Compliance costs hurt

Compliance costs are changing the landscape of the horticulture industry.

Orchardist and Summerfruit New Zealand chairman Gary Bennetts, of Roxburgh, said increased compliance costs during the past 20 years had made life ''tougher and tougher'' for those in the industry and left many smaller growers unable to compete in the marketplace.

He believed the loss of small growers was ''the worst part'' of the problem, as the industry needed ''a range of all sizes of growers'', he said.''

What's medium-sized this year might be small in 10 years' time [if the trend continues].''

As those in the industry were ''working in the real world where we turn dirt into export dollars'', every cost added by legislation made it harder to be profitable, he said.

It was not only the financial cost of compliance, but the time spent ''in the office ticking boxes'' that was frustrating, he said.

While he believed there were benefits to some of the compliance programmes, it was the ''pedantic'' way in which they were audited and applied that made them cumbersome.''

There could be a more pragmatic approach to how it's done,'' he said.

Horticulture New Zealand chief executive Peter Silcock said about 45% of Horticulture New Zealand's levies were spent on its compliance programme and to represent growers' interests in regional and district council planning.

The issue was ''just huge'', he said.

''There's a number of different compliance costs which our members have to meet,'' Mr Silcock said.

''We have got the regulatory ones, we have also got market access costs and also then we have got individual customers' requirements as well as traceability documentation.

''It becomes a huge job for growers.''

Horticulture New Zealand president Julian Raine said: ''Compliance is a growing issue and everybody seems to be inserting themselves into that space.''

Mr Silcock said the ongoing amendments to the Resource Management Act and merging some local authorities would be the first step to solving the issue.

However, Green Party environment spokeswoman Eugenie Sage said the amending the Act could have the opposite effect, as it would make subdivision easier and ''encourage urban sprawl and the loss of good growing land''.

This could see land values rise and, along with them, rates, which would increase costs for those in the industry. She believed the answer was to increase the income of growers and not to minimise the protections of the Act.

Environment Minister Amy Adams was unavailable for comment when contacted by Southern Rural Life last week.

However, she had previously said the amendments to the Act would retain the environmental protections of the Act, while the ''cumbersome, uncertain and highly litigious'' nature of previous legislation would be reduced.

- by Timothy Brown 

Add a Comment