Dairy lobby compares NZ environmental rules with 'state theft'

Urban voters ignorant of rural issues are placing pressure on dairy farmers through both central and local government, says Dairy Farmers of New Zealand chairman, Frank Brenmuhl.

"There are huge pressures on dairy farmers," he told the organisation's council meeting in Christchurch today in a comparison of New Zealand's environmental constraints on farming with "state theft" from Zimbabwe farmers by their own government.

"Many of these stem from central, regional and local government complying with the desires of an urban electorate that is largely ignorant of rural issues".

Mr Brenmuhl also derided the Government from failing to acknowledge in the run-up to last year's general election the contribution that had been made by dairying to the national economy.

"They took the golden eggs that we have produced and heaped blame upon farming for not doing more," he said. Politicians who had power should exercise it in the interest of all New Zealanders, "particularly in terms of putting more money into research".

Fonterra chief executive Andrew Ferrier said last year he wanted to re-align science funding because there was a risk of policy being driven "more by sentiment than science".

"Fonterra intends to use its influence to ensure that the funds being invested are spent wisely and in a much more focused way," he said after environmental leaders called for increased scrutiny of environmental issues around farming.

Farmers have been urged by Parliament's Commissioner for the Environment Morgan Williams to redesign their systems because rapid expansion in use of nitrogen fertilisers, increased stocking rate, and increased irrigation are damaging freshwater quality.

The waste generated by 3000 dairy herds in the Waikato River catchment is equivalent to the waste from about five million people.

But the nation's biggest dairy company, Fonterra, has said farmers are concerned about the potential for debate over "dirty dairying" to lead to policies which might undermine dairying.

Mr Ferrier said last year that farmers feared they may need a resource consent to use fertilisers, and promised Fonterra would promote solutions that achieved a balance between environmental responsibility, and his co-operative's sustainability.

Today, Mr Brenmuhl said it was ironic that the Government was putting science money into "non-productive" projects, but also wanted more effort from the agriculture sector "to feed the state's ever-increasing avarice".

Landowners were being forced to defend themselves and their property rights in court against the ignorance, greed and resources of the state.

"When this happens in Zimbabwe, we call it state theft. What should we call it here in New Zealand?"

Today Mr Brenmuhl told farmers at the meeting that he was delivering a "wake up call to New Zealand decision-makers" and he wanted them to realise how many people's incomes and livelihoods depend on dairying.

"I want these urban-based decision-makers to stop seeing dairying as ... a cash cow that requires more rules and regulations," he said.

"Everyone leaves a footprint on the environment," he said in a comment on environmental sustainability. "The question is whether the cost of that footprint is acceptable."

New Zealand's economic growth rate of 3.6 per cent over the past six years -- with increased equity for property owners, increased employment and higher wages -- would not have happened if the dairy industry had not boosted milk production by 33 per cent during this period.

No other sector of the economy had contributed so much to the improved wellbeing of New Zealanders, and the primary sector contributed about 16.5 per cent of GDP, up from 14 per cent in 1986, Mr Brenmuhl said.

But reasoned argument and values relating to fairness and equality of citizenship were taking a back seat to a desire to appease people who had the weight of numbers in the electoral process.

In a recent Environment Court mediation Federated Farmers had opposed a Selwyn District Council proposal for a rule in its district plan that would exclude all animals of dairy origin from a 20-metre strip bordering any waterway for any new or expanded dairy farming operation.

This rule was targeted at the dairy industry because of a submission from Fish and Game, in line with its dirty dairying campaign against run-off and effluent from intensive farms damaging soil and water quality.

Mr Brenmuhl said the proposed rule was simply a desire by the Selwyn District Council to appease the Fish and Game lobby, but at the Environment Court mediation, Selwyn District Council was supported by Environment Canterbury, the Department of Conservation and Forest and Bird.

"The fact that farmers pay taxes to pay for the actions of the Department of Conservation, and rates to pay for the actions of the regional and local councils, was not lost on us," he said.
DOC was funded to participate in the RMA process, even though its own land and activities were explicitly exempted by the Act and were not regulated by councils.

Mr Brenmuhl alleged DOC pressured councils to regulate how farmers farmed their land, and if it failed to persuade the council to deliver the desired outcome, then taxpayer funds were frequently used to appeal the plan.

Losing an appeal to the Environment Court often resulted in farmers losing the use of land or property rights, with any compensation.

"Is that not theft?" Mr Brenmuhl said.

He also attacked Fish and Game and claimed it refused to meet its obligations to control game birds that fed on pasture grown by farmers.

Mr Brenmuhl said recent scientific evidence showed dairy farming was not damaging the environment in the manner stated by Fish and Game.

- NZPA