Be the loudest 2 year old

Legislation distinguishing between beef and dairy cattle's effect on waterways is a burr under the saddle for dairy farmers.

As an industry we have seen and experienced a lot of changes in the past 10-15 years, some of it good, some of it otherwise. A lot of these have revolved around increased production and profitability methods for farmers, but have been tempered with increased compliance costs and procedures to minimise or reduce possible effects that these new methods may have on the environment, social or physical.

My big issue with some of these regulations is the lack of transparency and consistency around the rules.

What is the difference between dairy cattle and beef cattle in a waterway? They all seem to eat and excrete the same, yet one is allowed to stand in a stream and one isn't. Riding a motorbike on the road without a helmet will incur a $150 fine yet, on the farm, as recent case law will show you, you may be liable for up to $20,000. Auckland and Hamilton city councils have no problem draining sewage and stormwater directly to our beaches and other waterways, but a dairy farmer will be crucified if a drop of effluent comes within 30m of any water.

There are so many anomalies surrounding different statutes/laws and how they are observed and enforced that it can make my head spin.

As an industry, agriculture has tended to push the oversight of these law evolutions on to elected representative bodies like Federated Farmers, and hope they ensure common sense prevails. Well, folks, I hate to let you down, but common sense just ain't that common anymore, and although Federated Farmers does have the expertise and experience to oversee the legal frameworks, common sense does not influence the lawmakers and enforcers (politicians and local government).

One of the biggest hurdles for all businesses, not just agribusiness, has been the Resource Management Act (RMA). Though I agree with the original intents of this Act, in that it seeks to preserve our national flora and fauna, the actual outcomes have stifled innovation and, indeed, in many cases progress because of needless, vexatious litigation that only lawyers love.

The RMA is up for a review later this year, and this is our chance as a rural community to have our say. However, influence comes only from numbers.

Politicians deal with the public like a pair of 2-year-olds. The one who cries loudest gets the most attention. As an industry sector, we just haven't cried loudly enough in the past. While Forest and Bird and Fish and Game actively encourage and advocate for all of their members to write submissions, and will do so again for this RMA review, we farmers have tended to sit back and hope that common sense prevails. And look where that has gotten us.

When you hear of submissions opening for this review, I actively encourage and challenge you to sit down for 10 minutes and write one. Think of how or when some trivial clause in the RMA was twisted and misrepresented that may have caused you some financial hardship when the perceived environmental effect was negligible. This is what the lawmakers need to hear, and we get only one shot at it.

While it is expected that Federated Farmers will ably represent the agri-sector's interests, we cannot do it alone. So when the call to action is sounded, please give us a hand and step up to the plate. You never know, you might enjoy it.

Andrew McGiven is Federated Farmers' Waikato vice-president.