Should the government subsidise farmers?

Things should be produced fresh

The farmers of the contents more delivering by milk tankerby legend former UK Prime minister's office dramatic and former US president Donald Trump dramatic issued famer lines

Yes, but only for organic produce that is not exported overseas. Our people should get the best produce first before it is shipped offshore

Yes, but ensure that the domestic market is not paying export prices

Yes but only for things that align with national direction - (carbon, climate change, biodiversity, freshwater, soil preservation)

Unfortunately if we subsidize the act of doing so will lock us out of some important markets with strong farmer organisations.

Yes, but we should also take profit o reimburse us when there's profit.. more of a loan

Money to meet environmental improvement costs I.e. fencing, riparian corridors, etc

Yes, but only for small farms that can demonstrate environmentally sound and ethical practices.

Yes, but only for farms that meet more stringent emissions/biodiversity/environmental standards

No, but there should be regulations for sustainable farming

Yes, the government should create a framework that meets climate, environment and national supply targets. Incentives for those who meet climate and environmental targets should be pushed and a focus on supplying more to the nation rather than export should be incentivised all so

The government is already subsidising farmers through lack of control on nitrates in our water, and buying carbon credits off shore.

Yes, but only to align farming with environmental policy

Only to help improve environmentally friendly practices and reduce green house gas but not for the running of the business

no just stop taxing them like hell

For environmental land management

Yes, instead of dumping all these compliance laws on them and letting them figure it out for themselves. Work with them and provide them the tools to farm more sustainably. Without farming nz will hurt

Yes with an incentive for farmers to reduce their impact on climate change

But add rules that they can not sell their products more expensive domestically

Yes, but not the way America does. Like subsidize best practice sustainable farming. Rather than specific crops. It is our biggest industry though so yes.

Yes, so long as subsidies support the transition to more environmentally sustainable ways of farming.

Yes, but only for produce destined for the domestic market.

Yes, they produce our food! But we should maximise subsidies as incentives to transition to regenerative farming and other practices that reduce fertiliser overuse.

But they need to reduce compliance costs

Yes, with certain criteria met.

yes but for technology, native planting and improved fencing/waterways

Yes, but only towards implementing more sustainable practices

No. But nor should they be taxed so heavily either, or made the scapegoat for government policies.

yes, especially in times of natural disasters. Look at how farmers in HB are struggling after cyclone gabrielle

Only in times of a disaster. Farmers should also ensure their investment

Yes, for vegetables and meat substitutes

Yes but only in at times of natural disasters - earthquakes, floods, droughts etc.

To assist with cleaning water ways and , hold water for drought periods and planting out steep slopes.

No, and farmers should be penalised/fined for dumping excess nitrogen and other filth into the water table. Further fines should cover excess methane and other emissions. No more f%$#ing excuses.

Yes, but only for those not exporting their goods.

Yes if they abide by certain environmental change

Yes if it improves certain environmental factors

Yes, if they make farmers pay for emissions that are completely irrelevant in the global scheme, then yes they need to subsidize them, especially for the compliance cost.

Yes, but only for farms that are making innovations environmentally

No, but provide incentives for farms with environmentally-friendly farming solutions.

Only where they have sustainable practices

Not for beef Only organic and environmentally friendly

Yes, but only subsidize vege growers to make healthier home cooking cheaper.

yes in times of severe need

Yes to support transition to sustainable farming practices

The farming industry generates employment opportunities as well as revenues for the Government. The support from the Government to ensure the sustainability of the industry is required.

Farmers support the local economy but when the overseas prices fall then so does farmers income and the amount they can spend in the local economy. If farmers knew their product was always going to fetch a reasonable price with bonuses for good years then it would be easier for them to decide what they were going to grow or farm instead of chasing fads which then crashes the market like velvet and wool and milk.

Nz government should follow what is happening in our competitive markets

no. No private company should be subsidised.

No, farmers should have compulsory insurance cover to pay for drought relief etc. if they fail to operate in a sustainable manner they will not get insurance. Force poor performers out of the industry

Yes, only for farms that are willing to go extra mile to be environmentally sustainable

No, but incentivise local industry through long term government contracts

Only for natural disaster relief until they are back on their feet

Yes but only on farms increasing sustainability to encourage sustainable farming

No but should not introduce crippling emission taxes

Yes, but only for Horticulture. We need to start phasing out Agriculture.

Yes, but only for products thatvare sold WITHIN NZ

Effectively no, needs to stand alone but support maybe require when significant downturns and hard time ie better Drought relief

Yes, but only those who show innovation and who chose farming systems which are appropriate to their climate and environment.

Yes, as an incentive for better farming practices (e.g. riverbank/native bush planting and preservation, paddock stock limits, smarter fertilizer use and effluent management)

No. The government should have far less interference for requirements of locally owned farms. Only interference should be if overseas investors involved.

Yes but only for those that distribute mainly in NZ

We removed subsidies in the 80s and are competitive because of it .

Yes, but only for farms who provide domestic products

Only for non-animal farms.

Yes, but only for carbon neutral or negative supply chains

Yes, as our farmers struggle enough as it is.

No. The contribution to GDP is changing, we could incentivise them to meet circular economy criteria.

Yes, farmers should be subsidised for the costs to initiate and maintain environmental protection procedures.

A subsidy on food for the domestic consumer would be better placed than increasing famer subsidy. Correcting the current subsidy system into a reward based system for environmental and social compliance rather than purely punative would be better.

Yes, but only for those taking measures to reduce environmental impact

Yes for farmers providing high quality produce for the New Zealand market

Yes but only for non-animal agriculture

Yes, to assist farms to become more green, but a business does need to stand on its own and be financially viable.

Yes, but only for regenerative agriculture.

Help those that are in trouble

If they are retraining or otherwise putting effort into climate change mitigation