Latest news with #FederatedFarmers
RNZ News
2 days ago
- Business
- 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
2 days ago
- Politics
- 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
- Politics
- 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.
1News
3 days ago
- Automotive
- 1News
IRD warns about misunderstanding fringe benefit tax
Inland Revenue says it wants to clear up misunderstanding about the effect of proposed changes to fringe benefit tax (FBT), particularly when it comes to double cab utes. There was a warning this week that farmers buying expensive utes at Fieldays could be in for a shock if the FBT rules changed in line with proposals released earlier this year. Federated Farmers has also warned of a "ute tax 2.0". But Inland Revenue deputy commissioner, policy, David Carrigan, said there were misunderstandings about the tax, including a myth that utes had been FBT-free. "When it comes to double cab utes, these are treated no differently to any other vehicle. Unless the use of the vehicle meets all the requirements for an exemption from FBT, then a double cab ute is, and always has been, subject to FBT. That is the current law," Carrigan said. ADVERTISEMENT "Work-related vehicles are only exempt from FBT if they meet certain requirements. This includes double cab utes." The morning's headlines in 90 seconds, including Auckland's supermarket fire, Trump's threat to Iran, and how a smart watch could make you fitter. (Source: 1News) At the moment, work vehicles such as utes are only exempt from FBT on days when they are used for essential work purposes. He said what was proposed was not a change to that treatment, but to remove the necessity to count days when a vehicle was or was not available for private use. "The idea is to simplify FBT, not create additional obligations. If a business - including a farm - is not currently liable for FBT on a vehicle, then it's unlikely they would become liable for FBT under any proposals taken forward." He said the aim of the FBT proposals was not to increase revenue but to reduce compliance costs of FBT. "The government has not made any final decisions in relation to potential changes to the FBT regime and Ministers are currently considering the feedback received from submitters on the Inland Revenue issues paper with a view to refining those proposals." ADVERTISEMENT Deloitte tax partner Robyn Walker agreed there was "fake news" circulating about the FBT rules. She said there had historically been concerns about low levels of compliance with FBT. "This review essentially concluded that a lack of compliance with the existing laws (and lack of compliance by Inland Revenue) had the potential to erode the integrity of the tax system. "Essentially, if taxpayers think it is okay to not comply with FBT rules, they'll also start not complying with other tax laws." She said the idea that utes were completely exempt from FBT was long-standing but had never been the case. But under the proposals released earlier this year, a vehicle used for work purposes and generally only available for home to work travel and travelling to different worksites would be "category three" vehicle with a 0% rate for FBT purposes. "Under the proposals, if there was occasional additional private use of the vehicle, this would be ignored." ADVERTISEMENT She said the changes also opened this category up to other vehicles such as small cars and electric vehicles. "There is a proposed rule that vehicles assigned to shareholder employees would not be able to be exempted from FBT if the vehicle has a cost of $80,000-plus. "However, for FBT purposes, you only look at the cost of the vehicle and you ignore any 'business accessories'. "There is a false narrative that if a ute is purchased and it is fitted with work-related gadgets that increase the total cost to above $80,000 that the vehicle is automatically subject to full FBT. This is incorrect."
Otago Daily Times
4 days ago
- Automotive
- Otago Daily Times
IRD warns about misunderstanding fringe benefit tax
By Susan Edmunds of RNZ Inland Revenue says it wants to clear up misunderstanding about the effect of proposed changes to fringe benefit tax (FBT), particularly when it comes to double cab utes. There was a warning this week that farmers buying expensive utes at Fieldays could be in for a shock if the FBT rules changed in line with proposals released earlier this year. Federated Farmers has also warned of a "ute tax 2.0". But Inland Revenue deputy commissioner, policy, David Carrigan, said there were misunderstandings about the tax - including a myth that utes had been FBT-free. "When it comes to double cab utes, these are treated no differently to any other vehicle. Unless the use of the vehicle meets all the requirements for an exemption from FBT, then a double cab ute is, and always has been, subject to FBT. That is the current law," Carrigan said. "Work-related vehicles are only exempt from FBT if they meet certain requirements. This includes double cab utes." At the moment, work vehicles such as utes are only exempt from FBT on days when they are used for essential work purposes. He said what was proposed was not a change to that treatment, but to remove the necessity to count days when a vehicle was or was not available for private use. "The idea is to simplify FBT, not create additional obligations. If a business - including a farm - is not currently liable for FBT on a vehicle then it's unlikely they would become liable for FBT under any proposals taken forward." He said the aim of the FBT proposals was not to increase revenue but to reduce compliance costs of FBT. "The government has not made any final decisions in relation to potential changes to the FBT regime and Ministers are currently considering the feedback received from submitters on the Inland Revenue issues paper with a view to refining those proposals." Deloitte tax partner Robyn Walker agreed there was "fake news" circulating about the FBT rules. She said there had historically been concerns about low levels of compliance with FBT. "This review essentially concluded that a lack of compliance with the existing laws (and lack of compliance by Inland Revenue) had the potential to erode the integrity of the tax system. "Essentially, if taxpayers think it is okay to not comply with FBT rules, they'll also start not complying with other tax laws." She said the idea that utes were completely exempt from FBT was long-standing but had never been the case. But under the proposals released earlier this year, a vehicle used for work purposes and generally only available for home to work travel and travelling to different worksites would be "category three" vehicle with a zero percent rate for FBT purposes. "Under the proposals, if there was occasional additional private use of the vehicle, this would be ignored." She said the changes also opened this category up to other vehicles such as small cars and electric vehicles. "There is a proposed rule that vehicles assigned to shareholder employees would not be able to be exempted from FBT if the vehicle has a cost of $80,000-plus. "However, for FBT purposes, you only look at the cost of the vehicle and you ignore any 'business accessories'. "There is a false narrative that if a ute is purchased and it is fitted with work-related gadgets that increase the total cost to above $80,000 that the vehicle is automatically subject to full FBT. This is incorrect."
