Federated Farmers High Country.
Chairman’s address – Queenstown 5 June 2014 .
Good Afternoon Ladies and Gentleman. I think many of us have found the last 12 months
difficult from a farming perspective. Even if commodity prices are high globally, they aren’t so
great in NZ $ at the farm gate, and particularly not when compared with a record dairy payout. They say if you can’t beat them, join them, and many of you will have noticed dairy
support in a valley near you, a trend likely to continue as existing support operations convert
to dairy.
Of course dairy farming is not new to the high country. Dairying got pushed out of many
areas back in the 50’s and 60’s by ragwort and a wool boom. Farmers changed for their
financial survival or had to sell up, and the new owners did something different. This process
of change may be painful but it has allowed farming in New Zealand to survive, and
sometimes prosper. The relative value of different products constantly changes, it is
essential that farms retain the ability to chase the highest and best use provided no
significant environmental damage ensues..
Last century I visited Switzerland, a place; the tour guide assured me, that if it is not
compulsory, it is forbidden. I thought that was a joke, but thanked my lucky stars that I lived
in New Zealand, where the guiding hand of regulation was wielded lightly. 15 years later,
and it seems some didn’t get the joke, and rather than thanking their lucky stars, they came
home thinking “what a good idea, let’s do that in New Zealand”.
At present New Zealand has a crisis around water quality. The problem is not all Cow Urine.
The problem is Bull Dung. Plenty of it has been sent from Wellington to regional councils,
and they are flinging it at farmers to try and keep it below their ears. The BD is also being
flung by NGOs and farmers are quite capable of throwing some back.
What do I mean? Well: the cattle standing in water debacle in Canterbury High Country is
the most spectacular example of bull dung so far. Obviously excluding cattle from all water
would improve water quality, but the most rudimentary cost:benefit analysis would have
thrown that one out. We hope that one is gone, but what cost for the hours, effort and angst,
all for a pile of bull dung.
What other BD? Let’s try overseer. A wonderful tool to help heavy fertiliser users optimise
their applications. Modelling of farms was provided as a free service by fertiliser reps. Things
change when fertiliser is no longer the driver. Why should fert reps provide a free service for
councils? No good reason, so they start charging. $150/h now. 2k for a farm. I’m told a
commercial consultant would be more like 10k for a farm, so how long before we see that?
Now take an extensive pastoral run with minimal fertiliser use, and do a cost benefit analysis
of overseer. High cost: no benefit, none at all, not to anything, and a real pain to try and
model some of these systems. That is bull dung!
So why overseer? To estimate N leaching. Why? To protect water quality. How? by
monitoring everyone all the time. If it’s not compulsory, it is forbidden, no jokes. Ecan have
tried hard and successfully to prevent rates rises, this effort is to be applauded, but if an
unnecessary overseer analysis is forced upon people, that is effectively a massive rates
increase, in many cases the increase may be greater than the rates bill.
So how should you regulate? I say you regulate and prevent Bad Practice, and save
everyone a fortune by leaving the rest alone. I would go so far as to say that bad practice
could be identified and reduced right now. We have plans talking about leaching losses of 10
and 20kg per ha/year. Why not start with a focus on those leaching over 100kg and work
with them to make a real difference?
How about those few in sensitive lake zones.? If they have made the mistake of being low
nitrogen emitters they are stuck. It’s OK for some to emit over 100k while others can’t
increase from 4 to 5. These very stringent rules make land use change, modest
development or even natural variation in the likes of winter cropping and pasture renewal
very problematic.
I am basing my comments on what has happened in my own Region, Canterbury, but I am
aware that Canterbury is not alone in proposing such draconian measures. I suspect some
of the motivation for these actions is the old bureaucratic policy of wanting full control over
everything. They talk about “minimum cost of applying for consent” but what about the
disproportionate costs trying to bring some practicality into proposed plans and of
compliance?
The theme of our conference is good neighbours, and I believe many of these issues could
be made a lot easier if we are talking and listening, and those we have to deal are talking
and listening to us.
Back in March we had an enjoyable and well attended field day at Twizel. While we all
enjoyed a beautiful day amongst stunning scenery, there were some serious issues covered.
After a number of years of very hard work trying to educate politicians and bureaucrats in
Wellington, most of the issues are now coming from our local bodies. The Canterbury land
and water regional plan had been providing some angst, particularly around cattle standing
in water, and Dame Margaret Bazley and other ecan identities assured us at the field-day
that they would come up with a workable solution. We’re not there yet, but recent meetings
give us some confidence that most of the problems on this issue can be resolved.
However Wellington may not be done yet. Pastoral lessees have settled rentals just before
11 year reviews come around again. An enormous amount of time, effort, expertise and
money has gone into developing a rental setting and dispute system which is robust,
economic to administer and consistent with the law. Despite this at the field day Damian
O’Connor warned us that his colleagues do not believe that the rental issue has been
resolved. It seems a horrible waste of resources to re-litigate that issue, but I guess
forewarned is forewarned.
Other off-farm challenges facing the high country at present include Mackenzie Plan Change
13 , the Canterbury university leases are contesting proposed rentals, and the canterbury
LWRP
I think most of us can understand the reasons for attempting to start regulating the loss of
pollutants from farms to waterways. Most of us would support some sort of sensible and fair
regulation, but what are the chances of that. Business schools teach that decisions have to
be made with incomplete information, but in business you make the call, and you pay if
you’re wrong. At present regional authorities have to make decisions, which may cost others
millions
Chas Todhunter