By Bruce Wills
According to one of our less sympathetic critics, Federated Farmers is a dinosaur.
It seems we are a legal version of Jurassic Park for having the temerity to question the Environment Court’s reversal of independent hearing’s commissioners on the Horizons One Plan.
That of course is the right of that critic because we thankfully live in a democracy.
That said I have the impression some are less democratically aligned because they are the first to extol their right to use the court process, yet disparage those who have opposing views from doing the same.
I imagine for this one critic that if it was Forest & Bird appealing they would laud that as the right thing, but because it is farmers, we suddenly become less virtuous.
I am heartened the public can often see through hypocrisy.
We all have a democratic right to access the law whoever we are, especially when a ground breaking ruling is at stake.
Kim DotCom can certainly be thankful people who deny us access out of spite or malice do not hold the levers of the judiciary.
So yes we have lodged an appeal against the Environment Court decision on the One Plan and we were not alone. Horticulture New Zealand similarly lodged an appeal so I guess you can sum up our combined view as this; if sheep farmers despoil the environment along with beef, cropping and dairy farmers, it doesn’t leave anyone a lot to eat. That choice reduces to seafood when vegetable and fruit growers are put into the same group boat.
That being the case, can anyone please tell us what we can eat?
This seems a recipe for much more expensive food in the Manawatu and Wellington regions, let alone, the loss of jobs and opportunity there.
There are currently some vibrant farmers’ markets that would struggle to survive without food production from the Manawatu Wanganui region.
Federated Farmers, like Horticulture New Zealand, stand for sustainable and profitable farming as part of New Zealand's future.
Jobs, opportunity and the environment do not have to be incompatible so our appeal is about getting the balance right.
Any appeal on a decision of the Environment Court is based on what we see as being errors in law. We believe the Court has gone too far and this is why Federated Farmers and Horticulture NZ are seeking legal clarity. Whatever the outcome, everyone will be affected in some way, whether it is through job prospects, enjoyment of the environment or the future prospects for that region.
The one thing our critics overlook is that farmers want good water quality too.
This is why farmers have invested millions of dollars to positively change how we farm over the past decade alone.
I must add that the winds of change are blowing because we welcome Palmerston North City Council’s proposed investment to improve its sewage infrastructure.
We want to swim in the Manawatu River too.
So instead of seeing things in the negative our appeal and that of Horticulture NZ, should be seen positively.
Less positive is the Lobbying Disclosure Bill of Green Party Member of Parliament, Holly Walker. With submissions closing next week, you can bet your bottom dollar we will be submitting.
And if you ever wanted proof why a Regulatory Standards Act is needed, this Bill provides it in spades.
The Bill seems based on loose media linkages and reminds me of an episode in Yes Prime Minister! (The Prime Minister wants an inquiry after reading a newspaper only to be reminded that the British media pander to their reader’s prejudices.)
If you want to end up with poor public policy or regulation this is how you start.
It is also no wonder why some lobbyists are said to be delighted by this Bill.
In limiting the art of lobbying to a privileged few, a lobbyist’s business plan is created and enshrined in statute.
The lobbying Bill effectively shuts down the need for local Members of Parliament given contact will be limited and strictly controlled.
Forget privacy or even freedom of expression with this Bill.
Rather, the Bill as written elevates registered lobbyists to the status of a priesthood.
It is only through registered lobbyists will ‘the public’ have access to our parliamentary Pantheon.
We doubt either the public or Members will be delighted by this prospect.
There is however a simpler and more elegant solution.
This is to make the diaries of all Members of Parliament publicly available on the internet after the fact. Either that or to make Members of Parliament minute every conversation, or meeting they have.
Yet we need to back up the bus here because New Zealand is a village where even our spies are outed by the Prime Minister for getting in wrong.
Stalinist Russia we are not, yet this Bill I can see will create a culture of denouncement befitting the iron curtain.
Instead of lobbying being some negative, it is positive, but only if done in the open.
That perhaps is why New Zealand is the world’s least corrupt nation according to the Transparency International. We need to remember that.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Wills is the President of Federated Farmers. You can contact him here »
84 Comments
It is not practical to regularly measure every stream/drain both before and after it leaves your property. That is why it makes more sense to estimate based on herd size, management of effluent, and fertiliser practises. You have nothing to worry about if the water quality leaving your property is no worse than that entered.
Environment Southland require that yearly water monitoring be done at the time of the effluent consent check. The water samples are taken by the contractor who does the effluent consent check. If ES can do this Simon P why can't other regional councils? Water monitoring has been done as part of consents for over a decade in Southland.
I take it Simon that you aren't a farmer. It makes NO sense to estimate based on herd size, management of effluent, and fertiliser practises. Soil type is paramount when determining leaching. Wetlands, riparian strips etc all have an impact as well. The only way to truly know what impact a farm operation has on water quality is to test it.
You only have to look at the state of our lakes and rivers to see run off has left us damage and a huge bill.
Sorry but the "farmers love the land" has worn thin, if only because of the likes of assh*les crafer destroying the rep. He isnt the only one of course, many seem to busy exploiting the land for me to take the bullsh*te at face value.
regards
Which is the 'next generation' you refer to NeilD? The unborn? Farmers are across generations so who are the 'next generation'? What is it exactly that you 'see it all to often'.
With regional compliance rates as low as 28% for sewage schemes, urban NZ is 'sitting in a glass house throwing stones' when it comes to bagging farmers for fouling water.
Casual Observer - absolutely right on with that last sentence !!!
Urban NZ is doing heaps of environmental damage but it's rarely acknowledged as no-one monitors those who do the monitoring. Bagging farmers has become a new national sport in NZ and holy cow I did not know there were so many farming experts in Urban NZ running around.....maybe.....all......these.......skilled......urbanites......should go farming......seems such a shame to let all that knowledge go to waste.
Now here's a link to an interesting Kiwi fella who I guy I watched on TV maybe on Country Calendar. The article is on whitebait.....and trying to farm whitebait and some of you may well be surprised that the bacteria in dairy effluent can play a significant role to some species like whitebait.
http://xtranewscommunity2.smfforfree.com/index.php?topic=1498.10;wap2
Two wrongs do not make a right CO!!...I have little doubt you are quite correct in saying urban NZ pollutes but I'm not in control once I've finished flushing.
Public opinion has your industry on the ropes at the moment over dairy farm runoff and they're not gonna let you off anytime some. Theres a perceived swaggering arogance with some farmers which grates with the public, Barry Hart had his practising licence revoked over misconduct, he wasn't made president of the law society. Your industry made Cafar a director, in control of making the rules ffs... (ok he's gone let's move on)
but I'm not in control once I've finished flushing. Ah, so you have no responsibility NeilD so urban pollution is ok . Why am I not surprised by your attitude.
they're not gonna let you off anytime some I came to the conclusion some time ago NeilD that the public sees it in their own interest 'not to let us off anytime soon'. They might have to face up to the reality that everyone pollutes and has a responsibility, but it is just so much easier to bag individual farmers.
Your industry made Cafar a director, in control of making the rules ffs. I am not aware of any Crafar being in charge of a Regional Council - they are the ones who make the rules, not the industry. What was he a director of? Please prove your statement that he was 'in charge of making the rules' No, you can't......
ok he's gone let's move on You clearly can't move on or else you wouldn't have mentioned it. :-)
I am still waiting for you to answer my questions on your previous comment:
Which is the 'next generation' you refer to NeilD?
What is it exactly that you 'see it all to often'. If you can't back this up with examples, then your comment is nothing more than dairy bashing for the sake of it.
Total Bullsh*t Mist...
I was on a property at 7am yesterday morning doing contract work, one I work on often. Its part of a number of farms owned by one of your industries leaders, I have the greatest repect for the man and his farms are all generally well run, but on this particular property, run by a manager the ponds are always over flowing into a near by drain the farm is close to an estuary...thats just yesterday, at this time of the year I'm on a couple of different farms daily...which you are not...I see far far more that your and CO ever will..!!
So Neil, what did you do about seeing ponds overflowing? Notify the owner? Or do nothing? If nothing, then you are part of the problem and a hypocrite.
We have, in the past, asked a Regional council officer to 'go and have a chat' with a farmer for what we saw as environmentally damaging practices. In that case it was an absentee owner who had contracted out the management of the farm. The company managing the farm obviously weren't taking any notice, so by reporting the practice it got brought to the attention of the owner. The RC had a chat to those concerned, problem fixed.
So what are you going to do about what you saw?
rastus : We could put the assertion that farmers want good quality water to the taste test ....
.....force all dairy farmers to drink a pint glass full of water from downstream of the closest waterway to their farm ...... one pint each week , every week ......
After all , water is good for us , and we're told to drink 8 glasses of it per day ......
...... bottoms up .... .....glug glug ......
Lets lobby the government for a new public holiday , one that perfoms a useful task , and honours our environment :
..... the " Bruce Wills Water Day " ...... we'll celebrate our nation's precious pure clean water .....
And the first order of the day will be to watch our brave mighty farmers , those bastions of environmental responsibility , chug-a-jug or two of their own water ......
..... well , I mean their farm water ...... not " their own " in a Bear Grylls sense ...... unless sculling a pint of their own wee-wee is preferable to drinking the stuff running in the creeks past their farm , of course .......
Brucie , the farmers up and down our great nation are gonna forever be in your debt for this great honour ....... and I'm reckoning that they'll be letting you know about it , too .... Bravo , man !
Some good water up in the Hokonui Gummy ;-)
Nah, not a another public holiday Gummy, - we have to pay the staff time and half while we are drinking our water, and cooking a freshly caught trout from the same stream, plus give them a day off. Naturally any farmer within 10kms downstream from a sewage plant would be exempt. :-)
..... easily solved C.O. ..... we'll scrap the Queen's Birthday Holiday ( after all , it's so unfair , 'cos we don't have a Heterosexuals' Birthday Holiday , do we ! ) .... and replace it with our own Bruce Wills Water Day .....
Not before time that we officially recognized our need for and love of a clean green environment ......
...... and Brucie doesn't need to thank the Gummster for this honour ...... it'll be reward enough for me knowing that every year when a farmer sups a cup of his own water , he'll have Bruce's good name on his mind ......
Replace Queen's Birthday - well, that's all right then. ;-) Afterall it's not her real birthday anyway.
A drop or two of farm water mixed with Hokonui water - Ahh...... http://www.hokonuiwhiskey.com/index.html
Slightly missing the point , NoViction ; Gummy is not currently a farmer , nor claiming that he's committed to fresh water from his farming practises ......
......... my challenge is for farmers to prove their point , whether they are good custodians of the nation's watercourses ...... or not ....
I'm not pointing the finger of blame here ....... just urging you to chug-a-jug of H20 passed by your farm ( or passed by your cows ! )
We have agreed to our farm being part of a study monitoring water. A baseline was taken when no stock was on the farm (all wintered off). Approx 8weeks after calving had started back on the farm (some three months after first sample), samples were taken again and all the e-coli recordings were either lower or unchanged.
I'll drink the water out of the streams near the farm any day. But you won't get me drinking water near a sewage plant.
Agree about lag times mist. Environment Southland have some interesting data relating to the Waituna Catchment now. Their science monitoring is still on going. Rotorua/Taupo Lakes studies have some data about lag times/soil types as does AgResearch, however in each catchment and each soil type within a catchment have different results, therefore a one size fits all policy just won't work.
Offer to become a monitoring farm for water quality. You never know they may take you up on it, as you sound to have a farm that has variety for monitoring purposes. You provide the access, they pay for the monitoring. It helps to build relationships as well as understanding on both sides. :-)
Comes under the heading of 'rant'.
"Federated Farmers, like Horticulture New Zealand, stand for sustainable and profitable farming as part of New Zealand's future".
Sorry Bruce, you can't have both. You're in the same foolish league as the troll hereabouts who would exponentially encroach onto your productive land - indefinitely and forever. He would still expect you types to feed his types, of course. Perhaps you two should have a wee chat - your aspirations are incompatible, as well as unattainable. Could I listen in please? Fascinating, it would be......
In your case, 'profit' is the problem. In simple terms, Bruce, you expect to buy 'bits of the planet' (there's no other source of anything) with that profit, and by definition, profit is 'extra'. So your wish is unsustainable, given that your profit grows exponentially just like the Texas-touter's imagined tracts.
Meantime, 'balance' is not good enough. A 'trade-off' is still going backwards, just at a slower rate. Physically, 'balance' doesn't change the degraded outcome, just the date.
Sustainable is something that can be maintained more or less indefinitely. Modern farming doesn't go within a bull's roar of that, and won't until it uses renewable energy.
It isnt that profit is bad its just doesnt add up.......
While PDK can be a little fixated in this, I can see what he's saying because I keep the blinkers off.
You on the other hand are un-willing to contemplate what he is saying means...
Try this, a profit is a constant loss to the system...the huge profits of the pat are simply un-sustainable in the future overall. So yes sure some ppl will be able to charge monopoly level rents that makes them a parasite. The trouble is its a rob Peter to pay Paul situation....so either lots of others make no profit or some make big losses and go out of business. Then of course the parasite moves onto someone else....thats just a slow but accelerating collapse.
regards
Very true, and the Roman Empire was a classic, note however the dark ages followed...
Hence im not expecting we can reverse such an event globally....I think we are seriously screwed. Just hoping that us NZers can get by reasonably well.....its the best place to be on so many levels...I think NZers are the luckiest ppl on the planet personally.
regards
Scarfie - it would appear from reading the Lobbying Disclosure Bill 2012 that Democracy is seriously threatened.
http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Legislation/Bills/BillsDigests/8/e/0/…
Private Enterprise parties will need to follow a registration process at the Auditor Generals Office. Public Entities under Schedule 1 of the State Services Act are not considered Lobbyists.
One rule for private enterprise and an exemption rule for public entities is not a democratic process.
If Private Enterprise cannot have the same easy access to Politicians as the public entities then NZ business in general faces severely harsh impediments. Many public Servants already display a discriminating attitude towards private enterprise and this attitude of discrimination would not be tolerated elsewhere in NZ society. If the Lobbying Disclosure Bill included all people and organistations regardless of whether they are public or private then we are all on an equal footing.
A builder was telling me over the weekend that he had built a pre-school in Chch. He had to get the final sign off from Council to get the Code of Compliance. The Council employee concerned stated that the outside steps were not up to the Council accepted standards and had to be changed for him to issue the COC. The Ministry of Education would not accept the Councils proposed steps as they had their own regulations that had to be complied with in order for their organisation so sign the building off as approved by the Ministry of Education.
These two Bureaucratic organisations will not align their policies and the private enterprise builder is caught in the middle. If this builder wants to take this issue to Government he is giong to be considered as a lobbyist - what a load of BS.
Another Builder story on COC same Council. This issue is over fire doors. The Council would not issue the COC yet the NZ Fire safety regulations were not met doing the work the way the Council officer expected it to be done. So if this Builder wants to bring this problem to the attention of Politicians he would also be considered as a lobbyist.
A Resource Managment Consent Hearing, this time at the Dunedin City Council. Public servants made submissions and various allegations with absolutely no evidence. The behaviour of these submitters is horrendous and would be against the Code of Conduct for Public Employees. Council employees placed submissions in at the hearing and provided expert opinion without visiting the site and recommended that the Hearings Committee decline the application. In this instance the applicants will have to Appeal and the whole fiasco will probably end up in the Environment Court. if these Resource Consents Apllicants wish to discuss the RMA issues with an MP they will be considered as lobbyists.
I could provide you with an enormous list of BS that I have come across where the actions of those in public service are dishonest and discriminating against those in private enterprise. The one common thread in some of the worse abuses is that of the public service yet conveniently their activities will be excluded from the provisions in the Bill concerned yet these public servants can lobby freely through existing channels.
The Lobbying Dislcosure Bill:
The bill seeks to bring a measure of transparency and public disclosure around the lobbying activity directed at members of Parliament and their staff, and in so doing to enhance trust in the integrity and impartiality of democracy and political decision making.
Why would any political group initiate a Bill suggesting that it; enhances integrity and impartiality of democracy and political decision making, then have provisions in the Bill with which undermine the stated intentions by excluding all those in Schedule One of the State Services Act and others as defined within the link I have provided?
Lobbying is not only performed by those in Private Enterprise !!!!
The Bill in its current format is very poorly drafted - and this article below describes these issues.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/7708988/Lobbying-bill-will…
The Green Parties, MP Holly Walker's Lobbying Disclosure Bill shows a clear lack of practical experience, is anit-democracy, impediment on the Bill of Rights Act and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and is a very low standard of work.
Maybe you are misreading your bullshit alarm !
I have no doubt about the examples you state, I have had my own run ins with council as an owner/builder. The system has changed so severely over the last 10-15 years that it would almost be impossible for me to undertake a similar project. Next time I will probably use my creative skills to simply circumvent the building act and consent process.
However the point I am making is that this is supposedly democracy and people think it is good. People think a vote for an MP and a vote for a councillor every few years makes for a nice cosy democratic society for them to live in. Deluded in my view, as is the idea that democracy is the best method for governance. I am not feeling terribly eloquent today, but I suspect you know enough to get my drift. Without a moral compass to underpin governmental decision making democracy as a process is seriously flawed.
You really are full of cr*p, I just hope that costs get awarded against FF and you for this politisised drivel.
If you think food is going to get expensive just wait for fertilizer to get un-affordable and you have to go organic.
In the meantime you are no better than the bernie madoff's of this world running a ponzi scheme that will fold and big time. You just run a short term end game at the expense of the eco-system and our future that isnt going to work....pity farmers seem to want to have ACT/libertarian mouth pieces.
regards
If you think food is going to get expensive just wait for fertilizer to get un-affordable and you have to go organic. Once again steven you are only considering the impact on farmers of this, not the population at large. When it comes to food farmers will always be the winners as they can afford to feed themselves, the population at large can't. Be careful what you wish for. ;-)
Dont shoot the messenger :P
The effort needed to mitigate peak oil is on the scale of WW2 we (at least in the UK) had rationing and yes farmers did OK in comparison.
and no Im assuming farmers will be fine its the population I am thinking of....too many of us.....not in NZ maybe...
There is a good book I think its called "The Long Emergency" say the Govn decides to have a semi-permanent Civil Defence situation in force for an extended time in order to feed ppl, do you really think farmers will remain autonomous? cant see it myself.
regards
Keep it simple. Just charge for the full cost of using ecosystem services. If users can show they have not used those services, then they get a refund. This will, initially, raise the price of fertiliser, which will lead to a more effective use thereof, as well, as speedy implementation of non-polluting methods. It will create a competitve market in using the overall ecosystem as efficiently as possible.
i had this argument with Roger Kerr back in 2004 and he agreed that all businesses should pay their full costs. If we put it into that framework, we may find that we get better results.
Think of it as a contingency fund rather than a tax. Funds are parked until they are needed for remediation of polluting activities or refunded back. This can be applied across all resource extracting business (mining, offshore drilling etc). It will incentivise businesses to manage their risks very smartly, and see ecosystem services as real costs, which of course they are.
In Southland all Dairy farmers are charged a 'Dairy Differential' rate (this is in addtional to their general rate) which by next year they will be charged for the full costs ($1.4m/<400 farmers) of Environment Southland's costs related to Dairy, so I would argue that we are all ready paying our fair share. Each of these farms will have an effluent system that has cost between $100-300,000 to meet current ES rules (they keep changing them). Yearly fees attached to consent monitoring (even if the farmer has done all the data collection) amounts to around another $1000 or more depending on farm size. This isn't said as a form of complaint, just a statement of fact.
In regards to dairy, Regional Councils already have contingency funds - from fines imposed by the Environment Court. A farmer only has to do an action that 'MAY' result in contamination, i.e. no contamination has to have actually occured to be found guilty in court and fined. Regional councils take in hundreds of thousands of dollars every year from court fines. This is their dairy contingency fund. ;-)
As to mining/drilling etc companies, they are usually multinationals and therefore sacrosanct. Look at the debacle over cleanup funds and the shipping industry when the Rena ran aground. NZ taxpayers should not have had to pay a $1 for that. If that was a farmer or smaller NZ company they would have bankrupted them. As the Mega Mitre10 add says 'Big is Good'.
What do they do with those fines?
Any charge should be directly related to the remediation cost of any polluting event. It shouldn't be a general revenue collection opportunity. The whole point is to reduce the use of ecosystem services. You can either charge up front or when the use occurs. I'd argue up front is better, as it incentivises better management.
Sounds like the current system is unsatisfactory.
There is no remediation required by Councils in dairy effluent pollution consent breaches that I have been aware of raf, as in many cases no direct water contamination occured - it only was an action that 'may have caused contamination had it entered a waterway'. The farmer may decide to install a failsafe device or similar but that is at their cost(which as far as I'm concerned failsafe devices should be nationally mandatory). Many breaches are one off events such as equipment malfunction. There are the recidivists - as there are in any industry/community.
It is very much a revenue gathering exercise.
There is a general lack of consistency among Regional Council plans. e.g. dairy water consents (for cowshed wash down) - some councils require you to monitor water take and return the data and others require you to have a meter installed but not monitor the take!
Perhaps this is the line Bruce should be pushing then. Instead of a polarizing situation, shift the focus to the actual problem and work out the best way to solve it. Ultimately, it's about incorporating externalities into the price of production. The quicker the farming sector embraces that, the quicker they can focus on solving the problem and reduce haphazard revenue collectors.
I'm not saying it's easy but in the end, people understand that if they want resource output AND a pristine environment, then the product needs to be priced to reflect the costs of doing that.
There is quite a bit of good partnership work being done in some communities/catchments looking for solutions that work for both the environment and farmers. It seems to work better when the media are kept out - less polarizing, more willingness to embrace solutions and talk. ;-) There are no simple solutions - there needs to be a multi faceted approach.
Maybe Bruce could have been clearer, but I do understand when he comments on Feds being viewed in a negative light for appealing where, if the boot was on the other foot, the people criticising Feds, would be the very same people strident in their right to appeal.
No, I think the damage can be assessed and costed....
The trouble is where does the money go? into council coffers? the bastards would be spending it on their pet projects inside 6 months....you just know the account would be raided.
Strange thing is we have the power of vote, yet we get similar morons every time...
like duh.
regards
`...you can sum up our combined view as this; if sheep farmers despoil the environment along with beef, cropping and dairy farmers, it doesn’t leave anyone a lot to eat.`
So unless you ruin the environment, I`ll starve?
I see...
Gosh Brucie ... the way your man Banksy is performing, I can`t wait to see what happens to the ACT Party in 2014!
Can you say: POLITICAL OBLIVION?
not huge amounts of money, huge amounts of energy...but really a farm is now a factory, and it as all factories, pollutes.
"economicially sustainable" yeah right. If farmers have taken on too much debt, which flows into your overheads well look there. You paid too much for the land. Now in order to get it paid off you have to get ever more intensive and many of you seem to want even more tax breakes to do so. Note however that upward curve in production you cannot maintain, eventually you wont be able to get any more, meanwhile you are destoying the inherant capacity of the land to support you/us. Just great for maybe a few more decades you carry on, by that stage the land will be so exhausted or poisioned that output will decline or the food produced on it will be unfit for human consumption...
like duh.
regards
Henry, you seem to be aware of Canterbury sentiment. Do you see Westland's push in to Cantab and their payout result a potential thorn/concern for Fonterra? Mind you the Fonterra chaps are going to have to find a buyer for their shares first. Could skew taf share price if a bigger than expected dump happened?
Yes, as they have ability to show as a better example. And Yes and no, as volume is a limit, so Fonterra people can be upset, but have no where else to go - We don't see synlait coming to aid. lol. (so yes unhappy supplier, no, fonterra need not do too much).
What makes NZ better than OZ, is that we are not locked to a domestic market controlled by the supers (QLD), rather an exports price (but benefit could be bottle neck if Fonterra driven by non-suppliers).
Mist42nz, some of these can be adjusted for over time...the point to what PDK and I say is you have to start adjusting.
Some can be mitigated, some obviously not...
NB, where pray tell is your debt servicing cost?
Which is the point Im trying and it seems failing to make. Many of the about items can not only be not reduced and in fact will get more expensive...debt servicing can though, hence its one of the reasons that I expect huge drops in land value...there will not be the margins left to pay all of these overheads and the current debt levels.
The one that strikes me is the rates, I talked to a farmer and wife casually last year, their main complaints was the level of rates being charged that seem to be the council bleeding farmers to pay for "everything" somewhat of an exageration but I suspect having talked about it with them seriously justified....it has to be corrected.
As PDK says the council will go bye bye at some point, its not sustainable. My rates alone have averaged 5% per annum over 15 years, you cant keep doing that, the host will buckle and die....any council ignoring that is plain stupid...
regards
steven, don't tar the 78% of farmers who don't have a problem servicing debt, with the same brush as the 22% that do. Some farmers have no debt. I know you aren't in the industry, but please stop trying to tell us in the industry that debt is what is the problem - it isn't to the vast majority. Compliance, local and central government costs are what is impacting on farming.
An example of the compliance costs I am referring to: Regional Council, via scientific monitoring, recognised the number one problem for a specific waterway was sediment. So they deemed that certain tributary streams had to be battered with posts etc. DoC owned a fair amount of land along these streams. So a meeting was held to work out who would pay, RC said not us, it will be the adjoining land owners. DoC said you can say what you like but you won't be getting a cent from us as we can't afford it - the farmers can pay. As DoC are steadfastly refusing to contribute any funds to the battering of their land, farmers have pulled back and said actually no we won't pay either - everyone should pay their fair share, why should we pay for DoC land when it is also contributing to the problem. So instead of having kms of battering the RC is now going to batter 500m. And yes these waterways are fenced off :-) Now with a lower payout it is these sorts of things that farmers once may have been willing to buy in to, now simply become unaffordable. In this case farmers had a say, but there are other cases where the RCs just make a 'pluck it out of the sky' decision and charge it to us as a rate.
There is a certain irony where DoC went to the Environment Court over Horizon's One Plan but in other areas steadfastly refuse to accept that they also have to pay when it comes to 'adjoining landowner' pays. They expect the farming community to accept that 'we can't afford it' but when farmers claim they can't afford it, they effectively give the one finger salute to us.
CO, yes very true, however consider that 22% is pretty close to 1/4 of farms and farmers, then consider just how leveraged the banks are. Stuff I read suggests as little as 10% sees the banks technically in-solvent.....22% is OMG.
In terms of DoC saying "we have no money" that frankly is wrong. By that I mean if I and you as private individuals are expected to pay our bills and fair shares and see that enforced in court if need be then so should DoC. If the Govn cant stomach that then it should be aired....fairs fair.
Thanks for the great comments, it help set context and give me (at least) an appreciation of farmers problems. Believe it or not I do want to understand the issues because its plain stupid to make decisions without knowing the facts and context as much as possible.
regards
Steven, take that first thought further. Use 1/5, still thats
2,000 plus farmers by number
$6bn, assuming there is $29bn of dairy farm debt.
What are you thinking, 1 in 5 have trouble paying the interest (what payout, or what $ /kg going as interest cost are you using).
Or
1 in 5 have loans above the a banks current LVR, or above the properties current value.
We were farming in the 1980's when they brought in 'mortgage discounting' in order to keep cash strapped farmers on the land. Don't know if you were in NZ then or not, steven. Can't see it happening again. It did save the banks from taking a pasting though. These days they have other options - wholesale farm sales to foreign investors instead. Though what the suits don't realise, if they think that is their solution, is that farmer owners who currently work on the land will not go and then work for the new foreign owners. So there will be a critical shortage of experienced farm staff, and we all know what happens when you don't have staff that knows what they are doing, on a farm. Not that the banks or govt will care. Despite what the media would have us believe, 'family farms' are still the majority of farms, numerically, in NZ.
Chickens are counted- 1038 of them....... and NOT A SINGLE ONE would vote for Bruce Willis & Banksy....
http://curiablog.wordpress.com/2012/06/17/roy-morgan-poll-early-june-2012/
Bruce "thats another natural weather event" Willis...
LOL
He's forgetiing that he's addressing all of us and not farmers who have already voted him in...he just makes himself and farmers look like .....blah words fail me.
Dont under-estimate the greed and dis-connection in Epsom....maybe Rodney will back a come back in 2017....hope so, he's a character worth having in Parliment.
regards
"The one thing our critics overlook is that farmers want good water quality too"
Yet...... your're not willing to pay 'market rates' for that quality water though are you Bruce?
OR the ongoing and current intensive cleanup of some of that water via the taxpayer?
Yet you guys expect Kiwis to pay 'international market rates' for your produce and milk?
Fed Farmers are (in my opinion) a total bunch of hypocrite w***kers!
So whats up with Fonterra, I have a friend in the middle echelons, he says they are now delaying payment to their contractors for 3 months??? My comment to him was ...you gotta be joking. He was adamant this was correct and they were losing contractors hand over fist because of it.
Hope not true.
These tricks are fastest way to save cash, but bites back as those left standing increase contract price by more that interest saving $ amount... (and you are left with fewer contract operations to select from).
Better idea would be to reduce head count FTE by 10%.
and/or $ corporate bill (wage bill incl.) by 15%.
and/or restructure supply chain leading to Oz supermarkets, take out 25% of costs.
think, suit, cloth, cut, short pants......
That highlights a real issue. Businesses trying to save "interest" by delaying payments to creditors. Last week there was a crocodile in the swamp .. and no comment .. The insurance companies, who have received $10+ billion already from the re-insurers in respect of ChCh (we know that because it has been stated so, and it has shown up in the the last two years GDP figures) will take untill 2015 to do full and final settlements .. now thats a big earn ..
Delayed bill paying. We used to have the same from a DHB. Like - four or five months. Which they frankly admitted was for cash management. Appalling behaviour. Such behaviour creates chaos all down the chain. And does not help any sort of financial recovery or stability.
There can not be tight control over private enterprise. But it should be a directive that Government agencies pay on time.
I think it is appalling if true. And I do have faith in my friend who informed me. He also says they have got even tighter on r & m. Basic stuff is going by the wayside.Cleanliness not so important. And on the product making side, he had upper echelons tell him he had to do less blending so they could pack faster. Hmmm less blending??? Now thats a worry, what sort of product are they oging to put out. An irregular one.
An interesting opinion piece from across the Tasman..!!
http://www.xcheque.com/xcheque-blog/all-blogs/5817-foreign-investment-i…
Bruce, I wonder when it will be revealed that Fonterra is bankrolling your silly appeal of the 'One Plan'. I have read your latest appeal on 'points of law'. Pathetic, and you won't overturn the Enviro Court decision with evidence like that - which is why , of course, you lost in the first place. Terrible lawyers and advice. The time may have come to get on and just move with the times and clean up your act re: water quality. I do think the term 'dinosaurs' is very apt.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.