Ag&Ed

FARMERS WEEKLY – farmersweekly.co.nz – October 24, 2022

Opinion National questions decide local elections

Alternative view

Alan Emerson

Semi-retired Wairarapa farmer and businessman: dath.emerson@gmail.com

THE recent local government elections were interesting for a variety of factors.

For a start the low turnout was a disgrace. There’s no point in having a democracy when only one person in three wants to participate.

Since the election we’ve had experts pontificating on what the elections actually meant, which isn’t a lot when only one person in three voted. You can’t get a definitive trend from a third of the population.

What did interest me was that there were a pile of conservative candidates and many progressive candidates but few in between.

The commentary coming from the newly elected is that they want more local government and less of that imposed by Wellington.

I have some sympathy with that view as over the decades central governments, both National and Labour, have given local government a lot more to do without funding them for it. Rates can only go so far.

I found the Auckland mayoral result fascinating and felt the brashness of the winner, Wayne Brown, was somewhat over the top.

Telling me he’s going to figure out what Auckland wants and then to get Wellington to pay for it was, I thought, extremely arrogant.

Auckland is our largest city, but it doesn’t contain the majority of the population. Suggesting that Auckland can figure out what it wants and then get the rest of the country to pay for it isn’t a sustainable position.

It’s also important to acknowledge that while mayors are important, they’re not omnipotent. Brown and other new mayoral incumbents may want to make massive changes, but without the support of councils they’re wasting their time. That’s a fact many, Brown included, seem to forget.

The reality is also that you can’t just fire people. There are safeguards, as we know.

In addition, biggest isn’t necessarily the best. Watching the foibles of local government in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch makes me pleased I live in the provinces.

Finally, Brown singing “Hit the road, Goff” accompanied by his banjo was, I considered, puerile.

So much for the Queen City when we’re currently ruled by a king.

Eleven mayors were rolled and a further 20 have new mayors courtesy of incumbents retiring. That means almost half local government is headed by new leaders, many with little local government experience.

What is interesting is the positions of those mayors on a variety of issues. Newsroom Pro surveyed the candidates and found that 76% of respondents opposed Three Waters.

In Gore the incumbent, by repute an excellent mayor, was in favour of Three Waters. The challenger, Ben Bell, was opposed. That Bell won should tell the government something.

Just last week in Auckland, Brown instructed the council to stop all work on Three Waters, which is further bad news for the government.

As I’ve previously written, I believe Three Waters was a badly thought-out, extremely arrogant dump on the general population. The political naivety of the move combined with the lack of any meaningful communication was astounding.

So now the government has the vast majority of local government mayors and councillors opposed to Three Waters in any form. The legislation is not far away from being introduced.

The government has three options: to railroad the legislation through, to modify it or to abandon the cause completely.

My personal belief is that they will railroad it through as it is, in the mistaken belief that people will have forgotten the issue by the time of next year’s general election.

I believe that is naïve, as local government can create a lot more noise for an extended period of time than the Parliamentary press gallery can.

It does show a touch of arrogance, as both National and ACT have pledged to repeal the legislation if elected next year.

It is also pertinent to acknowledge that last week ACT said it is opposing any cogovernance initiatives and will hold a referendum on the Treaty of Waitangi and its relevance.

That will have a considerable effect on Three Waters as it is currently drafted.

It is, in my opinion, a politically astute move from ACT and should guarantee the party increased representation in Parliament.

It also puts the government in a difficult position over Three Waters.

It will be interesting to see if it chooses a long electoral life over the quick exit that railroading Three Waters will achieve.

On the positive side for the government, 57% of the local government respondents in the Newsroom Pro survey supported greater intensification, as do I. That means cities going up, not out.

I was in Christchurch last week and the amount of good fertile land going into residential housing was significant. Thankfully the government has plugged the gap so it can’t continue.

So fellow farmers, buckle up your seat belts. We’re in for an interesting ride.

GO UP, NOT OUT: Support is growing for greater intensification, though ‘I was in Christchurch last week and the amount of good fertile land going into residential housing was significant,’ Alan Emerson says. Photo: Fraser Newman

In Gore the incumbent, by repute an excellent mayor, was in favour of Three Waters. The challenger, Ben Bell was opposed. That Bell won should tell the government something.

Reports of our demise greatly exaggerated

RECENTLY the government released its response to the He Waka Eke Noa Primary Sector Climate Action Partnership proposal on the pricing of agricultural emissions.

Understandably, it’s caused much anger, disquiet and disappointment across all agricultural sectors, particularly in my sector of sheep and beef as well as deer farming.

We appear to bear the brunt of the implications despite a steady decline in emissions over time given our contraction.

The dairy sector, where the big increases in emissions have occurred, is impacted less and potentially has the ability, because of a daily interaction with its animals, to mitigate more.

The good news is that the government agrees that it is not appropriate for agriculture to be put into the Emissions Trading Scheme. Remember, this was being seriously considered back in 2019 and would have been a far worse outcome than what we are dealing with.

Sheep and beef farms are already facing a serious threat as forestry and carbon companies, incentivised by the rising carbon price, outbid farming businesses for land to plant pine trees on. When you do the numbers, you can see that it is a compelling business case, and this is with carbon currently priced at $80. One doesn’t want to think about what will happen when it gets into $100+ as forecast and expected.

The proposed pricing on emissions in 2025 will further tip the balance from animals towards trees and make the case for more planting of trees on farmland even more compelling.

This is in direct contradiction of the clause in the Paris Agreement that says mitigate, but not at the risk of lowering food production.

The irony is that we can plant trees on our own farms and be paid to offset carbon emissions from transport and industry under the ETS, but the ability to be awarded sequestration benefits under this proposal to offset our animal methane emissions is limited.

The government’s proposal is that sequestration rewards be limited to indigenous vegetation where stock is excluded and riparian strips – which will be useful for some, but not all.

It is only fair that if you are to be priced on your emissions, you should receive benefits for the carbon capture that is occurring or could occur on our farms.

If anything, I’ve planted too many trees over my 40 years, and this property would be offsetting much of its emissions but very little of it qualifies for the ETS because I did it too early for the sequestration benefits currently proposed.

One of the reasons given for more sequestration not being included in this proposal is the complexity of measuring and working out how much carbon is being captured by small and widespread plantings across our landscape. One shudders at the prospect of a bunch of bureaucrats wandering around with clipboards and tape measures!

Well, technology and science are about to make this task a piece of cake.

I’m aware of a New Zealand company that is about to launch technology that will enable this very thing to be undertaken accurately.

It will offer the ability to survey vegetation using hyperspectral imagery at 1000ha/hr, giving species identification, age, and health, enabling potential carbon sequestration calculation efficiently and effectively.

Increasing the amount of sequestrating allowed would be a significant help to hill country sheep and beef farms and an area our industry bodies and those of us submitting over the next few weeks could make progress on.

Looking for a positive, there’s the assurance that revenue raised from this pricing of emissions will be recycled back into the agriculture sector through innovative technology, research and incentive payments to farmers.

Despite living in the 21st century, there is a strong element pushing back against science and facts, due in large part, and ironically, by the amazing technology that brings us social media.

The vegetation survey above is an example where science could have a huge positive impact upon this issue, and the large amount of money generated by the new tax could very well hasten scientific solutions to the problems we face.

From the ridge

Steve Wyn-Harris

Central Hawke’s Bay sheep and beef farmer: swyn@xtra.co.nz

One thing we could improve is the niggle within our sector. The old divide-and-rule principle is a real risk if we fall apart.

It would be better for all of us if the industry bodies and the likes of Groundswell got together and formulated a coordinated response that includes compromise from all sides.

In my time farming, I’ve heard the demise of our sector forecast several times.

We are a resilient bunch and bloody good at what we do.

This is not a time for despair but yet another challenge for us to confront and work out how we are going to deal with it.