We'll be treading water on progress if we pursue a one-size-fits-all set of rules to protect our rivers and lakes. The smarter course is to target our hot spots.
Federated Farmers recently lodged a submission on the freshwater reforms announced in February by Ministers Guy and Smith. We found theproposals were a mixed bag; some okay, some not so good.
We're disappointed the Government is not looking at its own data that shows the quality of 80per cent of waterways are being maintained or improved. It's clear to Federated Farmers, and others such as the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, that we need to target the places where we have issues rather than applying blunt, broad-brush, costly and inefficient rules.
We sought substantial changes, in particular to the 'swimmable' rivers proposals and the national regulation to exclude stock from waterways.
Stock-exclusion rules have not been robustly costed, and criteria on such matters as the slope of a paddock or farm haven't even been worked out yet. This is not the basis for sound national regulation. We said a better way was to enable regional councils to determine whether their existing or proposed rules are fit for purpose.
If they are, then any national regulation wouldn't apply. If not, then regional councils would set out which waterways would be subject to targeted, catchment-based actions and/or which would be subject to the national regulation.
We support communities' aspiration to be able to swim where and when they want. But reform proposals around 'swimmability' should apply to waterways valued for swimming by the community at the place, flow and time of year they are swum.
The proposals actually miss out many places people value for swimming and tag some where we don't swim.
We supported the call for better data as this is sorely lacking, but argued this requirement shouldn't be limited only to whether a waterway is swimmable. Communities need robust information on all facets of water quality and management.
Actions should be based firstly on the values and objectives we are trying to protect or achieve with each waterway, and secondly on the attributes which are important in supporting those values.
In short, the proposed reforms are a classic case of Government ignoring its own advice that policy should be based on evidence and robust cost-benefit analysis.¦
