The Government wanted “to modernise the principles of the act” to make it more practical and relevant, standardise council plans and simplify the process for gaining consents.
Having said the RMA reforms were important for addressing issues of housing supply and affordability over the longer term, Key reiterated the Government’s commitment to improving water quality and the management of fresh water.
“Water reform will continue through advancing the recommendations of the Land and Water Forum,” he said.
“Investment in regional water infrastructure will help water storage projects get under way.
“The Government will progress measures to exclude dairy cattle from waterways and to voluntarily buy and retire areas of selected farmland next to important waterways to create an environmental buffer.”
Labour’s primary industries spokesman Damien O’Connor said the only mention of agriculture in Key’s speech was related to fencing dairy cattle from streams.
Beyond that, it was unclear what the RMA reforms might mean for agriculture, he said.
The focus seemed to be on housing costs and making it easier to build houses.
But that implied more use of valuable farmland for housing, “which is not in agriculture’s best long-term interests”.
O’Connor credited the Land and Water Forum with making some progress on water issues “but the difficult issues remain unresolved”.
Dairy Exporter asked Housing and Conservation Minister Nick Smith’s office for more information about the likely changes and their consequences for dairy farmers.
His staff said details of the legislation had not been completed but Smith had made a media release on January 21 on RMA reforms.
Smith mentioned dairy twice in the speech, in a section dealing with the proposed strengthening of powers for national regulation.
The RMA provided for National Policy Statements and National Environment Standards but they have been used infrequently.
Smith illustrated his case for hardening the rules by referring to the need for all dairy farmers to fence their stock out of rivers.To ensure that was done under the existing law, the Government would have to write a national policy and consult extensively on it.
Each regional council then would have to change its regional plan with another process of consultation. Even after that a council would not be able to implement the policy until each individual farmer’s resource consent came up for renewal, a process likely to take about 30 years.
The Government is proposing a law change to enable national regulation of issues such as this after one round of national consultation. The power of immediate implementation would be backed up by a regime of instant fines.
“Our plan is to have such a rule in place for dairy cows to be banned from streams and rivers by July 2017,” Smith said.
Smith did not mention irrigation but he did say good infrastructure was essential to the functioning of a modern nation – whether it be for transport, communication, water or energy.
“The absence of any mention of the importance of good infrastructure is an anomaly in the RMA that needs addressing,” he said.
He also said economic growth, jobs and exports needed recognition.
“The idea that the only consideration in resource consenting is protection of nature is naive,” he said.
“This is not the National Parks Act. When consideration is being given to allow a new factory, a new road, a new marine farm, a mine or a new tourism attraction we need to carefully weigh up the effects on the environment alongside the benefits of economic growth and jobs.”
Federated Farmers RMA spokesman Ian Mackenzie said Smith’s signals would resonate with farmers and while only limited information had been released “indications are that the changes are likely to be significant”.
Long-overdue measures to reduce compliance and regulatory costs were critical if the twin objectives of economic growth and environmental protection were to be achieved, Mackenzie said.
A key frustration for farmers under current RMA procedures was that expensive planners, consultants and lawyers were being paid money that could better be spent on environmental enhancement. Key areas of focus for the federation as the Government developed its legislation would be collaborative processes and ensuring existing checks and balances were maintained “so rights are not arbitrarily abolished”.
Mackenzie said the standardisation of planning templates had some merit in terms of consistency but must not be to the detriment of enabling local solutions to local problems. The same concern applied to the greater use of National Policy Statements.
“We now know the broad brush of where Government intends to go,” he said.
“We’re very keen to look at the fine detail of the wording of the reforms.”
DairyNZ policy adviser Oliver Parson said the proposed reforms had been outlined at “a pretty high level” but “we will need to see the detail of the Bill before we can more accurately work out the impacts and frame our submission points”.
He identified four key points he expected to have significant impacts on dairy farmers.
Greater weight to property rights: DairyNZ hopes this will ensure existing use rights are considered when regulations such as freshwater limits are introduced.
“While everyone is united in the need to clean up our waterways, in some cases the nature of restrictions means major impacts on land values and profitability, “ Parsons said. “Hopefully we can be smarter about managing the transition and avoiding the erosion of people’s property rights.”
National planning templates: Farmers have difficulty complying because several different sets of rules around the country manage the same activities with the same environmental effects.
Consistent regional and district plan structures will make navigating compliance easier, Parsons said. And standardising some basic rules will result in better resource management outcomes with lower compliance costs.
Speeding up plan-making: Preparing plans is hard work for councils and land users. This is costly for councils and ratepayers and the long periods of uncertainty while new plans are being written delay business decisions, Parsons said. This impedes investment in more profitable and sustainable farming systems.
“Provided there is good science, economics and collaboration behind new plans, speeding them up will be good for everyone.”
Encouraging collaborative resolution: DairyNZ strongly supports collaborative decision-making.
“Dairy farming is a complex business and the environmental issues we are dealing with involve complex science, Parsons said.
“Collaborative decision-making means taking the time to talk through the detail of the cultural, social, economic and environmental issues. In our experience, the better the decision-makers understand the issues that farmers face, the more balanced and enduring the decisions tend to be.”
Planned changes
Environment Minister Nick Smith outlined 10 major changes the Government would be including in its second phase of Resource Management Act reforms this year.
The changes would:
• Add natural hazards;
• Recognise urban planning;
• Prioritise housing affordability;
• Acknowledge the importance of infrastructure;
• Give greater weight to property rights;
• Provide national planning templates;
• Speed up plan-making;
• Encouraging collaborative resolution;
• Strengthen national tools;
• Facilitate greater use of the internet for simplicity and speed.
The Government’s aim is to have the Bill before Parliament and through a full select committee process this year.
