Rural Voters Fed Up With Rates Rip-Off
Councils have a mountain to climb to win back the trust of rural ratepayers, Federated Farmers says - and that starts with cutting wasteful spending and sharing the burden more fairly.
"At the same time, councils deserve an overhaul of their funding tools and other changes to central government policy," Feds local government spokesperson Sandra Faulkner says.
"Council rates hikes have climbed well above inflation for several decades, but the pressure on ratepayers has only worsened.
"When elections happen this October, voters should back candidates who commit to capping general rate increases at inflation - unless there's a genuinely extraordinary reason not to," Faulkner says.
She says rural ratepayers are fed up with footing the bill for urban-centric services they don't use and aren't connected to.
"It's time to scrap unfair rating differentials and shift towards targeted uniform charges and annual general charges to reduce reliance on property value-based rates."
Federated Farmers is also calling for legislation changes that would require binding referenda on any council commercial projects that cost more than $500 per rateable property.
"We're not talking about sewage treatment plants, bridges or other such essential infrastructure," Faulkner says.
"We're meaning commercial ventures like stadiums, conference centres and marinas that are beyond core council purposes and can destroy balance sheets.
"It's not to say these projects can't happen, but ratepayers should get to make the final call."
Councils could also save money by sticking to their lane and leaving climate policy to central government, Faulkner says.
"Councils should stop duplicating effort - and wasting ratepayer dollars - by setting climate policies.
"To do something positive for the environment, councils that haven't already should bring in a rates remission policy for land under QEII covenants, Significant Natural Areas and Outstanding Natural Landscapes.
"Given that public conservation values are protected by these mechanisms, farmers deserve rates relief," Faulkner says.
Federated Farmers supports RMA and local planning reform that reduces delays, costs and uncertainty, and utilises tools like farm plans rather than consents.
Significant Natural Area and environmental rules must be science-based and farmer-friendly.
Faulkner says central government also has a major role in the drive for council efficiency and fairness.
Federated Farmers believes road users, rather than property owners, should be paying for local roads and bridges - as is the case for State Highways.
"We're calling for 90% of local roading maintenance and renewal costs to come from fuel excise tax and road user charges, rather than rates. Currently, the average is only 53%.
"Property value rates are a particularly poor mechanism to fund roads for the same reason as general taxation: it doesn't tie those who use roads with those who pay for roads.
"This system also lacks logic. In areas with a lot of tourism or freight, for example, locals are left paying for roading networks that serve a wider regional or national purpose."
The 10% cost share left with ratepayers would lock in a district say on local road priorities.
Other steps from central government are also needed to relieve cost pressures on council, Faulkner says.
"Crown land should be rateable, the 30% cap on council uniform annual general charges should be scrapped, and the Beehive should stop unfunded mandates - piling extra responsibilities onto councils with no corresponding funding."
Faulkner says with council elections looming, now's a great chance to ask some tough questions of councillors seeking re-election - and those challenging them for seats - on how they'll lessen the rural rates burden.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
2 days ago
- RNZ News
Farmers, vets say product approval too slow
New targets have been set to reduce the wait for new agricultural and horticultural products, as well as vet medicines. Photo: RNZ / Nate McKinnon Farmers' representatives are worried that plans to speed up access to new agri-chemicals won't be fast enough to compete on the world stage. Those concerns over pace of reform are shared by vets wanting to use new medicines. The Ministers for the Environment and Food Safety have set targets to reduce the queues to approve new agricultural and horticultural products and veterinary medicines. Regulation Minister David Seymour says the changes will speed up the application process. Kathryn discusses the change with David Birkett, Federated Farmers arable industry spokesperson and Kevin Bryant, CEO of the Veterinary Association.
Otago Daily Times
3 days ago
- Otago Daily Times
Forestry not behind sheep decline
We need to see the sheep for the trees, Richard Holloway writes. There is trouble down on the farm with a turf war heating up between two of New Zealand's larger export sectors — sheep and forestry. In the latest iteration of its "Save our Sheep" campaign, Federated Farmers has released a pseudo David Attenborough video that shamelessly likens sheep to an endangered species, squarely focusing the blame on exotic forestry. You would have to laugh if it was not serious. Sheep numbers have declined dramatically since 1990 — by about 60% — but the reasons why do not match the anti-forestry rhetoric of the campaign. The area of exotic forest has been stable for over 20 years. In 2002, New Zealand's exotic forest area totalled 1.78 million ha. By 2020 — the most recent year for which Statistics New Zealand holds land use data — this had decreased by 10% to 1.6m ha. A 2024 study by Orme & Associates (commissioned by Beef + Lamb NZ) found 146,331ha of sheep and beef land was sold for forestry conversion from 2021 to mid-2024. This figure was based on planting intentions — not actual area planted — and included farm sales still awaiting approval. Combining the 2020 statistics with the O&A data to mid-2024 brings the total to 1.75m ha — marginally less than the total area of the forest estate reported in 2002. And this assumes that none of the baseline forest area reported in 2020 has since been deforested. Additional land has been sold for forestry since mid-2024, but planting has slowed. Fewer seedling orders, reduced planting contracts and minimal Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) participation all suggest a waning momentum. The political winds have shifted, putting the brakes on forestry by tightening the rules for registering land in the ETS, particularly whole-farm conversions. Late last year, the government introduced a moratorium on registering exotic forestry on land use capability (LUC) classes 1-5, and a hard cap of 15,000ha per year for new exotic forest plantings on LUC 6. The conclusion is that the area of land planted in exotic forest is, at most, not much more than it was way back in 2002. That is two decades with relatively little net change. So, it is implausible that increased forest area is the main reason for declining sheep numbers. Dicing this another way, most new forest planting occurs on LUC 6 and 7 land. Even if we are generous and assume this land supports on average 10 sheep per hectare, the math still does not add up. If forestry was the main reason for declining sheep numbers, the area of exotic forests would need to have expanded by 3.4m ha since 1990. The real causes for declining sheep numbers are well known. A major driver is that land has shifted to more profitable uses, especially dairy, which grew nearly 80% between 2002 and 2020. Productivity per animal has increased significantly, particularly in terms of lambing percentages and slaughter weights, resulting in higher production from fewer breeding animals. At the same time, sheep farmers have faced highly variable output prices and rapidly increasing production costs. The strong-wool industry has been decimated by changing consumer preferences and the market clout of the petrochemical industry. As synthetic fibres surged, wool has been relegated to the status of a low-value nuisance byproduct. Farmer demographics are shifting, with an average age of 58 and rising, due to the difficulty of attracting and retaining new entrants. Throw in significantly increased regulation and compliance costs and you have got the real culprits driving the decline in sheep numbers. Not forestry. Profitability of forestry outperforms sheep hands down. Being able to generate regular income from the sale of carbon is a bonus, providing cashflow that smooths the volatility of sheep and beef returns. On the environment front, there is sound evidence that forestry is a more environmentally sustainable land-use than pastoral farming on much of New Zealand's steeper hill country. Trees reduce sediment loss, landslips, and improve water quality and biodiversity outcomes vis-a-vis pasture. The one caveat to this is at harvest, which must be appropriately managed to mitigate environmental damage. Farmers are highly exposed to the effects of a changing climate. For many, forestry is a way to make a small and positive contribution to the emerging climate crisis. Sooner or later New Zealand's agricultural sector will be held to account for its greenhouse gas contributions. Forestry provides some farm-level insurance for when that happens. Changing land use is an integral part of a functioning market economy. We are no longer running sheep on prime dairy land on the Canterbury Plains, or milking cows on prime kiwifruit land in the Bay of Plenty. Where farmers are deciding to plant exotic forestry, this should be applauded as an entirely rational and legitimate land use choice. By all means, let us have a discussion on the decline of the sheep industry, but a little more attention to the facts and a little less stoking of anti-forestry sentiment would better reflect the standard of evidence-based advocacy that Federated Farmers once held itself to. • Richard Holloway is a Canterbury-based farmer-forester and agricultural economist.
Otago Daily Times
3 days ago
- Otago Daily Times
Reform to ‘modernise' Fish & Game
Otago Fish & Game Council chairman Adrian McIntyre says he welcomes modernisation. FILE PHOTO: NZ HERALD Southern Fish & Game councils say they broadly welcome proposed improvements to the organisation's operations, signalled by the government earlier this month. Hunting and Fishing Minister James Meager has announced proposed new legislation governing Fish & Game, aimed at streamlining and compartmentalising the roles of the national body and its 12 regional councils. He said it would "modernise and strengthen" the organisation. "I want to make it as easy as possible for Kiwis to go hunting and fishing in New Zealand. This long overdue reform to Fish & Game will refocus the organisation on its core job of managing our sport fishing and game bird resources and implement a more professional approach to national decision making," he said. Key changes would include clarifying council and national body roles; shifting to a nationalised fee collection and funding distribution system; and voting changes. The proposed new act would also "require Fish & Game councils to better consider the interests of other stakeholders such as farmers and the aviation sector in decision-making". New national advocacy policy would restrict court proceedings to within that policy. Southland Fish & Game chairman David MacGregor said the minister had provided further clarification on that last point. "The minister has clarified that Fish & Game can still advocate for the health of waterways where it improves fisheries, which is entirely consistent with Southland Fish & Game's involvement in the [environment Southland's] Water & Land Plan, where the court found there were significant adverse effects on aquatic life," he said. Federated Farmers Southland clashed with Fish & Game Southland last year following a Court of Appeal decision regarding effluent discharge Federated Farmers claimed would prevent them farming. "Fish & Game has never taken frivolous court action, and funding for much of the Southland case came from the New Zealand council, so I can't see our advocacy function changing," Mr MacGregor said. Otago Fish & Game Council chairman Adrian McIntyre said he welcomed modernisation. "Making it easier for New Zealanders to go hunting and fishing is something we all support, and it's encouraging to see a proposal that retains strong regional decision-making — close to where the action is happening. "Regional autonomy is essential to what we do. It's great to see that the minister has preserved the ability of regional councils to make decisions based on local knowledge and direct engagement with hunters, anglers, landowners, iwi and scientists. That connection is one of our biggest strengths." A Federated Farmers spokesman said his organisation remained concerned about Fish & Game's political advocacy functions. "We're welcoming a review of Fish & Game's advocacy function, something Federated Farmers have been vocal in calling for, but we have serious concerns changes won't go far enough." Key changes • Clarify the roles and responsibilities so that regional Fish & Game councils focus on delivering hunting and fishing opportunities on the ground, with the New Zealand Council responsible for administrative tasks and policies. • A nationalised fee collection system to reduce double handling of licence fees and ensuring funding follows the demand on the resource. • Make more licence holders eligible to vote and stand in Fish & Game elections and requiring councillors to comply with professional standards. • Fish & Game councils to better consider the interests of other stakeholders such as farmers and the aviation sector in decision-making. • Develop a national policy around advocacy and restricting court proceedings to within that policy.
