sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

Willy Leferink defends the need for inspectors to pre-book compliance visits; supports big fines for non-compliant offenders

Rural News
Willy Leferink defends the need for inspectors to pre-book compliance visits; supports big fines for non-compliant offenders

By Willy Leferink*

Part of my volunteer work at Federated Farmers is handling some tricky stuff from time to time and there’s none trickier when one of our guys let the side down by not doing the right thing.

I’ve heard heaps of stories that farming is like some secret society in that, nudge nudge, wink wink, we look after one another and look the other way.

That view is wrong. 

We have a good story to tell given water quality is trending in the right direction according to the Ministry for the Environment.

There are plans to light the after burners on what we do environmentally given positive payout forecasts.  

But you cannot shout from the rooftops about what we do well without owning what we don’t do so well. Most dairy farmers are honest and hard working people committed to doing the right thing but there are some exceptions.

In recent days two farmers copped $167,000 worth of fines between them. I’m sure some of our critics will be happier than a pig in mud over this news, but what these farmers did was wrong. They got caught and justice has been rightly served. It also shows how easy it is for one or two to let down the team and unpick the great work most farmers do.    

What disappoints me with these convictions is that there is plenty of industry support out there for farmers.

My advice to farmers, wherever they are, is to talk with your local Feds team, DairyNZ and your dairy company to make sure things are not getting on top of you.

We will back to the hilt those who do the right thing but cannot turn a blind eye when the team is let down.

A few days ago, Wellington’s Dominion Post published a story on dairy compliance inspections. It led with Fish & Game saying this was like warning drunks about police checkpoints.

What rot.

If you’ve had effluent ponding it doesn’t take much of a trained eye to spot it because a breach stands out like the proverbial on a dog.

What’s more, linking inspections to drink-driving is not only dull-headed, it is insulting to any farmer who has lost friends or family to drink driving.

We accept random police checkpoints to prevent people from dying but we wouldn’t stand for being frisked every time you left a supermarket to prevent shoplifting.

That’s why pre-booking compliance visits is not only a far smarter use of council and farmer time, it is professional courtesy.

Imagine the outcry if the Education Review Office moved to unannounced school inspections instead of the months they give boards and principals. Few organisations in-town get inspected at the drop of a hat.

I may be mistaken but I thought innocent until proven guilty was central to our legal system.

The number of dairy abatement notices fell from 537 in 2008/9 to 290 in 2012/13.

Dairy infringement notices also fell from 500 to 221 over the same period.

While there are 12,000 dairy herds a total of 34 farmers were prosecuted in 2012/13.

Putting this into a perspective is the 2012/13 national crime statistics, where 821.2 crimes were recorded for every 10,000 Kiwis. 

There are more reasons for pre-booking. We’ve all had that unexpected caller knocking on your door when you’re head down, tail up.

With my Canterbury farm a compliance inspection is done under cost recovery and it costs well over $200 for each inspection.

What was missing from the report is that farms are occupational work places with notifiable hazards we are legally responsible for.

Having an inspector turn up when you are just about to undertake pest control or clear downed trees doesn’t get things off to a good start when we are all supposedly working towards good management practice.  

One of the biggest advantages of having advance notification is that the farmer can make time to talk things over with the inspector and learn from the visit. Isn’t an ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure?

Finally, I would observe that we seem to know more about the environmental performance of 12,000 dairy herds than we do about 67 cities, districts and unitary councils.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Willy Leferink is Federated Farmers Dairy Chairperson and a version was printed in the Dominion Post. It is here with permission.

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.

6 Comments

As a farmer I find your reasoning weak. How often do you fell trees or do pest control?

 Are the abatement and infringment notices falling because you get 3 to 4 days notice of inspection?

 I not saying that you are wrong, in fact i got inspected by OSH, he just turned up, nice guy and gave me alot of advice, some of which i acted on. I would imagine that what the councils are putting farmers through in some areas, must feel like harassment.

 I live in an area where river pollution is becoming a big problem, the finger will end up being pointed at large scale dairy farms and some large feedlots. I suspect it will be justified, i don't know the answer.

 Do you think draconian legislation is coming our way because those in town are getting fed up with dry rivers and water pollution.

 

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/9309726/Water-nitrate-a-risk-to-infant-health

Up
0

There will be more draconian legislation due to a minority group - it is and has always been this way.

There always seems to about 10% of any one group who cause any problem and the rest of the people have more to comply with it in some form which holds the innocent in bondage to the bureaucracy.

 

The disfunctional bureaucratic organisations are incapable of identifying the small number of people causing problems anywhere and farming is no exception. Catch the dirty ones and leave the rest alone.

 

I would have thought dumping pollutants into any waterway system would have been an offence under the Crimes Act. If the Duty of Care is abnegated then I would have thought an offence had been committed under the Crimes Act. Have the Police prosecuted anyone for polluting the waterways or contaminating drinking water supplies etc? If not why not?

If the police have the time and resources to run around catching people travelling 5km over the speed limit but then allow people to pollute and contaminate and cause damaged to someone downstream then we all need to be questioning the whole legislative system as it cannot do the job it was designed for and the people tasked with carrying out the duties and functions are also a failure.

 

Under the Crimes Act (s)200 Poisoning with intent. (s) Injuring by unlawful act

(s)165 Causing death that might have been prevented.

 

If a farmer pollutes the waterway and someone suffers an injury from this contamination then that farmer needs to be held responsible. If a farmer keeps dumping pollutants knowing the pollutants cause health problems then shouldn't that be enough to satisfy intent. 

 

The Government should also deal effectively with Councils who have placed pathetic consent conditions that do not relate to a soil, water,air, etc emmisions. I heard a story the other day of a Farmer who had a consent condition that required him to notify Council everytime management changed. What a load of bollocks this clause is and shows the standard of those drawing up the consent conditions as being well below what should be expected.

Up
0

notaneconomist: In Southland it is a minor breach of compliance not to notify ES of every manager change on a farm.  I have never understood this as the manager is not the consent holder. 

 

Up
0

CO - It is difficult to understand why such clauses are being written in to Consent Conditions when the consents are over the title. 

Consent Conditions should relate to Air, water, soil, noise light etc depending on the District Plan land zoning and activity. Right from the get go of the RMA, Council staff have had difficulty in understanding the Purpose of the Act. There are a huge number of breaches of the Bill of Rights and other documents that make up the constitution of NZ in Consent conditions and it really makes my blood boil that Councils are constantly getting away with this. Consent Holders don't take Court Action as it is so expensive and that is allowing the Councils to get away with their nonsense.

 

The RMA is one of the biggest issues that NZ faces in not being able to increase productivity. 

A hydroponic lettuce grower must apply for Resource Consents even though his land is zoned Rural Agriculture the authorities deem that a Consents is nessary due to the fact his lettuces are not grown in the soil.

 

A wedding venue and gardens on rural zoned land was considered in breach of its Consent Condition as the owners who lived on site entered the venue to clean after midnight. This particular property has the owners notify the Council when they have personal friends and family visit.

 

Politicians and the Bureaucrats are asleep at the wheel and none are keeping appropriate records or monitoring how many entreprenurial people aren't expanding their business due to the RMA.

The RMA is shambolic.....and I'm very dissapointed in organisations like FF who have become yes boys supporting this hideous costly shambles.

 

Up
0

Aj - a slightly more balanced view of the water report which includes:

ECan programme manager Christina Robb said only two of the wells from the three South Canterbury zones were public supply wells - one had nitrate nitrogen at very low levels (0.4mg/L), and the other had levels at 8.8mg/L; still below the New Zealand drinking water standard.  (11.3mg/L is the maximum for drinking standards.)

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/agribusiness/9320472/Rural-wate…

 

Then there is the legal  deliberate pollution that we almost never see being taken to task in msm:

But despite the huge value that our water has there are many places in New Zealand, such as Dunedin where only "primary treatment" is carried out on the wastewater that comes from 126,000 people.

For your information, "primary treatment" just means running the waste through a screen to pull out tampons and condoms - clearly doing nothing for water quality and disease.

And right here in Auckland, the Council tells us not to swim for 48 hours after rain and to avoid areas such as stormwater outfalls and stream mouths.....................

Cox's Bay, The Wairau Outlet, Meola Reef and Weymouth Beach are all supposedly too dirty to ever go near and in Dunedin despite the perfect waves, surfers have to avoid going to Tomahawk Beach for fear of getting sick.

Frankly this is an embarrassment.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/environment/news/article.cfm?c_id=39&objectid…

Up
0

I insist all vistors who feel they have legal right of entry to the property to notify me of their visit.  I also reserve the right to physically or shoot people who appear who have not announced themselves and appear to be tampering with farm equipment or water ways.  I have an extremely large Third-party Insurance policy that I have to pay for just in case a trespasser injuries themselves, and some waterways can be tricky for those who think they're experts... We've had council folk try to cross flood swollen creeks which is just stupidity, one slip at they'll be swept into a culvert or under the edge of a stream bank in the blink of a eye.

 We don't need warnigns to "get stuff ready" that is silly bureaucrat rubbish, we don't look shiny on inspections because we don't do spit and polish just for inspections.  We run a good business and it shows, it's not inspection ready but it ain't just for appearances BS done to impress the gullible and the media.

However this is a major hazard zone, and as such ALL visitors legally entitled or not are required to agree to certain safety precautions before entering the property, and as we are not accompanying or escorting said visitors (unless prior arrangement is done) we do not accept that their welfare is our concern, as we are not party to their actions and thoughts nor do we have control over their movements.

 

Up
0