Speech: Hon Andrew Hoggard To Federated Farmers At Fieldays
ACT MP Hon Andrew Hoggard
Federated Farmers Rural Advocacy Hub Speaking Engagement
Wednesday 11 June, 11:30 am
Good morning, everyone.
It's great to be back, and thank you for the opportunity to speak here today.
I'd like to start by acknowledging the significant effort that's gone into organising this year's Fieldays Rural Advocacy Hub. These events don't happen without a lot of hard work behind the scenes, and it shows.
I also want to acknowledge Federated Farmers and the many other farmer-led organisations who work tirelessly to support and advocate for the sector.
As a dairy farmer and a former President of Federated Farmers, I know firsthand how important your work is. Whether it's in the regions or on the national stage, you give voice to rural communities, bring practical solutions to the table, and stand up for the interests of farmers and growers across New Zealand.
This Government is firmly committed to backing you—by reducing costs, cutting unnecessary red tape, and strengthening frontline support.
When I spoke at Fieldays last year, interest rates were a massive challenge for rural New Zealand. Make no mistake, that was Wellington's fault. It was the hangover from a Labour-led pandemic response that pumped out easy money without a productivity boost to match.
Now we've reined in waste, got inflation back to the target range, and farmers are finally seeing real interest rates relief. We need to do more to cut the waste in Wellington, because the less resource the Government sucks up, the more is left over for people like you out in the real world trying to grow things.
Over the past year, we've made real progress on red tape. We've started delivering on our promise to fix the resource management system and reduce the regulatory burden.
Amending intensive winter grazing and stock exclusion rules. Pausing the rollout of freshwater farm plans while we make them more practical and affordable, and halting the identification of new Significant Natural Areas.
Right now, we're consulting on a package of proposals aimed at streamlining or removing regulations that are holding the primary sector back.
Most critically, we are consulting on changes to the NPS Freshwater 2020. There are several options being put forward. Now, if I remove my Minister hat and put on my ACT Party hat, we need to be bold. By that I mean Te Mana o te Wai needs to go. Worrying about the Paris Accord, whilst still a concern, is a sideshow compared to the hard calls we need to make with regards to RMA reform and the NPS Freshwater.
Make no mistake, as a Party we have no interest in taxing the most carbon efficient farmers in the world, having methane targets far in excess of what is needed to play our part, sending billions offshore to be carbon neutral, or turning the lights off in homes or businesses through misguided energy policies.
But if you ask me what area of policy scares me the most for the future of New Zealand farming, it is resource management and freshwater policy.
Te Mana o te Wai has caused confusion amongst councils, and I see that if left in place its current trajectory will likely lead towards co-governance for regional councils, not just in policy but consenting as well, and policies that are based on vague spiritual concepts, not clear and simple water science balanced with societal needs.
This debate will undoubtedly be noisy, but farming groups need to advocate strongly for clear unambiguous language in the NPS, individual farmers need to submit on what they are seeing and the stress this concept has caused many of them with regards to consenting.
At the Treaty Principles Bill second reading debate many coalition party MPs stated that the Bill was too general, too broad-brushed, and that we should just focus on ensuring that we don't have unclear language and vague concepts in future bills and policies. Well I would suggest that this NPS Freshwater is a good test for those statements. You will see plenty of MPs here for the next few days playing farmer dress up, make sure you let them know you expect them to keep their word.
Now, while I'm being a staunch ACT MP I also want to give a shout out to the Regulatory Standards Bill, for many of you undoubtedly are thinking, why should I care about something that sounds that boring.
Real simple. If this Bill had been in place during my Feds presidency it would have made the job so much easier, as it would have highlighted some of the more impractical and stupid regulations that were dreamed up. Even if it didn't make the politicians think twice, at least the system would have shone a spotlight on the issues. We are so lucky that Bernadette Hunt got on the Hosking show and was able to show up some of the more daft parts of the winter grazing regs and they got changed within days, but they shouldn't have got that far. That's what the Regulatory Standards Bill will hopefully show up.
But also, government doesn't just take away your hard-earned dollars through its fiscal policies. It also can take away your property rights through its regulatory policies, so this Bill will ensure that if those property rights are taken away then compensation should be forthcoming. This whole concept has complete distaste from the Left, and some lukewarm reception from everyone else but ACT. So, if more protection for property rights is something you want to see, make sure you put your case forward for it.
Okay, back to being a Minister, if I can just highlight some of the other Government work that is going on that is relevant for farming.
In the health and safety space, we've got Brooke van Velden leading reforms to get rid of over compliance, reduce paperwork, and make WorkSafe helpful, not harmful. I'm especially pleased about her work to protect landowners from liability when they allow recreational activities like horse trekking, hunting, or hiking on their land. It's about a shift from fear to freedom, opening up land for maximum enjoyment and enhancing the Kiwi way of life.
We're also keen to empower farmers on the conservation front. I believe farmers are natural environmentalists. We live off the land, so we have every incentive to care for it. Many of us work to maintain stands of native bush or wetland on our land. For too long, the approach has been to punish this work, with councils looking at your land and saying, ' that looks pretty, in fact that natural area looks 'significant' and you're going to lose your property rights over that. ' It's all stick and no carrot. I think farmers deserve real credit for their contributions to biodiversity, and I'll have more to say about that at the Beef + Lamb stall tomorrow.
In this year's Budget, we announced a 20% funding increase to tackle the spread of wilding pines—a major win for our landscapes and productive land.
Another important change in this year's Budget is Investment Boost—a major new tax incentive to encourage business investment, support economic growth, and lift wages.
If you're a farmer, tradie, manufacturer, or run any business, this matters to you.
When you invest in new equipment, machinery, tools, vehicles, or technology—you'll now be able to deduct 20% of that cost immediately from your taxable income.
It's a straightforward way to help reduce your tax bill and support decisions that lift productivity and grow your business.
To put it simply, we're backing your success.
We want to see a thriving primary sector that's not weighed down by complexity, but supported to innovate, grow, and lead.
I want to thank Federated Farmers, and many of you here, for the constructive role you've played in helping shape these changes. Your feedback is vital to making sure the final rules are workable, sensible, and fit for purpose.
Thank you again for the chance to be here, and for everything you do to keep this sector moving forward.
All the best for a successful and enjoyable Fieldays.
Thank you.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
1News
2 hours ago
- 1News
Live stream: David Seymour fronts at post-Cabinet media conference
David Seymour is is taking questions from the media following the regular meeting of Cabinet. The ACT leader, who took over as Deputy PM from Winston Peters this month, is in the hot seat as acting Prime Minister while Christopher Luxon is in Europe. Cabinet met today after a two-week break, which included "scrutiny week" when MPs get to grill ministers about their departments and ministries. The meeting came against the backdrop of war in the Middle East, with an RNZAF C-130 en route to the region to help evacuate Kiwis. Luxon has also been in China where he met President Xi Jinping.
Scoop
2 hours ago
- Scoop
Labour Will Repeal Regulatory Standards Bill
Labour will repeal the Regulatory Standards Bill in its first 100 days in Government. 'The Regulatory Standards Bill has no place in a fair and democratic New Zealand and Labour is committed to repealing it in our first 100 days if elected next year,' Labour justice spokesperson Duncan Webb said. 'This Bill is another concession by Christopher Luxon to ACT that puts corporate interests ahead of the public good, making it harder to pass laws that protect people and the environment. 'Under the Regulatory Standards Bill, laws that would keep people healthy and safe, like requiring landlords to heat homes, limiting the sale of vapes, or keeping our air and water clean would be at risk. 'It allows David Seymour to create his own hand-picked 'appeals body of regulatory economists' to criticise laws that are out of line with his minority views. 'Put another way, it takes power away from communities and hands it to corporate friends of the ACT Party. 'Christopher Luxon was too weak to stand up against it, but Labour will repeal it,' Duncan Webb said.
Newsroom
5 hours ago
- Newsroom
Anne Salmond: Victim of the Day
Over the past week, something remarkable has happened. The Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand has fronted an online campaign of harassment of scholars who have shared their views about his Regulatory Standards Bill, naming each of them as a 'Victim of the Day.' Each scholar has been accused of 'Regulatory Standards Derangement Syndrome,' a description borrowed from Donald Trump's followers, who accuse his critics of 'Trump Derangement Syndrome.' The portraits of each scholar are placed on David Seymour's Facebook page under this banner, and labelled 'Victim of the Day,' with online responses invited. The use of the term 'Victim of the Day' is, at best, careless. In the United States at present, political violence is escalating, with senators and their families being physically assaulted, even shot and killed. This has been associated with online incitements against individuals. No one in New Zealand, least of all the Deputy Prime Minister, can be unaware of these developments. In the United States, too, direct attacks by the Trump administration on universities, university scholars and their students have escalated from attacks on individual academics to attempts to take direct political control of what is taught on university campuses, by whom, and to whom, backed by the deployment of armed force including police and ICE agents. When universities such as Harvard have resisted these attempts, they have been punished by defunding their research and threats by the Trump administration to their right to admit international students. These and other attacks are happening to universities and other scientific institutions across the United States. At a time like this, it is extraordinary that a Deputy Prime Minister here should initiate an online campaign of intimidation against university scholars, using Trumpian rhetoric and tactics to harass them for exercising their academic freedom. In the United States, as in New Zealand, the independence of universities and academic freedom are designed as checks and balances on executive power, with the rule of law and the freedom of the press. All of these freedoms are being assailed in the United States at present. In New Zealand, the concept of academic freedom is specifically enshrined in legislation. Section 161 of the Education Amendment Act 1990 states: '161 Academic Freedom 1. It is declared to be the intention of Parliament in enacting the provisions of this Act relating to institutions that academic freedom and the autonomy of institutions are to be preserved and enhanced.' This requires that academics are free to offer commentaries within their fields of expertise without direct intimidation and harassment by politicians. The Act goes on to state: '2. For the purposes of this section, academic freedom, in relation to an institution, means – a. the freedom of academic staff and students, within the law, to question and test received wisdom, to put forward new ideas and to state controversial or unpopular opinions.' Without this kind of freedom, new ideas and discoveries are unlikely to emerge. In academic inquiry, they must be rigorously tested against the evidence, including robust exchanges and peer review. For this to work well, the debate has to be reasoned and civil. Academic freedom is a very old doctrine, designed to protect universities from those who seek to control research and teaching to advance particular political agendas, as in the United States at present. Such ambitions are typical of totalitarian, autocratic regimes, with the USSR and South Africa under apartheid as previous examples. This can come from any political direction. In New Zealand, for instance, the Education Act 1989 was drafted in response to an attempt by the Fourth Labour Government to take control over 'what was taught, by whom and to whom' in New Zealand universities. That effort was vigorously resisted, and as a result the Education Act was passed and enshrined academic freedom in our legislation, along with a section that requires universities to 'act as critic and conscience of society.' That, I think, is exactly what the 'Victims of the Day' were doing when they were attacked by the Deputy Prime Minister. From an array of different disciplinary perspectives, they were analysing and discussing the Regulatory Standards Bill as contributions to public debate. In many ways, the campaign launched and fronted by the Deputy Prime Minister is lame, even laughable. At the same time, it is an abuse of high office. For the Deputy Prime Minister of this country to deploy Trumpian rhetoric to single out individual scholars as 'Victims of the Day' is deplorable, given the requirements of the Education Act. It is also troubling, given its direct links with the political assault on universities that is happening in the United States. Worse still, this is a senior politician who has vigorously argued for freedom of speech in universities. Above all, every New Zealand citizen has the right to speak their minds about matters such as the Regulatory Standards Bill without being personally intimidated by politicians. If scholars whose academic freedom is legally protected under the Education Act can be singled out in this way, the freedom of speech of all New Zealanders is at risk. In New Zealand, the Cabinet manual requires ministers to 'behave in a way that upholds, and is seen to uphold, the highest ethical and behavioural standards. This includes exercising a professional approach and good judgement in their interactions with the public, staff, and officials, and in all their communications, personal and professional.' This 'Victim of the Day' campaign does not match this description. It is unethical, unprofessional and potentially dangerous to those targeted. Debate is fine, online incitements are not. Ultimately, all ministers are accountable to the Prime Minister for their behaviour. As one of David Seymour's 'Victims of the Day,' I ask that Christopher Luxon upholds the Cabinet manual, and requires the Deputy Prime Minister to withdraw and apologise to those he has targeted and harmed in this despicable campaign. I am formally lodging a complaint with the Cabinet Office, and look forward to its response.
