The case for irrigation

June 3, 2016

Peter Graham puts the case for irrigation:

Irrigation is not just a question of economic stimulation, increased farm incomes, more jobs, growth of our cities, and creation of wealth (so we can afford to clean up our already degraded rivers and streams). The reason is far simpler. 

Just consider:

  • World food production will need to double in the next 50 years to meet demand.
  • 20% of world’s agricultural land is irrigated to produce 40% of world’s food.
  • By 2030 world fresh water demand will exceed supply by 40%.
  • By 2030 more than 3.5 billion people will live in areas affected by acute water scarcity.
  • Temperature increases and changes in climate patterns are predicted to severely reduce world grain and rice production. 

The world needs more food. New Zealand is blessed by ample rain so water storage, irrigation and land-use intensification is essential. . . 

Irrigation is not just about more and better options for farmers. It’s about producing more food for New Zealand and the world.

But there are barriers:

Water storage is a big-ticket item. The smallest project comes in at around $70 million and larger more than $300 million, excluding on farm costs. Investigating proposal feasibility and proving viability is also costly. Practically, it is hard for the irrigators to fund them and service the debt without outside assistance and/or major increases in food prices. 

Government funding for feasibility studies and funding of schemes as a minority short-term investor is  not sufficient. Obtaining private sector funding and keeping operating costs at an economic level for farmers is also proving difficult on large-scale proposals. 

Expecting local government to be the majority funder in such high cost infrastructure is unrealistic. It is hard to see how infrastructure on this scale can be funded without major government capital investment.   

Food is essential to a stable functioning society and we must look at irrigation as essential public infrastructure. We must consider its benefits in terms of regional development and food production, urban water supply and recreation use, not simply in terms of economics and income generation.  . . 

Irrigation is infrastructure which provides benefits and opportunities for individuals, businesses and communities in the same way for example roads do.

Only central government is in a position to fund projects on the basis of a far longer return on investment period than the private sector. Only government is in a position to target funding at environmental flow and environmental rehabilitation requirements and plan for infrastructure requirements of this scale on a long-term basis. 

If the increasing demand for electricity had not been met by massive post war hydroelectric dam construction, New Zealand would be a very different place. If government hadn’t built infrastructure, New Zealand simply could not have supported post war population growth and the baby boom. The reality is that in New Zealand, very large infrastructure projects require greater government input than is presently available for irrigation projects. 

The regions and rural New Zealand need revitalisation. Environmental rehabilitation of rivers and wetlands and environmental protection of riparian margins needs to be paid for. Public Private Partnerships or suspensory loans, with repayment remitted on meeting of clear targets for job generation, increase of summer river flows, improvements to urban water supply, improvement of water quality and riparian and watershed protection, may be effective in ensuring irrigation schemes are not only economically viable, but that they also deliver wider community and environmental benefits.  

Past mistakes with intensification of farming without farm environment plans have contributed to water degradation. We’ve all learned from that . New water plans and the requirement for farm environment plans will ensure new schemes don’t degrade water quality.

Water storage schemes go further in providing the ability to improve water quality, by for example maintaining minimum flows during droughts.

Waiareka Creek was a series of semi-stagnant ponds before North Otago Irrigation Scheme maintained minimum flows, improving the quality of the water and water life.

Years can be spent going through a resource consent process for a major project at significant cost. As councils develop land and water plans that give clear directions as to how water is to be managed it is becoming easier to determine what is required to make a proposal compliant or able to be consented. Generally, it’s the time and cost of appeals that have been the major issues with the consenting process for irrigation projects. 

The interface between the RMA process and disparate central government processes for the use of the Crown estate needs to be addressed urgently. It is not reasonable to have a project that has gone through a long, intensive and expensive consenting process effectively re-litigated in the context of subsequent objections to use of Crown land or parts of the conservation estate. 

Classes and categories of conservation land need to be clearly established and realistic protection criteria clearly set out. The ability to obtain consent in conjunction with the RMA consent applications being dealt with is essential. This shouldn’t be controversial. 

The rules need to be clear so complying with them is easy and gaining consent less expensive in terms of both time and money.

Our environment and river systems are already highly modified and in many areas degraded.    

We need to deal with future land-use in the context that people will continue to live and work in the environment.  Most of our issues are legacy issues and will cost money to fix.  We need to set realistic standards that invite compliance. 

Most water quality problems now are legacy issues. There is a nitrogen bloom in a river near Nelson caused by a pig farm which closed down 30 years ago.

The requirement for independently audited environmental farm plans and the necessity to comply with council water plans will protect water in the future. Existing problems caused by poor practices in the past must be addressed but that will be expensive and must not be used as an excuse to block new irrigation schemes.

Controls on groundwater discharges and leaching of nitrogen and phosphorus are essential and must be treated sensibly. It is important to determine what a healthy standard is for each river system and what is needed to achieve and maintain it.   

Individual farm environmental plans and detailed records of water use, fertiliser application, and stocking rates is simply part of living in today’s environment, as is development of wetlands and fencing of riparian boundaries.  

However, regulating these plans and records must be achievable and effective. It is one thing to require detailed monitoring and reporting when the output has a real effect on water quality. It quite different to require the same level of on-farm monitoring and reporting when the level of discharges can be monitored and controlled simply by monitoring water quality in the river. 

We need to start looking at water storage and land use intensification as part of the solution and manage the environmental issues appropriately. It’s as simple as that. 

Water storage and land use intensification can with the right rules improve water quality and will contribute to rates and taxes needed to deal with legacy issues.

Irrigation provides opportunities for farmers who choose to make the big investment required on-farm and in the off-farm infrastructure.

But the benefits go far beyond the farm gate:

I live in Napier and I want to see Hawke’s Bay grow and prosper. I want my kids and their friends and my grandkids and their friends to have a future here.

I want to see the Tukituki have strong environmental flows in the summer. I want to see all farms having individual environmental management plans and effective nutrient discharge limits and controls. 

I want to see water managed properly with existing degraded rivers and land areas restored by riparian plantings, development of wetlands and sensible management of areas with high landscape and environmental values. 

I can also live with the inundation of riverbeds and small areas of the DOC estate when the Conservation values of that area are already well represented, or where appropriate mitigation offsets or vesting of land in exchange can be achieved. Everything has its pros and cons but you have to look the big picture and what really matters.   

So, it’s simple really:

  • Councils, who haven’t already done it, need to get their act together with the land and water management requirements in their plans and appropriate discharge and reporting limits.
  • Rules for use of the Crown estate need to be better co-ordinated with RMA consent requirements.
  • Better mechanisms for increased public finding of schemes focussed on clear targets for regional and environmental benefits, as well as increased food production need to be developed, or food costs will skyrocket.

The world needs more of the high quality food New Zealand can produce if more of the water that flows out to see is used for irrigation.

That requires better, clearer rules to reduce the cost of the consent process.

It also needs more public investment in the infrastructure, recognising that the environmental, economic and social returns are widespread and long term.

P.S. The link at the top is to Politik, where you will find the best-reasoned and researched, non-partisan political comment in New Zealand.

You can read one article then you have to subscribe All subscriptions start with a free month long trial then it is $15.99 (Incl GST) per month or $169 (incl GST) for a year.


Before the Budget

May 26, 2016

Finance Minister Bill English will deliver his eighth Budget this afternoon.

Before it’s delivered, Prime Minister John Key offers some briefing notes:

1. More than 200,000 jobs have been created over the past three years – that equates to around 180 new jobs every day.

2. New Zealand has the third highest employment rate in the developed world.

3. We’re on track for annual economic growth of about 3 per cent for the next few years.

4. We’re also on track for rising surpluses and falling debt – we were one of the first developed countries to be back in surplus after the global financial crisis when we posted a surplus of $414 million last year.

5. Budget 2016 will contain $1.6 billion in new spending. We’ve already announced funding for more lifesaving drugs, emergency housing, and to support our thriving tourism sector.

This year’s Budget will further advance our work to support a strong, growing economy. It’s only through a strong, growing economy that we’re able to create more jobs, lift wages and deliver better public services to those who need them most.

Labour’s last Budget in 2008 was forecasting a decade of deficits.

In spite of the GFC, Canterbury earthquakes and other unforeseen hurdles, the government books were back in surplus last year and, with continued careful management, are expected to stay there.

This isn’t about a surplus for surplus’s sake. It’s the only way to sustainably fund public services, reduce debt, look after those who need help and leave us all with more of our own money.


Inflation is theft

April 18, 2016

Low inflation is boosting household spending power:

Low inflation is helping New Zealand households get ahead, with wages on average continuing to rise faster than the cost of living, Finance Minister Bill English says.

Inflation was only 0.4 per cent for the year to March 2016, according to figures released by Statistics New Zealand today. Inflation for the March quarter was 0.2 per cent. 

Much of quarterly increase was driven by cigarettes and tobacco, which rose 9.4 per cent following increase in excise duty in January. Food prices were up 1.2 per cent in the quarter, but were down 0.4 per cent over the whole year.

Lower oil prices contributed to the low cost of living increase. Petrol prices fell 7.7 per cent in the first three months of 2016, following a 5.7 per cent fall the previous quarter.

“We are in the unusual situation of having solid economic growth, more jobs and rising wages at the same time as very low interest rates and inflation,” Mr English says. “This is helping New Zealand families get ahead.

“Households with mortgages have the double benefit of low cost of living rises and lower mortgage servicing costs, which will be particularly welcome in regions with increasing house prices.

“Since the start of 2012 the average annual wage has increased by more than 10 per cent to $57,800, considerably faster than inflation which has been only 3.1 per cent.”

An additional 175,000 jobs have been created over the last three years, with a further 173,000 expected by 2020.

“Overall, New Zealand is doing well and New Zealanders are reaping the benefit of a growing economy.”

When Don Brash was governor of the Reserve Bank he called inflation theft and it is, eroding the real value of money and investments.

Now, wage-rises outpacing inflation combined with low interest rates are giving households more spending power.

When people seek government help it usually requires more spending.

The government’s concentration on keeping a tight rein on its finances doesn’t usually get much credit but it is one way it can influence inflation and in doing so it protects and enhances the value of what people earn, invest and save.


They’re from the Opposition & won’t help

March 18, 2016

If I’m from the government, I’m here to help,  is greeted with suspicion, the sudden enthusiasm Opposition MPs are showing for the regions in general and dairying in particular is being seen as nothing more than political opportunism.

The Chicken-Littleing from Labour, the Greens, New Zealand First and some media isn’t helping.

The sky isn’t falling.

Dairy prices are lower in real terms than they have been for more than 20 years which is a challenge for farmers, sharemilkers, their staff and those who service and supply them.

There were a few forced farm sales and other business failures when the dairy price was over $8.

There will be some more in the coming months and that will be very difficult for everyone affected.

But most will hang on, with the support of their banks, and get through what is a temporary slump.

Labour leader Andrew Little’s attempt to demonise banks did nothing more than show he doesn’t understand what he’s talking about.

His calls for stiff arming banks and legislation to force them to pass on interest rate cuts has been greeted with the derision they deserve.

His response to the Reserve Banks’ explanation about its stress-testing of banks provided further evidence he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

The media release made it clear the banking system was robust to a severe dairy stress test.

. . .Five banks that are the largest dairy sector lenders participated in a stress test run by the Reserve Bank in late 2015. Two scenarios were tested, with scenario one assuming that the dairy payout recovers to $5.25 per kilogram of milksolids by the 2017/18 season and a fall in dairy land prices of 20 percent. Under the second scenario, the dairy payout was assumed to fall to $3 in 2015/16 and remain below $5 until the 2019/20 season with a fall in land prices of 40 percent.

Head of Macro Financial Bernard Hodgetts said both scenarios assume the dairy payout remains lower for longer than was assumed in the economic projections contained in the Reserve Bank’s March Monetary Policy Statement.

“On average, banks reported losses under the two scenarios ranging between 3 to 8 percent of their total dairy sector exposures,” said Mr Hodgetts.

“Bank lending to the dairy sector stands at around $38 billion, which is approximately 10 percent of the banking system’s total lending. We would expect losses of the order seen in the stress scenarios to be absorbed largely through lower bank earnings rather than through an erosion of bank capital.”

The test results suggested that in the shorter term, banks would increase their dairy lending in order to support existing borrowers facing negative cash flow, before facing a longer term rise in loan losses if there were a prolonged dairy sector downturn. . . 

Anyone who understood this would have been pleased that banks were prepared to support existing borrowers and could cope with losses in a worst-case scenario.

That Little didn’t understand it became evident at Question Time on Wednesday:

Andrew Little: Is he at all concerned about the Reserve Bank’s projection that dairy land values will crash by between 25 and 40 percent, which will undermine the livelihoods of thousands of Kiwis?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: That is the problem with the Leader of the Opposition—it is that you cannot take him seriously, when he actually misrepresents the Reserve Bank Governor. The Reserve Bank Governor is not saying there is a projection that land prices will drop by 25 to 40 percent; he is doing a stress test to say what would happen if land prices went down. There is quite a—

Grant Robertson: And that’s the scenario we’re in now.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, banks—reserve bankers do that all the time, because their prudential requirements require them to make sure the banking system is strong. And what he is saying is, even under a worst scenario like this, the banking system is very strong.

Andrew Little: Has the Prime Minister actually read the Reserve Bank’s report released at 2 p.m. today; if so, has he read it?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, what I have read is the release—the press release—because it came out at 2 o’clock today, and I got this only 1 minute before I came here. But what the release says quite clearly is (a) the banking system is very strong, (b) under its worst-case scenarios—to quote—“The test results suggested that in the shorter term, banks would increase their dairy lending in order to support existing borrowers …”, and it is saying that even in the worst scenario, the losses could be between 3 percent and 8 percent of their total dairy exposure. Banks have considerably more exposure than just this, and, as the member was pointing out yesterday, banks have been making pretty good money. They can afford, if they have to—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Bring the answer to a conclusion

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: —to take some losses in that sector.

Andrew Little: Does he agree with Mind Your Own Business that “approximately 100,000 businesses employing upwards of one million New Zealanders are facing reducing revenue because of the dairy downturn.”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not have anything to back that up—I would need to see the analysis. But it could be as small as a business that is affected, from someone who sells sandwiches to someone who works in that area. There is a very large range of businesses in that sector.

Andrew Little: Is it fair that our dairy farmers go bankrupt and 100,000 small businesses face reduced revenue while overseas-owned banks continue to make $90 million a week and speculators circle over our farmland?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member is, I think, terribly confused about what is happening. What you have got is a scenario where dairy prices are lower, and what we should be doing is supporting dairy farmers with the things that we can control. We cannot control the exchange rate and we cannot control commodity prices and we cannot control the weather. We can control free-trade agreements, planning laws, health and safety, Resource Management Act reform, and a variety of other things, and on this side of the House we support helping those farmers, actually, in good times and in bad.

With the exception of West Coast Tasman, Palmerston North and Winston Peter’s opportunistic enthusiasm for Northland, Opposition parties don’t even try to win regional seats.

Their MPs flit in for photo opportunities but their sudden faux support for dairy farmers merely shows how little they understand the people and the issues.

The dairying downturn is a passing car at which the Opposition is barking.

Farmers don’t want banks strong-armed, they don’t want bail-outs and they certainly don’t want a return to the any of the government-knows-best policies, the recovery from which necessitated the radical reforms of the 80s and 90s.

Those are mad ideas from the Opposition and they won’t help.


Top 10 fixes for loopy rules

September 22, 2015

The Rules Reduction Task Force, co-chaired by Jacqui Dean MP and Michael Barnett has released its report.

In their introduction they say:

New Zealanders are fed up wasting time and money trying to work with loopy rules. We were tasked with identifying rules and regulations which are not fit-for-purpose and which impose unnecessary bureaucratic burdens on property owners and businesses.

Everyone we heard from has had tales to tell of loopy rules – requirements that are out of date, inconsistent, petty, inefficient, pointless or onerous. These are the things that really annoy people, whether they run a business or own their own home.

In the last few months we have travelled around New Zealand listening to people in their communities. We have also met with councils, sector interest groups, and government agencies.

We thank all those who have candidly shared their frustrations and given us their views on how rules could be changed to make more sense.

We did hear of rules that protect people, the environment, infrastructure and our heritage but which still enable individuals, businesses and our economy to prosper and grow. But we are struck by the number of instances where the good intentions of the rule-makers are somehow lost in the translation to the real world. Examples abound of inappropriate interpretation, over-zealous enforcement, and lack of focus on the customer. (My bold).

New Zealanders have told us they are confused and frustrated by frequent changes in the rules. They are exasperated by inconsistency, time-consuming processes and unreasonable costs. It was a surprise to us to find out that a number of the loopy rules are in fact just myths. They are misinterpretations and misunderstandings that have been repeated so often that they have taken on the status of facts. (My bold).

We heard many examples where people are not clear about what they need to do and why. Myths fill the gap when clear information is hard to find. We highlight these myths in this report along with the loopy rules that need to be changed or removed. We discovered that loopy rules are difficult to get rid of because they’re part of a wider system, because a focus on the customer is absent, or because of the interests of experts or the fears of their administrators. What’s clear is they thrive when rule makers fail to take responsibility for them. Most importantly, we identify opportunities to fix many loopy rules and bust the myths. Our top ten fixes are listed on page 7. We call on both central and local government to stop making more loopy rules.

The legislation which causes most problems are the Resource Management and Building Acts – the source of 32% and 27% of complaints respectively.

They give examples of loopy rules which include:

The rule is not practical The owners of a bus depot structure that has no walls are forced to install four exit signs, just in case people can’t find their way out if there is a fire.

The rule makes no sense The Health and Safety mining regulations define a tunnel as ‘what it is not’ rather than ‘what it is’.

Compliance with the rule defeats its very purpose An owner of a rural property had to spend $30,000 putting in a driveway and watertank to meet the fire requirements. The tank was at the back of the house. When the house caught fire, the fire chief would not drive his truck past the house to the tank in case it caught fire too.

A small change is treated the same as a big change: As part of the refurbishment of an earthquake-damaged building, a pharmacy is being added to the front of a 1950s building. The pharmacy is to be 3.5% of the building. The rest is residential. The pharmacy has triggered the need to upgrade the fire rating of the entire building at a cost of $50,000.

The rule sets a standard that can never be achieved: Converting a shop into a two-bedroom residential unit required a reduction in noise levels from 70db to 35db. We tested the required noise levels in our brand new home; the only place that complied was the wardrobe.

The rule is inflexible and imposes costs far in excess of any benefits: Under direction from Wellington, our council enforces clean air standards. For 12 days of the year our town does not meet the standard for PM10 particles. For the other 353 days of the year the air is great. The council has subsidised the replacement of hundreds of fires – often very efficient ones – and replaced them with inferior models for little or no change.

The rule requires permission to fix something the property owner doesn’t want: An owner had two protected trees on his property, listed by the council. One was dying, the other was unsafe and needed trimming. The owner is expected to get resource consent to maintain the trees on behalf of the council.

The rule means I cannot assume to benefit from value I have created from my own efforts: A farmer planted 5,000 kauri trees and asked the council if he could eventually harvest them. The council said it could not guarantee he could harvest them because they were kauri.

A rule can be interpreted in many ways: Having a level entry to showers: Some councils say yes, some say no, and then charge for an opinion or ruling.

There is no mechanism to update legislation as circumstances change: Long ago, hairdressers were once a source of infection – but no more. Even so, councils must register and inspect them yearly.

A rule has a compliance regime that does not allow for the fact nothing may change: Rigging loops have to be put in to a specified standard but then must be re-certified each year. If a year is missed, they must be abandoned and new ones inserted into the concrete, which would weaken the concrete.

The rule arises from officials’ zealousness and has no material effect: A council advised a farmer it was going to classify his land as a significant natural area under the Resource Management Act. Such a classification would limit his ability to use the land in certain ways, including turning his car lights on at night in case it disrupted the flight of Westland Petrels. The council acknowledged the birds never landed, swam, nested or mated there. It was simply on their flight path.

The report lists its top 10 fixes for loopy rules:

1. Make it easier to get building consents

 Speed up the development of risk-based consenting and investigate other ways to simplify the consenting of minor structures.

 Promote the use of building consent exemptions under Schedule 1 of the Building Act 2004.

 Complete the fix-up of the building fire upgrade regulations this year. Ensure additional requirements imposed reflect the extra costs imposed and the benefits to be gained.

 Use progressive building consents so work can begin sooner, with nonstructural details confirmed later.

 Streamline the determinations process for applicants.

2. Get serious about lifting the skills of building sector

 Develop an industry-wide strategy to lift the professional practices of builders.

 Work towards builders certifying their own work so as to deal with joint and several liability pressures on councils.

3. Make it easier to get resource consents

 Establish an end-to-end relationship management approach for all resource (and building) consenting within councils.

 Require councils to report publicly on their actual performance in meeting the statutory 20-day deadline (for building and resource consents), as well as the total time (including all delays resulting from information requests and so on).

 As part of the planned Resource Management Act 1991 reforms, eliminate the need for resource consents for minor and technical breaches.

 Introduce a faster, more flexible process for changing plans under the Resource Management Act 1991 reforms.

4. Reduce the cost of consenting fees

 Cap government building levies. 5. Sort out what “work safety” means and how to do it  Define what is meant by “all practicable steps” in the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1991 and any replacement term in the Health and Safety Reform Bill.

 WorkSafe should do more about mythbusting, correcting misunderstandings and providing consistent information.

 Develop clear and accessible guidelines and codes of practice once the Health and Safety Reform Bill becomes law, working with all other agencies involved.

6. Make it clear what the rules are

 Define what is meant by “as nearly as is reasonably practicable” in the Building Act 2004.

 Require the Ministry for the Environment to work more closely with the other agencies to provide more timely and comprehensive guidance when developing and issuing national directives.  Make government agencies accept their responsibility to correct misunderstandings about their policies and regulations, particularly in the building and resource management areas, and as noted in health and safety.

7. Establish a new customer focus the public sector  The State Sector Act 1988 and the Local Government Act 2002 should include customer service responsibilities for chief executives.

 All Local Government Chief Executives should have a customer focus component in their Key Performance Indicators. They should consider utilising the Customer Champion and Fast Fix approaches.

 To maintain a permanent focus on loopy rules, establish a website for people to report loopy rules, which are then referred to the responsible agency to put right.

8. Departments should introduce a stakeholder engagement approach to developing local government policies and regulations

 Require all government departments to adopt a stakeholder approach, such as that used by the Ministry of Transport. The Ministry signals policy changes in advance, involves stakeholders early on and is open to critical feedback.

 Require central government to develop a project-specific engagement approach when developing policies and regulations that local government must implement. This approach could be useful for example, in the development of proposed changes to amended shop trading hours (Easter Sunday trading) and the implementation of the Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Act.

 Amend the guidelines for Cabinet papers so they include “consultation with the Minister of Local Government” when a proposal will affect local government.

9. Reform the Local Government Act 1974 and the Reserves Act 1977

 Update the remaining provisions of the Local Government Act 1974 Act.  Review and update the Reserves Act 1977. And, most importantly:

10. Stop making loopy rules

 Develop a coordinated pipeline approach to regulation.  Include a cost-benefit analysis prior to development.

 Create a mechanism to actively review central and local government regulations.

 Extend Treasury’s annual review of departmental regulations, and incorporate an assessment of local government regulations.

In releasing the report, Local Government Minister Paula Bennett findings from the Rules Reduction Taskforce show real opportunities for both central and local government to make life easier for New Zealanders.

‘The loopy rules report: New Zealanders tell their stories’ is being released by the Government today following 50 public meetings and close to 2,000 submissions.

“We have listened to New Zealanders and the message is clear: there are too many frustrating rules and regulations, and too many are being applied inconsistently, and it is holding our communities back,” Mrs Bennett says. 

“The Report outlines practical opportunities for Government departments and local councils to improve the level of customer service they offer, and give that clarity people need. We will be embracing these opportunities finding practical solutions.”

The range of submissions cover 11 Ministers’ portfolios, with the majority relating to the Resource Management Act and the Building Act.

“Over the next few weeks, Ministers will be working with their departments and agencies to progress the quick fixes and what will take a bit longer to tackle. We’ll continue to update www.rulesreduction.govt.nz and make announcements as this work progresses,” Mrs Bennett says.

“The Government will also be working with local government to ensure they are providing the right advice to their residents about what rules and regulations mean and how they apply in their communities.

“The members of the Taskforce also heard loud and clear that there are several myths about rules and regulations that don’t actually exist. This includes the misconception that lolly scrambles have been banned, and that people can’t use three-step ladders.

“By breaking through this misinformation, New Zealanders will be better placed to focus on the serious rules designed to keep people safe and our economy growing.”

Several common ‘myths’ can be found on the Rules Reduction Taskforce website atwww.rulesreduction.govt.nz. New Zealanders can continue to share their experiences by sending a message through the Rules Reduction Taskforce’s social media pages.

“I’d like to thank everyone that took the time to share their experience with the Taskforce. I would also like to acknowledge the dedication of co-chairs Jacqui Dean MP and Michael Barnett, as well as the other members of the Taskforce,” says Mrs Bennett.

A lot of these problems  would not have arisen if regard for property rights and common sense were both at the basis of legislation.

If this report is acted on, loopy rules fixed in existing legislation and not added new legislation it will make a significant and positive difference to the country.

 


Quote of the day

September 21, 2015

Even with recent challenging economic news, New Zealand’s economy is diverse and resilient. – NZ National Party

New Zealand National Party's photo.


Alps 2 Ocean gets funding boost

August 28, 2015

Prime Minister John Key, who is also Minister of Tourism, has  announced a further $935,000 will be invested to help complete the Alps 2 Ocean cycle trail.

“Once finished, the 310km trail will be a major tourism asset for the Waitaki and Mackenzie Districts, helping attract both local and international visitors to the area,” Mr Key says.

“There is strong support from local tourism operators, and a growing number of international tourists are already using the trail, with an estimated 25 per cent more users in January 2015, compared with the same period last year.

The Alps 2 Ocean cycle trail is one of 23 Great Rides that make up Nga Haerenga – the New Zealand Cycle Trail.

“The Great Rides have proven to be a significant driver of local and international tourism which is helping New Zealand stay on the international map as a top tourist destination,” Mr Key says.

“The trails are also boosting economic growth in the regions with reports from individual trails indicating that more than 1,200 jobs have been created.

“Figures also indicate at least 60 new businesses have been established as a result of the Great Rides being built, and over 40 businesses have expanded their operations to cope with the new demand from cyclists.

“The funding announced today will help build on that success, creating more opportunities for the region and New Zealand as a whole,” Mr Key says.

 This additional funding, made available through the National Cycleway Fund announced in Budget 2015, will bring the total Government contribution to the Alps 2 Ocean Cycle Trail to $3,705,000, and to almost $55 million to construct the trails nationally.

The local community has raised $955,000 of co-funding to contribute to the completion costs.

The 41 km section to be completed will connect Sailors Cutting on the shores of Lake Benmore with Duntroon, meaning users will no longer have to cycle on State Highway 83.

This is great news for the Mackenzie and Waitaki Districts, and the many thousands of people who will use the cycle way.

Cycling on the road is neither safe nor enjoyable.

The cycle way is already providing a financial boost for the districts even though it has yet to be completed.

Neighbours offer homestays in their historic homestead and enjoyed heavy bookings last summer from people using the cycle trail.

Other existing businesses on the route report similar increases in patrons and new businesses have been established to service and supply cyclists.

The A2O cycleway starts near Mount Cook and finishes in Oamaru which Lonely Planet dubbed New Zealand’s coolest town.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,918 other followers

%d bloggers like this: