OSPRI's costly software upgrade
Animal disease management agency OSPRI has announced sweeping governance changes as it seeks to recover from the expensive failure of a major software project.
This decision promises more delays and uncertainty over resource consents in the region.
The Environmental Defence Society (EDS) and Fish and Game (F&G) challenged Horizons’ implementation in the Environment Court; the court agreed.
In the process the court has strongly criticised Horizons’ approach and their failure to work with EDS and F&G who, before they took court action, had complained about the process. The court says such an attitude on the part of a law making and law administering body is not acceptable.
The president of Manawatu Federated Farmers, dairy farmer James Stewart, says farmers in the region are frustrated and face more uncertainty.
They don’t know where they are with their costings and consents, he says.
“I was talking to a dairy farmer the other day and they just want to get on with it. They want to move on, get consented and do the right thing. They are concerned about what it means for those who already have consents.”
For its part the council claims there is no problem with existing consents, but as Gary Taylor of EDS asks, if the implementation process was unlawful where does that leave consents?
Stewart says it is all frustrating for farmers who are fed up with the drawn-out One Plan process.
“Farmers have been doing a lot of work on this and we have seen good results, such as the reduction in N leaching and improvement in water quality, yet it keeps going on.
“Fish and Game [told me] they had nothing against farming and that the appeal was about a point of law. To me that’s a cop-out and a contradiction; of course it affects farmers.”
Stewart says farmers have been hard-out to improve the environment but are now nearing the point of asking “why bother?” Dairy farmers feel they are being used as a political football and that’s not a nice feeling.
He says the court ruling is complex and detailed and it will take time to fully analyse the details and work out what action his organisation may take. Meanwhile farmers face uncertainty and disruption.
When the One Plan was finally approved, there were concerns about its workability and the council set up the implementation plan which in effect tried to by-pass some of the actual intent of the plan. The Environment Court says the correct course of action would have been to initiate a ‘plan change’. But the council feared this could have taken years.
Ironically, in the light of this judgement, Horizons may have to do a plan change, but if it attempts to go for anything less than the status quo, FAG and EDS will almost certainly oppose such a move.
Also criticised by the court is ‘guidance material’ provided by DairyNZ to help the council determine its consents. The court says important parts of this material are not consistent with, or fall short of, or are even contrary to, the declarations they consider should have been made.
The court has also taken a swipe at the council in its implementation for focusing on economic impacts on individuals. “That is not a reason to manipulate or pervert plan implementation,” says the court.
Since its inception more than a decade ago the One Plan has always been complicated and dogged with controversy. It was ‘sold’ to the public as a simple solution which incorporated a myriad of planning documents.
Ten years on, the One Plan is regarded by many as a bit of dog and the present decision will likely spark at least another two-three years of uncertainty for land users – especially dairy farmers.
