'Ridiculous', 'pretty reasonable', 'backward step': Mixed reactions to National's new farming policies

The agriculture minister, environmental activists and the Green Party are warning National's plan for the farming sector would be a major setback for environmental and water protections.

And though largely in support of the proposals announced by leader Christopher Luxon on Wednesday, the head of Federated Farmers says some of them left him scratching his head.

National's 19 proposals included:

• Banning foreign investment in farms being converted to forestry for carbon farming
• A doubling of the RSE worker cap from 19,000 workers to 38,000 workers a year
• Restarting live exports, with 'gold standard' animal welfare standards
• Scrap two regulations for every one it introduces
• A new panel to review all regulations that affect farmers
• Focus environmental protection on areas with "high environmental value", allowing "normal rural activities" elsewhere

"Regulation has a role to play, but rules should avoid prescription, target outcomes, minimise compliance, and be clear to provide certainty," Luxon said.

Minister of Agriculture Damien O'Connor said changes made under Labour were needed to meet modern-day environmental protections and market expectations - which National's plan would jeopardise.

He singled out the two-for-one policy exchange as "ridiculous", but "not surprising".

"They're representing the views of some farmers… When we came into government, had to look at water quality, we had to look at our ambitions around reduction, we had to look at issues like animal welfare and some of the images that were coming out from winter grazing.

"The reason it got like that is because National refused to take the leadership position in those areas that had been identified for many years. We're trying to provide some clarity for farmers. Where we've made some mistakes in terms of the proposals we've made, the changes, working with farmers all the way through - all of the challenges that we need to actually face up to."

O'Connor said New Zealand had "to be mindful of the changing values and expectations of our community, of our consumers", calling National's proposals a "backward step".

"We can't afford to have animals wallowing around in mud, we've got to have clean, fresh water, so we've got to make sure that the standards that are being imposed are realistic and protect our waterways. We've got to focus on reducing our carbon emissions because that's what the world is expecting.

"We've been prepared to show leadership; National's policy shows no leadership at all in these important areas."

Greenpeace lead climate and agriculture campaigner Christine Rose echoed O'Connor - also labelling National's policies as "ridiculous".

She said recent testing in Southland had revealed drinking water with nitrate levels twice the national standard.

"It's clear that National are just listening to a few select lobbyists instead of the people on the ground who need support to transition to ways of farming and food production that work with nature, instead of against it."

Farmers "want support to transition to a more sustainable future for them and for the environment", not National's policies, which would "make the climate worse, and will make lakes and rivers worse and will make water contamination worse as well", Rose said

The Green Party's Eugenie Sage said binning two old regulations for every new one "suggests that National is going to roll back a lot of our environmental regulations... All of those regulations are about ensuring that nature survives, thrives, and not is just exploited to maximise farm production".

'Looks really good'

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Federated Farmers national president Andrew Hoggard said overall, National's package "looks really good". He said National consulted them and other farming groups for ideas.

"Obviously the devil's always in the detail, but yeah, it's looking pretty reasonable."

Rather than scrapping environmental regulations, Hoggard said the intent of the two-for-one policy bonfire was to simplify things for farmers.

"Often some of the regulations that are there, the intent of them isn't so much the problem or the high-level principle behind them - it's some of the details within them that are the challenge, and so being able to fix those or come up with better details within there, will be an improvement."

But he was a little confused at Luxon's promise to ban overseas investment in forestry if it was simply being used as a carbon sink.

"My understanding is that's kind of already the rule in terms of if you're a foreign investor looking to buy a farm and convert it to carbon farming or for ETS alone, you're not allowed to do it - but if you're converting it to production forestry, you are," Hoggard said.

He said with forestry being an industry with a 30-year turnaround time, it was difficult to tell at the time of purchase who was in it for ETS benefits, and who genuinely was investing in forestry for wood.

"Of all the things they've listed, that's probably the one I've been scratching my head the most about."

O'Connor said the rules were changed last year, so "National's policy is somewhat a little late".

Also, he said, most forestry investment for ETS purposes comes from New Zealanders - not offshore.

Sage said banning offshore investment was "at odds" with National's track record in government, though she supported it.

'Absolutely frustrating'

Hoggard said his favourite of the batch was National's promise to reduce the amount of duplication in paperwork farmers have to do.

"I worked out once there's like seven or eight times I've got to tell various organisations or groups how many cows I've got," he explained.

"The fact that we've got to repeat all this stuff so often is absolutely frustrating."

He said once information was provided to a trusted third party, with a farmer's permission, that third party should be able to share the data with whichever government department needs it.

"I've already reported how much nitrogen I've used to Fonterra - to do it a second time for the Ministry for the Environment is an absolute pain in the arse, to be blunt."

New life for live exports

As for live exports, O'Connor said the ban came in because once animals were out of New Zealand, there was no way to ensure their welfare was being looked after.

"Once they went on the boats, they went for up to three weeks of travel through very hot climates. They were subject to heat stress in conditions that we would not accept within New Zealand.

"It's really important that we uphold the highest standards of animal welfare. We have the best reputation for it in the world, and exporting a few animals was going to potentially undermine our reputation. That's why we called a halt to it."

Hoggard said while animal welfare was important, so were farmers' earnings.

"By banning it outright, it's created a bit of a crunch in terms of, well, where do all these excess animals go? If we were to just rear more of them for beef, well, that might reduce beef earnings because of course you're increasing the quantity. What else would you do with surplus dairy heifer calves?"

He said if other parties adopted similar policies to National, all farmers would have to complain about was the weather - but not all farmers vote solely on agricultural issues.

"The economy is still going to be you know, more important in my thinking than any particular agricultural policy."