Integrity Briefing: Corporate welfare for agribusiness

Below is an “Integrity Briefing” written for the Integrity Institute by Dr Bruce Curtis. Bruce has previously been a Professor in Sociology and Social Policy at the University of Waikato. He has a background in the study of organisational sociology, power, and agribusiness. Bruce is helping The Integrity Institute research on wealth, business and integrity issues – Bryce.

---

Integrity Briefing: Corporate welfare for agribusiness

The agriculture sector enjoys an almost untouchable status in New Zealand. Often lauded as the backbone of the economy, agribusiness wields outsized influence in Wellington’s halls of power. The industry’s leaders – from dairy executives to well-connected lobbyists – have a long track record of fending off regulation and bending policy to serve their interests. They’ve built a system where economic clout often trumps environmental and public health concerns, raising serious integrity questions about vested interests and regulatory capture in New Zealand agribusiness.

Last week, the consultancy giant KPMG released its annual Agribusiness Agenda report, giving an update on the sector and what farmers want in 2025. Although the document is meant to advance the interests of farmers, especially with policymakers in Wellington, a critical reading of the report indicates the agricultural elite and their allies (including KPMG) reinforce that power, delaying climate action and watering down safeguards, and what it means for the country’s future.

A Survey of what farmers want

The KPMG Agribusiness Agenda 2025 surveyed 94 industry leaders and influencers and asked them to rate 37 statements in terms of “the priorities for their organisations in the food and fibre sector”. KPMG has run the Agenda survey since 2010. This year, the top 10 rated statements are:

Top Priorities from KPMG Agribusiness Agenda 2025

What does the prestigious KPMG Agribusiness Agenda tell us about the concerns of “industry leaders and influencers” in the sector? First, that agribusiness is very focused on its bottom line. Second, that agribusiness wants more of the sweet deals it is dependent on.

What is notable is that these occur mainly off-farm, even the irrigation infrastructure. This is how corporate welfare works in the sector: agribusiness does not bear the bulk of off-farm costs. Instead, the citizens of New Zealand pay, mainly in the here and now, through taxation but in the long run through overseas borrowing.

In other words, corporate welfare for agribusiness is primarily off-farm, the wholesale legitimation of its externalities. Externalities are the costs created by a business that are not paid for by the company itself. For agribusiness, these include the gases that are accelerating climate change: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). Closer to home is farm run-off, a toxic brew of fertilisers, herbicides and crap: dead streams, dead rivers, dead lakes. Plus, we can add in water storage, allowing irrigation, more intensive farming and more of the above – with the side effect that the rivers of the Canterbury Bight don’t run to the sea in summer.

For agribusiness, problem-solving is the domain of Government. Here are a few examples

Example 1: Cyclone Gabrielle hit New Zealand in 2023, immediately prior to industry leaders being surveyed for the Agenda 2023. In Agenda 2022, the statement “Invest in resilient rural infrastructure” was rated only as #23. It jumped to #7 in 2023 and continued to rise, reaching #4 in 2024. Significant Government aid flooded (excuse the pun) into the sector. Once the financial support was played out, the statement fell to #12 in 2025. A similar focus on the bottom line is found in the statement “Transition to climate resilient systems”. This was a new question in 2023, after cyclone Gabrielle, and was ranked 17 in 2023, but only 41 in 2024 (lowest rating) and (after the hottest year on record) rose to 18 in 2025.

Example 2: The discussion around gene editing (the sanitised term for genetic modification) has been similar. This was a hot topic, and in the Agenda 2024 the statement “Act on results of gene editing discussions” highlighted a possible threat to the bottom line when industry leaders were surveyed early in the year. When, later that year, the National-led Government announced that it would relax the laws around genetically modified organisms in 2026, the problem was solved. Subsequently, the statement “Act on results of gene editing discussions” dropped from being rated as #2 in 2024 to #14 in 2025.

Example 3: “Improve water quality to swimmable” is a statement that hasn’t figured in the top ten. This reflects that politicians have repeatedly reassured farmers that water pollution is no major concern. This lack of action was most apparent at the start of the 21^st century – successive New Zealand governments weren’t prepared to let water pollution harm the ramp-up of Fonterra. When water quality became a public issue last decade, farmers secured a voluntary system to prevent their livestock defecating in streams and rivers. When measures demonstrated declining water quality, two things happened: the measurements stopped being reported, and the definition of “safe water” was redefined. Yes, safe water means you can wade it in. Not swim. Definitely don’t drink the stuff.

Delay is the new denial

Farming privilege, cost avoidance and its externalities aren’t a new thing. It is an enduring feature of life in New Zealand. My dear mum used to say, “Farmers capitalise their gains and socialise their losses”. That was the 1970s; agribusiness privilege and farming privilege are enduring.

In a very real sense, the cat is out of the bag when it comes to farming. Farmers know this, and KPMG certainly knows this. The new reality won’t allow that old mantra about farmers being “custodians of the land”. Dirty dairying is now part of the public consciousness. Because the denial of externalities is impossible, the new approach of agribusiness is to delay the consequences, to avoid paying their fair share for as long as possible.

The new National-led Government elected in late 2023 has essentially given the industry a free pass on agricultural emissions. The previous Labour-led Government’s tentative plan to price on-farm methane by 2025 was scrapped. In its place, the coalition announced no pricing until at least 2030 – kicking the can well down the road.

They even disbanded the He Waka Eke Noa partnership, the much-heralded industry-government group that spent years working on a pricing framework. Instead, the new Government set up yet another working group dominated by industry bodies to come up with “solutions” on methane on their own terms. It’s as if the foxes were invited to design the henhouse’s security system – unsurprisingly, no one’s in a rush to lock the door.

It’s hard to imagine a more textbook case of vested interests at work. The Associate Agriculture Minister is now Andrew Hoggard, a former president of Federated Farmers (the industry’s summit lobby group) – a revolving door if ever there was one. The Government’s own press release openly states “agriculture is the backbone of our economy” and that profitability comes first. In private, many farmers may admit that climate change is already affecting them (through droughts, floods, etc.), but collectively, the strategy is clear: stall for time, soften any regulations, and demand that taxpayers fund whatever token measures are taken. The KPMG Agenda, for all its polite language, documents exactly this dynamic.

Regulatory relief and reform – On farmers’ terms

The KPMG Agenda Report reveals a palpable sigh of relief from the sector now that the political winds have shifted. Farmer confidence has surged as burdensome rules are unwound and friends in high places turn down the heat. The Agenda notes “tangible evidence that confidence is again building” among farmers, thanks in part to “some regulations simplified.” Commodity prices rebounded in the past year, interest rates eased, “and some regulations simplified”, it reports – leading to the highest rural confidence levels in a decade.

During KPMG’s roundtables, farm executives still grumbled about red tape, but “the tone of the discussions was notably different this year.” Instead of railing against every rule, there was talk of balancing regulatory settings. In other words, now that a more business-friendly Government is in charge, the industry is looking to keep the rules weak enough not to hinder them but not scrapping everything lest public trust erode. The Agenda report concludes that “some of [the] regulatory burden perceived to be on the sector has been lifted over the last year.” Clearly, farmers are feeling less harassed by Wellington.

We can already see the real-world effects: the new Government is reviewing or repealing freshwater regulations that farmers claimed were unworkable, delaying tougher winter grazing rules, and promising no new taxes or costs on farmers. They even halted the push to include agriculture in the ETS. This is regulatory capture in action – when an industry essentially dictates the terms of its own oversight. The Agenda’s language, of course, is more genteel: it talks of “regulating to enable trust” and finding the “necessary regulation” that delivers market credibility without “slowing our ability to respond” or adding cost. But read between the lines: necessary equals only what we absolutely must do to placate consumers, and nothing more.

To the industry, “impractical and bureaucratic” regulations (their words) were an irritant that needed purging. Now, with a sympathetic ear in Government, they are getting their wish. As one passage notes, many sector leaders now feel the regulatory “burden” has been lightened in the last year. Little wonder – they helped elect a Government that promised exactly that. The line between industry and Government in NZ agribusiness has always been thin; now it’s almost invisible. When a former industry lobbyist (now a Minister) is literally rewriting the rules alongside his old colleagues, you don’t need a PhD in public policy to see the conflict of interest.

Corporate welfare and vested interests: Who pays, who profits

Perhaps the biggest integrity issue highlighted by the Agribusiness Agenda is the one-sided nature of risk and reward in this sector. Farmers and corporations insist on minimal regulation and maximum government support. That is, “leave us alone to make money, but please subsidise and rescue us when needed.”

On one hand, the industry bristles at Government intervention – too much regulation, too slow to approve new technologies, etc. For instance, the Agenda critiques New Zealand’s outdated approval process for biotech, pesticides, and fertilisers: “our legislation and regulatory processes are very dated, slow and expensive, making it challenging for farmers and growers to access the products and technologies they need to remain competitive.”

This is a clear push for deregulation: speed up approvals for gene-edited crops, animal health products, “green chemicals” and so forth. Indeed, the report celebrates the expectation that the Gene Technology Bill will pass, enabling gene editing, and notes the government’s work to create a new Agriculture and Horticulture Regulatory body to streamline approvals. These moves are applauded as “unlocking opportunity” for NZ to catch up with competitors on agtech. In plain terms, the industry wants fewer barriers to new tech and fewer precautions – as long as someone else takes the blame if things go wrong.

On the other hand, the same leaders are very comfortable asking Wellington for handouts when it suits them. The new Government’s first act in agricultural climate policy was to pour $400 million of public funds into private sector R&D for emissions mitigation tools. The Agenda likewise calls for more Government partnership in innovation: it praises past ministers who “bought into the vision” of startups like Rocket Lab, implicitly urging similar sponsorship for food-tech ventures.

It also highlights how startups find the Sustainable Food & Fibre Futures (SFFF) grants attractive but too slow and onerous, implying that the criteria should be loosened and funding allocations sped up. Essentially, make it easier for us to get taxpayer grants. Entrepreneurs told KPMG that non-dilutive Government support is great, but the process needs to be more “tailored” and less strict. This is a remarkable double standard: deregulation for our industry, but more public financing please.

And who is facilitating all this? KPMG itself is neck-deep in these arrangements. This is how they describe themselves: “Whether you’re a farmer cooperative, food manufacturer, technology innovator, financier, or policymaker, KPMG can help you move from insight to action. Together, we can reimagine and help build a food system that delivers for people, planet, and profit — resiliently and equitably.” In short, KPMG has a vested interest in the agribusiness status quo: the more complex and drawn-out these transitions (to lower emissions, better water quality, etc.) are, the more consulting work arises.

The Agenda does not disclose KPMG’s client interests, but it’s well known that Big Four firms, including KPMG, make millions from Government contracts and industry consulting. In the agribusiness sector, you can bet KPMG is advising both the Government and the companies on either side of many deals – a potential conflict of interest that remains unspoken.

Conclusion

The Agribusiness Agenda 2025 is a valuable document – not for the solutions it offers, but for what it reveals about power and priorities. It shows an industry at a crossroads: aware of long-term challenges like climate change, yet doubling down on short-term self-interest; eager to project a clean, green image, yet resistant to the systemic changes needed to achieve it.

As New Zealand navigates the next steps in confronting climate change, water pollution, and sustainable land use, one thing is clear: we must broaden the conversation beyond the KPMG agenda. The agribusiness elite have had their say – loudly with this report (which is subtitled “Turning talk into tasks”).

It’s time for the rest of New Zealand and our political leaders to assert the public interest: to demand that this powerful sector deliver not just for itself, but for the country’s people and environment. Only then will talk truly turn into task – with integrity.

Dr Bruce Curtis

Lead Researcher, The Integrity Institute

Further reading:

RNZ: High quality agreements with new trade partners priority for agricultural sector – report

Brent Edwards (NBR): What keeps agribusiness leaders awake at night (paywalled)

Hugh Stringleman (Farmers Weekly): Dare to disrupt, KPMG urges industry

Sally Rae (ODT): Climate resilience high on agenda for agribusiness sector (paywalled)