Fertiliser legislation not wanted

Press, 11 December 1982, Page 19

Fertiliser legislation not wanted

Farm editor New Zealand agriculture is now saddled with new legislation about fertilisers which no-one in the industry wants, and may be a substantial retreat from the inadequate controls over fertiliser quality under the Fertilisers Act. 1960. The Fertilisers Bill. 1982. is at the third-reading stage in Parliament and virtually assured of being passed into legislation. It was originally designed to correct the shortcomings of the 1960 act, but the Government has amended the provision for compulsory registration of fertilisers to a voluntary one. The senior vice-president of Federated Farmers, Mr Peter Elworthy, who recently retired as chairman of the farmer fertiliser cooperative, Ravensdown. responded to the new legislation by saying that the 1982 bill was a mess. “We do not want it, the manufacturers do not want it, and nor does the Ministry of Agriculture,” he said. Earlier this year the bill was drafted by the Ministry and approved by the Fertiliser Manufacturers’ Association and Federated Farmers.

It then passed to the. Cabinet committee on legislation, chaired by the Minister of Justice. Mr McLay. where the compulsory provision was considered to contradict the Government’s philosophy of deregulation of industry and changed to a voluntaryone.

The amended legislation passed through the Lands and Agriculture Select Committee of Parliament, although initial submissions by the Ministry, the fertiliser manufacturers, and Federated Farmers opposed the change to voluntary registration. The amended bill then passed through first and second reading stages of Parliament.

Under the new legislation any substance which purports to be or is held out to be suitable for the promotion of growth in plants may be called a fertiliser, although to be registered it must meet minimum nutrient criteria.

Therefore any substance may be promoted as a fertiliser. perhaps even water or sawdust.

The virtual passing of the new bill into law also raises the question of fertiliser subsidies.

The Ministry, which has the task of advising the Minister of Agriculture which fertilisers should attract the subsidies, is caught by the provisions of the new bill. It could recommend That subsidies only be paid on those fertilisers entered voluntarily for registration, and be accused of victimising those products and companies which do not come forward or of trying to ensure “back door” compulsory legislation. Alternatively it could recommend that all substances claimed to be fertilisers attract the subsidies and be accused of wasting taxpayers' money on subsidising the likes of water or sawdust.

The Ministry is also concerned about its reputation as a watchdog on fertiliser quality, which was enhanced by the publication last year of results from long-term pasture trials at Winchmore Irrigation Research Station, which showed declining fertility from declining citric soluble phosphate levels in superphosphate. There was an immediate response from fertiliser companies, the Ministry believes, because the long-term research results backed up the publicised Ministry nutrient analysis results.

However under the new legislation, fertilisers and mixes of fertilisers, ranging in effectiveness down to zero, could come and go more quickly than the Ministry’s limited ability to analyse and publish. Under the old act there are already 542 registered fertilisers, but the proliferation of seaweed-based mixtures are not included and could not be called fertilisers until now.

Not every New Zealand farmer has a degree in soil chemistry and cannot be expected to be completely protected by the principle of

caveat emptor, or let the buyer beware, when the range of fertilisers available is expanding and changing rapidly. In amending legislation on a point of principle, the Government has destroyed the effectiveness of the legislation and moved the process of accountability for fertiliser quality backwards rather than forwards.

The Ministry can be expected' to keep on testing fertilisers to check whether the claimed analyses are correct, but its resources in this area consist of one scientist and two technicians who are capable of analysing 160 tests a year.

Adequate monitoring of quality is considered to be a test on the same fertiliser every two months, and so the Ministry might be able to keep meaningful control on less than 30 fertilisers in a year.

With the proliferation expected under the new legislation, this level of monitoring is clearly not adequate. Marketing advantages might be discerned in voluntarily registering a fertiliser, but the volume of advertising is still in direct proportion to a product’s reputation for effectiveness and quality in a field where true effectiveness can only be measured over years.