Meat NZ may fear silence of the lambs

By Philippa Stevenson

Between the lines

If the silence of the majority can be taken as endorsement of the status quo then Meat New Zealand is in soundless heaven.

Just 126 out of a possible 30,000 sheep and beef farmers turned up to the board's annual meeting in Hamilton last week. In the lead up, only around 2000 farmers attended 21 farmer forums held nationwide.

About 1000 farmers, perhaps wise to the mind-numbing nature of the yearly earbash, sent in postal ballots on the 13 remits put before the meeting.

Even though the ballots heavily outweighed votes from the floor, the AGM debate was still as hot and dry as a Canterbury norwester

But the board should take heart from the results of the voting and the assumption that the silent majority was supportive rather than apathetic.

The motion of no confidence in the board was blitzed. In voting numbers swollen by a system weighted by stock numbers rather than a one farmer/one vote mechanism, a total of 16,857 votes, or 70 per cent of those cast, rejected the motion.

If a vote against the motion conversely implied support for the board, then most farmers back its work under present legislation and under its "Plan for Change". They apparently believe it can achieve the best possible returns for livestock producers.

Just over 50 per cent of voters rejected a motion that farmers not be compulsorily levied to fund generic promotion of meat. The motion proposed that processors and exporters alone should fund the programme.

A bigger majority were against tucking into the board's reserves of $120 million and, in case all this approval got anyone carried away, a big majority, 77 per cent, was against single seller powers.

Another remit soundly carried urged a referendum on whether farmers wanted a representative meat organisation and what sort it should be. A follow up remit, carried by 94 per cent of votes, urged the board to get a full list of levypayers so all 30,000 could vote.

So where did the hours of discussion leave the board? Pretty much where it entered the meeting.

Chairman John Acland's address, delivered before the remits were discussed, showed the board was already on the same wavelength.

It proposes to carry on with the generic promotion of meat funded by a mandatory levy but one which producers can alter or cancel at any time. Producers could also change the direction of the board.

It is also well on the way to getting an electoral roll in order to hold a referendum.

Can it take pride in being a step ahead? Not much. The board has been around for 77 years - about the same amount of time it took for communism to be tried and dumped in Russia.

Beware the silent majority.