Federated Farmers Welcomes ACT’s New Farming Policies
Federated Farmers has welcomed new rural policies released by ACT, saying they align closely with its own election priorities.
In a submission to a parliamentary select committee, Federated Farmers expressed concerns about the Water Services Entities (WSE) Bill. If passed, the bill would establish four publicly owned water services entities in place of local authorities.
Federated Farmers argues that the bill should not proceed to a second reading in Parliament.
“Many farmers are either self-suppliers or their water is supplied by private water schemes meaning they should not be directly affected by the move to WSEs,” Feds says.
The farmer lobby argues that numerous community ‘mixed use’ rural water supplies, such as human drinking water and water for livestock or irrigation, supplying water to farmhouses, lifestyle blocks, marae, owned or operated by local authorities.
“The Government did not seem to have thought deeply about implications for these rural water suppliers until last December when it belatedly set up a Rural Water Supplies Working Group.”
In June, that working group - the Rural Supplies Technical Working Group - made 30 recommendations in a report to the Department of Internal Affairs.
Among those recommendations was that New Zealand’s 100 or so council- owned rural water supply schemes be transferred to the four new cogoverned water entities, but that there needed to be a pathway for some council-owned rural water supplies to revert to ownership by their users.
Federated Farmers say they agree with the working group’s recommendations if the WSE bill were to proceed.
Earlier this month, Federated Farmers national board member and local government spokesperson Sandra Faulkner told the select committee the organisation was against the nationalisation of previously local entities.
“Will the likes of roading, waste management and building consents be next for centralisation away from local councils?” she asked.
“Many farmers, as significant ratepayers and strongly rooted in their local communities, still care deeply about our councils and what they see as an attack on local democracy.”
Faulkner argued that the rural voice would be diluted if services farmers rely on, like water supplies, are centralised while local councils would be “hollowed out”.
“There seem to be a lot more bureaucracy and cost associated with the four entities’ multi-tiered governance arrangements and the various advisory groups and forums that will be set up to try and replicate what we already have – local voice and accountability.”
