Striking the balance: Practical policy for freshwater and farming
What I'm hearing from those I talk with is that without a doubt, dairy remains a valued and valuable sector critical to New Zealand's future economic success, with more enabling policy a shared interest between DairyNZ and the Government.
The Government's proposals include updates to Te Mana o te Wai, simpler wetland rules, a review of nitrogen limits, and more flexible ways to set freshwater objectives.
These changes could reduce red tape, but only if they result in rules that are practical and workable on-farm.
We support the consultation process and the goal of improving freshwater policy, but we are advocating for change that reflects on-farm realities and builds confidence for the future.
We support a shift away from rigid numerical limits.
Instead, we want to see greater focus on ecosystem and human health outcomes.
We support better use of tools like certified and audited Freshwater Farm Plans.
More enabling rules around constructed wetlands are another priority.
The dairy sector is investing heavily in science-backed solutions to reduce its environmental footprint, including nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment losses.
Proven practices such as using plantain, catch crops, good farming practices and stacked mitigations through Low N Systems are already delivering results.
An example is the potential for nitrate reductions of up to 60%, with further gains possible with supportive policy.
These efforts show the sector's strong commitment to improving freshwater quality while remaining economically viable.
DairyNZ has spent the past year preparing to provide a workable replacement to the existing policy.
Our team has developed an alternative freshwater framework to support a constructive, science-led response.
We are pushing for four key outcomes:
Practical, science-based rules Clearer focus on environmental and human health Farmer-led, catchment-scale solutions that reward good practice A policy package trusted by farmers, communities and markets.
Beyond freshwater, we are involved in the wider RMA reform, where we have concerns.
We've submitted on both recent Amendment Bills and the Fast-Track Approvals Bill, calling for enduring and enabling policy settings with pragmatic consenting pathways.
We are also working with regional councils to ensure the pause on new freshwater plans is used to improve, not shelve, the evidence base for environmental limits.
We know that right now, many of you are doing your best to interpret complex rules while managing the day-to-day realities of farming.
And with calving underway or around the corner, it's all hands on deck.
In the meantime, keep doing the basics well: record nitrogen use, keep stock out of waterways, and implement your Freshwater Farm Plan.
Together, we can ensure the next generation of policy supports both a thriving dairy sector and a healthy environment.
Thank you for everything you do.
- Tracy Brown is the chair of DairyNZ
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
Midday Report Essentials for Friday 1st August 2025
business food 6 minutes ago In today's episode, in a surprise out of the White House, New Zealand exports are being slapped with a 15 percent tariff rate; Animation and visuals giant, Weta FX, has confirmed it's looking to cut or change about 100 jobs, mostly in Wellington; Documents have revealed how the government tried to keep its pay equity changes secret; It's August the first which means it's time for Wellingtonians to lose their minds over burgers.
NZ Herald
4 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Offshore oil ban repeal: Coalition seeks consensus amid opposition
However, in a statement on Thursday, Jones said the ban was 'ill-fated' and 'has exacerbated shortages in our domestic gas supply by obliterating new investment in the exploration and development needed to meet our future gas needs'. 'New Zealanders are bearing the brunt of this constrained gas supply, and energy security concerns are impacting investor sentiment ... we are seeing businesses in the regions closing as a result with Kiwis losing their jobs, and we're importing hundreds of tonnes of Indonesian coal to meet peak energy demand. 'This legislation is just one of many actions we are taking to get the right settings in place to resuscitate sector confidence, shore up energy supply, and protect electricity affordability.' He was absent from Parliament on Thursday, leaving the main Government speech to the National Party's Simon Watts – the Minister for Energy and Climate Change. Watts said the opposition's argument that reversing the ban would not yield new gas for a decade was 'a distraction'. 'The immediate signal that this bill sends to investors is critical now. It encourages immediate investment in long-term exploration and in maximising production from our existing fields, which can deliver benefits far sooner. 'New Zealand is committed to a clean-energy transition and meeting our emissions targets. We have committed to deliver net zero by 2050, including by doubling renewable electricity, and removing consenting barriers. Natural gas remains critical to our energy security. Without gas, we would need to either rely on more coal, which results in around twice the carbon dioxide emissions than natural gas, or face energy insecurity and higher prices.' His Labour Party counterpart Megan Woods, however, said the evidence showed record investment in existing fields after 2018. Labour MP Megan Woods has slammed the Government's offshore exploration push. Photo / Mark Mitchell 'For this Government to claim that it had a chilling effect on investment is simply wrong. What we had was those offshore oil and gas operators looking for every last bit they could eke out of the existing fields, and it is not there. 'Then we had Shane Jones saying that this will open up opportunities off the East Coast of the South Island. Well, news flash: billions of dollars have been spent looking for that particular El Dorado ... this Government is going to give $200 million to offshore companies to go and have a look again where they've already decided there are not commercial finds available.' She pointed to official analysis showing reversing the ban would add 14.2 million tonnes of emissions, and 'a bit that should have been redacted from the regulatory impact statement' showing it could affect trade. 'Let me read from that: 'Legally privileged: Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade assessed that reversing the 2018 ban would likely be inconsistent with the obligations in several of New Zealand's free-trade agreements' – so farmers need to be worried, our access to the EU and the UK are being put at risk.' The Green Party spokesman for just transitions, Steve Abel, was also sceptical the oil industry could be attracted back. He was part of the Oil-Free Seas Flotilla in 2011 that harried Petrobras' surveying ship for 42 days, welcomed to the area by a 500-strong haka 'said by Te Whānau-a-Apanui, the iwi greeting us, to be the biggest haka since James Cook had arrived in that part of the country – I'm hoping we were more worthy of it than he was', Abel said. The Green Party's Steve Abel says the 2018 ban simply sealed the fate of an oil industry already in decline. Photo / Marty Melville He listed off a series of oil companies that exited New Zealand before the ban came into place: Exxon Mobil abandoning its southern oil and gas hunt in November 2010 after three years, Petrobras in December 2012, Texan driller Anadarko exiting its permit on the North Island's west coast in May 2014, Statoil quitting its Northland permit in October 2016, and Shell selling its remaining assets to OMV in March 2018. He said the ban was the 'final nail in the coffin of an industry that was already declaring its own demise in this country, because they came, they prospected, they found nothing, and they found nothing but overwhelming public opposition from the people of this country'. Echelon Resources – the company formerly known as New Zealand Oil and Gas, last month told RNZ the best wells are typically drilled first, so new drilling will be more difficult and expensive. Its managing director, Andrew Jeffries, said other countries had more political consensus, making New Zealand an even more unattractive option for investment. Act Party MP Simon Court said the repeal would restore certainty, credibility and confidence, but called on Labour not to reimpose the ban if it won power. 'Today marks the end of an era – a really bad one. It marks the end of a six-year reign of economic vandalism and energy illiteracy by the previous New Zealand Labour Government. 'Even the Honourable Shane Jones said at the time – bless his soul – that ending oil and gas exploration 'is the only scenario'. When he stood at that podium, I was shocked, but I'm pleased that minister has come to his senses – but profoundly disappointed that the Labour Party still has not.' Court's leader, David Seymour, said it was 'very possible that they won't find the gas, but the impediment to people getting cheaper energy should not be our own Government, and that's why I say if New Zealand First can change their mind then Labour should be able to do that too'.
NZ Herald
6 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Luxon living on borrowed time as stagflation looms
While not yet as bad as in the 1970s, the term for this is stagflation, and even the Treasury now warns that 'high-frequency data provides further evidence that growth slowed in the June quarter' and that 'near-term inflation pressures have increased'. Private-sector economic forecasters are even more pessimistic, and the Reserve Bank's Kiwi-GDP forecaster continues to indicate June quarter GDP declined by 0.3%. Massey University's GDPLive indicates the economy continued its decline through July. This is more than 18 months since Luxon purported to unveil his 'plan' and six months since his big 'going for growth' speech in Auckland. In fact, Luxon has no plan of the sort that might transform New Zealand's prospects the way Argentina's President Javier Milei has turned around his country's economy in less than 18 months, as detailed by Richard Prebble on Wednesday. Announcements said to be part of Luxon's 'plan' usually have the appearance of being dreamed up overnight based on focus-group sessions, like banning surcharges on debit, credit and Eftpos payments. While Luxon claimed the ban 'ensures' that a mandated $90 million reduction in credit-card fees would 'flow through to consumers', Finance Minister Nicola Willis was more orthodox in saying businesses would make their own decisions. The surcharge ban is probably good politics, since it will perhaps marginally benefit those using their cards, phones and watches while imposing a tiny cost to those who use cash. But we can only pray that Luxon and Willis understand that shifting $90m from banks to consumers is irrelevant in the context of a $430 billion economy, including the $7.2b the banks made in profits last year. Like so many of the 'announcements' the Government has made in the past two weeks, like the $80m for a new medical school and the reannouncement of $6b of government infrastructure projects, the surcharge ban is, at most, a rounding error. When he speaks of doubling down on his plan, even Luxon surely did well enough at primary-school maths to know that two times nothing is still nothing. Underlining the emptiness of his plan and his approach to politics generally is that the past two weeks of frenetic media activity can be explained by the Beehive knowing that all the major polling companies are currently in the field and expected to release results over the next fortnight. In political strategy, this is known as 'pumping the polls', where populist activity occurs during a polling period to try to score a better number for a candidate or party. Even if this improves the result by only a couple of points, the candidate or party can claim growing support. Luxon had better hope that is what has happened, because on the results of the next fortnight's polls his future as Prime Minister depends. National MPs are increasingly twitchy not so much about the Government's polling, but about National's and Luxon's. As they look around the caucus room, National MPs know that one in six of them may not be back at the next election, based on the past few months of polls. But those set to lose their seats may be the lucky ones, since while the same polls suggest the coalition would be narrowly re-elected by just a seat or two, National would be even weaker in a second Luxon Government than in the current one. Luxon would of course keep his Botany seat but, the way things are heading, National would have no more than a couple of list MPs, and perhaps none. Off the top of the list, Willis and Speaker Gerry Brownlee would probably scrape in – but not comfortably – and Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop would survive if he retained his Hutt South electorate. But it would be bye-bye for Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith and anyone else relying on a list seat, including any new talent National wanted to attract. Blame for this tends to be directed towards Luxon, who has never polled better than his party, which has also failed to get out of the 30s under his leadership. As preferred Prime Minister, Luxon is usually about level with Labour leader Chris Hipkins. But Luxon's net favourability number has almost always been under zero, often catastrophically so. More people also think the country is heading in the wrong direction than say it is on the right track. Astonishingly, National fell behind Labour this June over who is best to manage inflation and the cost of living. Among voters' top 20 issues, National was ahead only on the economy – marginally – and on law and order and defence. Recent changes to Luxon's media schedule may help a bit. On the narrow question of media tactics, it is better for a Prime Minister to appear on Mike Hosking Breakfast and its lower-rating competitors on a Monday rather than a Tuesday. But Luxon's problems do not so much concern his choice of media and social-media channels and when he uses them. The real problem is that too many swing voters just have a visceral dislike and disrespect of the man, and that he seems incapable of engaging seriously – scripted or unscripted – on issues as they arise, or of talking in more than banalities. Were the economy clearly on the mend, this might not matter as much. But having nothing meaningful to say to Hosking or his competitors and bombarding social-media users with brain-dead messaging about non-existent plans 'starting to work' is not what the times call for. Nor does Luxon do himself any favours by telling everyone how hard he works. No one cares. Some of the greatest leaders in history did the lightest hours. What matters is voters perceiving that a Prime Minister offers some sense of what they want to achieve that is independent from their focus groups, a clear strategy to deliver that objective even if aspects of it are unpopular, and a genuine sense of connection with the country's past, present and future. A Prime Minister should be able to speak knowledgeably about all these things, not revert to childlike slogans under even the softest questioning. Luxon is already living on borrowed time. He had better hope the forthcoming polls buy him a little more time to try again to prove that he has at least some of the attributes his job demands.
