Federated Farmers Launches KiwiSaver Petition
"Accessing your KiwiSaver to buy your first farm, flock, herd or home has been an incredibly hot topic for farmers," Federated Farmers dairy chair Richard McIntyre says.
"On the campaign trail of the 2023 election, Todd McClay stood up in front of young farmers in Morrinsville and made a promise that he would make it happen.
"I'm sure he had the best of intentions, but unfortunately farmers have been bitterly disappointed by the lack of action from the Government on the issue to date.
"That's why Federated Farmers has launched this petition: to hold the Government accountable and send a clear message that it's time to follow through on their promise."
The petition's launch has been timed to coincide with the National Fieldays, where thousands of farmers, industry leaders and politicians will gather at Mystery Creek.
"Politicians are always out in force at Fieldays, rubbing shoulders with farmers, and we really wanted to make sure KiwiSaver issues were a topic of conversation," McIntyre says.
"Allowing young farmers to access their KiwiSaver to buy their first herd, home, farm or flock is the number one thing the Government could do to help our next generation of farmers.
"It would shave years of hard work and saving off their progression through the industry, and really turbocharge their farming careers.
"Why is the Government okay with that money being managed by stockbrokers and invested in Fortune 500 companies, but not by a farmer buying a herd to go sharemilking?"
McIntyre says he can't see any reason the Government wouldn't throw their full support behind making this policy change happen.
"A lot of young urban people enter KiwiSaver because it's a good way to build a deposit for their first house. They're saving for a home early on - not for their retirement.
"We're asking for young farmers to have the same opportunity - a one-off withdrawal early in their careers to help them get ahead by purchasing their first home, farm, herd, or flock."
New Zealanders are encouraged to sign the petition online at www.kiwisaverforkiwifarmers.nz or at Federated Farmers' Fieldays site D70.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
17 minutes ago
- NZ Herald
Only one option on recognising Palestinian state
Recognising a supposed state which is split in two, with one bit run by the corrupt Fatah movement and the other by the Iranian-backed terrorist group Hamas, surely meets those tests. Yet Peters going so public on the matter on Monday was still extraordinary. In a formal media statement, the Foreign Minister publicly acknowledged the Cabinet is divided over whether to recognise Palestine, with 'a broad range of strongly held views within our Government, Parliament and indeed New Zealand society'. 'This is not a straightforward, clear-cut issue,' Peters said, in what risks reading as a subtle dig at Luxon. Peters promised to approach the matter 'calmly, cautiously and judiciously' and to 'canvass this broad range of views before taking a proposal to Cabinet' which he would then present in New York late next month, when representing New Zealand at the UN's annual leaders' week. While Peters would be right to worry about US President Donald Trump's reaction to New Zealand recognising Palestine in an age of arbitrary tariffs, it is almost unthinkable that Cabinet would decide against it. Recognition of a Palestinian state is common ground between the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition, representing over two-thirds of MPs in Parliament, and of at least two of the smaller parties. It is also now the position of our only military ally and biggest economic partner, Australia, and the conditional stance of two other close Five Eyes friends, the UK and Canada. Strong objections can be made that the divided Palestinian Authority currently fails to meet the usual tests of statehood, including control of territory and effective government. Moreover, recognising Palestine as a state risks being seen not just as endorsing the corrupt West Bank regime of Fatah President Mahmoud Abbas – now into the 20th year of his first four-year term – but the evil Hamas organisation which has run Gaza for nearly as long. On the other hand, that may be too purist. Recognising Palestinian statehood is not about supporting Abbas or Hamas but a way of expressing opposition, not to Israel itself, but to its Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. It isn't clear if Luxon meant his attack on Netanyahu this week – that he has 'gone way too far' and 'lost the plot' – to be so unequivocal that it attracted global media attention and was flattered by a tough response from Israel. 'When you don't really need an army because your most deadly enemy is a possum or a cat,' its deputy Foreign Minister Sharren Haskel said tartly but not inaccurately, 'you wouldn't comprehend the challenges that come with facing Hamas – a jihadist death cult – only a few kilometres away from your country, that rape, execute, burn alive and starve your people.' Nevertheless, Luxon almost certainly spoke for a majority of the Cabinet, Parliament and New Zealanders. The only inaccurate part about his critique of Netanyahu is that he described his going too far and losing the plot as a recent development. In fact, Netanyahu – who has been on trial for corruption and fraud in the Jerusalem District Court since 2020 – has tragically been coming to mirror his enemies for much longer. Israel and the world would be better off had he retired from politics after he implemented his extraordinarily successful economic reforms 20 years ago. He has managed even to alienate Germany, whose leaders have described one of the purposes of the very existence of their country since 1949 as being to assure the security of Israel. Even it has felt forced to suspend all military exports to Israel that could be used in Gaza. With Luxon having made his attitude so clear – not just to New Zealanders but to the international community – Cabinet cannot choose other than to endorse his support for New Zealand recognising Palestinian statehood. No matter how frustrating it can sometimes be for foreign ministers, foreign policy is ultimately the prerogative of the head of government. If, somehow, Luxon's views were not to prevail on such a matter, he would be rendered a complete lame duck around his own Cabinet table. Moreover, rightly or wrongly, actively deciding not to recognise Palestine in the current international environment would no longer be interpreted as a refusal to do anything that would legitimise Hamas but as an active endorsement of Netanyahu and some of the extremist parties that keep him in office and so potentially out of jail. New Zealand foreign and trade policy is strongest and most successful when it reflects a consensus between National and Labour. For all their faults, they are ultimately the grown-ups in the room. The antics of Green co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick or the more reflexively pro-Israel views of some within the Act Party should not influence the forthcoming decision. The Cabinet Manual demands that matters such as this be considered at that level, and not just resolved in a meeting between the Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition and Foreign Minister. So be it. Cabinet government is a better system than taking decisions on a Prime Minister's couch. Still, with New Zealand's unfolding economic crisis needing to be tackled without distraction, it would be better if the decision could be taken more quickly than late September. And it should be the Prime Minister who makes the announcement in New Zealand and explains why the decision was made, not the Foreign Minister at the UN in New York. As leader of the country, not just a mere first among equals around the Cabinet table, Luxon needs to assert himself.
Scoop
an hour ago
- Scoop
Govt's Justification For Last-minute RMA Changes Appears To Directly Contradict EU Free Trade Agreement
The Government's attempt to justify last-minute changes to the Resource Management Act appear to contradict New Zealand's commitments under our Free Trade Agreement with the European Union, say freshwater campaign group Choose Clean Water. On Tuesday, the Government issued a press release stating that its last-minute changes to the Resource Management Act, which would allow agricultural and industrial pollution of waterways to continue where it's causing 'significant adverse effects on aquatic life', are 'Urgent economic action to protect exports'. The Government is aiming to change a long-standing and fundamental part of New Zealand's environmental law designed to protect fresh waterways from severe damage (ie, the loss of fish and other wildlife). 'What this means is that ongoing, severe pollution is being made legal at the stroke of a pen and that appears to directly contradict our obligations under our EU Free Trade Agreement,' says Tom Kay, Choose Clean Water spokesperson. 'A recent court decision on the Southland Land and Water Plan concluded that farming that was causing serious harm to rivers and other waterways could not simply be allowed as a permitted activity without a resource consent. This meant other councils who had similar permissions in their plans, like Waikato, are likely also allowing farming where it is causing significant degradation too.' Advertisement - scroll to continue reading 'But rather than do something to address this severe pollution, the Government is trying to cover it up by calling it 'routine on-farm activities', and trying to make the problem disappear by weakening the law and stating this is to 'protect exports'. 'There are clauses in our Free Trade Agreement with the EU about not weakening environmental protection in order to encourage trade.' Our European Union Free Trade Agreement states, 'Each Party shall strive to ensure that its relevant law and policies provide for, and encourage, high levels of environmental and labour protection, and shall strive to improve such levels, law and policies.' 'A Party shall not weaken or reduce the levels of protection afforded in its environmental or labour law in order to encourage trade or investment.' 'A Party shall not, through a sustained or recurring course of action or inaction, fail to effectively enforce its environmental or labour law in a manner affecting trade or investment.' 'A basic reading of the Free Trade Agreement would suggest that the Government's last-minute changes to the RMA, as well as its other efforts to weaken environmental law, directly contradict the clauses relating to environmental protection.' The Ministers' press release says they are making the changes because 'The Waikato region generates 20% of the nation's primary exports,' and 'If we don't act, the economic heart of New Zealand's primary sector could grind to a halt.' However, Kay says, the Government has not mentioned the potentially irreversible and intergenerational damage that could be done to waterways—such as groundwater underneath Canterbury that many rely on for drinking water—by allowing this pollution to be swept under the rug. Given the consequences of these changes on people's health and well-being, the places we live, and our international trade obligations, Ministers Bishop, McClay and Hoggard must issue a vastly more detailed explanation on the impacts of their changes to environmental protections for the state of our water and our trade agreement. 'There have been other instances where MFAT has advised we may breach these environmental obligations. How much can the Government weaken environmental law before there are international consequences?' 'If so-called 'routine on-farm activities' in New Zealand lead to the severe pollution of our freshwater, then our agricultural industry lobby groups aren't the international leaders they say they are.' 'The Government must drive and support more widespread improvement of farming activities, council enforcement, and accountability. They can not just magic away the problem by taking away environmental protection that safeguards all New Zealanders, the places we live in, and the water we all rely on.'
Scoop
2 hours ago
- Scoop
Emergency System Reforms Will Place New Costs On Councils
Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) says the Government has signalled emergency system reforms will place new costs on councils – which will lead to higher rates bills. A Cabinet Paper released today estimates the reforms would initially cost councils $82.8 over their first four years. This would cover implementing new requirements, updating civil defence emergency management (CDEM) plans and better engaging with communities and iwi Māori. Councils will receive no additional funding to meet these new compliance requirements. LGNZ Chief Executive Susan Freeman-Greene says these new costs will leave councils with no option other than increasing rates. 'What local government needs is more financial backing from central government to respond to emergency weather events. Councils don't need more costs and compliance measures pushed onto them, that can only be funded from rates,' says Susan Freeman-Greene. 'Communities turn to their councils when disaster hits and the Government expects councils to be responsive to their community's needs. Locally led planning and response is critical, as councils lead their regions and communities through all phases of an emergency. 'As weather events become more frequent and extreme in New Zealand, councils are also increasingly bearing the brunt of emergency events. Currently councils fund civil defence activities through rates, receiving some central government support to respond to and recover from civil defence events. 'The actual bill for councils and their ratepayers could be much higher that the Cabinet paper implies, because it doesn't account for the ongoing resourcing implications of minimum service levels. 'Like the Government, councils want to keep rates down. But rates are the only way they can cover these kinds of costs imposed by central government.' Susan Freeman-Greene believes that a better solution is for the Government to empower councils through a separate funding source for emergency management. 'Last year LGNZ released a set of 25 funding and finance tools that could help councils better resource the infrastructure and services their communities need. "One of these tools was a civil defence levy to help councils fund emergency response efforts and alleviate some of the significant costs they face when responding to extreme weather events and natural disasters. 'This levy, modelled on natural hazards cover, could be included with insurance premiums to support emergency preparedness and response.'
