Friday, March 29, 2024

ALTERNATIVE VIEW: No basis for farmers’ hysteria

Avatar photo
I found it interesting to come back to New Zealand and the election campaign.
Reading Time: 3 minutes

Having seen the shambles of Australian politics I was looking forward to something better.

Sadly, that didn’t happen as witnessed by the deliberate leaking of Winston Peters’ superannuation overpayment and Stephen Joyce’s $7 billion budget hole.

I get irritated with politicians insulting your and my intelligence.

Another area of irritation is farmers and farming organisations playing party politics. We need to be above that.

An area where farmers did themselves no credit was the raging hysteria over Labour’s proposal to charge a levy on irrigation that told me more about political connection than fact.

Feds disappointed me claiming that a tax on irrigation users would put many farmers out of business.

Water spokesman Chris Allen then perpetuated the hysteria that Labour would charge 10 cents a litre for water.

He claimed the policy would put thriving communities at risk and jeopardise exports.

That was followed by Darfield farmer John Ridgen who told us Federated Farmers had calculated the cost for farming, based on a 10c/litre charge. He said it would mean $600 billion in tax for sheep and beef production alone.

Common sense would suggest no government or political party would ever tax an export industry worth $9b a massive $600b.

Ridgen then made the point that National’s water policy would be crippling.

So no political party has a good water policy as far as farmers are concerned and that’s with calculating the Labour price at 10c/l.

The reality is the royalty would be one or two cents for 1000 litres.

A mate who farms 500 cows under irrigation believes at 1c/1000l of water his cost would be $14,000 annually.

It isn’t going to put many farmers out of business, put thriving communities at risk or jeopardise exports.

What is also interesting was an article by highly respected journalist Richard Harman that farmers seem to have ignored.

Harman said the Government has had its officials working behind closed doors for some time now on proposals to put a price on water.

The Ministry for the Environment’s technical advisory group is to complete its work by November, safely after the election.

Where was the farming commentary on that?

The imagined effect of the water royalty on prices was interesting.

Peters came out of left field with the outlandish claim that the water initiative would lead to $18 cabbages.

National MP and accountant Andrew Bayly, who I’d never heard of, claimed each bottle of wine would incur a $75 water charge.

The one person and organisation that came out of the debate with credit was Andrew Curtis of Irrigation NZ.

He’d taken the trouble to meet Damien O’Connor and David Parker. He said the impact on fruit, veges, milk and bread will be minimal and the extra cost on a bottle of wine would be less than a cent.

The effect on cabbages, we were told separately, would be about half a cent.

The point farmers need to factor is 70% of the population believe commercial water users should pay a royalty to help fund the clean-up of waterways. Farmers making ridiculous and unfounded claims will only alienate the general population.

Claims that we’ve read in Farmers Weekly that Labour’s policies are driving a wedge between the urban and rural population are rubbish. It is some vocal, politically inspired farmers who are doing that.

For a start, some of the farmer hysteria is factually incorrect. There isn’t going to be a blanket tax on water as some have suggested but solely on irrigation and Labour’s industrial relations policy isn’t taking us back to the 1970s or anything like it.

I was recently sent a copy of a fairly radical proposal from a group of farmers who wanted to take their tractors to town and to withhold produce from supermarkets. They describe Labour as political aspirants.

As I’ve written previously the key to a group’s or a sector’s political success is to be electorally unpredictable as the Auckland experience has shown.

If a group blindly supports just one political party it will be ignored by all political parties to the obvious detriment of that group.

Farmers need to be aware of that fact.

For the record, I don’t support anything that increases costs but I’m reminded of the sage words of previous Feds president Dr William Rolleston: Engage not enrage.

We need to start doing that, play all issues with a straight bat and get away from party politics.

Our spokespeople also need to stick to fact. Hyperbole is the stuff of fairy stories. It’s also important to remember the adage: When you’re in a hole, stop digging.

Total
0
Shares
People are also reading