KEY POINTS:
Farm leaders expecting National Party leader John Key to heed their call to arms on the Resource Management Act didn't receive the wholehearted support they might have hoped for at their annual summit last week.
Key appeared less than well versed in the particulars of the Federated Farmers' concerns, pledging instead to take a copy of their policy paper back to a mystical "them" who might provide him with an answer.
Instead, New Zealand's preferred prime minister promised swift action to reform the act to improve efficiency for businesses should National come to power, by reducing delays, legal costs and the complexity of regional and and district plans, as well as eliminating the potential for frivolous objections.
But he dodged the farm lobby group's specific questions - such as whether he would amend section 6 of the act, under which land use is restricted for the purposes of public benefit - or move to block the use of the taxpayer dollar to fund the Department of Conservation's advocacy role in resource consents.
He did, however, affirm that the defence of property rights was one of National's "basic fundamental principles", although he was keen to point out to delegates that they had never been entirely unfettered.
Although it's true his address was in Auckland, Key appears to have misjudged his audience somewhat, going by his choice of urban imagery: "You might own a farm but that doesn't mean you can go and build a 40ft skyscraper or apartments - they [property rights] always come with conditions."
In the wake of Labour's apparent backdown on right-to-roam legislation, which had brought a farm backlash, Key added that most farmers had always let people onto their farms if asked. "The fact they should ask them to go on there when it's a working environment is a common courtesy in my view."
The most specific he would get on DoC, however, was that National "shares some concerns" about the department. "We think it does some things well but we think there are certain areas where it doesn't."
Asked if there were any ways to control the giddy rise in the dollar, which he acknowledged was troubling sheep farmers, the former forex trader could offer no relief other than his belief that currency union with Australia might help.
NO SHAME
A farm lobbyist is taking a novel approach to allegations that the sector punches above its weight when it comes to the volume of greenhouse gases emitted.
As the agricultural sector seeks to head off the imposition of a carbon tax, Federated Farmers president Charlie Pedersen has told his flock they should not be ashamed that New Zealand possibly produces more animal emissions per capita than any other country, because while other countries consume 90 per cent of the food they produce and sell 10 per cent to international markets, the reverse is true of New Zealand. "If New Zealand food was replaced by food produced in the Northern Hemisphere, where much more energy is used in agriculture, overall emissions would go up." Pedersen considers that the world is better off with New Zealand agriculture continuing to produce, despite its high emissions, because "meat and dairy products produced in New Zealand use less energy than food produced almost anywhere else".
Farmers overseas keep their animals in sheds which require lighting, heating and cooling, he says, while stock food has to be gathered by machinery, and processed, stored, and distributed to the animals. And "effluent in the sheds has to be mechanically removed".
That all takes electricity, gas or diesel, Pedersen says. "Some of these farms are very small, meaning they can achieve little economy of scale."
He says the global environment would benefit if such "inefficient food producers" scaled back their production and more food was bought from New Zealand.
"It may be that increasing greenhouse gas emissions in New Zealand to produce more food is, overall, a better way to curb climate change."
LOBBYING FOR FONTERRA
The Government has gone into bat for Fonterra, as Uncle Sam seeks to impose a dairy import levy that could cost New Zealand's largest company as much as $6 million a year. With Congress soon to finalise a Farm Bill likely to perpetuate a regime of domestic subsidies and export credits, Agriculture Minister Jim Anderton says he did his darnedest last week to exploit warmer New Zealand-US relations on Capitol Hill by arguing against the inclusion of such a measure . "We don't benefit from this levy in terms of its promotion of milk product because we're under quota on the one hand and on the other hand we don't sell branded milk products - we actually sell milk products for ingredients for other goods that are sold."
Anderton also argued against country-of-origin labelling requirements for blended products such as ground beef.
After the obligatory push for a free-trade deal with US Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns, and meeting Fonterra officials, Anderton met senior politicians to fight for New Zealand's interests in the Farm Bill.
He said that while US producers were pushing for the levy "there was a fair bit of support in Congress for our position".
Anderton said it was possible the 2002 Farm Bill might be rolled over - in which case New Zealand exporters would not face the 10 to 15 per cent levy - but that was far from certain. Although the previous Farm Bill contained country-of-origin labelling provisions they had never been never implemented, partly because they were unworkable, Anderton said.
Most of New Zealand's beef exports to the US went into ground beef - which was mixed with more fatty meat from other sources. "When you come to a mixture like that how do you label it?" Anderton said. "If you go too far you actually restrict trade because it will be so complicated people won't want to mix anything because it is so complex."
Anderton said his wish to see those provisions repealed had the backing of many people in the US beef industry and "a couple of Congressmen are working on an amendment to the bill if it doesn't get changed in this and other areas".
Senior New Zealand politicians had much greater access to US "movers and shakers" now tensions had eased and the relationship had mellowed, Anderton said. "We had our day in court and we met everyone that is likely to be prepared to listen - both friend and foe - so we had a good go at it."
Following his US visit, Anderton headed for Mexico, to discuss a free-trade agreement.
"There is quite a lot of enthusiasm," he said, "but we've got to work through some of the angst of producers."
