It may not have been as exciting as the by-election, but last week (for those who missed it) was the Field Days. If you’re ever wondering when the Field Days are on, just look for the worst weather predictions in the week of June, and that’s Field Days week.
The Field Days are a massive event in the Waikato. The local paper runs a pull out “Field Days Guide” (think ‘Big Day Out’ for farmers) and I remember as a student at Morrinsville College, so many kids wagged school to go, we started having ‘teacher only days’ to mask the depleted numbers.
It’s all a reminder of how important and how reliant we are on the dairy industry, not just in the Waikato, but in New Zealand. That’s why Fonterra’s forecasted payouts are front page news, the latest of which had the chairman of Fonterra stating that it would lead to “hundreds of millions of dollars coming out of the economy.” The chair of the young farmers in my patch responded to the forecast by saying that kiwi ingenuity would have to pick up the slack, with farmers fixing their own plant and machinery to save on costs.
There in lies the problem. When you’re running your farm on a day to day basis, you’re not going to have the time, or energy to ensure your product is being maximised on the other end. That’s where the government comes in. Research and development has a huge role to play in our farming industry, and the Government has an even bigger role to play in ensuring it happens. The Government seems to have let this responsibility fall by the wayside, with little to make up for the canning of Labour’s Fast Forward fund (which focused on the pastoral sector) and R&D tax credits in the latest budget. Moana Mackey, Labour’s Research, Science and Technology Spokesperson has done the numbers on Vote RS&T, which you’ll find here.
Many assume that National is the party of the farming community. I’d be very happy to hear views on whether that is a stereotype that has any place these days. Or is it about more than which party supports our dairy sector?
Of course Fonterra are going to tell us how important they are to our survival; it’s talk like that which leads to posts like this, which leads to the Government giving them money. That’s clearly in their interests; it’s not so obvious that it’s in ours. If they are crucial to our economic survival, surely they should be successful enough to not need subsidies at all?
Saying that farmers are too tired or busy to invest is a cop-out. That’s why they have co-ops, etc, to pool their capital.
If Moana Mackey is the answer, what was the question Jacinda?
“When you’re running your farm on a day to day basis, you’re not going to have the time, or energy to ensure your product is being maximised on the other end. That’s where the government comes in”.
NO Jacinda – that’s where Fonterra and Fed Farmers come in. And those actually in the rural sector. If Labour think that (particularly their own) politicians ARE going to provide answers for farmers then it is little wonder you are in opposition and deserve to be so.
Obama’s about to kill NZ with a USD exchange rate collapse from pumping up his economy and increase agricultural subsidies. But then you know that as your IUSY cheered on Obama. Well done.
Anyone would think you came from a family of farmers. You didn’t or you would have been taught of the uselessness of relying in politicians to solve anything.
The only worthwhile campaign you ever supported was the right for girls to wear trousers at Morrinsville College. That was far more worthwhile that the propelling of Moana Mackey as an answer to anything!
Kate, you must have got out of the wrong side of bed this morning. Try being constructive eh? If you want to be taken seriously that is.
Clare
You can find me in full constructiveness here. Watching West Indies beat England actually in another time zone to you.
http://asianinvasion2006.blogspot.com/2009/06/policemans-daughter-speaks-up-for-rural.html
Serious enough for you?
Ms Cactus appears to be playing the people, rather than the ball. I understand Ms Ardern’s point to relate to the importance of R&D in a successful economy, and, in the case of NZ, in the dairy industry. There is ample international evidence of the success of partnership approaches to R&D, in which the commercial sector and Government combine to support leading-edge innovation. Ms Cactus will note the irritation of many in the business community and, in particular, some noted innovators, at the cancellation of both the Fast Forward scheme and the tax breaks for R&D introduced by the last government. Those measures were sensible and in tune with international practice (e.g. Singapore, Finland, Ireland etc etc – the economies against which we often benchmark).
Clare, is this your way of “owning the language”, shutting down opposing views.
The post clearly asks for opinions and you got one, the thing is you just didn’t like it…..yu know the bit in the headline where is says “(and everyone else with an opinion)”, it didn’t say “constructive opinion”, just opinion. Nit picky I know but since you are the one that wants to “own the language” I would have thought you would have got that right.
Now if Labour had actually staffed their empty booth at Fieldays (note correct spelling) then you just might have a leg to stand on but since most of the PP’s were troughing it up at Mt Albert I guess it was a little hard.
How about some candidates with some farming knowledge and background actually get selected in rural seats. Just because a candidate has outstanding trade union links such as Lesley Soper doesnt mean they can actually represent the economic interests of their electorates.
Robert
Anyone who knows anything about sport will tell you (and I do believe Mr Mallard is suitably qualified to talk sport so ask him) the best tackles are “ball and all” ones so please quit the analogy forever as it is thrown ad nauseum from the left when the right points out something of utter common sense.
Jacinda was clearly talking about the farmers so I don’t care about whinges from other industry groups. I have posted links at my work that clearly states both Fonterra and Fed Farmers appear very HAPPY with the National Party’s direction in this area of R&D. They also like the new Minister.
Tom
If you read my post you will clearly see that the National Party is not giving them money in the same way Labour promised. They have to contribute to the pie themselves and account for the spending to show commitment.
Clare
You will find my presence lifts your hits dramatically so it is in your best interests to keep me here as long as possible until I am bored fending off hundreds of pinkos. Who knows, you may enjoy the debate. You have several hours now before I wake up HK time to post your opposing views. This is how blogging works. Again ask Trevor, he’s getting very good at it according to Phil.
Re R&D moves by the current governmentI have looked at Ms Cactus’ references re Fonterra and Fed Farmers, posted elsewhere. Fonterra is hardly effusive and, to be fair, what else would it say – commentary within Fonterra is less positive but in public, diplomacy wins out.
Federated Farmers is different, of course. It praises the budget. That said, see, for example
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/federated-farmers/news/article.cfm?o_id=357&objectid=10541628
where it is suggested that this relationship between farmers and National is by no means as certain as before, and that there was clear and unequivocal concern within the farming sector about the abolition of Fast Forward and the tax credits. Don Nicolson has, it is reported, said that farmers have put subsidies and tax breaks behind them, but in practice, this is only partially true. Direct interventions have in the main gone, but the farming sector continues to benefit from the public purse in terms of trade support, R&D inputs and the like (and from a relatively benign regulatory regime which angers our international competitors no end). This is good. Farmers are tax payers and vital to our economy, and should be supported.
Jacinda – another point you might be interested in, picking up on Cactus Kate’s claim “Obama’s about to kill NZ with a USD exchange rate collapse from pumping up his economy and increase agricultural subsidies.”
One of the strangest cuts in the Budget was the $734,000 taken out of money for to support actions at WTO against external trade protectionist moves by other countries.
It’s very hard to see why National thinks it makes sense to reduce support for anti-protectionism actions while protectionism seems to be on the rise.
I don’t know what these Field Days are that you refer to Jacinda? The event is actually Fieldays, as in http://www.fieldays.co.nz , and on every single bit of advertising at the event. Did you actually go there?
Clare
if you want this place to just be a “lets all love labour” site then say so.
As I understand it it is the blogosphere so stop shutting down dialogue that is true.
If it were a lie then that is different.
[Edited - off topic and personal - admin]
I suspect the govt is suffering from not doing the groundwork on these issues whilst in opposition. The scrapped ‘Fast Forward’ then came up with a rag tag set of proposals in the budget. They also seem to have a phobia about science. Did anyone notice that in their Dairy 2020 document science is not even mentioned once?
What did they do for research funding for higher education in the budget?
The dairy industry is approaching a looming crisis, too many farms which are heavily in debt as a result of increasing land prices. They will need to address this soon. They will also need to address the fact that the rest of the world will want something done about agricultural CO2 emissions. we cannot expect the Chinese to move to renewable energy if we do not act.
To sit back and bleat that other countries aren’t playing fair on agricultural subsidies is naive and ignores the realities of international politics. Unless we can develop value added products which can’t be replicated by our competitors this industry will not progress.
“Unless we can develop value added products which can’t be replicated by our competitors this industry will not progress.”
That’s the problem TopCat, we are producing value added products that can’t be replicated by our competitors. It’s called “milk powder at ‘x’ dollars per tonne”. Our competitors can’t replicate our efficiency or price point that’s why they get agricultural subsidies.
The debt on most farms is heavy, you are correct, and not helped by farmers income being lessened by those same foreign agricultural subsidies.
And if you want something done about agricultural CO2, and expect farmers to pay for that as well, then again you have to address the problem of exchange rates and foreign agricultural subsidies.
None of these current problems can be solved by R&D. Sure we might figure out ways to make farmers in this country even more efficient but that will just lead to other counties increasing their agricultural subsidies so their farmers can compete.
It’s actually Europe that has to figure out ways to ‘develop value added products that can’t be replicated by competitors’. They’re the ones that are so shithouse at farming that they need to be propped up by their own governments.
To Kactus Kate, Whale oil,Mike Mckee. What we all want is some good thoughts about how to take this country forward, genuine policy discussion.
It seems none of you are able to discuss policy or politics with any real objectivity or anything looking like constructive dialog.
So yep from my point of view it would be really great if you went and played your silly little games else where. Whilst everyone is entitled to an opinion if its not constructive and has nothing to do with the thread then its like a anal sphincter we all have them but so what.
If you know anything about R and D and the rural sector great if not stop letting your sphincters flap about.Oh and yes I was raised in the farming community.
So Jacinda the average Farmer is going to be interested in anything that can help increase their milk grade or make their Farm more productive. Farming is a major player in the economy because they earn overseas currency. We need them without a doubt. From a political stand point they will vote Labour if they can see we understand their issues. No different to any other group really. A few years ago I was talking with a successful farmer who was now a farm adviser. Interestingly he had Identified when ever Labour was in Government the farming sector did well financially.Health and education are also big issues for this group and anything that builds strong communities.If we right them off as always National voters then we never engage. Some will initially be a bit standoffish but once they see you are genuine they will engage.
Craig
This is a blog of Labour MP’s. I definitely do not expect objectivity as they shouldn’t if they visit my blog.
From the use of the royal “we” you are obviously a Labour Party member/supporter. Fine. But claiming you are more objective than anyone else here is a tad rich isn’t it? If this blog is going to be an online Labour party policy meeting then shouldn’t you login and exclude everyone who is not a paid up Party member?
Jacinda has brought up an issue that the voters have already answered – National trounced Labour in the rural vote. Fonterra and Fed Farmers supported the Budget 09 and with it the changes in R&D.
Once again you are another “raised in a farming community”. Lets hear from actual farmers. I suspect most of Labour’s disengagement from farmers comes from talking to those “raised in a farming community” and not the farmers or their representative lobby groups directly themselves.
Darryl,
I don’t think we can afford to sit back and hope everybody else plays by the Queensberry rules. If we become too reliant on one particular product or service we leave ourselves open to problems. This is why we need to fund research.
NZ is about the only country in the world that still has enough water to go around. But if we try and irrigate everything for dairy even NZ will run dry.
In a world that will inevitably run out of water, food and oil how about we look at some cropping that uses less resources than dairying? We could still have dairy cows in the more productive areas to sell powder to wealthy countries, but i would have thought that if we were interested in export dollars a diversity of products needs to be produced. Have a look at how well the wine and kiwi fruit industries have come in short time.
There’s alot more to rural NZ than cows and the NFF.
It will be the same problem with cropping and horticulture TC. I good case in point is the ongoing apple tariff that we have to put up with from Australia. The decline of the American dollar also makes the cropping exports of Canada and America harder to compete with.
And I guess there are arguments that could be had over whether intensive horticulture is more/less ‘green’ then intensive farming.
What we can do though is make the New Zealand brand stronger. So that overseas restaurants source NZ beer, lamb and dairy products because their customers have a perception that the food is superior (which of course it is
). Then we are not competing on a ‘like for like’ basis.
If we are known to produce the ‘iPod of meat’ rather then the ‘generic MP3 player of meat’ then we have a better chance of getting higher margins on every kilo of export.
No Kate it is not a Labour only site.
I am sure the Labour Mps would welcome any body who actually wants to have an adult discussion. But you have nothing of value to add do you? So why come on with childish snipping.
You have added nothing to the discussion at all. Im guessing and forgive me if I am wrong but are you a farmer Kate or are you the child of a farmer, have you even lived on a farm, or worked a family farm, lived in a Rural community maybe, I suspect not.
If people only ever discussed topics that directly effected them it would be a pretty narrow discussion.So what are you suggesting we don’t listen to people in the rural community because they don’t own our work on a farm.
Be my guest Kate, knock your brains, out come up with something constructive to add to the discussion.
Labour lost heavily in the Rural seats in 2008 but that does not mean Labour shouldn’t develop policy that is good for farming and the Country. In 99 Labour ripped the heart out of Nationals rural seats and they can do it again.
Oh and Kate guess what Labour did enter into discussions with Fed Farmers in 99 and they found to their surprise there was lots of areas of common ground. How do I know Kate because I was their engaging with the Feds.
Any seat is winnable when you have the right policy and the right candidate, thats what politics is all about! Politics is not about being childish on a blog site, grow up Kate!
“Self-reliance” Kate? Really? Are you talking about the same farmers who hide their assets in trusts so they can get Community Service Cards and their kids can get student allowances? The same farmers who claim expenses like Sky TV, and put their hand out every time a little bit of bad weather floods a paddock? And all of this paid for from the tax on my hard earned income. Alot of farmers are just closet socialists; they bemoan the nanny-state at any opportunity they have, yet will suck her dry given half the chance.
This so called self-reliance taught by “inter-generational farming families” that you preach on about Kate sounds an awful lot like good ol’ fashioned bludging if you ask me.
Obama’s about to kill NZ with a USD exchange rate collapse from pumping up his economy and increase agricultural subsidies. But then you know that as your IUSY cheered on Obama. Well done.
Cactus, please get some perspective. Just have a look at some socialist websites and see their opinion of Obama. They’ve more often than not been scathing in their criticisms. This article deals with the very issue you’re addressing from a European perspective. Obama’s baneful actions and rank incompetence has been rightly criticised from both sides the political spectrum.
Craig, isn’t that funny. You spend almost all that rambling diatribe harrassung CK while preaching about “growing up”!
I don’t see how giving farmers more money or subsidies or anything of the sort will help them whatsoever. The only good thing Labour ever did for the farmers was to cut subsidies under Sir Roger Douglas. After that the Labour “rural” wing did all they could to keep their vote. Lip service doesn’t mean you’ll get their support any time soon.
Now move along.
Yep. Some farmers will be bludgers. Why would they be any different from any other sector of society? But, like most people, I imagine that most take what is offered, and do so in reasonable fashion. And we can all reprise the “I am closer to the (working class, peasantry, farming community, revolutionary elite, free individual, Metro-starring hegemon – take your pick)line”.
What matters is that:
a) agriculture remains a vital element in our economy and export success;
b) farming communities are an essential element in our stable polity;
c) that commercial success is based on lots of farmers working really hard, plus a great deal of state (that is, all of us) investment in grass improvement, improved stock breeding, better nutrition, superior processing, business support, export promotion and a great deal more;
d) how much value-add is there over and above what’s already achieved by, for example, Fonterra’s 1000-plus product lines from dairy fat?;
e) if lots, we need to work hard to develop it;
f) if little, we have to make new arrangements – perhaps elsewhere in agriculture, or in other sectors;
g) those decisions will require an effective partnership between we (the collective, the state, the investors in vital social capital) and specific economic groups (with all their self-interest).
Simple, really.
I would’ve thought that all New Zealander’s would support Labour’s efforts when in govt to make policies relating to our primary producers more bipartisan. We’re not going to agree on everything but the work Jim Anderton did in his time as Minister in this area was and still is very much appreciated by many in the farming sector regardless of how they voted.
The fact is ag and hort are crucial to our economy and Labour wants to see them do well. Thats why we introduced the fast forward fund to boost private and public funding of science for our food and pastoral sectors. Labour’s R&D tax credit also would’ve been of enormous benefit.
I also think Labour understood the importance of provincial communities in their entirety. These communities are not made up exclusively of farmers, and if you ignore the rural teachers, nurses, doctors, small business owners, tourism operators, mums, dads, cleaners, caretakers, artists etc etc etc then you will also be killing off these towns as surely as if you ignore farmers.
Kate – I am not a farmer (altho I am a scientist unlike the Minister of RS&T if you want to get precious about peoples backgrounds)but like most kiwis I have extensive family connections in farming (including dairy farmers), but I do live in a provincial area that relies on horticulture and agriculure so I feel I do have the right to speak on an issue that goes to the very heart of my communities economic survival.
I also did my honours thesis on flystrike and the role of the mixed function oxidase system in insecticide resistance in lucillia cuprina (Aussie sheep blowfly) – interloan it from a library near you
Well, Whaleoil clearly wasn’t at Fieldays. Sounds like he was relying on misinformed National Party gossip. Again!
Good on you Jacinda! Comprehensive investment in R & D for the food and pastoral sector is exactly the boost that the Waikato economy needs, but instead the Government has cut that investment from the $700m already committed by Labour when in Government and replaced it with $190m that has to stretch across the whole primary production sector. And not one of the National MPs has gone to bat for the Waikato on this one.
The Fast Forward fund was obcene. The highest earning industry in NZ getting subsidies. Good riddance to it, if farmers need to increase R&D spending to remain competative then they can damn well pay for it all themselves instead of freeloading off the rest of NZ’s taxpayers.
The dairy industry earns a lot, but it isn’t always the best option. As a non-farmer, it seems like diversification is a good idea. There are plenty of other strong agricultural products out there, and we shouldn’t let the glamour of dairy blind us to things that might give better returns.
Zeb – I wasn’t aware science was the highest earning industry in New Zealand. This was a scientific research fund, not subsidies for dairy farmers. The most immediate beneficiaries would’ve been the bioscience sector. The food and pastoral sectors obviously would have benefitted as well but so would the whole economy. Also lets not forget the fund was matched dollar for dollar by industry – crucial to lifting our low rate of private investment in this area.
George – I agree but remember the fund wasn’t just for dairy research it was for all food and pastoral, which includes many sectors which have been struggling and dont have the means to fund r&d entirely themselves.
Moana
Science is a method not an industry. You say the FF fund was a susidy for comercial bioscience research and yet in your reply to George you say that it was for all food and pastoral research. No matter how indirect the FF fund would have subsidised research that was predominantly aimed at the agricultural sector therefore allowing that sector a free ride on the back of other taxpayers.
Zeb – Fair comment – actually I’d probably define it as a sector in this context. The FF fund was for food and pastoral research which is predominantly bioscience but also material and physical sciences etc
As I said – of course it will benefit those sectors, but we want it to benefit them because these sectors benefit our entire economy.This is why we already fund public science in these and many other areas through for example Agresearch and Crop and Food Crown Research Institutes, so it’s not a new concept to have public funding of science which our major export industries benefit from.
The difference with FF was for the first time the funding was matched dollar for dollar by the very industries you believe should be contributing to their own R&D, and it was a long term guaranteed source of funding rather than a year by year appropriation.
I saw the results of research and development and diversified marketing 30 months ago in Chile.
The only N.Z. dairy products on sale in the local supermarket were beautifully packaged products from Tatua (8 km from Jacinda’s home). The touter of bulk dairy products, Fonterra, had nothing there. When I arrived home from South America I noted that Tatua’s payout that year would be somewhat less than Fonterra’s. I thought that was a little cruel.
Okay, Tatua will beat Fonterra handsomely in the final payout for 2008-09.