Mark Cameron: Time to relax the regulatory burden on farmers

Mark Cameron. Photo / Supplied

OPINION:

During my third form year, (Year Nine in today’s terms) my favourite subject was science.

Understanding the natural world, cause and effect, all of this intrigued me. As a dairy farmer, it is fair to say the same principles apply — market signals, weather, government legislation. All have rippling effects on what happens on-farm.

I recently returned from a tour of New Zealand’s heartland, alongside Act colleagues Nicole McKee and Andrew Hoggard. We held public meetings in remote parts of New Zealand, as far south as Ōtautau and as far North as Te Kauwhata. We wanted to go to places that probably don’t see politicians that often, so we could hear what is affecting them and how the next Government can play its part in helping.

There was a common theme everywhere we went. People felt disconnected from policymakers miles away, wondered whether the bureaucrats in Wellington really understood how much impact they are having on the viability of their business.

It all comes down to red tape and regulation. Every new piece of regulation to comply with equals more time and more cost, often for minimal change to the result. There needs to be a microscope put on regulation coming out of Government: whether it is really necessary, or if forcing farmers to comply is going to have a detrimental effect on the country.

Act is proposing to address this with a new Minister and Ministry of Regulation. These would ensure new and existing regulations meet tough new standards, and put red tape on the chopping block.

The Zero Carbon Act is a prime example of a piece of policy that had the potential to cause huge issues for the agriculture sector, yet was passed with the support of every party except Act. Emissions reduction targets were arbitrary, offsetting technology was limited and with a functional ETS (when we had one) no matter how many boondoggles and bans the Government implemented, there would be no impact on global emissions. It was basically an excuse for more central planning — and farmers were always going to be a target for this.

He Waka Eka Noa was born from this and the vagaries that came with it led to much of the concern in farmers’ minds. It is widely accepted that the method used to record methane inflates its impact greatly, and potential methane reduction innovations such as Bovaer have been sitting on an EPA waiting list for years. So why, instead of fixing these issues, has the Government spent years lobbying to put a tax on the sector?

Act’s policy is one of pragmatic realism. We would tie any emissions price to that of our five main trading partners to ensure there is a level playing field for growers and producers competing overseas. New Zealand will not prosper if we are forced to make significantly deeper emissions cuts than our trading partners. We will simply impoverish ourselves and push economic activity to other countries.

As the size of the national debt explodes and pressure builds on infrastructure, health, housing and education, a stifled primary sector is that the last thing we need. The next Government must relax the regulatory burden and allow farmers to do what they do best.

● Mark Cameron is Act’s spokesperson for forestry, regional economic development, fisheries and primary industries biosecurity.