Representation gap at heart of farming frustration, says Groundswell

No matter which government comes to power after the 2026 New Zealand general election, it may make little difference to farmers if the people speaking on their behalf are not getting it right.

That is the view of Groundswell spokesperson Jamie McFadden, who says the biggest issue facing the sector is not just policy, but a growing disconnect between farmers, advocacy groups and government.

“The biggest challenge is the disconnect,” McFadden said.

“It’s a disconnect from the real world, from grassroots farmers, and now increasingly from our farming leadership as well.”

McFadden said that while election cycles tend to focus on policy change, the deeper issue lies in how those policies are formed and who is informing them.

“There’s no point trying to encourage the government to change something if the other farming groups are of an opposing view,” he said.

“We just won’t make progress.”

He believes that unless advocacy groups are accurately reflecting the views of farmers on the ground, government will continue to receive the wrong signals.

“Until we sort out our advocacy voice and our representation, being faithful to the grassroots, we’re not going to get change,” he said.

Policy disconnect

McFadden pointed to increasing frustration among farmers with regulation, particularly in the environmental space, which he said is becoming more disconnected from practical reality.

“It’s all heading in one direction. It’s getting more impractical, more disconnected from the real world.”

He attributes this to a shift over time in who is designing policy.

“You’ve got a whole lot of people now in these bureaucracies who have trained as policy analysts, but they haven’t got those connections to rural New Zealand like they used to,” he said.

“That disconnect is a lot greater now than it was 10, 20, 30 years ago.”

Rather than focusing purely on scrapping individual policies, McFadden said the system that produces them needs to be addressed first.

“There’s no point scrapping a policy and then getting the same bureaucracy to write a new one,” he said.

“You’re not fixing the root of the problem.”

“The number one problem is bureaucracy across central and local government… that is disconnected from grassroots and the coal face.”

Freshwater farm plans a flashpoint

One example he pointed to is freshwater farm plans, which Groundswell has strongly opposed in their current form.

“We don’t have a problem with farm plans. They’re a great tool when farmers engage with them,” he said.

“But when you make them mandatory and put them under a government oversight system, you lose that buy-in.”

He said the approach risks applying a one-size-fits-all model to farms with very different environmental contexts.

“Not every farm has freshwater issues. Some farms have operated for decades as low-impact permitted activities, and now they’re being brought into a system of government oversight for the first time.”

“That’s where it doesn’t fit.”

Local government under scrutiny

Groundswell’s recent legal action against the Gore District Council over its proposed district plan is, McFadden says, part of a broader issue.

“It’s not that councils are out of control, it’s that they’re so disconnected from the real world that it’s impossible for them to come up with workable rules.”

He said similar issues are emerging across the country, with land use rules and environmental provisions having significant impacts on property values and farm operations.

“We’re seeing so much stuff now where you just shake your head and go, where are these people coming from?”

Section 6 of the Resource Management Act, which covers matters such as heritage and sites of significance, has become a growing point of tension for landowners.

“In the last week Groundswell NZ continued to receive concerns from property owners across New Zealand impacted by Section 6.”

Paris Agreement and siloed policy

McFadden was also critical of how climate policy linked to the Paris Agreement is being applied.

“The Paris thing has become an obsession. It’s siloed on emissions, and it takes away the ability to look at the bigger picture.”

He said focusing too narrowly on methane reduction risks overlooking other, more immediate environmental priorities.

“On many farms, emissions isn’t the priority. Freshwater quality is the priority. Or weeds and pests. Or just trying to make a living.”

He pointed to funding criteria tied to carbon outcomes as an example of policy not aligning with on farm realities.

“We’re going to see more of that sort of thing, policy that looks good on paper but doesn’t work on the ground.”

“Paris is a policy in a silo.”

Advocacy under pressure

McFadden said the role of industry groups is also under scrutiny, particularly where their positions differ from farmer sentiment.

“There are a number of issues where farming groups have supported policies that farmers themselves don’t support.”

“I would wager most farmers would be unaware that some of the main unworkable regulations have been promoted or supported by our farming groups.”

What success would look like

For McFadden, success after the election would not be defined by a single policy change, but by a shift in how decisions are made.

“The first step is a proper stocktake, understanding what’s actually happening on farms and in the environment.”

“The second step is a major overhaul of the bureaucracy that’s designing all of this.”

Ultimately, he said, success would be visible in everyday conversations on farm.

“I’ll know we’ve got it right when I can go onto a farm and we’re not talking about dumb rules or dumb conditions of consent,” he said.

“When the rules are practical and they work, that’s when we’ve achieved something.”