Farmers have been copping it from all sides.
Wherever you sit on this, first dairy farmers were blamed for the poor quality of rural waterways then all farmers were facing the likelihood of being asked to pay for the water they use for irrigation though it affects mainly South Island farmers who rely heavily on irrigation.
The election campaign played up the so-called urban/rural divide, pointing the finger at farmers and creating an us-and-them mentality among some groups of farmers.
Federated Farmers had a seemingly knee-jerk reaction to Labour’s proposed water tax, claiming a 10 cents a litre water tax would bankrupt farmers.
Prime Minister Bill English told farmers in the heart of irrigation country, Ashburton, that Labour wanted to suck cash out farming towns.
Little wonder farmers felt targeted.
It was no surprise when, a few days later, farmers protested against the Opposition’s proposed water tax in Morrinsville, the hometown of Labour leader Jacinda Ardern.
That farmers were being manipulated is obvious.
The likelihood of any political party charging 10 cents a litre for water is far-fetched. The number crunchers point to the figure more likely sitting around one cent for 1000 litres and having a minor impact on farming businesses.
But that wasn’t all farmers had to contend with.
Around the same time a global animal rights campaign by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) urged people not to buy wool, accusing the wool industry of animal cruelty during shearing.
Wait. What? I’ve seen sheep being shorn and it’s not exactly sheep whispering but the animals appeared to be laissez-faire about the whole experience.
PETA’s campaign featured a photo of an American actress in the buff with the caption “I’d rather go naked than wear wool”, to which Federated Farmers’ response was, among other points, that it’s crueller for sheep to carry around an extra 5kg of wool on their backs in the heat of summer.
Despite the rational argument, it’s wise not to underestimate the momentum of the animal welfare movement.
Given the price farmers have been getting for their wool on the international market has fallen recently, PETA’s campaign was bad timing for wool producers.
So, despite a few eye-roll moments during the election campaign, I felt for rural New Zealand.
Now the election is behind us, where to from here?
As I write this I’m sipping a milky coffee, the meat for tonight’s dinner is defrosting on the kitchen bench and I’m wearing a woollen jumper.
Just saying – I’m your customer.
And like many other young family women and professionals, I’m interested in how my choices affect the environment, animal welfare and general sustainability.
I’ll change what I buy to leave less of a footprint.
I’d like the country’s water resource to be used sustainably and having commercial users including farmers pay one cent for 1000 litres seems reasonable.
I’d also like to see rural waterways cleaned up and swimmable.
To me these are national issues just like the housing crisis and child poverty. Neither is just a city or rural issue, they affect us all.
During the election campaign farmers didn’t fare so well. They were targeted, yes, but they also appeared to revel in the attention rather than countering it with facts and reason.
Still, the election results speak for themselves.
Given the outcry against Labour it’d be reasonable to think rural NZ might have been mobilised to vote for the status quo.
But the official results of the general election show the electorates that swung the most towards Labour were in regional NZ – including three electorates in Canterbury that use a lot of the country’s water for irrigation.
Meanwhile, National held firm in Auckland where voters swung to the right.
Overall, we’ve all moved slightly towards each other – the traditionally conservative South Island has moved to the left and the North Island has moved slightly to the right.
And I don’t think it’s due to a bunch of Aucklanders moving south to buy a home they can afford. The urban/rural divide is shrinking.
