Why the haste with legislation?

By Glenys Christian

Over the gate



Did the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act really have to be rushed through Parliament under urgency at the weekend?

Most dairy farmers would say no, even if they agreed with the intentions of the legislation.

The Government's undue haste might well have the opposite effect to that intended, with farmers putting their feet even more firmly on the brake pedal.

They have no argument with the idea that their industry needs to be more commercially rather than politically focused. But farmers can smell a rat when the politicians start to argue about reducing the power of the industry.

Farmers ask why the pipfruit and kiwifruit industries were able to retain their single-seller legislation. There is a suspicion that dairy industry leaders gave way too rapidly.

Despite a belief that a single desk would not have allowed the industry to expand in the right direction, farmers would have been much happier if retention of that concept had at least been placed on the bargaining table.

Dairying does have a deal, though, on the Compulsory Levies Bill, which would authorise the collection of farmer money for industry-good activities.

In the past the Dairy Board simply subtracted this from its income before farmers received their final payout. But it now has special dispensation allowing it to continue to perform these functions while the final shape of the legislation, which also covers the Meat and Wool Boards, is decided.

In the latter case, the debate still has a very long way to go.

The proposition should be simple. Farmers still want some type of umbrella body in place, preferably somewhat slimmer in activities and staff numbers from what they have at present.

But they do not want either body to receive levies towards vague proposals, which appear in glossy annual reports, such as "improving international relations."

Farmers want hard dollars and cents in returns coming out of tightly focused research funding.

A lot is said about the differences between dairying and the meat and wool industries in the way they reacted to a Government suggestion that a vote of 37.5 per cent of farmers by number and value of produce be required for this levy collection.

The Dairy Board was confident in dismissing this threshold as being too low to give it a sufficient mandate. But the Meat and Wool Boards quibbled with officials, saying the hurdle they had to jump should be lowered yet again.

Farmer support is a very tenuous thing. It has to exist and it must be proved to exist at regular intervals.

Dairy companies now have a job to convince shareholders that they should give the 75 per cent backing required for the merger agreements to form the mega cooperative.

But the Meat and Wool Boards have an even bigger task.

They must think long and hard on how they can seriously stay in place if they really believe they will have trouble convincing farmers of their worth.

* Glenys Christian can be contacted on e-mail at glenys@farmindex.co.nz