Guy Trafford sees a lazy farming minority claiming their views aren't being heard, because they can't win with arguments in the various democratic forums available

I recently read an article in the Rural News by Jane Smith raising the question “Is it time for change?”. The question is aimed at farmer representation and representation to largely parliament. The question is a very relevant one in this time of massive change.

She, and she largely represents the views of the Groundswell movement, feels that the current leadership of the farming sector is failing farmers in getting their voices herd. This presumably includes Fed Farmers, Beef and Lamb New Zealand, Dairy NZ, DINZ, HortNZ and the arable sector. She alludes that the current ‘system’, this includes the previous groups mentioned and the government, are not reflecting democratic process.

Good, bad, or otherwise as far as I’m aware all the groups and of course Government are democratically elected with the ability to vote on or off those who the majority feel are not representing their view. While with the balance in numbers are heavily in favour of urban voters, then the rural sectors as with many minority groups may not feel their views are being ‘captured’ by the government.

This hopefully is at least partly addressed by having a Ministry of Agriculture although the evidence does not always appear to reflect that.

This is where the industry groups should come into play and make sure their ‘constituencies’ views are being heard. Jane Smith is obviously questioning whether or not this is occurring. Her reasoning is that it is because the outcomes that are coming out of government do not meet what she (and no doubt many others) feels is correct.

However, to say this is anti-democratic is a stretch.

We as members of society need to be careful that just because the ruling powers act in ways that don’t happen to suit what we want or expect it, is wrong.

So long as it is done in a democratic fashion then largely, we have to accept that is what the majority want and also elect governments we expect to act in a fair handed way.

That is not to say that the decisions have to be agreed with and this is why, among other things, we have our sector groups advocating for us.

Jane quite rightly says that she believes “farmers, ministers and the opposition are often confused by what our sector stance is on issues”. However, she goes onto to say that it’s “caused, in part, by a tendency by some at the top of the advocacy food chain to run with the hares and hunt with the hounds”. Is this view coming (just) because the outcomes do not suit the view of those who don’t agree? Because it would be very disappointing to feel that those in the position to do the negotiating also had a full grasp of both the facts and the political realities and came collectively to what they believed to be the ‘best’ outcome. After all that is why those people were elected to their positions.

If she is correct and those elected representatives do not reflect the general farming fraternity then we really do have a problem. However, she targets the “‘Big 3’: freshwater, biodiversity and emissions”. Although the biggest gripe seems to be against what we have with the HWEN policy. This comes with a background of the UK equivalent to Fed Farmers proposing that UK farmers aim for a net zero emissions by 2040. Most informed commentators (in my view) have criticised the government for not taking a stronger stance on agricultural emissions.

Looking at the Feds attitude to the 3 Waters policy, they have been quite categorical that they believe it is a flawed policy along with perhaps the majority of councils.

When it comes to the environment any sector that tries to push back on improvements to the environment is treading into dangerous territory, such is the democratic process. So, I’m not convinced those advocating on farmers behalf have got it wrong. They perhaps could be more vocal in what they are doing or maybe be more proactive in communicating what they are doing to the rank and file, but the rank and file also have a part to play to following the arguments, difficult though it may be.

However, if Jane Smith is correct and the majority of farmers attitudes are not being met or reflected by the sector leaders then the question is what to do about it. Setting up the Groundswell movement is one way. The problem there, as I see it, is that without a proper membership it is difficult to know just who they represent.

A (very) noisy minority or in fact the majority of farmers, who would know?

This is I believe the problem government has with the movement. There is a lot of white noise constantly coming at government and also probably to the sector groups and so sifting through it to gauge the balance of views cannot be easy and that is why we have elections.

Apathy is one of the biggest dangers in democracies and at all levels in western society we see it occurring with less than 50% of those eligible to vote making the effort. This would be a good place to start. So is it time for change? Not in my view until the existing avenues have been fully (better) utilised and this should be a relatively simple solution.