Claims that the implementation of new intensive winter grazing regulations was shambolic have been vindicated by an internal review.
The review into the implementation of new freshwater regulations found issues were caused by meddling by Environment Minister David Parker.
It also found staff were overworked and junior staff were doing roles in which they lacked experience without oversight. There was inadequate information for consultation, no stress-testing of regulations, and differing interpretations of agreed policy decisions.
“These issues all contributed to a feeling of uncertainty by affected parties (farmers) regarding the impacts of these regulations on their practices (for example, whether and when they would require a resource consent),” says report author John O’Connell, the Ministry for the Environment’s (MFE) principal risk and assurance advisor.
Looking at the implementation of intensive winter grazing policies – low-slope maps, pugging and resowing dates – O’Connell says the exposure draft gave affected parties only three working days and a weekend to comment.
Federated Farmers president Andrew Hoggard said the implementation report was released only after a personal request to Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and her ministers.
“There was no opportunity to properly read it, give feedback and drill into it at a deeper level,” said Hoggard.
He said the report shows the government was determined to drive through the new regulations before the end of the election cycle.
“They were hellbent that nothing was going to get in the way of their agenda instead of how it can be progressed in a smart and achievable way.”
Further complicating the process was what O’Connell called “ministerial-driven scope changes”.
He found that Parker initially ignored advice from the ministry and an independent advisory panel to not include pugging rules in the National Environmental Standards as they were deemed too difficult to enforce.
Once regional councils added their voice, reiterating that pugging rules were unenforceable, officials were able to shift their focus to the practicality of the policies.
The reforms are complicated, comprehensive and controversial – and this was accentuated by MFE and the Ministry for Primary Industry having different positions and priorities.
“This was due to their subject area and scope, the involvement of two ministries (MFE and MPI) and two ministers (environment and agriculture) with sometimes different agendas, and their impact on affected parties,” says O’Connell.
Tight time frames added to the pressure.
“The high ministerial priority of this work, and a political desire to implement the package in the current term of government, meant that the overall deadline could not be pushed out,” the report says.
This also prevented the policy from being stress-tested.
The report found the use of slope maps to identify stock exclusion areas was imprecise, especially at paddock level, making it difficult for landowners to assess the impact.
Accepting advice earlier on the unsuitability of stipulating dates by which winter-grazed paddocks must be resown, especially in Otago and Southland, would have reduced confusion and anger.
Beef + Lamb NZ chief executive Sam McIvor said he accepts the government’s right to make law but is frustrated at what he sees as its controlling approach.
This is leading to impractical policies, deterring farmers from being involved.
His frustration was highlighted by the recently released exposure draft for the National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity, which he said ignores multiple concerns that the definition for “significant natural areas” is too broad.
“It’s a highly technical document requiring specialised ecological expertise to assess, yet the government only allowed six weeks for assessment and submissions,” said McIvor.
“The philosophy we are increasingly seeing from this government is more and more they want to control everything you do.
“It leads to additional work but does not add much value.”
McIvor said it is turning goodwill into anger and frustration.
“If the government adopted a more agile process and sat down with industry and worked to co-design policy, they would unquestionably end up with a more practical outcome and get better farmer buy-in.”
A spokesman for Parker said there was strong public support to act to stop the degradation of waterways. The government extended the consultation period and policies have been phased in gradually to allow time for the farming community, councils and others to build capability and capacity, the spokesman said. Freshwater farm plans will be phased in and introduced to three or four regions at a time.
Hoggard said despite the damning report, there has been no slowdown in new legislation, with climate change, Three Waters, drinking water, the Resource Management Act and reviews on local government and stewardship land all under way.
“It just seems like everything is being tipped on its head at the same time.”
