The current law regarding firearms isn’t working. I’m aware of many firearm owners who don’t have a current arms licence for a variety of reasons. Discussing this with a Police friend, he made the comment that they were breaking the law, which is correct – they are. My response to that was to ask what the Police are going to do about it and the answer was “not much we can”.

We do need credible, workable and respected firearms laws in New Zealand and that must involve change. The current system isn’t working.

The minister responsible, Associate Justice Minister Nicole McKee, has grasped the nettle and is proceeding to reform the legislation. She’s paying a heavy price for that.

The current Act goes back to1983. That’s over 40 years ago. Life has changed and the introduction of 3D printers capable of manufacturing firearms would be one example.

Minister McKee has four phases with her reform process.

The first was to go after criminals and their guns and that’s been completed. Kiwis are safer now as a result of that process.

Phase Two was to reform the law involving the excessive and pointless bureaucracy over clubs and ranges. It had no impact on public safety.

Phase Three is the Registry review, which is underway. I’m pleased the Ministry of Justice is conducting the review and not the Police.

I’m cynical of the Registry for several reasons. For a start, the Police told me they needed a Register to be able to monitor those firearms stolen from legitimate owners. The reality is that of the 6500 firearms seized over the past three years, only 123 were legally imported or manufactured in NZ. A Register is a complete waste of time on that front alone.

The second is to ask if we need such an expensive and elaborate process when, as I’ve stated, a large number of firearm owners don’t even trust the current licensing system.

Finally, friends who do have a licence don’t want to be part of the Register. They just don’t trust the security of the Police system.

Phase Four is to rewrite the Arms Act and the minister is hoping for a draft by the end of the year. At this point she hasn’t received any advice on the Arms Act rewrite despite all the hysteria over the reforms.

Gun licensing will be going from Police, but no final details have been decided.

I support that. While I have considerable respect for the Police, gun licensing isn’t their stock in trade and as the awarding of a licence to a terrorist showed, they weren’t infallible.

In addition, their current system is farcical. It takes a one-page questionnaire to renew a driver’s licence and four to renew a liquor licence. Why then do you need 39 pages to renew a gun licence? It is a huge disincentive and just another reason why people don’t get licences.

For all those reasons I totally support Minister McKee’s reform process. If it gets cabinet approval we’ll have for the first time in decades a process that firearm owners will support as being workable and credible.

Her aim is to “develop good firearms legislation that will last for decades and keep the public safe”. 

What has disappointed me most is the inaccurate portrayal of the McKee position combined with the personal attacks she has suffered. 

For a start the only thing the opposition politicians, the Police Association and sections of the media have concentrated on is semi-automatics. Semi-automatics that our criminal elements are importing with impunity, a fact known to both the minister of police and the Police Association.

The classification of allowable firearms is recommended by the minister of police under section 74A of the Arms Act. In addition, any change of classification needs cabinet approval, not that of individual ministers as claimed by the hysterical. When in government, Labour used that section with impunity.

I’ve also been disgusted by the personal attacks on Minister McKee and am reminded of the old adage which suggests that if you can’t win an argument by using fact and reason, your only remaining option is to get personal.

The accusation that Minister McKee is an arms industry lobbyist is farcical. Yes, she was spokesperson for the Coalition of Licensed Firearm Owners over the previous government’s rushed and botched legislation. No one has added that the minister has spent a lifetime teaching firearms safety, is a NZ shooting champion and a communicator of the year in 2019. She knows what she is talking about, which is refreshing in a politician.

The anti-McKee cacophony coming from Labour’s Ginny Andersen and the Police Association’s Chris Cahill is just that, meaningless noise from Police lobbyists who should know better.

They would be better working with the coalition government to get workable, credible and respected firearms legislation instead of merely sitting in the wings throwing bricks.

Proposals to strengthen the country’s biosecurity system, including higher fines for passengers bringing in undeclared high-risk goods, greater flexibility around importing requirements, and fairer cost-sharing for biosecurity responses have been released for public consultation.

Biosecurity Minister Andrew Hoggard said the future is about resilience and the 30-year-old Biosecurity Act needs an update.

“A number of potential amendments are proposed to ensure it remains resilient and fit for the future.

 “The proposals are designed to strengthen the country’s vital biosecurity system. Some of the suggestions in the discussion document include higher fines for passengers who are bringing in undeclared high-risk goods, greater flexibility around importing requirements, and fairer cost-sharing for biosecurity responses.”
Hoggard said New Zealand’s relative freedom from pests and diseases is a big part of its competitive advantage and underpins its world-leading $53 billion food and fibre export industry.

“The Act is the legislative framework for the system that enables us to manage biosecurity risk and protect the economy and environment from harmful incursions. This is important work, and we need input from primary industries, mana whenua, local authorities and the wider public to ensure we’ve got it right.

“Before any changes to the Act are progressed, all New Zealanders are invited to have their say during the consultation period which runs to November 29 2024,” Hoggard said.

The Ministry for Primary Industries is leading the policy programme to amend the Act. Consultation material, including seven discussion documents setting out policy proposals for change are on its website at: Consultations | NZ Government (mpi.govt.nz).

Feedback provided through this process will be considered in the development of policy advice to support any future amendment Bill.

The Southland farm community is facing uncertainty with unclear messaging from Environment Southland on nutrient limits, targets and timelines for freshwater rules, says farmer and council deputy chair Jeremy McPhail. 

At an Environment Southland public strategy and policy committee meeting held last week, the council confirmed nutrient limits will form part of the 2027 plan change but “what these will look like is yet to be determined”.  

McPhail voted no to a 2025 plan change, expressing frustration about the process and the lack of information the council is providing to the community in regards to setting nutrient limits and targets.

Councillors reached a number of resolutions at the meeting. 

Changes to the Southland Water and Land Plan and Regional Policy Statement, giving full effect to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management, will be notified by the end of 2027, and earlier if practicable.

The council also confirmed messaging around freshwater reforms.

The council will be working with communities over the next two years to develop catchment plans that detail the actions the community wishes to take to improve freshwater.

“Those responsible for the greatest environmental impact will need to make a greater contribution,” an Environment Southland spokesperson said. 

“Limits will form part of the 2027 plan change but what these will look like is yet to be determined.  A reference period will be used in the future, and we encourage landowners to record information from the last 10 years (for example, a reference period of July 2014 to June 2019) on land use area and type, stock types and numbers, fertiliser use, and actions adopted on farm.”

The council directed staff to continue scoping a plan change to the proposed Southland Water and Land Plan and Regional Policy Statement to set long-term goals, address minor issues and enable improved environmental practice for notification in the first half of 2025.

Earlier this month the council said in a press release that, despite the government announcing a pause to the rollout of the national farm plan system, in Southland implementing farm plans is underway as they form a key part of the Southland Water and Land Plan.

Environment Southland chair Nicol Horrell said while there’s some detail still to be worked through around timing, farmers should start pulling together the information for farm plans.

As part of the 2025 plan change, Environment Southland will be updating the farming rules in the Southland Water and Land Plan to provide an option of using a farm plan as a potential alternative to some consenting requirements.

HortNZ is backing the government’s decision to pause the Freshwater Farm Plan rollout.

HortNZ acting chief executive Michelle Sands said they agree that the country needs a fit-for-purpose system for Freshwater Farm Plans (FWFPs) that works for horticulture and delivers on environmental outcomes.

“We believe that the optimal approach to making progress on regulatory issues is to establish a pathway to enable growers to use industry assurance programmes like New Zealand Good Agricultural Practice (NZGAP) and GLOBALG.A.P. to meet market and regulatory requirements via one integrated farm plan.”

Sands is encouraged to hear that the government is wanting to integrate existing industry assurance programmes into the FFP system. 

“We want to see recognition of programmes like the NZGAP Environment Management System, which is trusted, robust and meets the desired policy outcomes.

 “It would fit with the government’s goals and enable growers to find the right solutions for their farms and catchments.”

 HortNZ is also calling for commercial vegetable production to become a permitted activity for growers with a FWFP.

 “Over 80% of NZ-grown vegetables are grown for the domestic market,” Sands said.

 “New Zealand’s growers are committed to operating to good management practices and the industry is committed to supporting them.

 “That includes through product group research like the Sustainable Vegetable Systems programme and the HortNZ/Ministry for the Environment Growing Change project, which is supporting growers to develop their FWFP through a catchment-led approach. We encourage growers to maintain their ongoing efforts in environmental management via GAP and the EMS, supported by Growing Change, and to continue their sustainability journey despite the policy uncertainty.”

 Sands said HortNZ wants a nationally consistent approach to planning rules to provide certainty for commercial vegetable production in New Zealand.

 Regional councils have been unable to develop workable rules for vegetable production. Some regions constrain crop rotation, constrain nutrient supply to a level that reduces the amount of vegetables that can be produced and constrain expansion so growers cannot grow more vegetables to feed a growing population.

 “Regional councils are not well placed to balance national benefit with local effects. The risk is regions make unworkable rules for commercial vegetable production, without taking into account the national importance of vegetable production in securing a resilient supply of healthy fresh food for New Zealanders.”

A petition has been launched to stop imports entering New Zealand from countries that allow farming practices that would be illegal in this country.

The petition, by animal law expert and University of Auckland Associate Professor Marcelo Rodriguez Ferrere and supported by Animal Policy International, was launched at an event at Parliament.

It urges the government to enact legislation ensuring all imports meet New Zealand’s domestic animal welfare standards.

“In my view, allowing imported animal products with lower standards than NZ undermines the spirit and effectiveness of our laws and our commitment to animal welfare, and creates an unfair double standard that privileges overseas producers over domestic farmers,” Ferrere said.

Animal Policy International investigated egg farms in India earlier this year, filming hens confined in battery cages, raising concerns about these eggs or egg products imported into the New Zealand market at a time when NZ and India discuss the potential for a bilateral trade agreement.

The footage showed overcrowded conditions with up to 10 hens crammed into cages typically used for 2-3 birds, hens with injuries, swollen glands and beaks, dead birds left lying around the cages and insufficient and poorly maintained water access points.

Battery cages have been banned in NZ since 2023 due to animal welfare concerns.

Animal Policy International co-executive director Rainer Kravets said after he witnessed the conditions in India for himself, he was sure New Zealanders would be horrified at what those hens endured.

“New Zealanders have made it clear that they don’t support cruel farming practices like battery cages. Allowing cruel imports produced under conditions we’ve banned here undermines our values and undercuts our farmers. It’s time to close this loophole and ensure all products in our market meet our ethical standards.” 

New Zealand imports a large number of products produced under conditions that are illegal domestically, such as the use of battery cages for egg-laying hens, sow stalls for pregnant pigs, and the mulesing of sheep.

This was highlighted in a report released in March, Closing the Welfare Gap: Why New Zealand must apply its animal protection standards to imports.

NZ Pork chief executive Brent Kleiss backed the report’s findings, saying they align with what the organisation has been advocating for some time.

“We import pork from 22 countries and those countries – they are providing pork that’s been raised to lower standards of care than what we expect of our own producers,” he said at the time.

The potential trade flashpoint of the European Union’s deforestation regulations does not look like going away.

The view in Brussels is that implementation of the regulations, which obligate importers and European producers to provide evidence that certain products have not caused deforestation, will not be dropped but its implementation could be delayed.

The regulation covers products and their derivatives such as beef, leather, furniture, wood, paper, soy, cereals, chocolate, coffee, palm oil and rubber, including tyres.

Exporters say it is too far reaching, impacting countries such as New Zealand that do not have deforestation.

They claim that meeting the required EU standards will require historic and current satellite imagery or geolocation data of where the product was sourced.

The regulation, strongly promoted by non-government organisations, is designed to prevent deforestation of natural areas for production, such as the Amazon.

The policy applies to imports of related products into the EU and is scheduled to be implemented from January 1.

Such has been the backlash, including from NZ, that some in Brussels believe its implementation could be delayed to allow more consultation and deliberation but is unlikely to be abandoned.

More: Wallace is visiting seven countries in six weeks to report on market sentiment, a trip made possible with grants from Fonterra, Silver Fern Farms, Alliance, Beef + Lamb NZ, NZ Meat Industry Association and Rabobank.  Read more about his findings here.

In Focus Podcast | Meeting the market in the US and EU

Roving reporter Neal Wallace calls in from Brussels to share insights on the first week of his Meeting the Market tour. He’s been in the United States where some of our biggest customers are, including Mars and McDonald’s. Neal says they love NZ food but there are a couple of things we need to improve if we’re to remain as a supplier of first-choice.

Although the rate of forestry conversions has slowed due to policy uncertainty and despite touted government plans to limit forestry on sheep and beef land, the livestock population, particularly sheep, appears to be heading irrevocably downwards. 

At 23 million there are now just one-third the number of sheep compared with the peak in the 1970s. 

The sector has worked wonders in increasing the value of the flock through better lambing rates, heavier lambs and higher product returns in spite of the collapsing wool price. But sluggish world markets and agriculture’s position as public enemy No 1 in generating greenhouse gases and harm to the environment risk putting New Zealand’s best-known export under existential threat. 

The reality is that sheep are now in danger of no longer being reared in sufficient numbers to retain a critical mass.

Four research programmes funded by the Our Land and Water (OLW) Science Challenge initiated under a previous government have all reached a common conclusion: the best and easiest way to meet our 2050 goals of reducing long-lived GHGs and improving water quality is to convert three-quarters of all sheep and beef farms progressively to pine forests. 

The summary report of the OLW programmes recognises this may not be acceptable to New Zealand as a whole because of the impact on rural communities, whether from loss of employment and rural services or on downstream and coastal settlements from forestry slash, in which case the authors say a conversation is needed to decide what alternatives are available. Unfortunately the only thing not in question appears to be the 2050 goal of net zero for CO2, which is obviously sacrosanct.

At this point I began to question my sanity. We, the taxpayers, have funded a scientific research programme whereby several different groups of scientists have been beavering away for several years to discover there is only one solution to the problem under current policy settings. In short, this entails destroying what has been the backbone of New Zealand’s economy for 150 years.

The phrase “under current policy settings” provides the one get-out clause to this impending disaster. The question is therefore what the current government intends to do to amend the policy settings. In reply to my question about progress on limits on forestry offsets, Trade Minister Todd McClay’s office said, “Policies are still being worked through. The government is seeking to incentivise a balance of land uses to achieve improved outcomes for agriculture, forestry and the climate while considering the impact across the rural economy.” 

It is looking at proposals to limit the types of farm conversions that can be entered into the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). It is considering a moratorium on farm conversions on land classes 1-5 entering the ETS, a limit of 15,000 hectares on Land Class 6 and no limits land classes 7 and 8. 

The limits on Land Class 6 are critical, as Beef + Lamb NZ analysis shows the majority of sheep and beef farms sold into forestry over the last couple of years are Land Class 6, which is the backbone of the sector, making up most of the grassland used for sheep and beef. If there are no limits on Land Class 6 conversions below 15,000ha, the government’s proposals would in effect mean no change.

Simon Upton, Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, has submitted his reaction to the government’s second emissions reduction plan, saying his greatest concern is “the plan’s reliance on the New Zealand ETS, which in its current form suppresses carbon prices, discourages gross emissions reductions and incentivises the planting of large areas of land in pine forests.” 

He points out when the ETS was established it was supposed to be an interim measure to allow new low emissions technologies to be developed, but these don’t yet exist, which means forestry carbon offsets have become the easiest way for fossil fuel polluters to offset their emissions. 

He cites several problems with this approach, including the loss of productive land to forestry and the effect on rural communities, the long-term removal of land for alternative purposes and the potential for unlimited carbon offsets to push the carbon price below the level needed to encourage gross emissions reduction and develop new technologies. Upton was unequivocal about the need to limit forestry offsets.

The present trend, driven by the need to meet net zero targets in pursuit of our climate change obligations, leads inevitably to the progressive decline of our rural communities and the industries that service them. 

Alliance Group chair Mark Wynne says land use change as a result of normal economic and climate factors has always occurred naturally, but it is important to distinguish between this and what he terms a macro trend that is irreversible. 

His issue with the present macro trend is that it is driven by the artificial nature of the carbon market, which is set by the ETS. This has resulted in 200,000ha of sheep and beef land sold for forestry conversion in recent years, equivalent to 1.4 million livestock units. 

He is not concerned by seasonal fluctuations or decisions by farmers to plant appropriate land with trees, especially steep hill country, as this will eventually qualify for carbon credits in the ETS, which will enable farmers to offset their emissions. 

But he warns of the long-term effect of wholesale conversions on rural communities and the industries, such as meat processors, that provide employment. The age of sheep and beef farmers means succession planning is a major issue with outright sale to the highest bidder often the only option.

He has three main problems with the present policy settings that he would like to see addressed: the ability to offset 100% of emissions, which no other country apart from Kazakhstan allows;  that overseas polluters can buy land here to offset their overseas pollution; and  the impact of exotic plantations on our biodiversity.

Wynne echoes BLNZ’s plea for the government to introduce changes that sensibly control the amount and class of land that can be sold for afforestation. The sector awaits the outcome of these deliberations with bated breath, but without any great expectation of serious change rather than tinkering round the edges.

The government is pausing the rollout of Freshwater Farm Plans until system improvements are finalised.

Minor amendments to the Resource Management Act will be required to enable the pause, which ministers said will allow them to make changes to make implementing the plans more cost effective and fit for purpose.

“We have heard the concerns of the sector and Cabinet has agreed to pause the rollout of freshwater farm plans while potential changes are considered,” Associate Environment Minister Andrew Hoggard said. 

“Minor amendments to the [RMA] will enable the pause. 

“Once these amendments are made, farmers will not be required to submit a Freshwater Farm Plan for certification while changes to the Freshwater Farm Plan system are underway. 

“We want Freshwater Farm Plans to acknowledge the good work many farmers are already doing. The key thing for farmers is to make a start and keep up their efforts – their work will not be wasted,” Hoggard said.

The government will work with the sector, iwi and regional councils to simplify requirements and enable more local catchment-level solutions.

Several regions have already started implementing Freshwater Farm Plans in specific areas, including Waikato, Southland, the West Coast, Otago, and Manawatū-Whanganui. 

Agriculture Minister Todd McClay said the government has moved swiftly to improve resource management laws and reduce costs for farmers. 

“In May, we introduced a Bill to amend the RMA to repeal intensive winter grazing regulations and change stock exclusion regulations to remove the contentious low slope map,” McClay said. 

“We are focused on getting Wellington out of farming and freeing up farmers to do what they do best – sustainably produce the high-quality and safe food the world needs.”

With end-of-year shipping deadlines bearing down on them, beef exporters have all but given up hope of an exemption from new European deforestation rules.   

From December 30 the European Union Deforestation Regulation will require all beef exports to the European Union, from anywhere in the world, to prove they are not a product of land cleared of trees in the previous four years or risk heavy fines.

Trade Minister Todd McClay last month told Farmers Weekly the rules were an unjustified barrier to trade and risked undermining the limited gains for beef exporters from the EU-NZ free trade agreement just months after it entered into force.

“They have a one-size-fits-all which does not work for NZ and is unnecessary,” McClay said.

“We have provided them information about our laws and asked for an exemption.”

Because large-scale clearing of native forests is illegal in NZ, the government has argued that the country represents a low risk to global deforestation.

But exporters spoken to by Farmers Weekly are not confident those arguments have been heard by the EU.

They are working towards NZ being held to the January 1 implementation date along with everyone else.

And because shipping deadlines for exports to enter the EU on that date fall in the middle of October, time is running short to get the required documentation in order.

“It is going to be tight,” said ANZCO’s general manager of sales and marketing, Rick Walker.

Walker said a system for matching satellite images of farms and National Animal Identification and Trading (NAIT) records of individual animals grazing them had been pulled together by the industry in recent months.

“It is not just ‘We picked up a cattle beast off this farm and we processed it and that farm was not deforested’.

“In theory we are meant to be able to show that animal moved across three different farms over the whole of its life and all three of those farms since 2020 were not impacted by deforestation.

“That has been part of the challenge of how do we do this.

“Is NAIT good enough? We are relying on NAIT to enable us to implement the solutions and inevitably there will be some blips.”

And with deadline fast approaching, exporters are still operating with incomplete information from the EU about what is required from them and their in-market agents.

For example, it is still not clear how often the EU requires each country’s deforestation information be updated, Walker said.

“Do we need to do it once a year and say we did this in January and we are working on this being our baseline for the rest of the year, or do we need to do it quarterly?

“If you took it to the nth degree, do we need to do it every week because we don’t know what happened last week and we killed animals this week?

“That is the information we are still trying to shake out through [the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Ministry for Primary Industries] to really understand what the EU’s expectations are of us as an exporting nation.”

A spokesperson for the Meat Industry Association said there had been no update to guidelines issued by the European Commission in December 2023 despite assurances there would be by now.

Even so, it is not anticipating a delay and is working with exporters to meet the requirements of the regulation as they are currently set out by the end of the year.

Walker said it is frustrating that NZ exporters will carry the cost of complying with the regulations when the country is planting more trees on farmland than it is cutting down.

It is clear that NZ is not the intended target but it is caught by the regulation nonetheless.

“On that basis the EU should be providing a derogation from the regulation and review it every three years to determine whether NZ is actually contributing significantly to deforestation around the world.

“We tick that box and we carry on. That would be the perfect solution but it is not going to happen.”

The passing of the Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Amendment Bill shows the government’s commitment to restoring law and order, Associate Justice Minister Nicole McKee says.

“The Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Amendment Bill was part of this government’s 100-day plan and committed to giving police greater powers to search gang members for firearms,” McKee said.  

“Those firearms are illegally used by gangs and organised criminal groups to intimidate, to commit violent crime, and in conflicts between groups.”

The Bill, passed last week, amends the Arms Act 1983, Search and Surveillance Act 2012, and Sentencing Act 2002 to reform the Firearms Prohibition Order (FPO) regime.

McKee said this is the first phase of a programme to reform New Zealand’s outdated firearms law, with the priority of keeping communities safe. The Bill addresses the “unacceptable” levels of gang-related violence, public intimidation, and crimes involving firearms that concern New Zealanders.

“Through this Bill we are removing the ability of gang members and violent offenders to be in possession of firearms and giving police the ability to monitor the compliance of those with FPOs.”

The Bill makes three key improvements to the existing FPO regime:

• It expands the qualifying criteria for the court to make an FPO, focusing on gang members and gang offending.

• It establishes a process by which an FPO may be varied, modified, or revoked.

• It gives police a new search power to monitor compliance with an FPO.

“The changes are about making sure people are complying with FPOs, it is not an extra punishment.  It is about monitoring compliance with the order that has already been placed upon them. And of course, the ultimate outcome is about making our communities safer.”