Control-and-regulate is back. Authority without responsibility

Rural News

Guy Trafford sees the farmer protests as a reaction to a hugely well-funded Government unable to meet its own standards, and expecting others to achieve Government's hard policy goals with little support. It's a two-faced approach that may backfire

17th Jul 21, 9:21am by Guy Trafford

James Shaw, a minister in a government that achieves little, except requires others to do what it can't or won't

It would be easy to take a side in today’s “groundswell” farmer protest from either side of the fence and make a pretty coherent argument.

One side could be promoting the farmers attitudes for (finally) making taking a stand against the flood of regulations that have come their way, while the other could be criticising them for being largely the architects of their own demise.

In my view the real story lies somewhere in the middle and the first chapters were written many years ago.

We could go right back to the early 1800’s when New Zealand’s first regional ‘export’ economy began around whaling, followed by timber and gold mining before settling on where it had an arguable sustainable advantage over other countries (distance aside) with agriculture

But the 1970-80’s are probably far enough back to look. Under the final Muldoon government, as a result of the oil shocks of 1973, the UK joining the EEC (now EU), Think Big projects which ran up huge debts, the country was broke and going backwards economically at a rate of knots.

Even though Muldoon believed farming was a “sunset industry” he had enough sense to recognise that it was all New Zealand had between it and bankruptcy, (sound familiar?). Being the control-and-regulate sort of politician he was, he believed if he pulled the right levers farmers would respond in the way he wanted and ‘bail’ New Zealand out of the situation it was in. And so, in no particular order he brought in the Livestock Incentive Scheme where farmers were paid a grant from the government for every extra stock unit (roughly 1 sheep) they carried on balance day than the previous year. Incentives to clear scrub and marginal land (mostly native) to carry more stock. Subsidies on applying more fertiliser to assist in carrying more stock and Supplementary Minimum Prices to underpin the prices farmers received for their extra production.

Farmers weren’t stupid and so most to a greater or lesser degree responded, especially as they had the able assistance of the government paid MAF advisors to assist them as well as (relatively) cheap money on top of the subsidies etc. from the government owned Rural Bank to assist them to do it.

What has this to do with 2021? This is a major part of where many of the environmental issues we face today really began - if not from the physical changes to the New Zealand landscape, then from very hard to erase imprinting on the mind of a generation of farmers that become inculcated in the philosophy of chasing production output at all costs.

Inevitably, the experiment failed.

Stock numbers certainly climbed (72 million sheep compared to 28 million today) but lamb weights and sheep fertility came down to the point where the 28 m sheep today produce much the same weight of saleable product as what was sold back then. But more importantly produce products which the markets desires, unlike in the 70’ and 80’s where we could barely give it away, (meat and milk) and did deals with Russia for Lada cars and Belarussian tractors (remember a certain All Black captain on the ads?) and Iran with direct deals for oil.

Now New Zealand products are (fortunately) highly sought after. So, when Labour came in, in 1984 and the books were opened the proverbial hit the fan and we learnt the term from the IMF of the Structural Adjustment Plan. Argentina, Chile, Turkey and Greece are other countries who have shared the joy, not the best economic company.

So, we get to the 2,000s and the chickens have come home to roost.

Most farmers would accept that the country’s waterways have a problem and a major part of it stems from historic and not so historic farming practices.

GHG’s are a different issue, and most farmers would believe they are being shafted over this one, but the worm is turning here also. Since the 1980’s most farms have been transformed with the pastoral frontier (boundary between grassland and bush/trees etc) returning back to where it was before or beyond the incentives of the 1970’s. Regulations have been brought in to provide further protection over the threats of further intensification which farmers have accepted and yet despite this, little recognition has been made of the progress, especially given the historical context.

The attitudes of ministers like James Shaw which got exposed with statements that sought to belittle farmer concern groups as ‘’a group of pākehā farmers down south’’ have just served to create a greater gulf between the government and farmers.

The issue over the ute tax seems a bit of a red herring. However what it has done is inadvertently provide an ally to farmer concerns over the lack of understanding over how the productive sector operates (include construction and tradies here).

So, back to today's protest. The numbers of utes and tractors that took to the streets of Christchurch were impressive, especially as there were lesser protests held in the surrounding towns (Darfield, Rangiora, Ashburton to name some) which would have reduced the number of vehicles going into Christchurch. All conducted peacefully and from my viewpoint the general attitude of the 100’s or more who came out to watch seemed to be largely empathetic with the protestors.

Perhaps interestingly of the 100’s of utes filing past there seemed to be very few ‘new’ ones but quite a few older ones - making the issue around the tax look even more tenuous. However, if it got people motivated, so be it.

Not all of those involved in agriculture have agreed with the protest, believing that the regulations are on the right track. However, given the turnout of 1000’s at 57 different towns and cities show that there is still a sizeable number who have grievances at the way they are being treated and if the government needs to recognise that they need to look carefully at how they approach further impositions on the private sector.

An irony which highlights government rhetoric over contradictions is the issue around the quality of New Zealand’s housing stock with July 1st being the deadline date for getting rentals up to the required standard. Except when it comes to the State's stock (Kainga Ora ) which have been given an additional 2 years to get to the same standard. (The spurious excuse given was that the government didn’t want to add to the pressure on building supplies which may then impact on the private sector reaching the deadline.) So far under 12,000 of the 68,000 houses of Kainga Ora have been signed off as being up to standard. Hardly a sign of leadership when these houses should be showing the way to other landlords.

This government has been great on the rhetoric but has serious credibility issues when it comes to actually getting things done itself.

Despite this, it has huge expectations on the private sector in many areas to achieve the same with a fraction of the resources. It has been a long time since any major protests took place in New Zealand, if the government does not take stock on how it is treating some sectors it may not be long before others begin to join in the chorus.

No chart with that title exists.

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.

73 Comments

by Pietro | 17th Jul 21, 9:46am 1626471977

SNAs are of course theft. Let the government buy the land if it wants to manage it. On other issues, the government does have some good points, but of course it is all about the speed of change and getting people on board. We would do well to remember that coal use is the biggest contributor to GHGs and helping to convince countries that use the most to change their ways will do more than any draconian measures in this country. I know it’s a hoary old chestnut, but our contribution to greenhouse gas emissions is minuscule. We should follow, not lead. No need to bankrupt ourselves. Oh, and about that $800m cycle bridge made of concrete and steel, needing x amount of diesel powered transport to transport materials and build it, so that by even the best estimates, 1% of current motorist commuters will turn to cycling. The government shooting themselves in the foot sums it up.

by Foxglove. | 17th Jul 21, 10:28am 1626474505

“Omnes Auctoritates, Nihil Responsabilitas.” Motto of the Brown Cardigan Brigade, ie bureaucracy. The culture is oppressive and invasive and it is worsening rapidly. The horse has the bit between its teeth and the rider, looks incapable of wresting control back, even if there was a will to do so.

by Palmtree08 | 17th Jul 21, 12:46pm 1626482804

Increasing complexity huh? The bane of all civilisations. Usually peaks around the time empires become top heavy and collapse. :-)

by Palmtree08 | 17th Jul 21, 10:44am 1626475462

I would prefer to retain ownership of SNAs, but be paid for their upkeep. Another income stream, and independent of other farming cycles. If this land is effectively nationalised for taxpayer (environmental) benefit. Taxpayers can fund it!

by RCD | 17th Jul 21, 11:22am 1626477765

Zero % of current motorists will cycle across the planned cycle-way for Auckland harbour, it is a complete waste of resources better spent on more essential works

by Hamish | 17th Jul 21, 11:27am 1626478058

Absolutely it's the speed of change which is I think the problem. As pointed out in the article, farming is where it is today from incentives that were a generation ago. And now a new generation of farmers are having to unwind a lot of this at their own cost.

by Palmtree08 | 17th Jul 21, 10:40am 1626475219

Utes. As you say, a rallying, but largely side issue, but "interestingly of the 100’s of utes filing past there seemed to be very few ‘new’ ones but quite a few older ones - making the issue around the tax look even more tenuous." The tax was never about trade vehicles, it was to stymie the urban tractors. You know, the bulk of this vehicle class? The ones with the shiny metal roll bars and various other accessories? My flat deck ute is getting bloody old. Nearing 300k and I am a bit pssd at having to fork out extra for an upgrade. Although its the weekend warrior types farmers should be directing their ire at, along with the flashy marketing campaigns. The idea is to reduce the popularity of these huge chunks of metal, that increasingly contribute to our emissions profile. Perhaps farmers would prefer urbanites continued freedom to burn and have their biogenic emissions hit harder instead? Maybe I'll just keep it to 400k and wait till electric is available?

by Ahuhyeah | 17th Jul 21, 10:50am 1626475804

Wondered what the number of SUVs in nz owned by family of 4 or less that could be in a station wagon is. Why not an suv tax too?

by keithwoodford | 17th Jul 21, 12:30pm 1626481843

A large proportion of SUVs are actually small and small-medium vehicles with petrol efficiency at least the equal of a station wagon and in many cases much better. My own SUV has a 1600cc engine, yet gets me to many places that I need to get to, but where I would be in big trouble in a station wagon.

by Ahuhyeah | 17th Jul 21, 1:17pm 1626484648

Good point. Tricky stuff.

by Clefton Twain | 20th Jul 21, 7:51am 1626724294

Yeah I replaced my VW station wagon (very thirsty) with an MG EV "SUV". It's not really an SUV, just a small wagon with the seats a bit higher. I prefer a wagon for the luggage space but they don't make them much anymore. The new Peugeot wagon looks nice but very expensive....

by Palmtree08 | 17th Jul 21, 12:33pm 1626481997

If I pulled the strings......

by Uninterested | 18th Jul 21, 7:03am 1626548581

If most farmers have old utes then they will need new ones sooner or later. And will be taxed. Hence the issue.
Most utes in Ak are fashion accessories and are brand spanking new and will last for 20 years or more. Pumping out their cancer causing fumes into the city residents' lungs.
But on farms, these particles get whisked away...
Personally I would have favoured the farmer carve out.

by Macawsley | 18th Jul 21, 10:32am 1626561158

Surely, the EV tax cuts will free up some of those same urban utes - to farmers as they transition from ice-hybrid-electric? over the next 20 years.
Just one the reasons I believe the "Ute Ban" whinge is over blown.

by Casual Observer | 21st Jul 21, 10:48am 1626821308

Depends if those urban utes are 2wd or 4wd.

by DaveRennie | 17th Jul 21, 10:46am 1626475614

Poorly designed regulations cause more harm than good; stifle innovation, growth, and job creation; waste limited resources; undermine sustainable development; inadvertently harm the people they are supposed to protect; and erode the public's confidence. The question is why? New Zealand deserves to know.
The farmers are the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the arrogance and incompetence of this government.

by Foxglove. | 17th Jul 21, 11:24am 1626477876

Yet it was the last National government that opened in the door for this government. By the last third of that government at least, they had become, complacent, conceited and careless and out of contact with the electorate, with the driven emphasis on creating “Corporate New Zealand.” The electorate duly turned and it took only on the wafer thin credentials of a Labour leader with some charisma. I agree entirely with your comment about this government’s arrogance, but the problem for us as NZrs is that all of our governments, certainly this century, have been likewise, and where the hell do we go from here with regard to options. National in opposition have hardly improved their profile and reputation.

by powerdownkiwi | 17th Jul 21, 12:55pm 1626483348

Dave Rennie - please do some homework?

Just ranting against 'other' is no use at all. You might note I diss economists - but I always put up links and/or explain why. You just spout mantra.

I also look at what 'the opposition' are putting up by argument, before I voice mine. See what that does for you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXu4wdrl3NY

Then see how much of your preconceived collection of assumptions, shacks up?

by positivelywallstreet | 17th Jul 21, 11:32am 1626478320

In the long term everyone will be affected by climate change or the changes required to mitigate it.
Most countries can start their mitigation by converting power to renewables,, away from coal, but we don’t have that option as we have significant renewables already.
Buildings and transport will be a slow and expensive path but reducing methane could give us a quick reduction in our emissions.
So yes, methane is the focus of our efforts.
This report on the Climate Commission site has some explanations.
https://www.climatecommission.govt.nz/get-involved/sharing-our-thinking…

by keithwoodford | 17th Jul 21, 12:46pm 1626482788

The document you refer to is a very useful contribution in relation to disentangling the issues of short versus long-life gases.
But if you are suggesting that it means we should focus on methane rather than CO2 then I think you have misinterpreted.
KeithW

by positivelywallstreet | 17th Jul 21, 1:02pm 1626483722

Keith,
I didn’t try to interpret it, It is my gut feel after looking at the graphs and what the reviewers of aotearoa said.
After this weekends flooding I believe we should do.anything we can as soon as possible so let’s start by destocking.
What do you believe the review said?

by keithwoodford | 18th Jul 21, 10:17am 1626560250

That particular technical review tried to explain the technical trade-offs using graphs, but took no stance as to policies, given that it did not include either cost benefit analyses or value judgements.
Yes, we could destock all our animals and the biogenic methane cloud would then rapidly decrease (and in itself would create some cooling). There again, we could also stop using fossil fuels, including banning all cars, trucks and planes. That would greatly reduce the increases in the atmospheric CO2 cloud ( and hence greatly reduce the ongoing warming) but would not lead to any significant decreases in atmospheric CO2 in our lifetimes (even if it were a global policy).
It is worth remembering that 83% of our exports are from primary industries, which is something that MPI pointed out in its latest State of Primary Industries Report. Hence, there are some major implications of destocking our farms. Similarly, life would be very different if we banned all vehicles producing CO2. Presumably we could still use horses to transport ourselves and our goods.
The point I am making is that if NZ is to decrease either methane or CO2 emissions in a significant way then the societal impacts thereof on NZ will be considerable.
Keith W

by Jack Lumber | 18th Jul 21, 8:45pm 1626597941

and therein lies the rub - this affects everyone and everyone is going to have to do something and change. My perception is that everyone realises this is an issue but it hasn't really been top of mind. Suddenly the Government is taking action, as they said they would, and we are all a little surprised.
Looking at the pronouncement from the EU last week and you realise they maybe very serious as well. Floods in Germany, fires in Pacific NW USA/Canada, massive drought in USA etc. We are all going to have to change and by the looks of what is being proposed in many of our markets if we don't they will add the charge anyway - at a much higher level. It won't be easy for anyone or any part of society.

by positivelywallstreet | 19th Jul 21, 9:10am 1626642642

I’ll quote the bit that caught my eye…
“New Zealand, by getting to net zero CO2 as soon as possible with concerted action to substantially reduce biogenic CH4 emissions as much as possible, can limit the contribution it makes to global warming which is expected to peak around 2040 and then begin to reverse.”
So could we say we have a concerted effort organised for methane currently?
A considered assessment of the advantages and disadvantages would be a next step.

by keithwoodford | 19th Jul 21, 4:43pm 1626669782

That statement by those authors is meant to apply to both CO2 and methane. Note that the first part of the sentence is CO2 and not CO2e - it has nothing to do with methane. It would have been more clear as to their meaning if they had said 'together with concerted action to substantially reduce biogenic action' rather than just 'with concerted action...'. The point is that whereas CO2 does have to get very close to net zero to prevent further warming, we are already at that point for biogenic methane with current emissions in approximate balance with atmospheric removals of biogenic methane.
The above is not meant to be intended as saying we should not focus on methane. And we are currently working on this. I am myself part of team with a methane research proposal lodged with MBIE. But it is not the 'main game'.
KeithW

by positivelywallstreet | 19th Jul 21, 4:51pm 1626670276

I don’t see any mention of the main game, just a mention of “biogenic CH4 emissions”.
I hope I have read their intentions correctly, others can decide.

by linklater01 | 19th Jul 21, 1:13pm 1626657190

keith,

I have been looking at the results coming from Owl Farm in the Waikato monitored by Dairy NZ. I am sure you will be familiar with it. From the outside the results look impressive, with reduced emissions while lifting the operating profit per hectare by some 14% through improved management practices with lower stocking rates and reduced nitrate leaching.
Could something like this not be much more widely adopted?

by redcows1 | 19th Jul 21, 3:46pm 1626666393

No.
Something like this WILL be widely adopted.
Was looking at my nitrogen stats this morning, we used 139kgs of N last year. I reckon by being way more strategic we could either cut that or get way better results from it. Vast majority of farms have more than enough room for improvement to satisfy the climate commission.

by linklater01 | 19th Jul 21, 4:19pm 1626668350

redcows,

i wonder why it has taken so long? I have no farming knowledge, but was in business for over 30 years and we were always looking at our costs. What if anything could be cut without damaging the business? It seems clear that many/most farmers could cut their nitrogen costs while also benefitting the environment.

by redcows1 | 19th Jul 21, 4:45pm 1626669956

It may be explained in a very complicated way.
Or maybe it is simply because the main kpi that the majority always come back to is total production. Very very hard thought pattern to change . Not just a dairy farming problem btw.

by Casual Observer | 20th Jul 21, 12:32am 1626697921

Linklater, this might be helpful to you to understand nitrogen in a dairy farm sense. https://www.dairynz.co.nz/news/n-surplus-shows-performance/

by M Long | 22nd Jul 21, 11:41pm 1626954093

Linklater, the advice by farm advisors for 30 years has been "urea gives your best priced feed supplement, 10kg of dry matter per kg of N applied" farmers have simply being following the advice of the "experts."
Even in the last few years focus farms have been encouraged to apply heavy dressings of Nitrogen by DNZ

by positivelywallstreet | 19th Jul 21, 4:19pm 1626668352

I think the townies have to meets your bid by, for example, extending the Road User Charges to all petrol vehicles and you can guess what happens next…but not in five years time, end of this year perhaps..

by keithwoodford | 19th Jul 21, 4:47pm 1626670073

Linklater01,
Owl Farm have made great improvements but they were coming from a low performance base some years back. Personally I have never regarded them as an exemplar farm. But I am prepared to revise that in the future depending on what they achieve.
KeithW

by Burni | 17th Jul 21, 1:05pm 1626483902

This government displays a huge arrogance toward the general population.

After the ute protest Parker says they're not backing down.

He Puapua is so much of a departure from the NZ constitutional model but hey they'll ram it through and hide it from NZers until its too late, the same as they did from NZ first.

Three waters. The devil is in the detail but they'll use taxpayer funds to bribe and buy off local bodies. What's the end game?

So regardless of any adverse public opinion they blunder on regardless because they categorically won't admit they got stuff wrong.

by powerdownkiwi | 17th Jul 21, 1:12pm 1626484362

Burni - this explains 3 Waters (whether they know it or not:
https://surplusenergyeconomics.wordpress.com/2021/07/15/205-discretiona…

by JimboJones | 17th Jul 21, 4:45pm 1626497121

So it was a ute protest then? There is no ute tax, it is a tax on emitting vehicles which is then used to offset tax on less emitting ones. I don't get the issue there? Unless you think we all have a right to trash the planet as much as we want without ever paying for that?
I think farmers are just proving that all the rhetoric about them not caring for the environment is in fact true.

by Hamish | 17th Jul 21, 7:19pm 1626506382

With a big assumption built in.
Around how many kms each type of vehicle might be driven in a year or in its lifetime.
Would a ute driven 5,000km around a farm and to town for groceries every year be more or less damaging than a tradies ute doing 20,000km a year? Or vs a PHEV which is driven so much every year that it's mostly being run on petrol?
Some of that is captured at the fuel pump, but this cost/subsidy transfer between vehicle types is totally blind to that on a vehicle by vehicle basis.

by LouB | 17th Jul 21, 9:36pm 1626514610

And, JimboJones where do your vested interest lie?
In the passenger cars and small (ish) SUV market there are electric options, choice. But in the workhorse vehicle (aka Utes) market, there is no choice at this time. Therefore the additional cost on those workhorse Utes is simply an unavoidable, state imposed additional cost on doing business.
That gets up my nose and I'm not a farmer, my cab plus ute is critical to my earning my income.

by Jack Lumber | 18th Jul 21, 8:55pm 1626598534

The ute argument is a joke - 2nd hand Utes have gone up in value by $10k - just traded in 3 for new ones - the trade in value increase is higher than the tax on the new one - the cost of getting a new one has gone down!!!
In fact vehicles in real terms are so ridiculously cheap compare to 15 years ago. Just another excuse for a whinge instead of getting on with it.

by powerdownkiwi | 17th Jul 21, 1:09pm 1626484160

Good article, but it has to be seen in context.

As less energy goes into the system, and as the impacts we're having increase, the demands outflank the underwrite. Money is only a token for energy; less underwrite means more financial stress, especially among those who 'believed' and borrowed large. And society has lived beyond its means, with no margin; now it has to redress the overshoot and do it on even less.

Of course that is going to show up as angst, and the target will be 'others'; what ever 'we' aren't. Add in the need to self-justify (to feel self-worth) and you can see why folk defend/justify their activities. This is particularly true as they get older and have less runway to redress anything they feel guilt about (which in my personal opinion, explains why, say, a retired head of Invermay argues against CC).

The problem is that we are all in this together; we were stuffing the planet at a rate that couldn't continue, but measuring our success in debt-issued, backed-by-smoke-and-mirrors tokens. That was the wrong way to see it, but those who swallowed the narrative will find it is hard to extricate; the bank tells them to keep degrading or default. Tough choice.

And farming has to wean itself :) from Fossil fuels, and get itself as regenerative as it can - rather than linear as it is at present. That model is not this model, and it's this model they are defending. So they're doomed to go down in the history books - if we are still writing them - in the way blacksmiths have.

As for the Government, we have to set Limits (or die off via species overshoot) and limits will only show up as Rules. No other way it can be. Knuckle under or go extinct - them's the choices.

by iconoclast | 17th Jul 21, 2:30pm 1626489013

The SNA will have difficulty getting off the ground. There are more exceptions and exemptions than you can shake a stick at. ie. Maori land exemptions. IWI exemptions. According to the SNA green paper SNA's cover 40% of the North Island, much of which is in private hands. Try adminstering that. Imagine how many rare 5 legged, ring tailed fleas will suddenly be discovered

Try 2 farmers with 1000 acre farms each, 1 has 300 acre of SNA preserved/removed, the other has 500 acres reserved. How do you equalise that

by MLSmith1 | 17th Jul 21, 4:03pm 1626494585

Why should Maori be treated differently? If this isn’t a racist policy I do not know what is!

by redcows1 | 18th Jul 21, 1:17pm 1626571031

Pretty ironic comment. The Only exemption is to land with Maori title, not to ordinary titles own by Maori. Maori title was something that can only be seen as a negative applying only to Maori. Racist maybe, but not in the sense your impling.

by iconoclast | 17th Jul 21, 2:32pm 1626489127

Significant Natural Areas (SNAs): What you need to know Te Poari o Ngātiwai understands the SNA designation would apply to 280,000 hectares of Northland?. "Of that, we guess 42 to 45 percent is whenua Māori. The other half is DOC land - and DOC land we view as whenua Māori as well.

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/te-manu-korihi/444491/northland-hikoi-protes….

by Foxglove. | 17th Jul 21, 4:59pm 1626497998

Doesn’t seem to be though one sq metre of SNA in the vast tract of natural landscape to be converted to a wide bodied jet airport in Central Otago. Just coincidentally by happenchance, undoubtedly.

by two otherguys | 17th Jul 21, 4:57pm 1626497876

Banks have $62 billion of mortgages over Farmland
Suppose the banks will be dusting off their abacas'es
Wonder how much will be taken out of production

by Hans Brink | 17th Jul 21, 8:20pm 1626510057

This whole SNA thing seems a bit silly. The areas in question are generaly native bush, swamp rocks or other areas that are unproductive and always have been. We have bush etc on our land and if they were put in to the SNA it would make no difference to our capital value. No one is taking anything away from anyone, it is only protecting the areas from future distruction as in cutting down trees in the mistaken belief that the land will become productive. There was an example on radio where the owners of some land on the west coast believed their land would become worthless if it was put under the SNA as it was all classified as wetland. They owned the land during the Muldoon land development days but decided not to develop while their neighbours did. Now the owners claim they cannot sell the land because of limited land use options, I would have thought the land was already limited because of resource consent restrictions anyway. Also they must have been conservation minded anyway to have left it in it's natural state, so what have they really lost? Anyway there is just one example of what I feel is a big nothing. Interestingly many land owners put this type of land into QE 2 conservancy anyway, voluntarily.

by Jack Lumber | 18th Jul 21, 8:49pm 1626598168

100% agree - form the SNAs I have seen you would struggle to get a RC to destroy it now anyway. NZ is one of, if not the worst, country in the world for having destroyed our natural ecosystems - flora and fauna but some seem hell bent of extracting the last little bit out. The viability of doing anymore is highly debatable anyway looking at the larger areas which are slowly reverting as the economics starts to hit home.

by wee willy winkie | 18th Jul 21, 9:44pm 1626601440

What do we have a conservation estate for if not to conserve areas of significant natural characteristics. If SNA land is deemed worthy of conservation then it becomes a national issue and should not be foisted on private landowners. Would the average urban landowner with a subdivisible section accept that he could not do so because a three legged tree frog lived in the back section?

by Northern Lights | 17th Jul 21, 3:49pm 1626493764

New Zealanders believe in fairness. Significant Natural Areas should be preserved I believe. However the method to preserve these areas should be fair, otherwise when there is a change of govt many landowners will try to take the land in an SNA out of that category. By trashing the significance of the natural bush on their land when National/Act are back in power. Believe it or not some day the political winds will change.

You only need to look at Australia with the hasty land clearance carried out by agribusiness or Brazil with the renewed burning and jungle clearance to see where attempting to save the environment by regulation alone gets you.

If a nation cannot establish a long term consensus to preserve natural areas in private held land with a workable long term incentive for the landowner to continue to maintain that area then the natural areas will not be sustained in the long term.

Why must the burden of preserving these areas fall on rural populations when the benefit is for the whole country?

It is deceitful to say that the landowner can still do what he/she wants to do with the land - they just have to get a resource consent. That's like saying the landowner can do what he/she wants to do with their own land as long as they pay $50,000 in council and advisor costs and do whatever the current ideologue planner at the council wants them to do.

This kind of govt deviousness does not engender trust. It makes you wonder what they are actually up to with the Three Waters. On the face of it the Three Waters is a sensible idea to spend money on water infrastructure without it being spent by councils on something else. If you cannot trust this govt however then what are they really up to with the Three Waters? What is it a Trojan horse for? Once you lose the trust of the public you are nowhere.

The public have given their trust to this govt due to the govt's response to Covid. If the behaviour of the govt from here on in is inability to achieve results due to unwillingness to invest govt funds in necessary projects and targeting of interest groups not within it's own political group to fund it's own obectives, then the Labour achievement such as it currently is will disintegrate.

The comment by James Shaw about Pakeha farmers down South has changed my view of him. I'm a North Island European city dweller but my brother lives in the South Island where his wife is from. I don't think James Shaw likes my sort of people very much, so now I don't think I like him very much. I used to think he was a reasonable person with his head screwed on but now not so. Just another political ideologue identifying only with his own little group.

by powerdownkiwi | 17th Jul 21, 4:29pm 1626496199

Sounds like spin to me - cleverly wrapped spin.

Shaw is doing the best he thinks he can, for the right reasons.

Whether he knows this is part of a bigger predicament, or not, is something we can only guess at. But you have to have rules if you have limits, and we are sure as hell seeing the limits all around us.

by Casual Observer | 17th Jul 21, 5:44pm 1626500642

If a politician changed the word pakeha to Maori in a public comment on a section of NZ society, they would be called a racist. Shaw was wrong, there are various pan Asia ethnicities among those who are supporters of Groundswell. Interesting you, pdk, think it is ok for a politician to be factually wrong and culturally inappropriate when talking about a sector of NZ society, so long as they do it for what you deem to be the right reasons.

by Hamish | 17th Jul 21, 7:22pm 1626506561

Private school....Public school. Green school trumps all.

by ikimpaul | 19th Jul 21, 9:41am 1626644499

absolutely - calling someone out on their race in a derogatory tone is usually referred to as racism. What Shaw did when referring to "pakeha farmers from the South" was derogatory and called out a "specific race" - thats racism. I've lost all interest in the greens because they are no better than the nationals for dog-whistling.

by redcows1 | 18th Jul 21, 1:22pm 1626571350

I may have once agreed with you on Shaw but the last couple of years I've seen him more as a politician first and foremost, could be from any party.

by Hamish | 17th Jul 21, 7:26pm 1626506778

It was a couple of years ago I was talking with a farmer. Lots of manuka scrub. Bee hives on his land. But still deciding whether to rip out all the manuka and put it back to pasture before he lost the chance and had it all locked up. This wasn't a spiteful thought process either where he was thinking about flattening all the scrub just because he could and it was his right.

by wee willy winkie | 18th Jul 21, 9:51pm 1626601887

NL- I could not agree more - very well put. A clue to this government's thinking could be their socialist/communist ideology. They have zero respect for property rights - what's yours is mine, and what's mine is my own. They are dressing this up with faux environmental clap trap, with the Greens along for the ride as useful idiots.

by powerdownkiwi | 19th Jul 21, 12:26pm 1626654363

Bollocks - they're into property rights as much as you.

What you're doing is denigrating the messenger, to thereby denigrate the message. Old approach, well documented.

by Chris-M | 17th Jul 21, 5:41pm 1626500515

As farmers are the ones most exposed to the effects to climate change, then I think that their bloody minded resistance should be repayed by the total removal of any sort on assistance when they suffer from any climate disasters. Lots of denial of the problem, little effort to participate in the efforts to address it, so totally cannot expect help when it bites them in the bum. Fair enough. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.
Totally agree with them over the SNA issue however.

by Casual Observer | 17th Jul 21, 6:00pm 1626501654

So what about the tradies, and other small businesses, transport operators and even a dairy processing company sending a truck and trailer unit tanker to join the parade Chis-M. As I said in another post it was NOT about a lack of willingness to make environmental changes. Just as well the rural community don't share your attitudes. At Christchurch urbanites came out to support the protest, because some of them remembered the help they got from rural NZ at the time of the earthquake - Farmy Army, milk tankers supplying fresh water, equipment brought in from farms to help out, food supplied from processors. All volunteered. After all, the horticulturists in the protest gave fruit and veg to the City mission in Auckland and in other areas to food banks. As a horticulturalist I don't remember the govt doing much when hail destroyed/seriously affected crops in Motueka, rain destroyed/seriously affected crops in Hawkes Bay, Marlborough and Central Otago last summer.
As to a little effort to participate in efforts to address it - that applies to govt too.

by Chris-M | 17th Jul 21, 6:54pm 1626504895

Talk is is cheap and we have run out of time. This is where the rubber hits the road for tradies etc and the whole of society.
Very childish behavior. "Jimmy's dad said that he could. It's not fair!!! wha-wha"

by redcows1 | 18th Jul 21, 1:27pm 1626571669

Is this the talk which centres on biomethane production that has been realitively stable since 1990. Or is it the talk that has seen urban CO2 production increase by........

by GV 27 | 19th Jul 21, 10:02am 1626645745

You're right, let's start making government assistance at a time of national disasters contingent on towing the official line about something.

by PocketAces | 17th Jul 21, 7:03pm 1626505427

Friday: farmers jumping up and down about what needs to be done about climate change
Saturday: climate change

by Hans Brink | 17th Jul 21, 8:17pm 1626509866

Sunday: Waking up with the hangover......

by Jack Lumber | 18th Jul 21, 9:18pm 1626599880

Had a call from a leader of this Protest lot a week ago - neighbour of one of our properties down south.
Apparently I need to watch myself - pardon?
Farmers are getting together in groups - so?
They are not happy - Why?
The Government is being run by people from Venuzwela and China - Laugh out loudly!!
Whoops - he's serious!!
There will be no more elections in NZ - really, how do you know that?
We have people inside informing us - but they won the last election in a landslide?
People were tricked - Pardon!
We are becoming a communist state - who do you sell all your products to and climate change is a problem ?
Farms don't cause any emissions - OK
Covid is an agenda to get everyone to conform - Yep right. - will you get vaccinated?
NO
Then comments about all this Maori stuff
About now I decided a Friday drink was needed. - Im thinking of sending him a big roll of tin foil as PPE and waiting for torches and pitchforks at my door!!
PS - Unfortunately this is a true story.

by i am not a nimby | 19th Jul 21, 7:23am 1626636194

"hugely well-funded Government unable to meet its own standards, and expecting others to achieve Government's hard policy goals with little support."-- very appropriately headed. exactly same way the housing policies have been dished out lately. all houses have to be "healthy" by a certain date except a huge volume of houses held by the policy makers. what a laugh. Winstone, hope you are polished and ready to pounce soon.

by Casual Observer | 19th Jul 21, 10:30am 1626647402

Jack, that sounds more like a rep from the Advance Agriculture Group, not Groundswell? There's always extremists on both sides.
edit: ?

by powerdownkiwi | 19th Jul 21, 12:29pm 1626654589

The real danger is that society needs to be 'truthing' at this stage in global affairs. It (global overpopulation, overshoot/collapse) can only happen once; this is a never-to-be-repeated global event - and entering it with such silly conflicting stories - from conspiracies to Woke to rainbow to chip on shoulder to reds under the bed - worries the ---- out of me.

I had somewhat hoped we'd be mature.....

by Jack Lumber | 19th Jul 21, 2:04pm 1626660272

They identified as Groundswell- not the main leaders but I agree its right out there with AAG types - the problem is you look at some of the signs on Friday along with posts on many ag sites and its not far too see many with this opinion or thought process. Im sorry but I know many farmers who are getting on with it and are finding, shock horror, that they can make more money and its WHAT THE CUSTOMERS WANT. I cant believe the posts that bag people who live in urban areas - they are YOUR CUSTOMERS - its the height of arrogance and lack of any market lead thought that astounds me.
"Im a farmer, let me do what I want with my land and buy what I want to produce and pay more" - Start reading what the Australian industry is pushing and if NZ farmers don't wake up and read outside their echo chambers they are going to be eating dust.

by Casual Observer | 21st Jul 21, 12:36pm 1626827817

The reality for farmers is that their main customers (offshore) are already demanding environmental standards e.g. Nestle, Fonterra's biggest customer has its own goals regarding emissions etc, which it will only meet if it puts requirements on is suppliers. So Fonterra has written environmental requirements in to its Supplier Conditions of Supply handbooks. It is something which NZ consumers don't see - just like many of the changes farmers are actually making, which fly under the radar.
Jack, I agree that there were some inappropriate signs out there, which organisers have already stated they did try to vet but the turn out was much greater than they expected. Also it needs to be remembered that not everyone in the protests were farmers.

The only thing certain is that environmental and GHG work as currently legislated, is going to cost farmers off their bottom line. Consumers in NZ are therefore going to have to accept the trade off for this, in the form of higher primary produce prices.

by Casual Observer | 21st Jul 21, 12:37pm 1626827820