Fruitful campaign in agropolitics

Press, 12 July 1984, Page 12

Fruitful campaign in agropolitics

By

The farming sector has done very well out of the election campaigning, a fact already recognised by the hierarchy of Federated Farmers.

Fanners have long been considered to be National supporters and the National Party must retain a handful of key rural seats in Saturday’s election to remain in government. But a swing towards Labour in these rural eletorates might confirm that many farmers and their families see that a combination of the measures left in place by the National Government and the stated intentions of the Labour Party would be the ideal result from the election. For these voters, the return of Colin Moyle as Minister of Agriculture may also be a significant factor influencing them to vote Labour.

For rural New Zealand the 1984 snap General Election has contained the following highlights: © Announcement by the Government of a new $l5O million pastoral loan scheme. © Agreement between the Government and the producer boards on reform of the Supplementary Minimum Price scheme. O Widespread adoption by at least three of the four political parties of much of Federated Farmers’ election policy. 0 The non-appearance of a specific National Party policy on agriculture and the retirement of the present Minister of Agriculture, Mr Maclntyre. © The re-emergence of Labour’s spokesman on agriculture, Mr Moyle, who is held in high regard as a previous minister. ® The. eventual resignation of the Dominion president of the federation, Mr Rob Storey, to contest the seat for Waikato for the National Party, accompanied by a change in the personnel in a number of top positions in the federation. The Government entered the four-week campaign with two block-busting announcements on agriculture. The first was a ?150 million loan scheme to help farmers increase and diversify production on land which has been already developed. The scheme will run for 2% years, interest will be at 7% per cent but deferred for the first three years and then capitalised and

HUGH STRINGLEMAN,

Farm Editor

added to the principal with the whole sum payable over 10 years. Those dependent on farming for their primary source of income are eligible to borrow for cultivation,

seed, lime, fertiliser, weed control, conservation planting, new subdivisional fencing, follow-up clearing of minor reversion, drainage, water supply and access. Although the scheme will not come into operation until October 1, the Labour Party has not announced that it would not proceed with the scheme should it become the Government. During the campaign Mr Moyle said that a Labour Government would institute “approved farm development schemes, enabling additional assistance to be given to farms and areas which demonstrate genuine need.” “The assistance will include ad-

ditional fertiliser and lime subsidies and additional pest and weed eradication assistance,” he said. The second big agricultural announcement by the Prime Minister, Sir Robert Muldoon, was timed to take attention away from the opening speech of the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Lange. It was the “abolition” of supplementary minimum price payments. The Government had reached agreement with the producer boards, Sir Robert said, to end the scheme at the end of the 1983-84 trading season — June 1984 for wool and September 1984 for meat. As a transitional measure for the 1984-85 season, lump sum payments would be made to the Meat and Wool Boards equal to the expected S.M.P. payments. Labour spokesmen said a number of times during the campaign that subsidies to farmers were necessary at present. Mr Moyle said the S.M.P. announcement was a con. He put great emphasis on the Labour Party’s proposals for improving prospects for the agricultural sector so that subsidies would no longer be necessary. However, the National Government could certainly reply that this has long been its intention. Nor did Mr Lange or Mr Moyle suggest that the re-arrangement of the S.M.p. scheme as announced would not be allowed to stand upon a change in Government. An associated agricultural announcement by the Government, so

significant it almost demands treatment as a third “block-bus-ter,” was the measures to deal with the $4OO million debt in the Meat Income Stabilisation Account of the Meat Board. The debt at the end of the current trading year will be transformed into a 30-year subordinated loan with no interest or principal repayments for the first five years and then the principal repaid in equal instalments at one per cent interest over 25 years. Again, Labour did not object at such an arrangement.

Having benefited so substantially in the first week of the three-week campaign proper, farmers must have known that the election was good business for farming. Mr Moyle followed his comments on the loan scheme and the S.M.P. re-arrangement with a major policy speech entitled “Labour’s intentions for Agriculture.” He made the usual strong statements of principle about farming being the backbone of the country and the foundation of our exportearning capacity. He also re-af-firmed Labour’s belief in the family farm, the settlement of young farmers and orderly market-

ing. He promised a marketing drive for exported primary products; increased purchase of suitable land for subdivision development and settlement; promotion of sharefarming outside of dairying; encouragement for agro-forestry and expansion of the functions of the Rural Bank.

This is a comprehensive list of popular causes in agriculture at present. It points up one of the advantages of being in opposition and therefore in a position to promote policies which are attractive over as wide a range as possible. However, either Mr Moyle or Labour’s spokesman on the Rural Bank, lands, fisheries and valuation, Sir Basil Arthur, had announced these policies at various times well before the election.

Apart from the major announcements on the loan scheme and the S.M.P. scheme, the National Party preferred to run on its record in government. Candidates were told to stress the achievements of the wage and price freeze from mid 1982 to early this year, particularly the reduction in inflation; the Closer Econo-

mic Relations agreement with Australia; transport de-licensing; amendments to the Income Tax Act to cover matrimonial property transfers and estate duties; and the strong leadership of Sir Robert But National was definitely hampered in the campaign for the votes of rural citizens by the retirement of Mr Maclntyre. An ongoing Minister of Agriculture would have been able to marshal rural policies and make a few speeches to draw attention to those policies. Social Credit gave pride of place in its agricultural policy to the replacement of supplementary minimum prices with a payment from a levy on foreign exchange used by importers. “The levy would guarantee payment to the farmer sufficient to cover production costs and provide a decent standard of living,” said the policy. Actual payment would be made through the marketing boards.

Social Credit would also ensure that agriculture was paid for the exhange earned by primary products at its internal cost, in New Zealand dollars, together with “a reasonable profit.” It proposed greatly increased “countertrade,” or barter with other countries; anti-land-aggrega-tion measures; five-year compulsory residence for purchase or lease of economic farm units; prohibition on sales of New Zealand farmland to overseas interests; increased land development and settlement; and greatly increased Government input to irrigation. The New Zealand Party stressed the exchange rate, saying that floating the dollar to achieve an “honest exchange rate” would restore farmers’ earnings. It would remove “distorting” tax incentives; scrap death duties and gift duty; remove protection barriers; ensure producer boards did not “inhibit market development”; convert the Rural Bank to a full trading bank with low interest agricultural lending as a priority, transfer Lands and Survey Department assets to a new corporation; encourage freeholding of all Crown lease property, remove restrictions on long term rural land use; separate fisheries from the Ministry of Agriculture; encourage irrigation co-operatives and horticultural development. This thought-provoking group of

policies was presented by the party’s spokesman on agriculture and candidate for Waikaremoana, Mr Timothy Plummer. Mr Plummer resigned as chairman of the meat and wool section of Federated farmers to contest the election. He was recently replaced as chairman by Mr Bruce Anderson, of Fairlie. Federation members almost to a man agreed that Mr Plummer had done the “right thing” by resigning to contest the election. Conversely they also believed that the Dominion president, Mr Storey, had not done the “right thing” by trying to hang onto his office after being declared as the National candidate for Waikato, and in. this safe seat being reasonably assured of being elected to Parliament. The moves of Mr Storey and Mr Plummer have brought politics on a personal level home to the federation. Several changes in the top leadership have or will soon result.

Mr Peter Elworthy appears certain to be confirmed as Dominion president later this month. He and his brother, Mr Johnathon Elworthy, Minister of Lands and Forests and member for Waitaki, will be spared a certain amount of embarrassment and political jibing should National not win the election tomorrow and/or Jonathon Elworthy not win his seat. The anger kindled against Mr Storey was a result of the widespread perception of the need to preserve the federation’s apolitical stance so that it is able to work on behalf of farmers whatever Government is in power. Barring challenges unforeseen at present, Mr Brian Chamberlin should be confirmed as senior vice president of the federation at the annual Dominion conference on July 24 to 26. Mr Owen Jennings, of Westport, recently resigned as chairman of the dairy section to seek, it is widely understood, the Dominion junior vice ” presidency. He was replaced as chairman by Mr Bruce Tolich, of Kaikohe.

All of the executives mentioned so far, and particularly Mr Storey and Mr Elworthy, had a hand in writing the agricultural policy of the federation which has been so widely applauded and adopted. The success of that policy has been one true success to emerge from the 1984 General Election.