Financial Support On The Way For Drought-Hit Farmers
Mark Patterson is encouraging farmers doing it tough to get in touch with their local Rural Support Trust to find out what help is available and to apply for a Rural Assistance Payment if they need it.
Hon Louise Upston
Minister for Social Development & Employment
Minister for Rural Communities
The Government is making more financial support available for eligible farmers in many parts of the North Island and upper South Island to help with essential living costs, Social Development and Employment Minister Louise Upston and Rural Communities Minister Mark Patterson say.
'Rural Assistance Payments are being made available from Monday 28 April 2025 in 27 districts affected by dry conditions. We want to help eligible farmers whose income has been severely affected by drought-stricken conditions,' Louise Upston says.
'We know farmers in these regions have been significantly impacted by low rainfall over recent months, and we want people to be able to access support when they need it.
'These Rural Assistance Payments are being made available until 28 October 2025, when farmer incomes are expected to lift.'
Mark Patterson is encouraging farmers doing it tough to get in touch with their local Rural Support Trust to find out what help is available and to apply for a Rural Assistance Payment if they need it.
'Droughts often have a sting in the tail with the cold tough winter months still to come. We know how hard it can be to recover from a drought, and we are here to support farmers through it,' Mark Patterson says.
Farmers in the Northland, Waikato, Taranaki, Horizons (Manawatū-Whanganui, including Tararua), and the Top of the South Island (Marlborough, Tasman, and Nelson City) regional council areas can apply for Rural Assistance Payments.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
a day ago
- Otago Daily Times
Rural minister on ‘listening tour'
Minister of Rural Communities Mark Patterson speaks at an open forum in Gore, joined by NZ First outreach adviser Kym McDonald. PHOTO: ELLA SCOTT-FLEMING Industry, energy, genetic engineering and artificial intelligence were the hot topics at an NZ First minister's open forum in Gore yesterday. Minister of Rural Communities Mark Patterson held a public meeting at the Gore Town & Country Club on Friday afternoon to connect with the issues of Southland. The minister said, though it sounded a bit "namby pamby", he was on a "listening tour" to gather feedback for his party to use to build policy for the next election. In his opening speech, he spoke of the similarities — and differences — of the coalition government, its endeavour to get rid of the "red and green tape" and the last government's mistakes. The three parties agreed "pretty much" on the bigger picture, but NZ First were more at the "interventionist" end, making things happen, he said. Interventions included the $1.2billion Regional Infrastructure Fund developed by himself and Shane Jones. The economy, inflation and cost-of-living crisis were the fault of the previous Labour Party government, he said. "[It] is a sort of direct impact of some really, really bad-quality spending towards the tail end of the last government." Southland had been going "gangbusters" in terms of industry growth, Mr Patterson said. Datagrid NZ's proposed data centre in Makarewa would be a "massive opportunity" for Southland. But he received pushback from the crowd, one member of the community expressing concerns about the "enormous" amounts of power such centres needed. Data centres generated a lot of heat which took power to cool down, and had surges needing random bursts of power, which all cost, the man said. He did not want to see that cost subsidised by the general public. Mr Patterson said he was apprehensive at first about the centres too, but he had come around. There was potential for 500-600 jobs, as the project sized up, 10ha of greenhouses using the industrial heat and up to 3500 jobs in auxiliary surrounding businesses. "That's the modelling they've put to us." Concerns around the proposed deregulation of genetic engineering and modification were also brought up, as were Mr Jones' recent comments denouncing the proposal. Mr Patterson said Mr Jones had made comments on the proposed deregulation of genetic engineering at a meeting in Hutt Valley last week, but the crowd's applause had drowned out some of his qualifying remarks. The Gene Technology Bill, which passed its first reading in Parliament last December, remains a contentious issue. Mr Patterson said NZ First supporters remained sceptical and that the party had received significant public feedback on the matter. Dr William Rolleston, a strong supporter of the Bill who was attending the meeting in Gore, recalled Mr Jones' warning about not allowing "Frankenstein" into the environment. Addressing public concerns about consumer and health authority reactions to GMO use in farming, Dr Rolleston assured that no genetic modifications had faced health authority objections and emphasised that farmers grew GM crops only where there was market demand. "Farmers wouldn't grow GM crops if they didn't think there was a market for it," the doctor said. Mr Patterson declined to comment further, citing the Bill's current status before the parliamentary committee.
RNZ News
3 days ago
- RNZ News
Oral Questions for Thursday 14 August 2025
Questions to Ministers Hon CARMEL SEPULONI to the Minister for Pacific Peoples: Does he stand by his statement, "We absolutely have endeavours to get Pasifika people into employment"; if so, why? TEANAU TUIONO to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Does he agree with the Prime Minister that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has "lost the plot"; if so, why? CATHERINE WEDD to the Minister of Finance: What reports has she seen on COVID-19 and the economy? Hon KIERAN McANULTY to the Minister of Housing: How many social houses funded in the 2024 and 2025 Budgets have been built? SCOTT WILLIS to the Minister of Science, Innovation and Technology: How many jobs, if any, have been lost in the science sector since the formation of this Government? SAM UFFINDELL to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has he made about health infrastructure? CAMILLA BELICH to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Will she formally consider the report to be published by the People's Select Committee on Pay Equity next January; if not, why not? Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL to the Minister for Mental Health: What recent announcements has he made in relation to a promotion campaign for better mental wellbeing for New Zealanders? ARENA WILLIAMS to the Acting Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs (Grocery Sector): Does she agree with Nicola Willis, who said in 2023 that "National will take action to get food prices under control once more"; if so, why are food prices still going up under her watch? Dr DAVID WILSON to the Minister for Resources: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand resources sector? TIM VAN DE MOLEN to the Minister for Small Business and Manufacturing: What is the Government doing to support small businesses? LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE to the Minister of Internal Affairs: Does she stand by her statement that online casino-type gaming providers should not have to make community returns because that would create "a perverse incentive to increase gambling activity in order to increase revenue for these organisations"; if not, why not? Question to Member INGRID LEARY to the Chairperson of the Health Committee: Were any items of business relating to Health NZ removed from the Health Committee agenda this week after the agenda was originally distributed and before the meeting took place; if so, what were they? To embed this content on your own webpage, cut and paste the following: See terms of use.
NZ Herald
3 days ago
- NZ Herald
Public sector expertise eroded by the rise of the generic official
A telling example came in 2022. The Treasury advertised for a senior analyst to lead its economic strategy team, at 'the forefront of economic thought and policy' with 'far-reaching impacts'. But it then added, almost cheerfully, that 'an economics background is not essential'. Instead, applicants were told to bring 'good EQ', 'relationship skills' and 'comfort with ambiguity'. You didn't need to know economics; you just needed to be a people person. The job ad caused a brief storm. Under new Treasury Secretary Iain Rennie, it is unlikely to be repeated. But the advertisement was not an aberration. It was a symptom of a doctrine that 'anyone can do anything' in the public service. Treasury Secretary Iain Rennie during the finance and expenditure select committee hearing. Photo / Mark Mitchell This is not a reflection on the many talented people within the public service. Brilliant, dedicated officials work across government departments. But the system increasingly constrains rather than cultivates their potential, training them to become generalists who glide through policy cycles without mastering one. Much has been said about the public sector's exploding headcount and declining performance. But these problems may share a common root: deep expertise has been devalued in favour of mobility and breadth. It was not always like this. In the postwar decades, New Zealand's 'mandarin' public service – a term used admiringly then – was full of specialists. Economists advised Treasury. Regulatory experts advised on regulation. Expertise mattered. The State Sector Act 1988 sought to strengthen the mandarins' management capability – an unquestionably sound goal. But this was never intended to come at the expense of technical depth. Done well, the two should reinforce each other. Experts who are capable leaders are better placed to develop and guide expert teams. Over time, this logic was lost. Being a 'well-rounded candidate' became more important than subject matter depth. Switching departments every two years was rewarded. Staying put and developing expertise was not. The public service prioritises generalists over specialists, devaluing deep expertise in favour of mobility and breadth. Photo / Dean Purcell Former Public Service Commissioner Peter Hughes became synonymous with this generalist model. Hughes did not invent it. But as commissioner from 2016 to 2023, he perfected it. Hughes moved public servants like chess pieces across ministries and agencies– from Social Development to Customs, from Corrections to Education – building a leadership cadre whose common trait was having worked with him. In 2020, Hughes's vision was enshrined in law. The Public Service Act 2020 requires the commissioner to develop a leadership strategy for 'flexible deployment of senior leaders'. It calls for mobility, versatility and 'working across agency boundaries'. In practice, subject expertise is no longer the path to the top. Former Public Service Commissioner Peter Hughes. Photo / Mark Mitchell Dr Simon Chapple, a former public service chief economist, calls this 'the rise of the myth of the generic manager' – the notion that anyone with a basic set of management skills can manage any government body. Chapple argues this managerialism has rewarded bureaucratic fluency over technical competence, discouraging investment in deep, organisation-specific skills. Across the system, generalists now dominate. The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment spans an absurd range – from digital payments to energy markets to immigration. No single person at the top could master all these domains anyway. But the problem runs deeper: the organisation lacks sufficient technical expertise at every level. Concerns over flawed advice have spurred calls for greater valuing of expertise in New Zealand's public service. Photo / Getty Images When complex regulatory decisions arise, there are too few specialists who truly understand the industries they are regulating. The lack of expertise has consequences. In financial regulation, the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act reforms caused a credit crunch and had to be walked back. In energy, policy has swung between incoherence and overreach. In each case, industry experts warned of problems. But inside government, no one knew enough – or was confident enough – to push back. Meanwhile, career public servants succeed by moving frequently. Build a team, lead a restructure, tick the box, move on. A stint in education might lead to a role in primary industries, followed by health or justice. Breadth is rewarded; depth is rare. This model is not just flawed. It is dangerous. In a world of complex, technical challenges – in digital infrastructure, climate, housing, finance, biosecurity – we need more than process-focused generalists. We need experts. Other countries are rethinking. Australia and the UK continue to recruit generalists but have formalised specialist career tracks and professional cadres within their public services. They recognise the best generalists are often former experts – not the other way around. New Zealand should follow. We must revalue subject matter expertise, rebuild institutional memory, and promote capability and compatibility. And we should write job ads that do not insult the intelligence of the public – or the role. The Treasury job ad should have been a scandal. Instead, it was a symptom. It is time for a cure.
