Drought aid not enough, say Canterbury farmers

Press, 18 March 1989, Page 2

Drought aid not enough, say Canterbury farmers

By

JOHN HARFORD

Farmers reacted angrily yesterday to the Government’s second drought package made public on Thursday.

Members of the North Canterbury Federated Farmers meat and wool executive said the package went nowhere near providing the help needed by farmers. Few would benefit from the offer of meeting some interest payments on seasonal finance.

The provincial senior vicepresident, Mr Oliver Grigg, said he was disappointed and angry that the Government had failed to take up most of the recommendations made to it by farming leaders. The package had adopted only one of about eight recommendations to help farmers restablish after the drought. The recommendations ignored by the Government had been aimed at providing an injection of cash into the rural communities, he said. The Government seemed to be assuming the drought would last only one season. “As anyone who farms in Canterbury knows, you just cannot make that assumption. Even if it was good next season, the effects of this drought will be with us for several years to come,” said Mr

Grigg. The former president, Mr Michael Murchison, said most farmers had been expecting assistance similar to that given those who had suffered in Hawke’s Bay from Cyclone Bola. “Because Bola was a sudden thing they paid out. This has been a growing sore and so has just been pushed aside.” The drought would affect the cities as well as rural communities, he said. Mr John Roy said the Government’s attitude to the drought was “diabolical” and the Minister of Agriculture, Mr Moyle, had betrayed the farming industry. “His approach has been so bad we should ask for his resignation.”

By leaving it up to financiers to determine who would qualify for the latest drought assistance, Mr Moyle was “walking away from the problem,” he said. An inference in the first drought package that financial assistance would be given to bring capital stock back to Canterbury had encouraged farmers to seek grazing elsewhere. “People who put capital stock

out of the area for grazing are looking to bring them back in the next few weeks. Much of that stock will now not be coming back but will be killed,” said Mr Roy.

Mr Dick Davison said most farmers intended to continue farming but the drought package was “useless” in helping them. Many farmers who could continue would not qualify for Government aid because they could continue to make arrangements with banks and other financiers.

“It will benefit only a small slice of fanners who can prove they are broke, but not quite broke,” he said.

He said there was a need to come to grips with the debt crises. Initiatives along these line might now have to be directed at financiers since they would be judging who would not be able to take advantage of the second Government drought package. It was now up to farming leaders to ensure farmers were able to make the best of what was available. Farmers needed to keep up to date cashflows and budgets. A number of negative com-

ments from farmers had been made about financiers but there needed to be tolerance and forbearance from all parties to make it work. “I don’t believe it will do any good to harbour antagonistic attitudes,” he said. The Opposition member of Parliament for Selwyn, Miss Ruth Richardson, said the package would do little to restore confidence to Canterbury agriculture. The assistance had been targeted too narrowly to be of benefit to many farmers, she said. The scheme was limited to two years when the flow-on effects of the drought would last much longer. In contrast to the fast, positive and generous response from the Government to the victims of Cyclone Bola, the response to the drought had been slow, grudging, and miserly. The Government should have targeted aid to minimise the downstream effects of the drought, ensure planning for next season’s production, and guarantee agriculture’s long-term earnings base for Canterbury. The package did none of these.