
Great post, picking a point in time and going from there, like an alternative history. Great thing about using the select committee process, and time is that it allows for these questions to be worked through and amended.
https://www.dia.govt.nz/Water-services-reform-archived-information
If you go down the page on the link to select committee and read from there.
The whole thing is an omnishambles because turkeys don't vote for Christmas.
the previous government got voted out because of those poorly planed legislations, and National &co campaigned on rolling back those legislations and got voted in. perhaps that's the clue?
the previous Labour government wasn't a government up to standard. it handled several crisis well, but the rest was just shambles.
I'm all for Auckland having more & better ferries and a second harbour brideg or tunnel, provided Auckalnders pay for it - next election Kate stand as a candidate proposing these items and see if Auckland ratepayers agree with you, as a S Islander who is unlikely to visit Auckland and get use of Bridge or Ferries I object to paying in my taxes for those items.
Thing is - they've got some embarrassingly poor water quality stats in the streams and rivers in their catchment. Tried to turn the tide with One Plan - (was that over a decade ago now?) - and came up against fierce (and expensive) resistance. And then there was the debacle of non-compliant consents being granted due to political pressure from the elected members as well.
Not to forget that PNCC was non-compliant time and time again, for what I think might have been two decades in terms of the wastewater treatment plant.
I get that the region is not a tourism mecca but neither do I think its environment should be suffering so much for the sake of the nation's export receipts either. There must be some kind of intelligent middle ground that can see water quality improvements in the region. Of all the places that NZ should be expanding development, diversifying produce/production and encouraging greater population; it's in the Manawatu - it's flat, fertile and accessible. Not great that cows hold so much sway :-).
The thing is Kate..
Horizons set us some "arbitrary " water quality standards for our catchment.
20 local farmers formed a group and tested (privately funded) local water at the SOURCE of the catchment.It failed to meet their standards.
Let that sink in... the water quality failed before it passed one farm/one sheep/one cow..
No amount of mitigation from farmers was going to make the catchment compliant.
The end game being to cease farming to "preserve" the enviroment..
Sure there are issues in the region but to completely cease living here is not a workable solution.
Is English not your first language?
The source is the start of the catchment. A spring in the bush.The is no "contamination". Just an unrealistic expectation of what water in its natural state should look like .
They set impossible goals then try to shut us down when we can't achieve them..
English is very much my first language and on reading your message above I too thought it meant the water must have somehow been contaminated before it got to the 'source', and wondered how and why that happened. It is a fair question, no need to insult the person who asked it.
We tested stormwater in the drain upstream of our property to see what was being introduced to our land, and contaminants included human waste from the undersized septic soak fields put into the very expensive subdivision further up the hill.
It only took 18 months and two councils to convince my neighbour it wasn't "ok" for his septic tank to continually discharge onto my paddocks.
We have fenced off all our seasonal drains to keep stock out even though it is not required, and soon we will be riparian planting in the hopes the water leaving our land will be at least a little cleaner than when it arrives. The human animal is gross.
And it is these sorts of voluntary initiatives to improve water quality leaving your property that should be incentivized via a payment for ecosystem services.
It’s the same in Gisborne, some of our streams don’t meet the national bottom lines for sediment even before they leave the bush and meet farmland - because the standard is ‘National’ and ignores local hydrology and geology. I think most people assume that legislation is made using more common sense than this and that’s why they presume there’s some skullduggery in what you’re saying. Sadly I’ve been part of these processes and legislation is often made without any real ‘ground truth’ - which sadly undermines the support of the very people it needs to action its aims.
Unfortunately Manawatu, Whanganui and all other Horizons Reginal Council areas are only flat in very small areas.
Mostly hill country if one leaves the main road. Thing is export receipts are everything.
Without dairying this country has, not a lot.
Forestry is and always will be an important export earner alongside red meat.
A lot of the intended legislation around water on farm is almost impossible on hill country.
Having said that there is a good case to have water reforms for residential areas.
Without dairying this country has, not a lot.
Perhaps only because we've been following the wrong export model/mindset: monoculture focused on providing raw materials in bulk.
We do have ag/hort innovation in finished goods (e.g., wine) and are slowly diversifying our product line up, but we still haven't broken through on value-add and niche products - despite having a lot of world class creative people and some really bold, new crop initiatives happening.
But, I think we'll get there and in 50 years time we'll have half the dairy herd we do today.
Hit the nail on the head Kate - over regulation, obstructionist bureacrats, No 8 wire faded as a result - Rocket Lab - huge succees - even NASA is using them - why - No or little regulation and no Bureacratic interference, If Govt gets rid of the extra 16,000 useless burecrats labour imposed that would be a good start.
Aside from the specifics of all of these policies that are being 'wound back' I'm concerned that this government is being reckless by not considering the effects of normalising this approach. We've already seen how expensive this can be. If we end up down a road where future governments selfishly adopt this approach as well, we are going to pay a big price. It's a dangerous precedent.
Just when I thought politicians couldn't get any worse in terms of short term thinking, they find a new way to disappoint.
It's not all bad...this ACT NZF move yesterday was interesting
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/513953/samoa-citizenship-bill-pass…
I wondered why National opposed it? Surely an obvious case for bipartisanship
Agreed but actually this is probably the first time MMP has delivered in true fashion and probably as well, that is this is the first time NZ has a proper MMP government rather than just a major and a lackey. Of course the irrepressible cynic in me might think that this is a nice feature for the electorate to digest about how well and fairly their government is operating in this regard?
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.