By Les Watkins
Should growers be forced to fork out extra money because their sheds are the wrong colour?
Bureaucratic red tape has decreed that white paint may not be acceptable in certain country areas, although it is in others – and so buildings have to be repainted.
And that cool-shed over there – okay, so maybe green is the only colour available from the manufacturer but that’s no excuse. So cough up for that also to be painted.
Another thing – the local council reckons that red is not a suitable colour for a wind-break so please get that changed. How about buying a new one in green or perhaps a discreet brown?
Horticulture New Zealand (HortNZ) says fighting local authorities on such farcical attitudes – on top of other aspects of commercial fruit and vegetable production as well as on colour – is unnecessarily inflating food costs.
A great diversity of conflicting three ‘R’s’ – rules, regulations and restrictions – are imposed or sought by the country’s 78 district or regional councils.
HortNZ’s president, Andrew Fenton, blames this diversity for millions of dollars being wasted on legal battles.
“The compliance costs for our growers busy trying to comply with various local councils is thousands of dollars every year,” he says.
“And we can’t even begin to assess the costs each grower faces in terms of consent applications and other charges all year round.”
Tasman is one of the districts HortNZ regards as particularly expensive.
National manager of natural resources and environment for HortNZ Chris Keenan explains that is partly because Tasman District Council ‘didn’t like’ red shade cloth. His organisation recently campaigned against regulation variations, including the banning of red cloth, being considered by the council.
“We were successful after an appeal and court-assisted mediation and so our members did not lose the permitted status for farm structures and buildings,” he says.
“This saved 200 or so members from having to outlay about $10,000 each for individual consents.
“Then they’d have had the ongoing compliance costs because once a consent is required councils can recover the costs of monitoring it for ten years.”
Other issues resolved by HortNZ having intervened at great expense include the use of bird-scarers, the storing of essential agrichemicals and the burning of diseased material.
“We had vociferous opposition to bird-scarers, for example, in the Bay of Plenty,” says Mr Keenan.
“People move into the country and then, finding it is actually a working production environment, decide they don’t like the sound of the gas gun scarers.
“Consequently in 2010 the scarers were under threat of being banned or the noise level being set at unworkably low levels. There again, we were successful but the rule has now been re-notified because of increased pressure from the opponents – and so here we go again.
“It’s now the same with agrichemical spraying at Te Puke where the growers are trying to fight off PSA. Also the question of burning diseased material on the property – instead transferring the problem by moving it elsewhere – comes up time and again.
“There is no other economic means to tackle the problem. Shredding, composting or mulching is not practical,” says Mr Keenan.
The cost of retaining the necessary right to burn on site – won after objections, appeals and mediation before reaching the environment court – can be enormous.
“Then when we get to the environment court we are starting to look at maybe $50,000 a week,” says Mr Keenan.
He is concerned that the burden of these extra costs will hurt consumers, particularly those in the lower-income groups.
HortNZ is urging local authorities to work more closely together, to start eradicating the confusion caused by the differing regulations and to aim for greater efficiencies. Mr Fenton says they should not wait for the initiative to be taken by the government.
HortNZ beings funding renewal process
HortNZ has begun the process to get the approval of all New Zealand’s commercial fruit and vegetable growers for continued levy funding of the organisation.
HortNZ represents New Zealand’s 6000 growers on critical industry wide issues, such as biosecurity policy, land and water use issues and seasonal labour needs.
“Having a unified industry voice for horticulture over the past six years has been very successful,” HortNZ president Andrew Fenton says.
“The industry faces enormous challenges now and in the next few years. So it’s more important than ever to have a unified voice to overcome these challenges and grow the industry value.”
HortNZ’s existing levy order is due to expire in June 2013. The levy provides about 80 percent of the organisation’s funding. Without grower support and levy funding HortNZ will cease to exist.
HortNZ will be talking to growers about the proposal for the next three months. The final proposal will be announced in July. All growers will be asked to vote on the proposal from the end of August. The result will be announced in early October.
“We have received very positive feedback from the two growers meetings held over the weeks since we released the proposal. We are looking for more feedback from growers over the next few months as we get around and talk to them,” Mr Fenton says.
The HortNZ Board is proposing a grower levy of 15 cents for every $100 of sales on all fruit and vegetables. This is the same as the maximum levy rate in the current HortNZ Levy Order.
“We are asking all growers to pay the same. That means an increase for fruit growers because we can no longer rely on receiving income from the Fruitgrowers Charitable Trust.
“At the moment fruit growers pay 11 cents, so that’s an increase of about onethird of a cent for a tray of green kiwifruit and one cent per carton of apples,” Mr Fenton says.
The proposed levy rate is forecast to raise about $2.5 million a year for HortNZ to continue its work on industry wide issues, until 2019. A commodity levy order lasts for six years.
For further information:
Andrew Fenton
Tel: 027 493 0123
