By Thomas Chin, general manager of the NZ Grain & Seed Trade Association
The Environmental Protection Authority recently announced a consultation on a new group standard for treated seed under the HSNO Act.
It appears the EPA neglected to inform the minister of regulation that its proposal would generate additional regulations, costs and compliance burdens for the industry and could ultimately impact the supply of seed to farmers and growers.
In a curious turn of events, the minister of regulation announced a review of the approval process for new farming and horticulture products in the morning, and the EPA issued its announcement to regulate treated seed on the afternoon of the same day.
In our opinion, treated seeds are absolutely vital for farmers and growers. Seed treatments themselves protect seeds from pests and diseases, ensuring a strong start for healthy seed.
We now face a situation where the government aims to reduce red tape that hinders farmers and growers from accessing products approved in other jurisdictions, while one of its agencies proposes more bureaucratic requirements. This is a shambolic and absurd scenario.
While the EPA is tasked with protecting the health and safety of New Zealand, it seems incredible that it is pushing for more costs and compliance burdens on the industry, contrary to the government’s policy to cut excessive regulations, get economic growth and make NZ an easy place to do business.
The EPA’s prescriptions do not encourage stronger international connections and do not incentivise domestic or international companies to make available new and better crop protection products for farmers and industry. As currently proposed they could impact the supply of global seed crops to NZ.
Adding to our frustrations, the EPA claimed it was committed to consulting with key stakeholders. The seed and grain industry last had formal dealings with the EPA in June 2023, and the next interaction was on July 1, 2024, a week before the public release of the proposal.
Naively, we believed consultation meant working together to sort out problems and to get solutions, instead of blind-siding industry and dumping on us already-written, poorly thought-out proposals.
Where does this leave us? We believe the Ministry for Regulation’s review of the EPA processes should be sensibly conducted first, before the EPA creates more regulations amid its already overloaded work schedules.
We don’t need more red tape. We don’t need to make NZ harder to do business with.
