Guy Trafford says those who are surprised at the appeal of the ACT Party to farmers shouldn't be. There is a long trend of mature farmers favouring parties who espouse the values of hard work and personal responsibility

Hugh Campbell, who is a professor of Sociology, Gender Studies and Criminology at University of Otago, recently wrote that there has been an “abrupt changing of political hats” referring to Andrew Hoggard leaving Federated Farmers and joining ACT.

I would argue that while the swing to the right (ACT) for farmers has been greater leading into this election, the trend to the ‘right’ has been there for several generations, perhaps as long as New Zealand has had a Parliament. Perhaps this time it is just that ACT is seen as a more viable alternative than alternative right leaning parties notably National.

In the past (pre-ACT) the options were more limited hence why National was the favoured party to join. To be fair for many, likely most, this is still the case.

However, at the moment, perhaps as a result of MMP where there are minority parties who are more prepared to ‘take the heat’ of standing for more extreme policies. Labour and National do not on many policies seem that far apart. Certainly, closer than say Labour under Norman Kirk and National under Muldoon where back in the 70’s.

So the move to the arguably more strident right of the ACT Party shouldn’t be a surprise.

Federated Farmers and other earlier farmer representative organisations have often been used as a jumping off board to national politics. As an earlier article said “It is of some interest that the last three made up of Andrew Hoggard, (standing 2023 A.) Don Nicholson (failed to be elected A. 2011) and Owen Jennings (A. 1996 -2002) have all made ACT their party of choice while prior to ACT’s arrival Rob Storey (N. 1984 -96) and Bert Cooksley (N. 1949-63) were successful in becoming National party MP’s.”

While not all farmers belong to the ‘Feds’ it is probably the noisiest ones who do (along with “Groundswell”). The Federation also has a history of opposing most governments regulations if they are seen as imposing restrictions on farm practices and ownership. Certainly, the evidence of opposing most if not all of the recent Government's changes to the livestock sector would reinforce this.

The preference to vote to the right should not come as a surprise, especially to those who follow the following saying (falsely attributed to Winston Churchill) ‘If you’re not a liberal (left) when you’re 25, you have no heart.  If you’re not a conservative by the time you’re 35, you have no brain.’  Farmers, while they may not have pockets bulging with cash generally have a large asset to be responsible for (and potentially lose) and National and latterly ACT are seen as providing less impediments to practice than those parties on the left.

Farmers by the time they are involved in farm ownership are usually of a mature age by then. They are used to having to assess risk and balance the odds and generally take responsibility for the results. (The impacts of the recent storms may be aberrations to this attitude perhaps indicating the serious nature of these events and how vulnerable farmers are to them).

So, the policies of a party which advocates for personal responsibility would be attractive especially if it is perceived to provide an easier business environment as well. So, while I can agree with most of what Professor Campbell has written, being surprised about the rise of ACT within the farming sector was not among them.

The difference ACT has provided is a new fresh paddock to graze that hasn’t been available before.