Perflant – blowing; blustery.
On how farmers overcome diversity – Sally Rae:
Resilience is defined as the ability to withstand adversity and bounce back from difficult life events. Those in the rural sector, in particular, can face adversity from multiple sources and additional challenges to other sectors of society.
For high country farmer Jack Cocks, adversity came in the form of a life-threatening brain injury in March 2013.
Then 36 years old, the father-of-two got a massive headache; he recalls the pain as being unimaginable. He did not know what the cause was but he knew the outcome could potentially kill him.
His wife Kate phoned 111 and he was flown from their home at Mt Nicholas Station, on the shores of Lake Wakatipu, to Dunedin Hospital in the middle of the night. . .
Kaitiakitanga – the force propelling the Miraka marvel – Gerald Piddock:
A small company is taking a holistic approach in its business – and it’s paying off on the global stage.
A small central North Island milk company is proving it can do big things. Based in Mokai, north of Taupō, Miraka is showing it’s possible to operate with kaitiakitanga (meaning guardianship and protection or sustainability) and te ao Māori values, and punch above its weight on the global stage. Kaitiakitanga was not a strategy, it was embedded in Miraka values and everything it did, chief executive Karl Gradon says. It is one of Miraka’s key values. It means more than just being sustainable, he told farmers and industry leaders at the Primary Industries of New Zealand Summit in Auckland.
“That’s not the translation, it is much more holistic than sustainability and we are proving we can do this on a global scale.”
The $300 million dairy company based in Mokai just north of Taupō is a key player in the Māori economy, being one of its largest exporters. It collects milk from 100 local farms within a 120km radius of the factory, which gives it a farm-fresh advantage and results in superior quality products. . .
Firearms licence fears often unwarranted – Kathryn Wright:
One of the saddest — and most misinformed — reasons that has emerged in my research on young rural men and why they don’t seek help for mental heath issues, is a fear of losing their firearms licence, writes KATHRYN WRIGHT, rural counsellor.
Firearms are a serious topic and attitudes around them can be emotional and polarising.
Urban people tend to equate firearms with crime, whereas for rural people, they are an essential tool on the farm and beyond. Essential for quickly and humanely putting down sick stock, and for pest control.
The flip side of firearm use is that of recreational hunting, which several roles — killing wild animals to feed the family and then there is the social/emotional connection. . .
New Zealand’s food exporters, on whom this country depends for the bulk of its export earnings, may have to contend with fresh opposition from a new quarter. This is the school of “greenies” who preach the need for a revolution in creating food through precision fermentation: growing food in labs from microbes and water.
Leading this school in the United Kingdom is a formidable authority, George Monbiot, who argues that before long
“… most of our food will come neither from animals nor plants but from unicellular life”.
Monbiot and others like him argue it is “indisputable” that the farming revolution of the the 1950’s , with its widespread use of herbicides, pesticides and fungicides has waged war on nature. . .
Price rises across dairy commodities drove an annual increase in the value of exports for dairy products, Stats NZ said today.
In the year ended July 2022, the total export value of milk powder, butter, and cheese increased $2.8 billion (17 percent) to $18.8 billion, compared with the year ended July 2021.
“Dairy products had a strong finish to the export season with a continuation of high prices, especially in the second half of the season,” international trade statistics manager Alasdair Allen said.
The annual increase was heavily driven by exports of milk powder, up $1.1 billion to $10 billion and milk fats, including butter, up $1.1 billion to $3.8 billion from the year ended July 2021. . .
This week at an awards dinner held in Auckland the New Zealand Institute of Forestry (NZIF) announced the winners of its three most prestigious awards. The 2022 recipients are acknowledged for their diverse range of skills and experience. From hard graft and commitment at grass roots level, to high level policy planning and execution, and academic leadership.
Forestry continues to be a significant contributor to the New Zealand economy. NZIF President, James Treadwell says “the industry is working hard to benefit New Zealand, and we are particularly proud of the high calibre of this year’s award contenders.”
The Prince of Wales Sustainability Cup is awarded to Jake Palmer. This award recognises the achievements of a young New Zealand forest professional who lives and breathes the principles of sustainable forest management. In addition to the sound science based land stewardship, the awardee must demonstrate a commitment to raising the profile, of the wise use and conservation of forests and their ecosystems. Treadwell commented “This award was instigated by Prince Charles in 2017. It’s especially poignant timing this year following the death of Queen Elizabeth II. The mantel will pass to a new Prince of Wales, Prince William, to continue to champion environmentally positive forestry practices.” . .
Over at The Common RoomTim Wilson explains how to disagree agreeably:
One of the many blessings of living in the provinces is that people standing for our councils do so as individuals, not on party tickets.
That doesn’t mean councillors aren’t politically aligned but it does mean their loyalty, and stance on issues, isn’t dictated by a party.
The dangers of that are clear to see in Rotorua where the mayor, and former Labour MP, Steve Chadwick, doesn’t appear to have done all she could while the government has fueled the housing crisis in the city.
Chris Milne writes of another example in a tale of two cities:
A great mystery of 2022 is how it came to be that the Upper Hutt and Lower Hutt Mayors formed polar opposite views on Three Waters.
The two cities share the same water collection and treatment system, the same water management (Wellington Water), occupy the same valley and share the same cost structures.
Three public opinion polls in the two cities have revealed strong resident opposition to the Labour Government’s centralisation of water management, including 50% iwi control through co-governance.
So how is it that, despite public opposition in both cities, Mayor Wayne Guppy of Upper Hutt is opposed but Mayor Campbell Barry is not?
The answer is pretty straight-forward. In 2019 Cr Campbell Barry campaigned for the Hutt City mayoralty under a Labour ticket. What the public were never told is that the Labour Party exacts a high price from candidates who use their trademark. . .
That price is a pledge to adhere to and implement Labour policy, irrespective of the wishes of the residents and ratepayers they are supposed to serve.
Labour’s constitution at the last council is quite clear on what is demanded of candidates:
R95: Any person accepting nomination as a Party candidate shall sign a pledge ….
R95(e): I will faithfully observe the Constitution and Policy of the Party and the policy of the party for the [Lower Hutt] district.
R95(f): If elected, I will vote … in accordance with the decisions [of the Labour ticket members].
And the following rule dictates that Labour candidates will support each other no matter what:
R95(c): I will wholeheartedly support the duly selected candidates of the Party in the [Lower Hutt] district.
And do note that the first Objective (R3) of the Labour Party is “to elect [candidates] for the purpose of giving effect to Party policy and principles”. Rule 152 says that “The Policy Platform is binding on … all Labour Party members elected to public office who describe their affiliation as “Labour” or “Labour Party” on the ballot. . .
How can people who make this pledge also represent their communities as described in Local Government New Zealand’s candidate’s guide (p8):
As an elected representative you are required to:
• represent the interests of the residents and ratepayers . . .
What happens when the interests of residents and ratepayers are not best served by Labour Party policy (p17)?
This begs the question: how can candidates keep the pledge they make to the Labour Party and the oath they are required to make when they are sworn in as councillors?
“I declare that I will faithfully and impartially, and according to the best of my skill and judgement, execute and perform, in the best interests of (region, district, community) the powers, authorities and duties vested in or imposed upon, me as (mayor, chairperson or member) of the (local authority, local board, community board) by virtue of the Local Government Act 2002, the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 or any other Act.”
No-one can serve two masters which begs another two question: is it legal to require candidates to make, and abide by, the pledge to the party when that doesn’t always mean they will be abiding by their oath to represent the interests of residents and ratepayers and are those who make the pledge as candidates then speaking with forked tongues when they take the oath as councillors?