Government Congratulates Young Farmer Of The Year 2025
The Acting Prime Minister has extended warm congratulations to Hugh Jackson on being crowned the 2025 FMG Young Farmer of the Year.
'Last night I was lucky enough to attend the Young Farmer of the Year grand final in Invercargill. It was a brilliant event, celebrating the future of farming and showcasing their expertise, leadership, and passion for agriculture,' says Mr Seymour.
'Hugh Jackson from the Waikato Bay of Plenty demonstrated exceptional skill, leadership, and knowledge in one of the most historic competitions in the country. They have a bright future ahead of them, and I wish them all the best for their future in farming.
'Even for a townie from Epsom it's impossible to not appreciate the contribution farmers make to New Zealand. We are lucky to live in a country that produces food the world loves, and with export revenue on track to surpass $60 billion for the first time, agriculture is very much central to New Zealand's future prosperity.
'Last night's awards ceremony was testament not only to the achievements of those competing, but to the strength and future of New Zealand's rural sector. The industry is in safe hands judging by the talent on display.
'I'd also like to thank the organisers for inviting me to this event. It is inspiring to see the next generation of farmers being recognized for their talent and passion.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
7 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Bringing back the Moa: Expert opinion
Regulation Minister David Seymour responds to questions about opposition to his new bill. As the Regulatory Standards Bill goes before a select committee, Seymour responded to some of the criticism. Video / Mark Mitchell
1News
2 days ago
- 1News
Are NZ banks being taxed properly?
The Government is looking at whether banks in New Zealand are taxed appropriately. Finance Minister Nicola Willis said she is continuing to receive advice from IRD on how income tax laws applied to the major banks in New Zealand, particularly compared with Australia. Willis asked for the advice last year, but said no announcements would be made until Budget next year. The key issues were around how the "parent banks" and branch banks in New Zealand interacted for tax purposes. She said there was some "very arcane and complex tax law" in that area where the OECD had guidance, but New Zealand operated slightly differently. ADVERTISEMENT Willis was also looking at the Australian "major bank levy" which New Zealand did not have. This forced banks with more than $100 billion in liabilities to pay a levy to the government, raising significant sums a year. Willis would not rule out applying something similar here, but she did confirm the Government was not looking at a windfall tax. "There's a range of highly technical, highly complex issues with the way that banks are taxed, and we're just doing a check in to make sure that it's resulting in an overall fair system." Willis said it was possible more revenue could be generated for the Crown if the Government found banks were not paying the full amount of tax expected. Acting Prime Minister David Seymour was asked about the issue on Monday and said he believed banks were being fairly taxed. "Some of the biggest taxpayers in New Zealanders are banks," he said, and stated they were all paying the 28% average tax rate as their company tax. "There's nothing to suggest that they are not paying the same share that they would if they were any other kind of business." ADVERTISEMENT Asked about Willis' work, Seymour said, like most ministers, she was "always asking for advice, always tossing around the ideas". He suspected the result of that work would show banks were fairly taxed. Seymour said, from what he saw, there seemed to be a "consistent pattern" in terms of what banks paid, and the question around any proposals to change the settings would need to be based on "fairness". He pointed to a dairy, retail or manufacturing company that were doing "pretty much the same stuff, making the same profit and paying the same tax, would you treat them differently"? "One of the core principles of taxation is that 'like taxpayers pay tax alike', and 'unlike, taxpayers pay tax un-alike' based on the size of the difference. "So you'd start with fairness as your principle." He acknowledged there may be more information he was not aware of. He also wanted more information on the major bank levy. "I've seen the argument for that, and it goes something like this: Banks inevitably get bailed out. ADVERTISEMENT "If they're so big that their failure would affect the entire economy, maybe they should be putting something aside for that rainy day, if it happens one day. That's the argument. "It's, in a way, a form of de facto deposit insurance." He said it was an interesting argument, but would need to see the detail before deciding on supporting a proposal or not as ACT leader.
Scoop
2 days ago
- Scoop
Treaty Principles 2.0? Hearings Begin Into Seymour's Regulatory Standards Bill
Analysis: A week of political scrutiny lies ahead for one of the government's most polarising bills, dubbed by some critics as "Treaty Principles 2.0". Starting Monday morning, the Finance and Expenditure select committee will reconvene for about 30 hours over four days to hear public submissions on the lightning rod Regulatory Standards Bill. The bill - championed by ACT's David Seymour - sets out "principles of responsible regulation" and would require ministers to explain whether they are following them. It would also set up a new board to assess legislation against those benchmarks. But while it may sound dry and technical, the legislation has become a flashpoint in a wider debate about the country's constitution, te Tiriti o Waitangi, and competing ideologies. Among the submitters on day one: former prime minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer, former Green MP Darleen Tana, Transpower, and the Royal Australian and NZ College of Psychiatrists. What's in the bill? The bill lists principles that Seymour believes should guide all law-making. These include: Respect for the rule of law Protection of individual freedom and property rights Keeping taxes and fees fair and reasonable Proper consultation and clear cost-benefit analysis Ministers introducing new laws would have to declare whether they meet these standards, and justify those that do not. The new Regulatory Standards Board - appointed by the Minister for Regulation - could also review older laws and make non-binding recommendations. "We need to make regulating less rewarding for politicians by putting more sunlight on their activities," Seymour told Parliament in May. Why are people so upset? Opposition to the bill has been intense. An early round of consultation last year attracted about 23,000 submissions, with 88 percent in opposition and just 0.33 percent in support. Seymour has dismissed that as "meaningless" and initially claimed many of the submissions had been created by "bots". He later walked that back, but maintained they were driven by non-representative online campaigns. It is true campaign groups have provided templates for submissions or even offered to write them on people's behalf. But the pushback has come from far and wide: lawyers, academics, advocacy groups and public servants. Even Seymour's own Ministry of Regulation has raised concerns. Seymour has labelled much of the criticism "alarmist" and grounded in misinformation. He's also targetted some critics on social media, accusing them of having "derangement syndrome" and conspiracy thinking. The most common criticisms are: 1. That it elevates ACT's values above all else Critics argue the bill embeds ACT's political ideology into law, particularly its emphasis on individual rights and private property, while ignoring other considerations. Notably, te Tiriti o Waitangi is not mentioned in the bill - an omission which critics fear could undermine the Treaty's legal status and influence. Seymour says he has yet to hear a convincing reason why the Treaty should get special consideration when evaluating good law-making. Critics also object to the principle of individual property rights being given prominence over, say, collective rights. They fear the bill could dissuade governments from introducing rules that protect the environment, or restrictions on tobacco and alcohol, because that might be seen as breaching the listed principles. Even though the government could still pass those laws, critics worry it would send a message that profits and property are more important than public health or environmental protections. For his part, Seymour is unapologetic about the principles proposed and open that he wants to reset the culture of government. "If you want to tax someone, take their property, and restrict their livelihood, you can, but you'll actually have to show why it's in the public interest," Seymour says. 2. That it's a solution in search of a problem New Zealand already has a raft of systems in place to check laws are made properly. For example, Cabinet's Legislation Guidelines require ministers to follow best practice principles - including the rule of law, human rights compliance and consultation. The Legislation Design and Advisory Committee, made up of experts and officials, also provides detailed feedback on bills, and Treasury checks the impact of major policy decisions. As well, Justice officials and Crown Law conduct Bill of Rights vetting of legislation, with the Attorney-General required to report any breaches. Critics say this bill just adds another layer of process - increasing cost and workload for little benefit. To that, Seymour says: "If the public service think being required to justify their laws is a faff, imagine what it's like for the public they have to serve who are obliged to follow them." 3. That it is a corporate power grab A lingering concern has been whether the bill could open the government up to legal challenges or claims for compensation - especially from large corporations. Among its principles, the bill does include the concept that property should not usually be taken without consent and "fair compensation". But the legislation also clearly states that it does not create any new legal rights or obligation enforceable through the courts. That means companies would not have a new avenue to sue the government if a law affected their property or profits. Still, critics argue that simply embedding the principle in law could alter expectations over time. Businesses or lobby groups, for example, might point to it to put pressure on ministers to avoid certain policies. As well, lawyers say the courts could take note of the new principles when interpreting legislation or reviewing regulatory decisions elsewhere. The political debate The National-ACT coalition agreement includes a firm commitment to pass the bill through into law - though not necessarily in its current form. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon says the government will pay close attention to the select committee process and remains open to changes. "The devil is in the detail," he told reporters on Friday. New Zealand First leader Winston Peters has described the bill as "a work in progress" and has indicated his party wants changes. He has not specified which provisions in particular concern him. The opposition parties, Labour, the Greens and Te Pāti Māori, have already promised to repeal the bill if elected next year. That means, for all the noise, the bill's practical impact may be limited, affecting only the parties introducing it - which presumably would adhere to these principles whether they were codified in law or not. The select committee hearings will run from 8:30am till 5pm, Monday through Thursday.
