Farmers point to unintended consequences
LABOUR’S planned water charge could have unintended consequences, including more corporate ownership and dairy conversion, irate farmers said at Labour’s water policy meeting in Dunedin last night.
Labour water spokesman David Parker dismissed such fears, or said there could be remedies, such as different charges for different users.
Many in the audience were not convinced, and Mr Parker said some of them simply did not agree that commercial users should pay to use water.
The sticking point for many was charging irrigators when other land users caused more water degradation. Some asked why Labour had not considered a pollution tax.
Some did not think it fair that Otago, with relatively good water quality, could be among the hardest hit.
There was scepticism about the promise to use the levy in the area in which it was raised, especially as the worstquality waterways might be in low-irrigation areas.
Otago Federated Farmers vicepresident Simon Davies asked why the power generation companies were exempted.
Mr Davies did have sympathy, however, for concerns about water quality.
He emphasised it was a private view, not that of Federated Farmers, but he believed farmers who polluted waterways should be ‘‘named and shamed’’.
Omakau farmer Andrew Paterson said the charge would add up to $7 per lamb to production costs, forcing some farmers to switch to dairy for higher returns. He said it would cost farmers in his district about $50,000 each.
Another warned more farms in the Maniototo could end up in corporate ownership.
Mr Parker said he would advocate for a water charge regardless of water quality because it was an important principle. But tackling water quality was a big priority, and he was disappointed with the constant focus on the charge.
He said farmers around the country had all told him the problems were outside their area.
The planned charge is between 1c and 2c per 1000 litres and the money would be used to clean up waterways.