Write Here,Right Now

Well cut my legs off and call me shorty; my long-held prejudice about organic enthusiasts being smug, superior types has been all but confirmed by research.

According to the abstract of a paper, published in the Journal of Social Psychological & Personality Science, people exposed to organic foods ”judged moral transgressions significantly harsher” than the control group. They also volunteered significantly less time to help a needy stranger.

Lead author, Dr Kendall J Eskine says about the study: “There’s something about being exposed to organic food that made them feel better about themselves. And that made them kind of jerks a little bit, I guess”.

Eskine’s researchers called it ”moral licensing” – whereby because you do good deeds in one area of life, you feel like you’ve paid your dues and can give up on being good in other areas.

So, according to this study, people who eat organic food are more likely to be judgmental about their fellow man. Which surely now gives us free rein to judge all of those ‘I’m better than you because I only eat organic’ types; who tend to infest the suburbs of Grey Lynn in Auckland, Wellington’s central city region,  Lyttelton in Christchurch, as well as the rank and file members of the Green Party of Aoteoroa/ New Zealand.

I’ve felt the judgemental wrath of the outraged organic lobby when some 18-months or so ago, after I penned a tongue-in-cheek column  for this very paper, suggesting that the organic lobby may not be as pure or as good for the planet as its exponents have claimed.

The genesis for the column came out from a couple of presentations given to an Australian Farm Institute conference, which suggested that organic production was not as sustainable as claimed by its proponents. In the offending piece, I wrote how the country’s agricultural productive sector had suffered the disdain of eco-warrior-types who regularly derided the environmental merits of their products and/or systems. I pointed out the majority of the country’s primary sector had too often been subjected to sanctimonious lectures from the Green Party, Greenpeace, Soil and Health NZ – or other ecological do-gooding groups – accusing them of unleashing unlimited, environmental damage on our country.

While I was been deliberately provocative, I figured most reasonable people would take it for what it was – comment. However, I’d forgotten that organic types – like all evangelicals – are rarely reasoned or reasonable. They practise a strange form of democracy that says it is only acceptable if the outcome agrees with what they believe.

So as sure as God made little green apples – Biogro certified organic, of course – came a an indignant letter to the editor

I tend to agree with Sydney Morning Herald writer Jacqueline Maley when commenting on this research wrote: “One of the more insidious trends of the modern era… is the moral sanctity people attach to their food choices. Eating is no longer something we do for taste and energy-consumption, it is a political act. The ability to select and consume biodyanamic, macro-biotic, locally-sourced and fully organic food that, with luck, is also Fair Trade, is surely the greatest middle-class indulgence of our time.”

A friend recently told me how he was accosted by one of these environmental evangelical types in the supermarket when buying some meat. Apparently this rather sanctimonious lady asked my friend if he felt bad because the beef he was buying had at some point in its life been drenched.

His terse reply was to inform the holder of this moral licence that humans worm themselves too, so does that mean that we are harming the planet as well? He then invited her, politely, to take her smug views, crocheted shopping bag and go and climb a tree.

What’s the bet she probably broke the speed limit on the way home, with my friend’s flea still ring in her ear, but will have justified her actions because she drives a Prius!

What is it with our politicians wanting New Zealand to be like other countries?
Back in the 1980’s we had David Lange aspiring New Zealand to become the Switzerland of the South Pacific. Then in the 90s Jim Bolger wanted us to all be Asians. Later, Helen Clark decreed Norway as the socialist utopia that we should emulate as a country and even John Key talked about catching up with Australia.
It’s all a bit like wanting your kids to be more like the ‘nice’ ones across the road – a fanciful idea that’s never going to actually happen.
Now Labour’s newish leader David Shearer reckons Finland is the country we should be mimicking.
In a much hyped speech, given last month, outlining his new found love of all things Finnish and his view of NZ’s future, Shearer criticised our current economic performance saying… “We’re going to go right on relying on … a small basket of primary produce exports to earn our living …”
I don’t want to start another Gerry Brownlee-type, international diplomatic incident by having a pop at Finland, but the only Finns David Shearer and the Labour Party should be promoting are the Te Awamutu-raised Tim and Neil and their musical endeavours.
While David Shearer may view New Zealand ‘going on’ relying on our primary products to earn a living as a major problem, I certainly don’t. While exporting the world’s best milk, meat and other primary produce may not seem quite as trendy or de rigeur in social democrat circles as producing mobile phones; the fact is New Zealand is good at it and the world is crying out for our primary products.
Despite all this political rhetoric about change, New Zealand remains a world leading agricultural producer and exporter. And as a country – including our politicians – should be proud of and celebrating this fact. Instead of looking at changing this, they should be investigating how we can do it even better.
They only have to look at the latest economic analysis of the value of pasture-based industries for the Pastoral Renewal Charitable Trust by Business and Economic Research Limited (BERL) to see the vital contribution and continuing growth of the primary sector to New Zealand’s economic growth.
Naysayers, like Shearer, who bemoan New Zealand’s reliance on the primary sector for its economic well-being, need to read the BERL report. It points out how the farm-gate value of dairy, sheep and beef products grew by 58% – from $10.2 billion in the 2006/2007 season – to $16.3 billion in the 2010/2011 season. It also shows that if farmers can increase the quality and management of their pasture crop, pastoral farming can make an even greater contribution to New Zealand’s GDP – and deliver higher farm incomes and more jobs.
In fact, the analysis concluded that sustained investment in pasture renewal has the potential to increase the farm gate value of pastoral products from $16 billion per annum to $19 billion and boost direct and indirect full-time employment associated with pastoral farming from 334,000 jobs to 390,000.
These are impressive growth figures in any language – including Finnish!
No one would disagree with the idea of diversifying our economy and increasing our productive base. However, as Federated Farmer’s president Bruce Wills says any technology success in New Zealand is more likely to be in specialised manufacturing and information technology linked to agriculture.
Instead of politicians trotting out diversifying New Zealand away from agriculture as the next ‘big idea’; they should look at how they can implement policies to make the sector even more productive.
Meanwhile, before David Shearer gets too excited about Finland he would do well listen to the lyrics of the Monty Python song about that country which goes:
‘You’re so sadly neglected, And often ignored, A poor second to Belgium, When going abroad’.
So let’s leave Finland to do what she is good at – bear hunting and making Nokia phones. And concentrate on what New Zealand is good at – farming!

News that MAF will change its name at the end of April and be known as the Ministry for Primary Industries reminds me of the talented, but weird singer and musician Prince.
Back in 1993, Prince had ‘an artistic difference’ with his record label and got his revenge by changing his name to an unpronounceable symbol. Due to the symbol having no stated pronunciation, he was referred to as “The Artist Formerly Known as Prince.”
Hopefully, the soon to be Ministry for Primary Industries morphs into something more than just a quirky anecdote about the “Ministry formerly known as MAF”.
It has to be a ministry that will be of benefit for the whole primary sector and not just a cunning way for the Government to meet its ever-growing target of culling swags of walk sock-wearing public bureaucrats and antagonising shrill officials at the PSA. Mind you, the latter is enough motivation for the Nat’s to slash the public service to the bone!
The new Ministry for Primary Industries is to encompass all Government work in the agricultural, horticultural, fisheries and aquaculture, forestry and food sectors, as well as biosecurity and animal welfare.
The new entity will come into effect on 30 April
Former Federated Farmers president Don Nicolson has been a long-time proponent of the move – advocating for the change as far back as 2008. In fact, in his penultimate speech as president in October last year Nicolson said:
“The final area is an impending Ministry that ought to be for Primary Industries… but we stress again the need for the word “for” to be in its title …”
Nicolson has always been adamant that it should be a Ministry ‘for’ rather than ‘of’ Primary Industries.
But, isn’t this just semantics?
In a word: no!
Nicolson’s successor Bruce Wills – who is also happy with the rebrand – says MAF becoming the Ministry for Primary Industries is incredibly positive.
“Whether it is aquaculture, dairy, forestry or wine, we have many issues that are common. We can get a lot more synergies from being joined up instead of silos defined by food, agriculture, forestry, horticulture and fisheries. We are all part of one big industry.”
Wills is right.
New Zealand’s primary industries account for more than 70 per cent of this country’s exports, earn five times the foreign exchange earnings of tourism sector, and employ around 90,000 people. So it makes absolute sense that our economy’s most important sector is joined up and represented by one governmental organisation that is working ‘for’ it.
Primary Industries Minister David Carter – the man formerly known as the Minister of Agriculture – says the name change is a logical move. [Another quirky anecdote from the late 1990s is the agriculture portfolio was briefly titled “Minister of Food, Fibre and Biosecurity”, but quickly returned to “Minister of Agriculture” a short time later.]
“It recognises the broad role the Ministry has of growing and protecting the primary sector, the powerhouse of New Zealand’s economy. Importantly it provides the different parts of the organisation with a single unifying identity to champion the sector.”
It is hard to disagree with Carter’s sentiment.
However, is it not time for the rest of the primary sector get its act together as well? I’ve advocated this before and at risk of becoming boring and repetitive (not much of a stretch, I realise).
However, New Zealand’s agribusiness sector is still unable to speak as one, unified voice on industry matters as it is currently served by a wide and diverse group of organisations and lobby groups. Despite the sector’s size, resources and undoubted importance to the country’s economic well-being, it almost impossible for a clear, united and unambiguous agribusiness sector view to be expressed – making it much easier for critics and opponents to pick on different parts of the sector.
Government has led with its move to the Ministry for Primary Industries, now the rest of the primary sector should follow suit and establish a unified, sector advocate organisation.

The battle for the ownership of the Crafar Farms and the Government’s sign-off of the Overseas Investment Office’s approval of the sale of the farms to Chinese bidders has shown the nasty and ugly side of this country.

During the nine-month battle for the hearts and minds of the New Zealand public in the long-running saga to purchase the 16 central North Island dairy farms, once farmed by the Crafar Family, has taken many interesting turns.

In the red corner is the Chinese company Shanghai Pengxin’s who’s successful  bid to buy the Crafar dairy farms will – according to critics – leave New Zealanders as nothing more than tenants in our own land.

Meanwhile, in the black corner we have a wide cast of characters stirring up anti-foreigner sentiment. Most recently been this has been led by a rival group of local buyers – the Crafar Farms Independent Purchaser Group— fronted by the merchant banker and former state asset seller Sir Michael Fay.

Add into the mix opposition politicians preying over the corpse of the Crafar deal like proverbial vultures – hoping to swoop on the side of popular public opinion; who have doing their utmost to peel off the thin racist veneer of New Zealanders’ none too deep anti-Chinese feelings, while disingenuously claiming they are not.

Already we’ve seen the unbelievable transformation of Michael Fay, from the biggest flogger of NZ assets and a Swiss-based tax exile to becoming the cheerleader of keeping it Kiwi.  Ironically, Fay has been aided and abetted is his cause by arch nemesis and fellow 1980s dinosaur Winston Peters.

Even the masters of the dark arts –public relations consultants – have wadded into the debate in an effort to further influence the court of public opinion.  Fay’s PR hack even conned well-known leftie John Campbell into giving his client prime TV time to promote ‘Kiwi’ Mike’s unsuccessful bid.

Another delicious irony is that Landcorp the country’s biggest corporate farmer and a state-owned entity at that, has confirmed it will manage the farms on behalf of the new Chinese owners.

The simple fact is the best price won day. The farms, which total nearly 8000 hectares, saw Pengxin offer $210 million – the Fay group’s bid was around $40m less at $171.5 million.

Fay’s group offered way less for the farms. It might have pushed the patriotic theme – to the brink of xenophobia – but only in an effort to make its low-ball offer more of a winner with the public.

However, instead of promulgating ugly racism or whingeing about suing the Government why didn’t this rival group just offer a better price than the Chinese bidders? Surely Fay has plenty left over from his fees from hocking off NZ Rail and the BNZ back in the 90s?

Are opponents of this deal now saying that farmers cannot sell their own land to the highest bidder – if it’s an overseas buyer? If so – then surely that has interesting connotations for people in Auckland, Wellington and Queenstown selling their houses to wealthy international buyers!

Funnily enough, the actual sellers of the Crafar Farms – Westpac and Rabobank – are not exactly New Zealand companies and there has not been too much noise about their ownership of these farms. (Mind you, there are not too many Kiwi-owned banks these days – something Sir Michael knows a thing or two about!)

But Kiwis are not on their own with anti-foreign farm ownership feelings. Our Australian cousins have recently been warned by their federal government that a “xenophobic campaign” will rob their farmers of opportunities presented by the increasing demand from Asian countries for secure food supplies.

This same kind of xenophobia will – if we are not careful – also rob New Zealand farmers of the right to sell their land to the highest bidder.

 

The fight over the Crafar Farms has already had more twists and turns than a cheap novel.

However, the battle for the hearts and minds of the New Zealand public in the long-running saga about who will get to purchase the 16 central North Island dairy farms, once farmed by the Crafar Family, has taken another interesting spin.

In the red corner we have Chinese company Shanghai Pengxin’s who’s successful  bid to buy the Crafar dairy farms will – according to critics – see New Zealanders left as little more than peasant tenants in their own country.  Meanwhile, in the blue corner we have a rival group of local buyers, including Maori – led by businessman and infamous state asset stripper and seller Sir Michael Fay.

Fay’s group is offering less for the farms, but pushing the patriotic theme – almost to the brink of xenophobia – and is now threatening to sue the Overseas Investment Office should the Chinese bid gain approval.

The farms, which total nearly 8000 hectares, have been in receivership for more than two years.

Pengxin’s offer is understood to between $210 million and $220 million, while Fay’s group has offered $171.5m.

This saga has already seen the almost unbelievable transformation of Michael Fay from the biggest flogger of NZ assets to now become the cheerleader for keeping it Kiwi.

And now the masters of the dark arts – known as public relations – have entered the debate in an effort to influence the court of public opinion.

But making this even more interesting is that the rival spin doctors were once former colleagues and in an Auckland-based PR firm. Former founding partners of Star PR; Alan McDonald and Cedric Allen have now ended up on opposite sides of the fence in the Crafar saga—with McDonald championing Fay’s cause; while Allen is running the Chinese buyers’ PR campaign.

Add into the mix politicians – doing their best to scratch New Zealanders’ none too deep racist itch about the yellow peril, while claiming they are not – preying over the corpse of the Crafar deal like vultures.

Another delicious irony is that Landcorp, an SOE the country’s biggest corporate farmer, has confirmed it is in talks with Pengxin to run the farms if the Chinese offer is successful.

Whatever happens in the next week or so in regards to the OIO decision, there is little doubt we will be hearing a whole lot more about the Crafar Farms in the next couple of months.

Keep tuned, as this saga is going to keep spinning for some time yet!

Fonterra’s recent announcement that it intends to reduce local milk prices may have been welcomed by various consumer groups and many others – including self-serving politicians.

While the intention may be good; the move is likely to cause long-term problems for the dairy co-operative—as its dairy farmer owners’ end up not so much crying over spilt milk – but split milk prices!

The move looks more like a cheap (which may actually turn out to be costly for farmers) public relations stunt to appease these critics – rather than the reality of the market. The dairy co-operative now risks feeding the myth – propagated by these same critics – that farm products ought to be cheaper in their country of origin.

That is a fallacy that neither the dairy industry, the wider primary sector nor the New Zealand economy as a whole can afford to have.

Fonterra is the leading international supplier of premium dairy products around the world. The fact is that fresh, farmed milk now costs more than manufactured drinks. Meanwhile, demand for dairy products is rising with prosperity in places such as China and other international markets.

The New Zealand market is just one of many that Fonterra supplies its products to. It is hypocritical and an unfair expectation of New Zealand’s dairy farmers that they should have to subsidise local buyers of dairy products.

New Zealand consumers do not expect cheaper or subsidised products from the plethora of international banks, insurance and oil companies that are based in this country. Nor should they expect the same from one of the few, truly New Zealand-based successful international trading companies.

All local consumers should expect is a truly competitive industry at all stages from the farm to the final consumer.  So far, all the inquiries, investigations and independent reports have found this to be the case.

There’s been a great deal of talk about 2011 being the time when all the planets lined up for a near-perfect year for farming.

There is little doubt that export markets, growing nations with expanding middle classes hungry for our produce, tightening supplies and even the weather gods all smiled upon the agriculture sector during the year – meaning 2011 will be one that most farmers will look back on kindly.

2011 saw dairy’s good run continue. Fonterra’s final payout of $8.25 a kilogram of milksolids rose by $1.30 over the season ending up being the highest in the co-operative’s 10-year history. Total dairy sector revenue – with Fonterra counting for more than 90% – will have topped $20 billion.

The year also saw red meat producers making good money selling lambs. A 17.5 kilogram lamb made $7.25/kg in the last few months of the year instead of $5.85 the same time a year earlier. Rising returns also spilled over into beef and deer farming. Beef prices were up from a year ago and venison prices were around $9/kg for a 55-60kg stag – up from the five-year average of $7.39.

Arable producers have seen higher yields and promising grain prices which, making it a good year for them. Strong wool remained above a clean price of $6.50/kg rising from around $4 in September 2010.

However, 2011 was not all the utopian Nirvana for the agricultural sector that many of the more excitable and ill-informed commentators are claiming it was. Sure, 2011 will go down in record books as one of the better farming years, but it needs to be put in perspective.

There is little doubt the dairy sector went from strength to strength in 2011. Fonterra’s record payout of $8.25/kg of milksolids – the highest in the co-operative’s 10-year history – was more or less mirrored by the smaller dairy companies and sent total revenue for the sector to north of $20 billion.  However, growing pressure about the environmental impact of dairy and mounting antagonism to the industry from an increasingly vociferous environmental lobby will mean a tougher year in 2012.

Meantime, 2011 will not be a year looked back on favourably by the horticulture sector – an important component of our primary industries. Apple growers continue to struggle with a high NZ dollar. And while entry for NZ apples was finally gained into Australia – after 100 years of trying – our trans-Tasman cousins are still making it very difficult for shipments of kiwi apples to be given clearance to enter the lucky country.

Meanwhile, kiwifruit growers on-going annus horribilis, as the devastating Psa disease all but wipes out the future of the once profitable gold variety in this country, goes on. So far some 933 – or around 30% of kiwifruit orchards – have being impacted by disease. MAF says the loss of vines could take production of gold kiwifruit down from 30 million trays in the 2011/12 season to 20 million or even 10 million trays in the 2012/13 season.

Wool’s performance may have been good during the year, but it was off a very low base. Meanwhile, decade long attempts to unify the much divided industry have gone nowhere. The capital raising plan by Wool Partners International to get farmers to commit half the country’s strong wool clip to a grower-owned co-operative went down like the proverbial cup of cold sick with growers. The idea died a slow and painful death like numerous other wool unifying proposals before it.

Although lamb and sheepmeat were good, the prices per kilogram farmers were getting in 2011 are around the same as they were receiving in 1986. There would not be too many other businesses celebrating the fact they are earning the same amount for their outputs today as they were 25 years ago. Meanwhile, the costs of key inputs like fuel, fertiliser, machinery and labour have not stayed where they were quarter of a century ago.

So yes, all in all, 2011 was a good year for New Zealand’s agricultural sector – but by no means a great year.

Fonterra delivered New Zealand’s children– and the country – an early Christmas present by announcing the return to free milk in schools.
The Milk for Schools programme, which aims to deliver fresh milk to all primary schools nationwide by the start of 2013, was announced by the dairy co-operative in early December. The first to benefit will be 14,000 children from 110 Northland primary schools – which will serve as a regional pilot to test the logistics of the programme. The pilot kicks off in the first term of 2012, with the intention of expanding it to the rest of NZ by the start of 2013.
Already the early indications are that the Northland community will strongly support the pilot scheme. The company intends to roll out the scheme nationwide, but hopes to get other companies in the packaging, logistics and refrigeration industries on board. It also hopes to interest the Government in contributing in some way to the costs.
Fonterra has not disclosed the costs of a national programme saying these have yet to be worked through. No matter what it costs, the payback for Fonterra and the dairy sector in general is – as the MasterCard advertisements say – priceless!
The move comes at a good time for the company, which has copped criticism from consumers for its high domestic milk prices.
Fonterra has linked the strong dairy prices at home to robust returns it is getting from international dairy markets, because it pays its 10,500 farmers a single price for milk supplied.
Consumer NZ head Sue Chetwin – who has led the public charge over local milk prices – has welcomed the move. Even firebrand Northland Maori MP Hone Hawawira – not normally associated with praising corporates or those who do well in life – was quick to acknowledge the good this programme will do. Child health advocates, teacher unions and editorial writers up and down the country have all praised the scheme.
One of the few critics has been the Green Party – which proves when it comes to the sector the only thing green about the Greens is the anti- dairy industry bile they continually spew– claiming it was little more than a glorified PR stunt and not something that a ‘profit-driven corporate’ should be doing.
There is no doubt the Milk in Schools programme is a PR stunt. But so what? It is delivering a benefit to kids and shows that Fonterra is an integral and committed part of New Zealand’s community.
What the Greens and other critics hate about this scheme is that it shows that companies – even huge ones like Fonterra – can and do good things for more than just our economy. It’s called corporate citizenship.
Fonterra recently turned 10 years old and this latest move shows it is growing up and wants to play a positive part in New Zealand’s wider society. Most New Zealanders will welcome this move.
It shows that the milk of human kindness – pun intended – is not the sole domain of anti-establishment types, whale saviours and/or tree sitters.

So the votes have been counted and we know – or at least, we’re well on the way – to knowing what shape our new Government is going to take.
It was always going to be a fairly safe bet that the booths in rural New Zealand will have mostly punted for Prime Minister John Key and the National Party. And the results show – as in the rest of New Zealand – they certainly did.
It’s been said that the National vote is not so much counted in rural New Zealand – but weighed! This was certainly the case this year in rural heartland seats such as Helensville; Whangaeri; New Plymouth; Waitaki; Rangitata; Rangetiki; Clutha Southland and Port Waikato – to name a few – where the National party vote and candidates all came first by a country mile and daylight came a poor second. a long way back
However, much of this rural support for National is probably more by default than desire.
Some rural votes did go to ACT – most likely in support of former head Fed and its agriculture spokesman Don Nicolson. However, that party’s ugly struggles throughout the campaign will have scared many off.
There were a couple of pockets of organic-supporting, hippy types in the country who went Green. And even some strong rural support – more than likely those farmers plagued with early stages of senile dementia – for NZ First and its Lazarus-like leader Winston Peters.
It was also pretty safe to assume that both the Maori and Mana parties will not have garnered too much support in the rural hinterland – save for Northland and the east coast of the North Island.
Meanwhile, Labour’s electoral drubbing in 2011 was never more pronounced than in rural and provincial New Zealand. It copped an absolute pasting in the countryside. The party’s ever-so tenuous advances for the farming/rural sector vote probably died about the same time it released its election manifesto.
The prospect of being lumped with higher taxes, having agriculture dumped into an ETS, landed with a new capital gains tax; as well as commercial charges for irrigation and extending working for families for beneficiaries will have been an anathema to most in the rural heartland.
National made a sensible decision by ruling that agricultural emissions will only be included in an ETS when and if practical technologies are available to enable our farmers to reduce their emissions and more progress is made by our trading partners to reduce their agricultural emissions.
It was somewhat disingenuous of both Labour and the Green Party to claim that current high export commodity prices are proof that farmers can afford to pay any costs imposed by agriculture’s introduction into an ETS. The fickle nature of commodity markets means prices are likely to drop sooner rather than later. You can be assured a Labour/Green government would not offer ETS rebates to farmers if meat and dairy prices suddenly took a dive
National will have also strengthened its rural support with its proposal to pump $400 million into boosting on farm-water storage and irrigation.
Not surprisingly, the idea was shot down by its political opponents. But, again, the rationale for this opposition seemed more based on ideology than any sound policy reasons.
Much of this opposition stemmed from the idea of funding for these schemes coming from the Future Investment Fund – which will use the proceeds from National’s part asset sales proposal. While Labour and the Greens and NZ First may have problems with where this funding is coming from; surely even they can’t argue with the concept of creating a more reliable source of water for farmers will in turn mean higher productivity and income for the nation – in turn leading to more tax and jobs!
Reliable water means growth – both for our economy and the environment. All political parties – no matter if they are left, right or just plain bonkers – should have been supporting such a plan.
Those are just a couple of reasons why the countryside stayed true-blue this election!

National says it will pump $400 million into boosting on farm-water storage and irrigation if re-elected.
Not surprisingly – especially in the midst of an election campaign – the idea has been shot down by political opponents.
But the rationale for this opposition seems more based on ideology than sound policy reasons.
Much of this opposition from both Labour and the Greens stems from the idea of the money to fund these schemes will come from the Future Investment Fund – which will use the proceeds from the part asset sales that National is proposing should it get re-elected.
While Labour and the Greens may have problems with where the funding is coming from; surely they cannot argue with the concept of creating a more reliable source of water for farmers that will in turn mean higher productivity and income for the nation – in turn leading to more tax and jobs!
“Water is one of New Zealand’s greatest competitive advantages, but we are not making the most of it,” says Agriculture Minister David Carter.
“Developing water storage and irrigation has huge potential to unlock economic growth and prosperity for the primary sectors and for all New Zealanders.”
Who could argue with these sentiments? Well… the Greens and Labour!
I thought the Greens want to create a billion – or some other fanciful number they quote – ‘green jobs’, while Labour is constantly bleating on about creating more jobs.
Wouldn’t more reliable water on-farm via such irrigation programmes mean more produce from farms and therefore more jobs for all those potential workers at dairy factories, freezing works, cartage firms etc, etc all over the country?
Prime Minister John Key says irrigation increases the productivity of our farm land, protects against droughts and takes the uncertainty out of water flows for farmers and recreational users.
And he is right!
“More reliable access to water will lead to more efficient use of water, and provide for the replenishment of aquifers and the restoration of stream and river flows.”
Another claim against the idea by the Greens and Labour is that it is a Government subsidy or handout to farmers. Ironic coming from political parties who want to hand out an extra $70 a week or beneficiaries or subsidise rail commuters in central Auckland. I don’t see these subsidy policies creating too many ongoing exports or jobs.
But Key says it is not a grant, as the Government, through the proposed Crown Water Investment Company, will be a minority partner. It will invest with the expectation of a commercial return on that investment. The intention is for the Government’s stake to be sold off over time.
Oh no – sales of more Government assets – the proposal must therefore be evil!
Federated Farmers RMA and environment spokesperson Ian Mackenzie says a Crown Water Investment Company will help transform New Zealand agriculture and the economy.
“It will help to reduce an annual economic and environmental rainfall lottery. This is about economic infrastructure that will grow productivity, it is no hand out.
“The Crown Company will invest commercially in schemes before selling that stake on. The company will effectively be an underwriter before realising value from its stake. Farmers will have to buy into these schemes so water won’t be given away. This needs to be understood.”
As lobby Irrigation NZ says reliable irrigation enables the added-value aspects of primary production.
It will also allow investment in processing factories as it guarantees consistent volume and quality supply of product, says chairman John Donkers. Reliability will give existing food producers and processors the confidence to further develop and diversify.
Reliable water means growth – both for our economy and the environment. All political parties – no matter if they are left, right or just plain bonkers – should be supporting such a plan.