Christopher Luxon Tells Off David Seymour Over Letter To United Nations
Regulations Minister David Seymour has been given a telling-off by the prime minister for sending a scathing letter to a United Nations official about his red-tape-busting legislation.
Speaking to media on Tuesday morning, PM Christopher Luxon said, while he "fully agreed" with the content of Seymour's message, the responsibility for engaging with the UN lay with Foreign Minister Winston Peters.
Luxon said he had not asked Seymour to retract his letter but had spoken with him directly.
"I'm not going into those conversations," Luxon said. "I've just made it clear that I expect Winston Peters to be the person that engages with the UN."
In a statement to RNZ, Seymour said he stood by the contents of his letter but acknowledged he had been "too efficient" in his correspondence.
"One response should come from the Minister for Foreign Affairs on behalf of all ministers," Seymour said.
"Winston and I have fixed the problem. I'm going to withdraw my letter so that the government can send one response. I expect that letter to make the same points."
Last month, the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, Albert K Barume, issued a letter to government ministers expressing a number of concerns, including about Seymour's Regulatory Standards Bill.
One of his criticisms was that the legislation excluded Māori traditions and failed to uphold principles guaranteed by the Treaty of Waitangi.
As first reported by the NZ Herald, Seymour fired back, in his capacity as Regulations Minister, describing the UN letter as "presumptive, condescending, and wholly misplaced".
He said Barume's description of the Regulatory Standards Bill's approach to tikanga was "not only incorrect but offensive".
"As an indigenous New Zealander myself, I am deeply aggrieved by your audacity in presuming to speak on my behalf and that of my fellow Māori regarding legislation that aims solely at ensuring clarity, consistency, and accountability in regulatory processes."
Seymour signed off his letter: "We neither require nor welcome external lectures on our governance, particularly from bodies whose understanding of our nuanced historical, cultural, and constitutional context is so clearly deficient."
Luxon said he agreed with Seymour that the UN letter was "a total waste of time" but stressed proper processes needed to be followed.
"All of us in government can read the letter and say, hey, it's total bunkum," Luxon told reporters.
"But our response will come from Winston Peters... he will have a comprehensive reply in due course."
Also speaking on Tuesday morning, Labour leader Chris Hipkins said the events proved the "dysfunctional" nature of the coalition and were "downright embarrassing".
"Most days, it doesn't appear that Christopher Luxon is actually in charge of his own government," Hipkins said. "Winston Peters and David Seymour seem to do whatever they like."
Foreign Minister Winston Peters said the matter of who replied to correspondence from the UN had been resolved.
Peters said experience matters in the business of diplomacy and "fixed" the issue after speaking to Seymour.
He said he was still consulting affected ministries, and would craft a response when that's complete.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
36 minutes ago
- NZ Herald
World's top court paves way for climate reparations
Campaigners and countries on the climate frontlines hailed a milestone moment in the fight for accountability from big polluters most responsible for global warming. Ralph Regenvanu, the climate change minister for Vanuatu, the small Pacific island nation which spearheaded the case at The Hague, was jubilant. Speaking to AFP outside the court, Regenvanu said it was 'a very strong opinion at the end' and better than hoped. 'We can use these arguments when we talk with our partners, some of the high-emitting states. We can say you have a legal obligation to help us,' he said. 'This helps us in our arguments. It's going to give us a lot more leverage... in all negotiations.' Catalyst for change This was the biggest case in ICJ history, and seen as the most consequential in a recent string of landmark climate rulings. The United Nations had tasked the 15 judges at the ICJ, a UN court in The Hague that adjudicates disputes between nations, to answer two fundamental questions. First: what must states do under international law to protect the environment from greenhouse gas emissions for the future? Second: what are the consequences for states whose emissions have caused environmental harm, especially to vulnerable low-lying island states? In a detailed summary of the opinion, Iwasawa said the climate 'must be protected for present and future generations'. The adverse effect of a warming planet 'may significantly impair the enjoyment of certain human rights, including the right to life', he added. Legal and climate experts said the opinion, while not legally binding, could have far-reaching consequences for national courts, legislation and public debate. 'The court's clear and detailed articulation of state obligations will be a catalyst for accelerated climate action and unprecedented accountability,' David Boyd, a former UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and the Environment, told AFP. Johan Rockstrom, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, said the ruling bound all nations by international law to prevent harm from emissions of planet-warming greenhouse gases. The court was 'pointing the direction for the entire world and making clear that every nation is legally obliged to solve the climate crisis', he told AFP. Classroom to court Courts have become a key battleground for climate action as frustration has grown over sluggish progress toward curbing planet-warming pollution from fossil fuels. The Paris Agreement, struck through the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), has rallied a global response to the crisis, but not at the speed necessary to protect the world from dangerous overheating. The journey to The Hague began six years ago with students from the climate-imperilled Pacific region fed up with the lack of accountability for the damage afflicting their homelands. The fight pitted major wealthy economies against the smaller, less developed states, which are most at the mercy of a warming planet. More than 100 nations and groups made submissions in The Hague, many from the Pacific who gave impassioned appeals in colourful traditional dress. 'It's such a perfect ending to a campaign that started in a classroom,' said Vishal Prasad, director of the student-led campaign that kicked off the case. 'We have now a very, very strong tool to hold power accountable, and we must do that now. The ICJ has given everything possible,' he told AFP in The Hague. John Kerry, the former US special envoy for climate change, said 'it should not take the stamp of international law to motivate countries to do what is already profoundly in their economic interests'. 'We shouldn't need another reason to act and accelerate action.' -Agence France-Presse
NZ Herald
an hour ago
- NZ Herald
Rotorua councillors debate wastewater discharge plans
The vote was divided into two sections, with the criteria and values of a working group to consider as well as the weighting of those values. Lee labelled the process 'overly complex and complicated' and any working group a 'recipe for disaster'. He suggested a simple solution existed, which was to drain treated wastewater into Puarenga Stream. He said this would be the 'cheapest solution' for ratepayers. Councillor Gregg Brown said that would be a 'pretty quick' way to end up in the Environment Court. Councillor Don Paterson then suggested the people of Ngapuna would be 'lighting torches and coming with pitchforks' should that be the plan. Councillor Don Paterson. Photo / Laura Smith Councillor Conan O'Brien insisted a complete consensus on the issue was unlikely, before Mayor Tania Tapsell emphasised a need to go 'above and beyond' to ensure all wastewater decision-making was made in the public eye. Councillor Lani Kereopa also expressed her concerns about the plan putting costs ahead of mana whenua engagement. She and Lee both voted against the criteria and values. Councillors were asked to vote on how to prioritise the outcomes the working group should focus on. One option gave more weight to financial and practical concerns, assigning 35% each to total lifecycle cost and implementation risk, while giving just 10% each to relationships with mana whenua, community acceptance and environmental outcomes. The alternative was to treat all five areas equally at 20% each. Most councillors supported the first option with the heavier weighting on cost and risk. However, Kereopa, Paterson and Trevor Maxwell voted against it, raising concerns that mana whenua engagement was being undervalued. Lee abstained. There was more heated debate as councillors confirmed the Water Services Delivery Plan. Puarenga Stream. Photo / Ben Fraser The plan, required by the Government's Local Water Done Well legislation, stated Rotorua would continue managing water services in-house until at least 2028. Meanwhile, the council would explore forming a joint water services organisation with neighbouring councils, then make a final service delivery model decision in 2027. Lee signalled an intention to abstain from voting, saying he was sceptical of the ability of a council-controlled organisation to deliver and of some wording around te ao Māori and mana whenua. He highlighted a recent agreement with Ngāti Kearoa-Ngāti Tuara over Karamū Tākina Springs, which supply 60% of the city's drinking water, saying it meant rates rises for constituents. Councillor Gregg Brown. Photo / Andrew Warner Despite their concerns about changes being forced upon them by central government, Lee's abstention was rebuked by Brown and O'Brien. 'For a mayoral candidate to sit on the fence is not great fella,' said Brown. 'Abstain? Come on. You've got all the information make a decision.' 'I won't be abstaining despite my concerns,' said O'Brien. 'Because I am here to make decisions. I believe that is why people put me here. Not just to blab, continue on and sit on the fence and not make a decision or follow principles.' Lee suggested abstaining was one of three voting options, along with yes and no. Tapsell said his voting options were yes or no and that abstaining was considered a non-vote. Rotorua Mayor Tania Tapsell. Photo / Laura Smith The mayor praised council staff for putting together a 'strategic document', which gave the council time and opportunity to decrease costs and ensure they make the right long-term decision. She then called out Lee for what she described as his 'continuing bashing of Māori and iwi'. Tapsell suggested the Karamū Tākina Springs agreement potentially saved a sum approaching $100 million. Lee's attempt to raise a point of order in response was shot down by Tapsell, who gave him one more chance to 'please be quiet' to allow the meeting to continue. The motion then carried, with Lee abstaining and Paterson voting against – believing it was unfair Rotorua be treated the same as other areas with poorer performing water systems. Tapsell and Lee previously confirmed to Local Democracy Reporting they would run for mayor in the October election. Mathew Nash is a Local Democracy Reporting journalist based at the Rotorua Daily Post. He has previously written for SunLive, been a regular contributor to RNZ and was a football reporter in the UK for eight years. - LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air.
Newsroom
2 hours ago
- Newsroom
Who Benefits: The power of the farm lobby, part one
Who Benefits is a year-long project tracking and disclosing lobbying and influence, starting with the agriculture sector. The project is supported financially by a grant from The Integrity Institute. Newsroom has developed the subject areas, will be led by what we uncover and retains full editorial control. If you know where influence is being brought to bear, email us in confidence at: trublenzOIA@ Part two of Who Benefits, published on Friday, zeroes in on the freshwater policy under fire from the agricultural lobby: Te Mana o Te Wai. When Christopher Luxon wanted to declare an end to Labour's 'war on farming' he joined lobby group Federated Farmers on a three-stop tour. 'There is nothing more important to New Zealand than the rural sector,' the Prime Minister told the 800-strong crowd at Mystery Creek, in Waikato, last November, flanked on stage by huge 'Restoring Farmer Confidence' signs. A story in Farmers Weekly – written by Federated Farmers itself – carried comments from Te Aroha dairy farmer Carla De Wet. 'It's pretty impressive to find out the Government has already achieved nine of the 12 things Federated Farmers asked for before the election.' De Wet added: 'I think it's bloody awesome to have ticked off so many things in such a short period of time. That just goes to show how influential that farming voice really is.' (In a circular moment, the lobby group's 2023 election policy document was called 'Restoring Farmer Confidence'.) It was Federated Farmers president Wayne Langford who said the 'nine out of 12' line at Mystery Creek. Luxon thought it was so good, though, he repeated it the next day on The Country radio show. 'The other three are still in motion,' the Prime Minister said. Radio show host Jamie Mackay asked if the Federated Farmers-organised tour – to Waikato, Canterbury and Southland – was like preaching to the choir. (For some, it would have confirmed the old adage Federated Farmers is the National Party in gumboots.) Luxon, the National Party leader, said he wanted farmers to know the Government backed them and would work with them. 'That's how it should be. You should have government and industry as adult-to-adult partners working together on the challenges but also the huge opportunities we've got.' The question is, though, where do politicians draw the line? Political parties are elected on a mandate but discrete partnerships can benefit some groups over others. They can even override the broader public interest. Close relationships also raise questions over influence by vested interests, access to power, and, crucially, who benefits. 'Too complex, too expensive' One of Federated Farmers' 12 policy pre-election demands was 'fix our unworkable freshwater rules'. In May this year, the Government proposed an overhaul of freshwater management which has provoked fierce criticism from environmental groups, Māori and others. (Submissions on the proposals close on Sunday.) Agriculture Minister Todd McClay, of National, said the Government wanted to 'restore balance' in freshwater policy, while Act's Andrew Hoggard – the associate environment minister and a former president of Federated Farmers – said existing rules were too complex, too expensive and often ignored 'practical realities'. Absent from the press statement was Environment Minister Penny Simmonds. The economy was front and centre. Agriculture Minister Todd McClay, left, with the Prime Minister at Fieldays this year. Photo: Christopher Luxon/Facebook A discussion document covering the proposals opened with this line from Resource Management Act Reform Minister Chris Bishop: 'This Government is committed to enabling primary sector growth as a key driver of both the New Zealand export sector and prosperity in the wider economy.' The Government is in a hurry to increase economic activity. But there are concerns freshwater protections will be bulldozed to boost exports when many waterways already have poor quality, principally because of intensive farming. In many cases degraded rivers, streams and lakes are still deteriorating. Problems with groundwater can affect drinking water, as shown by problems experienced in Gore. (Strengthening drinking water protections in planning and law was done after the Havelock North campylobacteriosis outbreak that made thousands sick and led to four deaths.) If ministers opt for the more extreme options in the freshwater policy overhaul it may encourage more intensive farming, opponents say, and worsen pollution of waterways. Today's political leaders face the same conundrum their predecessors did over decades: If they don't act now, how much more costly will the clean-up be in 10, 20 or 30 years? Dairy giant Fonterra made an after-tax net profit of $1.17 billion in the 2024 financial year. Photo: David Williams The proposals weren't magicked out of thin air, of course. Ministries for the Environment and Primary Industries met selected groups between October last year and February to float ideas and gather feedback on changes to the national policy statement for freshwater management (NPS-FM) and associated environmental standards. Concern is now being raised about the structure and nature of that pre-consultation, and what emerged in the discussion document. Figures provided to public health researcher Marnie Prickett and Newsroom show agricultural groups were consulted in dedicated meetings more often, and for more hours, than local government, central government agencies, and environmental non-government organisations combined. 'I'm concerned at the amount of time that these agencies have spent with the agricultural sector, given that the agricultural sector is one of the biggest polluters of our freshwater resources,' says Prickett, a research fellow at the University of Otago, Wellington's department of public health – and a member of advocacy group Choose Clean Water. Consultation with the primary sector spanned 34.5 hours over 24 meetings, while 18 dedicated meetings were held with agencies, councils and environmental non-government organisations. Over the pre-consultation period there were also an estimated 12 regular inter-agency meetings – held fortnightly for 30 minutes – taking the total to 31 hours. (The most consulted sector in the target consultation was Iwi/Māori. More on that in part two.) There's also a skew in ministerial time. A diary search of key ministers for official meetings, video conferences, events, and functions (including in other portfolios) spanning this parliamentary term shows 98 meetings with Federated Farmers, Beef + Lamb, Dairy NZ, and eight with environmental groups EDS, Forest & Bird and Greenpeace. Obviously, that list excludes ministerial meetings with other groups such as the Meat Industry Association, Dairy Companies Association of NZ, Horticulture NZ, Irrigation NZ, and Fish & Game. Prickett says agricultural groups have a commercial interest in limiting regulation. 'I'm concerned that that means the Government is not operating in the public interest but rather prioritising polluting commercial interests.' The country can have productive agriculture, she says, but within environmental limits. Prickett is concerned that diluting freshwater protections would lead to dramatically more degradation, and make it harder to reverse existing problems. Removing these protections would, she says, be similar to decisions favouring the tobacco industry over the public interest. 'The issue is imbalance' Marie Doole, a researcher of environmental strategy and regulation, says lobbying is an important part of democracy, and regulated parties should be consulted on changes affecting them. 'Here, though, the issue is the imbalance,' she says. 'One of the red flags of excessive influence [is] targeted engagement focused mainly on vested interests.' About the time the targeted freshwater consultation started, Victoria University of Wellington's Policy Quarterly magazine published an article 'Navigating murky waters – characterising capture in environmental regulatory systems'. Doole was its lead author. She tells Newsroom skewed consultations favour parties with greater resources and deeper pockets as they're the most invested in moulding a favourable regulatory environment. Christopher Luxon on the 'Restoring Farmer Confidence Tour' with Federated Farmers in the Waikato. Photo: Christopher Luxon/Facebook 'Government's job is to moderate influence, and they do that by fair and balanced consultation and engagement. If they're not doing it, they're not doing the job.' Environmental Defence Society attended pre-consultation meetings with the environment ministry. Chief executive Gary Taylor defends officials, saying they did a good job 'subject to the directions that they've received from ministers'. He identifies various issues – such as who sets environmental limits, 'simplifying' wetlands and fish passage provisions, 'enabling' commercial vegetable growing – that, in his opinion, shouldn't have made the final cut. 'It's fair to say the Government does seem to be unduly influenced overall by the agricultural sector,' Taylor says. 'This Government is a farmers' government, and they are in there all the time. They're in there with Hoggard, they're in there with Bishop, and in spite of several requests, we're halfway through the term and we've yet to have a dedicated meeting with Bishop, who's driving all this. 'On the basis of my experience with successive governments over many years, that's an extraordinary failing, and a deeply troubling asymmetry of influence.' In response to a Newsroom request under the Official Information Act, Jane Chirnside, the Ministry for Primary Industries' director of resources and rural communities, says the agency led targeted engagement with the primary sector over proposed changes to the national policy statement. 'We met with individuals in their capacity as farmers and/or members of local catchment groups, to understand at a practical level the impact that the NPS-FM has at farm and catchment scale. 'We used existing MPI networks to identify participants and tried to get representatives across regions and farm types, who had an interest in freshwater management, or were involved in catchment groups.' Ministers intervened to add options Prickett, of University of Otago, says a straight line can be drawn between what agricultural groups have asked for and what's in the public discussion document. A November 14 letter to ministers McClay, Hoggard, and Simmonds, written by Federated Farmers vice president and freshwater spokesperson Colin Hurst, said national bottom lines for water quality were, in some areas, 'unachievable', because of, for example, climate change, naturally occurring processes, population growth, land use, and legacy effects. 'Our recommendation is that national direction focus on what outcomes regional councils should seek to achieve, but that targets and timeframes are set at the catchment level, by regional councils, based on the social, economic, environmental and cultural needs of the local community.' In March, after targeted consultation had finished, ministers Bishop, McClay, and Hoggard stepped in to ensure local decision-making would appear in the discussion document. The intervention was recorded in an interim Regulatory Impact Statement – in which officials assess the effects of policy changes. Associate Environment Minister and former president of Federated Farmers Andrew Hoggard says existing rules are too complex, too expensive and often ignore 'practical realities'. Photo: Supplied The additional option was councils should be given flexibility to deviate from national bottom lines when achieving them 'has a high social, cultural or economic cost'. An interim Regulatory Impact Statement (there were several) said giving councils this flexibility 'will address key concerns, including those raised in the Beef + Lamb NZ report about natural variation, and the need to vary by region'. (Prickett, the public health researcher, says talk of local decision-making is, to her, shorthand for decisions made or influenced by polluting commercial interests.) At the March 4 meeting, officials were also directed to add other options to the discussion document: removing Te Mana o Te Wai (a decision-making hierarchy putting the health of water and ecosystems first), or considering a name change; and scrapping the 190kg per hectare cap on synthetic nitrogen fertiliser. Hurst's letter from November told ministers there should be 'no hierarchy of obligations' – a direct assault on Te Mana o te Wai – and asked for a refreshed NPS to balance environmental values with cultural, social and economic purposes. The South Island's biggest irrigation company, Central Plains Water, writing on December 2, three days after its consultation meeting, said many of the problems arising from the national policy statement stemmed from 'how Te Mana o te Wai is framed'. The hierarchy needs 'replacing in its entirety'. The company supported locals deciding if water quality and quantity should be maintained or improved, with the caveat: 'It is based on clear direction set in a NPS'. Directions on nutrient management 'do not need further strengthening', the company said. However, officials noted there would also be an increased risk of 'debate and litigation'. Another passage of the regulatory impact statement quoted a Beef + Lamb report. 'There is also concern from the primary sector that it is not possible to meet water quality bottom lines within the timeframes anticipated to be set, and 'trying to meet them will decimate farming and rural communities'.' (Doole, the independent researcher, says an explosion in catchment groups and community volunteering over the past 10 years suggests people in rural and urban environments are far more aware of their environmental impact. She struggles to reconcile that awareness with ardent advocacy to deregulate with farmers, and a 'weird binary of farmers versus environmentalists' which just feels 'exhausting and boring'.) Freshwater ecologist Mike Joy gave expert opinion evidence in the Ngāi Tahu trial on the extent to which freshwater in the takiwā is degraded, and the causes. Photo: Supplied Freshwater ecologist Mike Joy, a senior research fellow at Victoria University of Wellington's school of geography, environment and earth sciences, shared his submission to the consultation with Newsroom. The submission said councils already had flexibility to deviate from bottom lines – something noted on the environment ministry's website. Joy added there was already an 'out-clause' for waterways affected by naturally occurring processes. There was, he wrote, no justification for not applying national bottom lines. Attempts to weaken freshwater regulation were being disguised, Joy said, by using words and phrases such as 'rebalancing', 'providing flexibility' and 'simplifying'. 'There is, however, no recognition of the fact that water quality has been declining for many decades, thus the regulations they are wanting to weaken are already not strong enough.' A 2020 state of the environment report said more than 90 percent of rivers in urban, pastoral, and exotic forest areas have water quality below recommended guidelines, 76 percent of native fish were threatened with, or at risk of, extinction, and 90 percent of wetlands had been drained. Prickett, the University of Otago researcher, says rebalancing Te Mana o Te Wai would continue the primacy of polluting commercial interests over freshwater policy, which has been happening for decades and has led to declines of water quality and quantity. This degradation, she says, suggests freshwater protections have never been good enough. This despite numerous surveys showing high public concern over freshwater – that they want to be able to swim and fish in rivers and lakes, and drink high-quality water from their taps. National direction policy flood The freshwater overhaul that landed in May was part of a torrent of consultation over national direction unleashed by the coalition Government. Changes are proposed to 12 existing instruments and four new ones, with a focus on freshwater, infrastructure and development, and the primary sector. Environmental lobby group Greenpeace Aotearoa accused the Government of stripping freshwater protections to bolster corporate profits, while Federated Farmers suggested the Government had to pause freshwater rules. What are farmer groups saying now, particularly about their influence on political parties, and accusations of undue influence over that of the public interest? Hurst, of Federated Farmers, says it's 'entirely appropriate' for the Government to engage regularly with farmers and the wider primary sector, 'particularly when you consider the potential impact and cost of these rules'. Farming rules should be practical, affordable and fair, he says. 'We also want to make sure any regulation will actually be effective and achieve better environmental outcomes. 'It's important we get these rules right, particularly when you consider the huge economic contribution of agriculture for the country.' DairyNZ's David Burger, the general manager of farm solutions and policy, says it engages constructively with the government of the day on matters affecting dairy farmers 'and appreciates that other groups do the same'. Kate Acland, the chair of Beef + Lamb NZ, says farming impacts on freshwater need to be managed but there were significant issues 'and massive implications' under the previous government's approach. 'It's critical that ministers and officials first understand the issues, but also critical that they spend time with the sector to ensure rules are practical and workable.' Acland notes anyone can make a submission on the consultation, which will go through parliamentary processes, including a select committee. Ministers respond Newsroom asks ministers McClay, Hoggard, Bishop, Simmonds, and Associate Agriculture Minister Nicola Grigg for comment. Bishop responds, but he's silent on ministerial meetings and the influence of agriculture. We'll quote his comments in full – the reason for which will soon be apparent. 'The current public consultation on freshwater national direction, which runs for eight weeks closing on 27 July, has been shaped by feedback received from a wide range of groups during the targeted engagement phase.' (Prickett points out this selected group didn't include non-polluting commercial interests like the tourism industry.) Bishop continues: 'During targeted engagement, some groups sought to discuss specific matters of interest or asked to continue discussions at additional meetings. 'Officials from the Ministry for the Environment accommodated these requests wherever possible, and the number and duration of meetings varied as a result. 'All submissions received during the public consultation period will be considered, along with feedback from the ongoing engagement, before progressing any freshwater national direction changes. 'Note that there will also be a second phase of public submissions later this year, when exposure drafts will be released for further consultation.' (Exposure drafts are the raw wording of legislation, released to identify potential problems before it's introduced to Parliament. This seems like a concession by the Government to environmental groups.) A day after Bishop's comments were sent, the Ministry for the Environment provided Newsroom with this statement, attributed to Nik Andic, the manager of freshwater natural environment policy: 'The current public consultation on freshwater national direction, which runs for 8 weeks and closes on 27 July, has been shaped by the feedback we received from a wide range of groups during targeted engagement. 'During targeted engagement, some groups sought to discuss specific matters of interest or asked to continue discussions at additional meetings. Officials from the Ministry for the Environment accommodated these requests wherever possible, and the number and duration of meetings varied as a result. 'We will consider all submissions received during the public consultation period, along with feedback from ongoing engagement, before providing advice to ministers on any freshwater national direction changes. 'Note that there will also be a second phase of public consultation on freshwater national direction changes later this year, when exposure drafts are released.' Farming groups' influence on Government policy might be a concern but at least the public can be assured the minister and ministry are singing from the same hymn sheet.
