KEY POINTS:
People often ask me why farmers are so upset about the Resource Management Act. Put simply, the RMA and its processes are a time and money black hole.
Here's one example. A small farmer in North Otago sold some land to a neighbour. The deal required the new owner to build a culvert over a small creek. The regional council required a resource consent.
The consent application went in but, one year later, it still hadn't appeared. Fed up with waiting, the land owner put in the culvert at a cost of $1000. A few months later the council sent an engineer to inspect the completed culvert.
Eventually an itemised bill for $2500 turned up, including a charge for consultation with local iwi.
So the owner was in a situation where the consent cost 2 times the cost of the project.
Sadly, these situations occur all over the country but are not being reported because farmers think they are too small to be interesting. When added up, they come to a huge amount of wasted time and money.
Farmers' stories about the RMA are all different but the feelings they express are often the same: "red tape", "bureaucracy", "delays" and "loss of property rights" are the most common exclamations.
I don't fully understand the detail of the act. How many lay people could truly claim they do?
What I do understand is that many members of Federated Farmers are fed up with some key parts of the legislation and want improvements.
The improvements need to be on two fronts: the first to the act itself; the second to how some individual councils implement it. The way some councils carry out their RMA work would be laughable if it wasn't costing farmers so much money.
Another example of RMA frustration occurred in Queenstown.
A family had allowed the public across its land for 17 years, giving access to scenic views. When they chose to subdivide their property, the consent was declined.
The local council's district plan placed an emphasis on protecting views from places frequented by the public. In effect, this meant that granting access had in part cost the family a chance to subdivide a small part of their property, simply because it could be viewed from a public place.
The family no longer provide public access across their land - who is the winner here?
Similar situations have occurred in other parts of the South Island. Where landowners agreed to access easements over private land, this has been used in part by the Environment Court as a reason to decline subdivision consent.
The RMA also imposes rules on land owners restricting the clearance of indigenous vegetation. Fair enough, you might say, but there is no provision for compensation. It is the farmer's name on the mortgage, yet he or she carries the risk in the interest of the nation. Is that fair enough? The act does not recognise private interests. It conveniently ignores many of the impacts on individual land owners.
This tips the balance between those who benefit and those who pay for those benefits. The beneficiaries are the citizens of New Zealand, but it is the land owner who counts the cost.
So, what are farmers doing about it? Federated Farmers has set the RMA as one of its priorities over the next three years.
One of the key themes is the dire need to improve the act and the way it is implemented. Note use of the word "improve". The federation does not believe the act should be scrapped, as it has at its heart the ethic of sustainable management.
But parts of it are hurting farming businesses by giving licence to councils and extremist groups to put ridiculous controls on farming and other legitimate land uses.
The project has only just got under way. The task is colossal. We know it won't be easy but we are committed to it. It will be a long-term action which won't score points overnight, but the federation will do its best to achieve real and tangible improvements for its members.
The federation wants to engage in a positive way with the Government. To that end, it has organised field trips to show the appropriate MPs how the RMA affects farming businesses.
How the campaign will unfold is difficult to say. But let me be clear: the federation will not be satisfied until there are real improvements to the act and the processes underneath it.
Farmers are responsible land managers, let the RMA treat them fairly. Watch this space.
* Bruce McNab is Federated Farmers' spokesman on the Resource Management Act.
