Federated Farmers resource management spokesperson Mark Hooper said it agreed that, in most cases, it was inappropriate for an insurance company to pay the fine for a breach of the RMA, where the breach was deliberate or done for commercial gain.
“Many insurance policies exclude cover where a crime is committed, so effectively an insurance company’s own policies achieve the same outcome as the amendment,” he said.
“However, there are situations in which a farmer or other resource user might be in breach of the RMA through no fault of their own.
“We think they should be able to insure against fines in such circumstances.
“For example, the farmer may have relied on expert advice.
“They might be able to sue that adviser for negligence, but that’s difficult and expensive.”
Hooper gave another example where a rural contractor in an environmentally sensitive location needed insurance for events outside their control.
“They might be spraying weeds, and have relied on the landowner or expert advice that there was no protected indigenous biodiversity, or that the farmer had existing use rights.”
He said a parallel could be drawn with the Health and Safety at Work Act (HSWA).
“The duty under the HSWA is to identify hazards and mitigate them.
“If all practicable steps are taken, but an accident still occurs, the individual or entity is not liable.
“However, under the RMA, even if an individual or entity appropriately exercises their duty of care to the environment, they could still be liable.
“Insurance is typically obtained for matters outside one’s control.
“For this reason, we supported the ability to insure against RMA breach legal and remediation costs.”
- RNZ
