PO Box 93, Gore 9740
hel o@groundswel .org.nz
4 September2024
Hon Chris Bishop
Minister for RMA Reform
[email address]
Hon Todd McClay
Minister of Agriculture
[email address]
Hon Penny Simmonds
Minister for the Environment
[email address]
Hon Andrew Hoggard
Associate Minister for the Environment and Associate Minister of Agriculture
[email address]
Hon Mark Patterson
Associate Minister of Agriculture
[email address]
Dear Ministers,
Our concerns regarding the SNA Review and RMA reform process
Groundswel NZ is seeking clarification from the Government over the recently announced review of
the Significant Natural Area (SNA) legislation.
SNAs were an important election issue for farmers and property owners throughout New Zealand. A
key concern was how the SNA legislation trampled over private property rights, a concern echoed by
National, ACT, and NZ First during the election campaign
The SNA legislation fal s under the National Policy Statement Indigenous Biodiversity, identified by
Groundswel NZ in the top four of unworkable regulations. Groundswel NZ continues to receive
more complaints from across New Zealand over SNAs and other RMA Section 6 land classifications
than on any other issue.
However, the recently announced review of SNAs appears to be focused on the SNA criteria and
assessment process, rather than the policy itself. The presumption in the Government’s media
release is that the SNA policy will remain and, if that is the case, farmers, councils, and
conservationists will be bitterly disappointed.
The problem with the SNA policy is not the criteria but how it (and other section 6 classifications
such as Landscapes and cultural sites) tramples over property rights, penalises conservation minded
landowners, pits councils against their ratepayers, and turns biodiversity on private land into a
liability. It is not just a rural issue, but thousands of urban property owners are unfairly impacted too.
The SNA policy must be reviewed in its entirety – examining whether it is achieving anticipated
environmental outcomes and in a cost-effective manner. Groundswell NZ is supportive of the new
regulation ministry and the SNA policy would be a perfect candidate for a wide-ranging review. We
are aware of biodiversity policy alternatives that are delivering positive environmental results with a
fraction of the cost and without the grief that the SNA policy causes.
Groundswel NZ is further concerned that this SNA review is putting the cart before the horse, ahead
of RMA reform. Our expectation from the Government after the election was that the RMA reform
would be looking at key controversial issues, including SNAs and Section 6. We are seeking
clarification from the Government if this is stil the case and why the Government appears to be
locking in SNAs, ahead of the RMA reform.
We are available to discuss these issues - in person or via Zoom.
Yours sincerely,
Bryce McKenzie & Laurie Paterson
Groundswel NZ
From:
section 9 (2) (a)
To:
section 9 (2) (a)
; Nicola Grigg MP; Mark Cameron; Andrew Hoggard; Mike Butterick MP; Mark
Patterson; Penny Simmonds
Subject:
INV134 Invite attached from Groundswell NZ
Date:
Sunday, 28 January 2024 5:18:01 PM
Attachments:
image001.png
Ag MP Meeting invite - 27.01.24.pdf
Please see invitation to meet with Bryce and Laurie attached.
Kind regards,
section 9 (2) (a)
section 9 (2) (a)
PO Box 93, GORE 9740
27 January 2024
Todd McClay
Penny Simmonds
Nicola Grigg
Mark Cameron
Andrew Hoggard
Mark Paterson
Mike Butterick
We write to request a meeting with you al , either in Wellington or in Southland if you are in
our region for the Southern Field Days (14-16 Feb). We would be available to travel either
the week of 26 February or week of 18 March.
Groundswell has received extensive feedback from farmers (we are sure you have heard it
too) who are committed to improving the environment but are hamstrung by impractical,
costly and time-consuming regulations.
We acknowledge the changes you have in the pipeline, but are concerned that the big
pressure points on farmers in the next 12 months will be Freshwater Policies such as
consents, regional plan roll-outs, freshwater farm plans along with SNA’s and SASM.
The opportunity to meet with you would allow us to give you the grass-roots view of what is
happening to farmers in these areas and help you to plan next steps to give farmers
confidence.
Kind regards
GROUNDSWELL NZ
Bryce McKenzie & Laurie Paterson
Co-founders
From:
Groundswell NZ 2020
To:
Christopher Bishop (MIN); Todd McClay (MIN); Penny Simmonds (MIN); Nicola Grigg (MIN); Andrew
Hoggard (MIN); Mark Patterson (MIN); Simon Court; Stuart Smith; Mark Cameron; Miles Anderson; Mike
Butterick
Subject:
COR287 Letter from Groundswell NZ about RMA reform and Freshwater Farm Plan Regulations
Date:
Wednesday, 27 March 2024 6:29:40 PM
Attachments:
20240327 Letter to Government re RMA Section 6 and FWFPs.pdf
Groundswell NZ - Freshwater Farm Plan Regulations destined to fail.pdf
Dear Ministers and MPs
Please see attached a letter from Bryce McKenzie and Laurie Paterson, co-founders of
Groundswell NZ, about RMA reform and Freshwater Farm Plan Regulations.
Also attached is a document detailing the Groundswell NZ position on Freshwater Farm
Plans, referred to in the letter.
Kind regards
section 9 (2) (a)
February 2024
Freshwater Farm Plan Regulations destined to fail
The Freshwater Farm Plan Regulations 2023 were established by the previous (Labour) government.
Under this legislation, all livestock and arable farmers with over 20 hectares and all horticulturists
with over 5 hectares require a certified Freshwater Farm Plan (FWFP), as prescribed by the
legislation. The dates to have a certified FWFP vary across the regions from 2024 through 2026.
While the new coalition government have indicated there will be changes to the legislation, this
does not recognize the legislation is destined to fail for several key reasons:
• The legislative framework that underpins the Freshwater Farm Plan regulations does not
provide for practical, cost effective and workable farm plans in many situations.
• As identified by MfE from the original submission process, mandatory Freshwater Farm Plans
were opposed by “…a large number of sheep and beef farmers.” The legislated farm plans do
not have the buy-in of farmers and have been strongly resisted by one of the first of the 2
areas to go live – Aparima in Southland. Groundswel NZ has called for farmers to boycott
the Freshwater Farm Plans.
• The legisla�on’s inflexibility does not account for the constant change in markets, weather,
and natural events that impact farming. It fails to recognize that every farm and farming
family are different and operate within constantly changing budgetary constraints.
• The legisla�on undermines the value of farm plans and represents a major lost opportunity
to implement a valuable environmental management tool for farmers. The FWFP’s do not
empower farmers in environmental stewardship/Kai�akitanga, which is a cri�cal component
of successful integrated farm environmental planning.
The legislation has multiple flaws and impractical elements including:
1. A one-size-fits-all approach, extensively prescribed, including around what is included in
FWFPs, cer�fica�on and audi�ng requirements, and informa�on to be submited to regional
councils.
2. It is heavily focused on �cking boxes – an unavoidable consequence of the way the legisla�on
is dra�ed.
3. The extensive FWFP legislated requirements will add to the compliance overload and stress
on farmers.
4. Farmers pay for the costs of preparing the farm plans, cer�fica�on, and audi�ng (ongoing
cost) meaning less money available for environmental spend on the ground.
5. There is no clarity around peoples’ privacy and private property informa�on. Regional
Councils must keep records of all farm plans including farm details, maps, ac�on plans,
cer�fica�on details and audit grades and may request a ful copy of a FWFP. Because this
farm plan system is to be implemented by Regional Councils under Government legisla�on,
(rather than an industry led ini�a�ve), the public informa�on obliga�ons apply. There are
examples where informa�on submited by farmers through farm plans, funding applica�ons
and consents is being used for other purposes without the farmers knowledge. If anyone
claims that private property informa�on is protected, ask them where it says that in the
legisla�on.
6. Farmers are required to meet al exis�ng rules (including unworkable ones) rela�ng to
freshwater. Thousands of farmers will face a cer�fied plan they cannot prac�cally or
financially implement, and many will face the prospect of having to undertake major changes
in how and what they farm. An analysis of the FWFP system in Canterbury revealed that it
will be impossible for most hill and high-country farmers to implement their cer�fied plan
and pass the audits without a change away from farming livestock.
7. While on the one hand, the role of cer�fiers is extensively prescribed, on the other hand,
they (unlike council staff) are given a huge amount of unfetered power to require farmers
undertake ac�ons even if the farming ac�vity is permited or the catchment has no or minor
freshwater issues.
8. The new legisla�on changes the bal game for exis�ng farm plans, which wil need to be
updated and brought into line with the new requirements. This legisla�on overrides all
exis�ng successful voluntary industry and regional council farm plans. Al that work over
many years undermined.
9. The extensive obliga�ons on cer�fiers and auditors and increased risk/liability implica�ons
are causing a reluctance to take on these roles. The farmer cer�fier/auditor rela�onship will
be fraught with frustra�on and conflict - an inevitable outcome from inflexible and
unworkable legisla�on.
10. Resourcing the cer�fier and auditor roles and addi�onal regional council staff will be a
challenge. There will be few, if any, prac��oners currently qualified enough and with the
legislated competencies to be a cer�fier or auditor.
11. The siloed focus on freshwater in the FWFP legisla�on is contrary to integrated management
principles and will deliver perverse outcomes. Farmers will be forced to priori�ze funding to
freshwater ac�ons detailed in their Freshwater Farm plans (to pass audits), and this will at
�mes be at the expense of greater priori�es such as protec�ng biodiversity and weed and
pest control.
12. There is huge uncertainty around how FWFPs will meet Te Mana o te Wai (the priority is the
vital importance of the life suppor�ng capacity of water) and the Catchment Context,
Challenges and Values (CCCV) approved by the regional councils, par�cularly around how
contaminant limits such as nitrogen would apply and where community values determine
that there should be heavily restricted or no farming in the catchment.
13. Cer�fiers, auditors, and regional councils are placed in the unenviable posi�on of having to
enforce a legislated requirement that is widely opposed by farmers. Conflict is inevitable.
14. Every farmer requires a state-prescribed FWFP, regardless of the effects or intensity of their
ac�vi�es, or whether there are any water quality issues within their catchment. This
unfetered state control is a significant departure from the effects-based approach of the
RMA.
Groundswel NZ has developed an alternative approach to farm plans in The Groundswell Solution,
including integrated farm plans that empower farmers in environmental stewardship and a focus on
actions prioritising the most important environmental risks and issues.
section 9 (2) (a)
Groundswel NZ environmental spokesperson
section 9 (2) (a)
PO Box 93, Gore 9740
hel o@groundswel .org.nz
27 March 2024
To Ministers and Members of Parliament.
We appreciate recent action by the Government to fix unworkable environmental regulations,
including the repeal of Labour’s RMA reforms and suspension of Significant Natural Areas (SNAs).
However, there are 2 laws that urgently need addressing:
The first is
Section 6 RMA matters of National Importance, including wetlands, lakes and rivers (a),
landscapes and features (b), SNAs (c), sites and areas of significance to Māori (e) and heritage (f).
The problem with SNAs identified by the government equally apply to all RMA Section 6 matters.
The inherent problem is not SNAs, it is Section 6 and its lack of respect for people, property owners
and property rights, impacts on property values, and the way in which councils implement the
legislation.
Groundswel NZ receives more complaints about Section 6 matters than any other legislation. We
are currently fielding concerns from across the country from distraught property owners being
impacted by Section 6 issues. This issue brings disruption into people's lives, wastes millions of
dollars and fails to deliver on long term environmental outcomes.
The most recent case is the draft Waitaki District plan where our LGOIMA request has revealed that
540,000 hectares (75% of the district land area) is proposed to be captured under Section 6
regulatory classifications. Waitaki residents have initiated a petition opposing these Section 6
classifications.
The longer this Section 6 legislation stays in place, the more community upheaval it wil cause and at
a huge cost. It is urgent that the government take steps to halt the implementation of Section 6 as
soon as possible.
The second legislation requiring urgent action is the
Freshwater Farm Plan Regulations 2023. Again,
we are fielding concerned calls from around the country, the latest from Marlborough farmers -
frustrated that their council is ploughing ahead with the Freshwater Farm Plan legislation regardless.
Farmers had assumed that this legislation was to be paused as part of the coalition governments
rewrite of Labour's unworkable Freshwater reforms.
It is unclear whether the coalition government intends to continue with Labour’s Freshwater Farm
Plan legislation, one that is widely opposed by farmers. This legislation is flawed in so many ways
(see attached), that a substantial rewrite or repeal is necessary. Given this, it will be a huge waste of
council and farmer resourcing, money and time to meet existing deadlines and requirements - when
at the very least, a significant rewrite is required. It is urgent that these deadlines are extended,
coupled with a clear indication to regional councils that the legislation will change.
Groundswell requests clarification on these issues so we can report back to our supporters what
they can expect. We are available to discuss these issues - in person or via Zoom.
Yours faithfully,
Bryce McKenzie & Laurie Paterson
Groundswel NZ
From:
Andrew Hoggard (MIN)
To:
Groundswell NZ 2020
Bcc:
section 9 (2) (a)
Subject:
RE: COR287 Letter from Groundswell NZ about RMA reform and Freshwater Farm Plan Regulations
Date:
Wednesday, 8 May 2024 9:01:00 AM
Attachments:
CORM-2350 Bryce Mckenzie.pdf
image001.jpg
Dear Michael,
Please see attached a letter from Hon Andrew Hoggard responding your concerns about RMA
reform and Freshwater Farm Plan Regulations.
Kind Regards,
Office of Hon Andrew Hoggard
Minister for Biosecurity
Minister for Food Safety
Associate Minister of Agriculture (Animal Welfare, Skills)
Associate Minister for the Environment
Email: [Andrew Hoggard request email]
| Website: www.Beehive,govt.nz
Private Bag 18041, Parliament Buildings, Wellington 6160, New Zealand
+6448176343
Authorised by Hon Andrew Hoggard, Parliament Buildings, Wellington
Disclaimer: The information contained in this email is privileged and confidential and intended for the addressee only. If you are not the intended
recipient, you are asked to respect that confidentiality and not disclose, copy, or make use of its contents. If received in error, you are asked to
destroy this email and contact the sender immediately. Your assistance is appreciated.
Please note information about meetings related to the Ministers’ portfolios will be proactively released (this does not include personal, or
constituency matters). For each meeting in scope, the summary would list - date, time (start and finish), brief description, location, who the meeting
was with, and the portfolio. If you attend a meeting with the Minister on behalf of an organisation, the name of the organisation will be released. If
you are a senior staff member at an organisation, or meet with the Minister in your personal capacity, your name may also be released. The
location of the meeting will be released, unless it is a private residence. The proactive release will be consistent with the provisions in the Official
Information Act, including privacy considerations. Under the Privacy Act 1993 you have the right to ask for a copy of any personal information we
hold about you, and to ask for it to be corrected if you think it is wrong. If you’d like to ask for a copy of your information, or to have it corrected, or
are concerned about the release of your information in the meeting disclosure, please contact the sender. You can read more about the proactive
release policy at https://www.dia.govt.nz/Proactive-Releases#MS
From: Groundswell NZ 2020 <section 9 (2) (a)
com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2024 6:29 PM
To: Christopher Bishop (MIN) <[email address]>; Todd McClay (MIN)
<[email address]>; Penny Simmonds (MIN) <[email address]>;
Nicola Grigg (MIN) <[email address]>; Andrew Hoggard (MIN)
<[email address]>; Mark Patterson (MIN) <[email address]>;
Simon Court <[email address]>; Stuart Smith
<[email address]>; Mark Cameron <[email address]>;
Miles Anderson <[email address]>; Mike Butterick
<[email address]>
Subject: COR287 Letter from Groundswell NZ about RMA reform and Freshwater Farm Plan
Regulations
Dear Ministers and MPs
Please see attached a letter from Bryce McKenzie and Laurie Paterson, co-founders of
Groundswell NZ, about RMA reform and Freshwater Farm Plan Regulations.
Also attached is a document detailing the Groundswell NZ position on Freshwater Farm Plans,
referred to in the letter.
Kind regards
section 9 (2) (a)
COR287/CORM-2350
8 May
Bryce Mckenzie
Laurie Paterson
Groundswell NZ
section 9 (2) (a)
Dear Bryan and Laurie,
Thank you for your letter of 27 March 2024 about Section 6 Resource Management Act (RMA)
matters of National importance and Freshwater Farm Plan Regulations 2023 (FW FP). I am
replying to you as the issues you raise relating to FW FPs fall within my portfolio responsibilities
as Associate Minister for the Environment. I understand that my col eague, Hon Chris Bishop,
has responded to your separately regarding section 6 RMA matters of national importance.
Sector groups and farmers have told us the current system is too costly and complex, and that
improvements are needed. This is why the Government has recently announced that we intend
to improve the freshwater farm plan system, so it is more cost-effective and practical for farmers.
We believe that farm plans should be able to highlight the work that many farmers and growers
are already doing to reduce the impact of farming activities on the freshwater environment, and
we want to enable farmers and growers to find the right solutions that are tailored for their farm
and catchment.
We want an enduring system to manage risks of farming on freshwater through the
improvements that are made. It is important that councils and the community can have
confidence in the robustness of the freshwater farm plan system as an alternative to local rules
and consents.
We want to build on the good work of farmers in their regions while ensuring any improvements
to the system do not result in sudden changes to plans already being developed. We are
exploring how to make any changes fair for all farmers. As part of this, we may look into whether
current requirements to complete a freshwater farm plan could be paused while improvements
are developed.
Thank you again for writing.
Yours sincerely
Hon Andrew Hoggard
Associate Minister for the Environment
From:
section 9 (2) (a)
To:
section 9 (2) (a)
; Andrew Hoggard; Mark Patterson
Cc:
"Bryce McKenzie"; "Laurie Paterson"; "section 9 (2) (a) "
Subject:
letter attached from Groundswell
Date:
Monday, 20 May 2024 12:31:06 PM
Attachments:
image001.png
Methane Review letter - 20.05.24.pdf
Please see attached.
Kind regards,
section 9 (2) (a)
section 9 (2) (a)
PO Box 93, GORE 9740
[email address]
20 April 2024
Dear Todd Maclay, Andrew Hoggard and Mark Patterson
We write to outline our concern regarding the upcoming Methane Science Review. We see this review as an excellent
opportunity to provide the industry and government with a definitive framework to which agriculture’s contribution to
climate change can be assessed.
There are two main streams of research that the industry is seeking clarity on with regards to Methane;
1. The new research outlined by Happer and Wijngaarden which proposes water vapour dominates Methane
within the radiative spectrum.
2. The current IPCC research (including GWP*) and how could be applied to agriculture.
To accurately assess the warming effect of Agriculture there will need to first be a decision as to which of these two
competing theories stands up to the detailed scrutiny of the review. To achieve this outcome, we believe there must be
at least one expert in the field of radiative spectrum analysis on the panel, such as David Coe or person of similar
qualifications.
We also ask that you consider candidates that offer different perspectives to ensure balance and impartiality on the
panel. Groundswell NZ is mindful of the recent situation where the Rural Advocacy Network challenged some research
conducted by Environment Canterbury which was found to be flawed. This scientific assessment of land reclamation of
braided rivers had been reviewed multiple times by qualified experts who found no errors. It was not until an
independent review was conducted at the behest of RAN that the errors were acknowledged. There was never a
question of the reviewers being sufficiently qualified, this was a question of the reviewers being impartial.
Everyone involved in the Methane Science discussion is seeking clarity and a definitive outcome so energy can be
directed towards solutions and promoting our climate credentials. It would be a major missed opportunity for both the
government and farmers if the Methane review panel was seen to be favouring a particular outcome. In essence, it will
have achieved nothing.
Groundswel NZ is willing to get behind which ever theory on Methane’s warming effect proves most robust, most
importantly to us is that the review is conducted with accuracy and impartiality.
Yours sincerely,
Bryce McKenzie & Laurie Paterson
GROUNDSWELL NZ
Document Outline
