IN JUST a few days the 2014 election campaign will be over and then will start the process of forming a new government. Depending on which parties get what number of votes this could be a simple or a drawn-out process.

This has been the most bizarre election campaign in 50 years, memorable for lacking serious debate on issues of real importance to New Zealanders. Instead, day after day, our television screens and newspapers have been full of the latest silly little scandals, while issues of substance were ignored.

Hopes were for true debate on serious issues such as science funding for agriculture, for meaningful rather than trivial debate on environmental issues, and for voters to get good information on which to base their decision on election day.

For farmers there are some choices: to live with National’s essentially status quo model with some minor changes around the fringes. Labour’s capital gains tax has implications for the sector and could be a match winner or loser. The Greens predictably have never deviated from their stance to impose more restrictions and costs on farmers. For them the cow is the cause of the problem, not the saviour of the economy.

In the past, the differences between National and Labour from a farmer’s perspective have been minor. But Labour cuddling up to the Greens represents a complete paradigm shift and has rightly or wrongly made many people in the agribusiness sector nervous. It’s also fair to say that over the years, agriculture’s power base has declined as New Zealand becomes a much more urbanised society and the general understanding of farming in the cities has diminished.

Whichever parties get into power, it’s important they don’t erect unnecessary and unrealistic roadblocks in the way of agriculture. While things might not be perfect now, there is huge potential for things to get a lot worse. It’s hard enough for farmers to battle the vagaries and volatility of global markets without having to battle their own political masters to make a crust and keep the New Zealand economy viable and vibrant.

FONTERRA’S PLANS to team up with Chinese infant food manufacturer Beingmate and form a global partnership to chase China’s ever-growing demand for infant formula is a smart move.

China truly is an Asian tiger whose hunger for dairy produce is unlikely ever to be sated. It is a clever strategic move by the co-op to team up with a Chinese partner to tackle this lucrative market.
The partnership will create an integrated global supply chain from the farmgate direct to China’s consumers, using Fonterra’s milk pools and plants in New Zealand, Australia, and Europe.
Fonterra claims this partnership will increase the volume and value of its ingredients and branded products exported to China.  The proposal will see Fonterra and Beingmate set up a joint venture to buy Fonterra’s Darnum plant in Australia and make a distribution agreement to sell Fonterra’s Anmum brand in China.

Fonterra chief executive Theo Spierings describes the new partnership as a “game changer” that will provide a direct line into the infant formula market in China – the world’s biggest growth story in paediatric nutrition.

The term ‘game changer’ is used too often these days in referring to political announcements, sporting analogies, business and so on. But in this case it is appropriate, especially if the joint venture succeeds in promoting NZ dairy products as leading in quality and safety standards in China.

The lesson from last year’s botulism botch-up, and the San Lu disaster in 2008, is that Fonterra and New Zealand cannot afford damage to its reputation for providing high-quality, world-leading infant formula to the Chinese market. Hard-fought markets and value can be destroyed overnight.

China is our number-one market and this venture with Beingmate will be important in helping Fonterra drive volume and value and in stepping forward as a globally relevant co-operative.

As Spierings says, “The partnership with Beingmate will show the benefits of an integrated and secure supply chain where we are fast-tracking investment in milk processing capacity to meet global demand.”

It is time for a proper register of foreign-owned land to take the nasty sting out of the debate.

IT MUST be election season: foreign land ownership is supposedly the hottest political issue for New Zealand voters. Forget the economy, jobs, health, education, spies, the environment or even Nicky Hager’s latest conspiracy theories.It seems evil foreigners coming here and taking over our farms is the big issue. And right on cue Winston Peters has awoken from his three-year slumber to beat his familiar xenophobe drum – though it was the Conservatives’ Colin Craig who beat him to the punch on the possible sale of Lochinver Station to Shanghai Pengxin Group. Soon the me-too brigade – Labour, Greens, Maori Party – was stepping up with further anti-foreign land sales policy. (No word from Internet/Mana on the issue, perhaps because of their foreign ownership.) This is a pitch to voters that scratches the economic nationalism itch and is not unpopular, especially given Asian buyers’ activities in the marketplace. Though loathe to admit it publicly, New Zealanders are uncomfortable with ‘different looking’ people owning farms and houses in our country. We dress this up as being not about race but ‘concerns’ over economic control of ‘our’ assets. Fact is many of our assets are in Australian hands. The US, Switzerland and Australia own more of our farmland than do the Chinese, but that doesn’t grab the same headlines as Asian buy-ups. China is now our largest trading partner. We are happy to sell them logs, lamb and milkpowder, but prefer them to lay off ‘our’ farms. Hang on, Fonterra owns farms in China, and many New Zealand farmers own land in Australia, the US, South America and Europe. Also disregarded in this spurious argument is the matter of individual property rights – the right to sell one’s own house or a farm to whoever, foreign or local. Lack of knowledge about foreign ownership of New Zealand seems to fuel much of the debate. How about we organise an easily accessible register of how many foreigners are buying farms and city properties? (Three Auckland CBD office towers this week went to Hong Kong owners.) Surely such a log, as suggested recently by Federated Farmers, would help blunt the nastier edge to this angst.

Fish & Game is acting more and more like a radical NGO than a lobby for fishers and hunters 

FISH & Game NZ’s use in March of dubious survey results to justify slagging dairy farming prompted Rural News  to urge farmers to ‘lock the gate’ to F&G members until the parent body shut up.

The newspaper reasoned that since Fish & Game’s governing body had such low regard for farming, it might want members even to forgo any association with farmers – by declining to hunt or fish on the properties of such scoundrels.

A serious call, yes. But we demanded, and we still demand, an end to Fish & Game’s incessant anti-farming carping.

Conservation Minister Nick Smith recently fell foul of the lobby; it demanded Smith resign, accusing him of threatening the group’s future. The minister reportedly told the F&G council “Fish and Game sometimes behaves like a rabid NGO,” which it does.

But Smith rejects accusations that he told Fish & Game members, at a tense meeting in July, essentially to pull back on campaigning or risk its council being stripped of its statutory powers.

In fact he wants Fish & Game to engage more with agriculture and irrigation so as to achieve the highest possible freshwater quality.

“While it is right for them to advocate for freshwater, they sometimes get into being anti New Zealand’s most important industry, the dairy industry.”

Smith in his defence released a DOC official’s notes of the meeting, including, “F&G needs to work out what it wants to be: a statutory body [with] legislation and a relationship with Government, or an NGO.”

Fish & Game is supposed to be an independent body with statutory authority to protect rivers, lakes and streams and the sole agency issuing hunting and fishing licences.

Rural News agrees with the Taxpayers’ Union which says, “The Fish and Game council’s campaigning is a gross breach of faith by a statutory body.”

Enough is enough! If Fish & Game wants to be in politics, the Government should abolish compulsory licences for trout fishing and hunting, by which the lobby funds its political grandstanding.

EXPECT FEDERATED Farmers to place more emphasis on science and be more ‘evidenced based’ when dealing with issues for the next three years.

That’s the message from the new president Dr William Rolleston, successor to Bruce Wills who has retired after three years in the role.

Rolleston, who farms in South Canterbury, told Rural News there are ongoing challenges for the organisation on climate change and the environment – especially water related issues.

He says the previous Feds board had been dealing with these issues well. But he now wants to put a “slightly different flavour” on things by having good science and evidence to back up their arguments.

Rolleston rightly points out that “science underpins the primary sector” and says Feds needs to look at how primary sector R&D is funded and coordinated amongst all the organisations and “make sure farmers get bang for bucks”.

If Feds wants to get good value from government it must act professionally, he says. “We have moved away from that reaction at the end of the process and more into a collaborative process with good communication and having discussions up front so that things don’t just blow up as big issues.”

Rolleston is also planning to take a similar attitude to common adversaries of the farming sector such as green lobbyists. He claims that a better understanding by environmental groups and others who hold views different from the farming sector will pay off.

It is good that Rolleston wants the Federation to be a solution focused organisation that works with whatever government is in power.  But it is important this collaborative and solutions focused approach does not mean appeasement or the Feds’ becoming a toothless watchdog. Farmers still need their lobby to be a strong and powerful advocate.

It is no use having a watchdog that will roll over for its belly to be scratched when its view are not popular with the government of the day or other lobby groups. Farmers need to be assured their new and improved watchdog will fight for them when it really matters.

Let’s hope Rolleston and his new Feds board are prepared to sink their teeth in when necessary.

The 1984 snap election not only saw the end of Rob Muldoon’s prime ministership but also farming support and subsidies

THERE’S A hackneyed saying that if you lived through the 1960s, you won’t remember them. (Attributed to the tendency for people in that era to use mind-altering substances.)

However, for anyone who farmed – or was associated with farming – in New Zealand during the 1980s it’s a time no one will ever forget. For those in the rural sector the election of the fourth Labour Government and the unleashing of its economic agenda would have a major impact, much of it still felt almost 30 years later.

These challenging times of major change are nicely encapsulated in former Otago Daily Times farming editor Neal Wallace’s new book about how Rogernomics changed the face of NZ’s rural sector.  Published by Otago University Press, When the Farm Gates Opened is a fascinating look back at the amazing changes thrust upon the country’s rural sector and farmers when the 1984 Labour Government took power and set about reforming the economy.

The economic reforms launched by the 1984 David Lange-led Labour government changed New Zealand forever. Agriculture bore the brunt of those changes and became an historic reference point for the primary sector: a defining and pivotal moment when financial subsidies abruptly ended and farming learned to live without government influence, interference or protection.
The changes were more sweeping and wide-ranging than anything farmers and farming had expected. Some adjusted, some did not.

Thirty years on, this gripping and moving social history relates the story of a rural sector battered and bruised by rapid change. It traces the period building up to the economic changes by talking to political and sector leaders, and the most important contributions are interviews with those most affected.

All the main players during this time – many of whom have now died – are included: Rob Muldoon, David Lange, Roger Douglas, David Caygill, Jim Sutton, Peter Elworthy, Collis Blake and Jim Bolger, to name a few.

This is a must-read for all who lived through these times, and even more so for those who did not. It’s an amazing reminder of how much the farming sector has changed in the past 30 years and should be a mainstay on bookcases nationwide.

When the Farm Gates Opened: the impact of Rogernomics on rural New Zealand, at major book retailers. RRP $30.

IN CASE you missed it, Fonterra last week released some fantastic figures in its payout announcement.

An opening forecast farmgate price of $7.00/kgMS for the 2014-15 season – a historically high figure that matches the opening forecast 12 months ago at the start of the 2013-14 season.

The forecast 2013-14 payout of $8.40/kgMS, with a forecast dividend of 10c/share, means a record total of $8.50 for a fully shared-up farmer.

And a strong milk supply is forecast for the new season – 1616 million kgMS, up 2% on the current season forecast of 1584 million kgMS.

These figures are a massive boost for dairy farmers, rural communities and the wider economy but if you got your news from the daily print and broadcast media you could be forgiven for missing them.

Our Australian friends at Fairfax led the rush to bad news on their ‘farming’ web page with the headline ‘Fonterra signals $2.2b dairy payout cut.’ Never mind that the $2.2 billion dollars never actually existed or that it is only the difference between a record payout this year and a pre-season, and therefore theoretical, forecast.

Fairfax wasn’t alone, of course. All its metro-based brethren took the low road. The TV One News website lit up with “Fonterra has cut its forecast 2014 milk payout… and expects the payout for the 2015 season to tumble to $7/kgMS.”

At its media conference Fonterra provided ample context so the assembled hacks might see the silver lining, not just the cloud. For example, chairman John Wilson said the new season forecast was historically high, but reflected current market conditions. “Our farmers understand the realities of dairy commodity price cycles, and will exercise caution at this early stage in the season,” he said.

He could have pointed out that the opening forecast of $7.00 is up $1.20 on the 2012-13 season that ended at $5.80/kg, or $6.12/kg including the 32c/share dividend.

Bank economists also did their best to add context to the reportage, although these comments were largely buried as metro media strained to accentuate the negative.

ANZ’s statement was balanced, and consistent with the other banks: “On the face of it the decline in the payout between years is a drag on the economy over the coming year, but that dynamic is exaggerated.” The coming year’s payout will still be the fourth-highest on record, and from a spending point of view farmers will be in a similar cashflow situation.” ANZ also said average farm profitability is still expected to be nearly $3500/ha – nearly three times the seven-year average of $1150/ha.

Plenty of potential for a positive headline then, but Fairfax et al think the only good news is bad news.

‘WE NEED the resources to keep the drive for change moving.’ That’s the plea from meat industry reform lobby group MIE (Meat Industry Excellence) in asking farmers to support its remit for funding from Beef + Lamb NZ (BLNZ).  This and other remits will be voted on at BLNZ’s annual meeting in Feilding on March 14.

MIE is seeking $200,000, on top of the $40,000 it has already been given by BLNZ, to continue its work on “addressing procurement and marketing issues” in the sector. The funds are for travel expenses and the cost of meetings and other activities.

MIE chairman John McCarthy claims this is no gravy train, but a continuing push for reform. Most of the expenses to date have been carried by individual MIE members.

He says MIE is the only group with the mandate and focus to drive meat industry reform, a bold claim, as is the request for $200,000 – you can bet your life it will grow – of red meat levy funds.

There is no doubt MIE and its proponents are passionate drivers of their proposed meat industry reforms, even managing to get aligned directors voted onto the boards of Alliance Group and Silver Fern Farms. But they draw a long bow in claiming an overwhelming mandate for support from red meat producers for their reforms and/or open access to levy funds to further promote these. Such boasts and demands border on arrogant pride, a turn-off to farmers that has hampered past calls for industry reform.

MIE does itself few favours in this regard: notice its insistence that Fonterra director John Monaghan be appointed to the board of Alliance Group without going through the correct constitutional process demanded of other candidates.

It now rests with red meat producers to give MIE proponents the mandate and funds they claim for meat sector reform, or send them back to the farms they come from. Either way it needs to be a clear message. It is your money and your vote: exercise it!

The days of what happens on the the farm stays on the farm are long gone.

KILLING bobby calves with hammer blows to their heads should send shivers down the spine of every Kiwi dairy farmer.

The days of ‘she’ll be right’ are gone, as are the days when ‘what happens on the farm stays on the farm’.

And perceptions held by onlookers are as important as ever. Vast numbers of people now own a camera-cellphone, and social media can spread misinformation at light speed.

Trying to educate the public about farming practices is by-and-large a lost cause because townies, especially in Auckland and Wellington, dwell in another universe.

It may be that farmers now must try to think like an imagined Aucklander — or a Berliner — to try to second-guess their perceptions of how farming is and how it ought to be.

The citizens of Grey Lynn and Karori need to know that farmers see no great sport in bashing their baby charges with hammers, nor, for that matter, having their vets induce calves. We acknowledge the public, with the animal ethicists, want animals killed ‘nicely’. (Sentient beings are to be euthanased humanely, not bashed to death.)

New Zealand agribusiness is vulnerable because it pitches its products to the affluent and educated – the high end of the market. The reward is better prices, the requirement is higher standards.

Farming leaders need to get off the fence and lead from the front, personally showing their farms as examples of best practice in animal welfare. One-time airline owner Sir Reg Ansett once  said “the speed of the boss is the speed of the team”.  Right!

Dairy farmers need to be one step ahead of the consumer and offer new value propositions that show they are leaders not followers of best practice.

It is time for New Zealand’s agribusiness to stand out from the flock and make a united stand

The agriculture sector needs to do more to inform the public about what’s involved and happening in our industry.

Farming’s critics have the industry constantly ‘under the pump’, often using misleading information and ill-informed assertions. Many claims are made about farmers deliberately damaging the environmental, over-charging locals for produce, making huge tax-free profits and inflicting undue pain on animals, to name but a few.

Where such events are happening the sector needs to move quickly to publicly punish those besmirching and risking its reputation; and such actions must be rectified.

Already in 2014 we’ve heard assertions that dairy farmers are profiting while destroying the nation’s waterways at taxpayers’ expense, and that most New Zealand meat exports are shipped in carcase form. Both claims are demonstrably false, but they attracted wide, uncritical news coverage.

As Churchill said, a lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has even got its pants on.

The rural urban divide is a growing problem in New Zealand. More accounts of the benefits of farming to our economy and society are essential.

Only 15% of New Zealanders are farming or have any contact with farming – and that number is falling, though it’s much lower (1%) in other countries. This carries huge implications: less influence with legislators and poorer global understanding of the agricultural experience.

Less and less is the farming voice influencing policy and that’s not good. Globally there is a challenge in public perception. Activists speak with one voice globally, so should farming.

The best solution for New Zealand is for the industry to connect more with media and the general public by self-promotion and actions. Rural media, though effective in this sphere, are preaching to the converted – our audience is mostly rural and/or industry people. It is time for the general media to pick up more stories about farming and less meaningless drivel about Justin Bieber’s latest tweet!

Industry and lobby groups such as Fed Farmers, DairyNZ, Beef + Lamb NZ and Fonterra all do good work, eg farm open days and Milk in Schools, but more is needed. Government also has a role in ensuring the wider public better understand and appreciate the importance of our agriculture sector.

The time for action is now!