Green winds blow hard in antirural direction
Is rural New Zealand getting a fair deal?, asks Gerrard Eckhoff.
THE poster child of the New Zealand economy for quite some years now has been tourism. No longer, due to Covid19 and the future shocks pandemics will inevitably bring. There in the background, grinding away as it has always done, is the “old reliable” primary industry.
It is therefore bizarre that the induced headwinds which primary industry has always faced now blow stronger than ever. The question for this sector is whether to run before the wind or turn and sail into the wind. These two nautical terms may seem to be incongruous with the hinterland especially, yet it does seem a decision to run before the manmade political storm fronts has been made.
The peacetime political leadership of rural New Zealand appear to have adopted a decision to not make a stand based on the reasonable expectation that discussion and compromise with appropriate authorities is in everyone’s best interests. Not so. Every negative utterance by ministers of the Crown towards rural New Zealand has a multiplier effect as nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) seize on and amplify the negative comments.
The Green Party undoubtedly dictates environmental policy to Government although nobody, including the Government itself, is too sure of what it is they want rural New Zealand to stop growing, making or producing to help pay for everybody else’s wants and needs.
The restriction on the use of artificial nitrogen is a case in point. Wellington seems unable to understand the land which receives the most artificial nitrogen per square metre, is arable land and especially where vegetable growers conduct their essential industry. No nitrogen, poor crop. Poor crop — high prices.
It is well understood that as a country’s standard of living rises so too do the environmental demands from (usually) urban interests. These demands are placed upon those who utilise the natural capital of land and water. Governments recognised they stand to gain politically from the redistribution of longestablished use rights to our natural capital by going from production to preservation.
Recent years have seen a plethora of new regulations, cost and control as environmental groupings not just make headway but demand increasing authority over this sector.
Issues such as water use, land use, carbon sinks and credits, genetic modification afforestation, cost increases abound. There are even calls for a form of rural conversion theory to be made compulsory. This is to move away from conventional farming or land use practice such as the use of artificial fertilisers (NPK). Such advice is always from nonfarming sources. These demands are likely to become even more strident as the political influencers in Wellington understand only one side of the discussion.
The science behind climate change is settled, or so we are told, but can be blissfully cast aside when the science behind genetic modification for pest control (by way of example) is open for serious discussion. Officials recommend/endorse the move to organic agriculture.
Genetic modification of rabbits to ensure they breed only male offspring is a nobrainer yet sadly this concept has met with a deafening silence from those in authority. The cost to rural New Zealand is beyond massive yet the Government steadfastly refuses to even sanction trials in secure surroundings to determine the success or otherwise of this technology.
Instead of adopting an attitude of — what can we do to help, our Government sees the rural sector as a necessary evil. The Greens see sensible use of our natural capital as even worse — a completely unnecessary evil.
National policy statements (NPS) abound as Government sets rules that contradict the prescribed original purpose of the RMA which had the regions making policy that best suits the area. Today, NPS are devised to better suit a political party philosophy rather than adopt winwin situations, both economically and environmentally.
The rural sector, in return for nothing very much at all, can ensure the best possible environmental outcomes should the Government decide to adopt an entirely different approach. That of listening and working with rural people who understand their farm, their area and their region.
Currently, consultation at every level is akin to a wellrehearsed card trick. It looks real, seems real at the time, but is a clearly wellrehearsed sleight of hand.
It is not just the producer who loses out through this topdown approach but the small communities to which they belong. The Crown should or could purchase the development rights to land for their own purpose, but it is doubtful such a principled process has even occurred to those in authority.
There are groups of rural people who understand what is actually happening, yet such protest meetings are destined to lose by default due to the uncoordinated approach.
Sometimes we really do need to protect our country from our Government.
❛ Genetic modification of rabbits to ensure they breed only male offspring is a nobrainer yet sadly this concept has met with a deafening silence from those in authority.