A dark cloud is shading Matt and Tory Simpson’s optimism that a new dawn for land use regulation is around the corner.
Like thousands of other farmers, the owners of Ranui Station in Canterbury were delighted to hear pledges from the Government that resource management reform would reduce red tape, and balance environmental protection with property rights.
“It’s hugely disappointing to find the reality falls short of the rhetoric,” says Matt, who’s co-chair of Federated Farmers High Country.
“The two new bills are riddled with flaws and the select committee now has a mammoth task ahead to get things back on track.”
For the Simpsons, and many other landowners and businesses, it’s far more than just a desire for less paperwork, bureaucracy, hearings and expensive resource consents.
“Livelihoods are at stake,” Matt says.
“We look after nature and want to develop this place so it’s in good shape and a going concern for the next generation.
“We have high hopes the new resource management laws will help us combat the Outstanding Natural Landscape overlay restrictions on more than half the station, and other clamps on our ability to diversify income streams,” he says.
Last December the Government released two new bills – the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill – to replace the Resource Management Act (RMA).
Federated Farmers has lodged a comprehensive submission on the bills, re-stating strong support for overhaul of the RMA.
“We absolutely back the goals and principles agreed by Cabinet,” Feds RMA Reform spokesperson Mark Hooper says.
“Those include enabling primary sector growth, narrowing the scope of effects of the RMA, and greater use of national standards while reducing the need for resource consents.
“If you want that in less jargony terms – that means faster, better, more efficient processes and knocking on the head the trend of endless hearings, appeals and uncertainty.
“Unfortunately, somewhere in between the ambitions of Government MPs and drafting of the legislation, something has fallen over.”
A major concern is that, as currently written, instead of a farm plan replacing the need for a resource consent, a farm may need both.
“We see a risk of farmers facing more red tape under the Natural Environment Act than they presently do under the RMA,” Hooper says.
There are too many ambiguous, principle-based clauses in the two bills, which is likely to see continued expensive, time-consuming and litigious decision making, he says.
The environment bill fails to clearly rule greenhouse gas issues out of scope – despite these already being dealt with in other Acts – and the lack of a clear scope section and definition of effect also leaves the door open to intangible, hard-to-measure concepts such as the ‘mauri’ of water.
“Too much power is left in the hands of the Minister, under any future government, to impact the economy under National Policy Direction.
“And there’s still too much uncertainty over how farmers will access compensation for overlays and other restrictions on their property.
“We pushed hard for a risk-based approach to auditing and certification of farm plans but that’s also missing,” Hooper says.
Federated Farmers’ other concerns include the carry-over of aspects of outdated Water Conservation Orders from the RMA, lack of protection for stock drinking water, and inability to insure against inadvertent breaches of regulation.
Hooper says time pressure may be a reason for “too much drag and drop” of content from the RMA into the draft new legislation.
“The Government and officials worked hard last year to make a series of amendments to the existing RMA.
“These were important fixes that enabled farmers to get on with production.
“That took focus away from the two new bills, and perhaps in the back of their minds was the fact there would be a five-month long select committee process and chances to weed out flaws.”
But Hooper believes the select committee has a challenging task.
“Federated Farmers has already voiced its unwavering opposition to clauses in the Natural Environment Bill which enable the Minister to auction, tender, or levy water.
“Getting rid of these potential water taxes is probably quite easily handled with changes of wording.
“But for other parts, the bill is drafted holistically and it’s more like a spider’s web, with layer upon layer of clauses that are interactive with other clauses.
“It’s going to take a lot of effort to untangle it.”
Hooper says it’s vital the select committee works diligently, and that its members who represent the coalition Government stick up for the original goals of RMA reform: simplicity, efficiency, less cost and litigation.
“Quite frankly, they’re principles and goals that an elected representative of any political persuasion should defend.”
