Top 10 fixes for loopy rules

September 22, 2015

The Rules Reduction Task Force, co-chaired by Jacqui Dean MP and Michael Barnett has released its report.

In their introduction they say:

New Zealanders are fed up wasting time and money trying to work with loopy rules. We were tasked with identifying rules and regulations which are not fit-for-purpose and which impose unnecessary bureaucratic burdens on property owners and businesses.

Everyone we heard from has had tales to tell of loopy rules – requirements that are out of date, inconsistent, petty, inefficient, pointless or onerous. These are the things that really annoy people, whether they run a business or own their own home.

In the last few months we have travelled around New Zealand listening to people in their communities. We have also met with councils, sector interest groups, and government agencies.

We thank all those who have candidly shared their frustrations and given us their views on how rules could be changed to make more sense.

We did hear of rules that protect people, the environment, infrastructure and our heritage but which still enable individuals, businesses and our economy to prosper and grow. But we are struck by the number of instances where the good intentions of the rule-makers are somehow lost in the translation to the real world. Examples abound of inappropriate interpretation, over-zealous enforcement, and lack of focus on the customer. (My bold).

New Zealanders have told us they are confused and frustrated by frequent changes in the rules. They are exasperated by inconsistency, time-consuming processes and unreasonable costs. It was a surprise to us to find out that a number of the loopy rules are in fact just myths. They are misinterpretations and misunderstandings that have been repeated so often that they have taken on the status of facts. (My bold).

We heard many examples where people are not clear about what they need to do and why. Myths fill the gap when clear information is hard to find. We highlight these myths in this report along with the loopy rules that need to be changed or removed. We discovered that loopy rules are difficult to get rid of because they’re part of a wider system, because a focus on the customer is absent, or because of the interests of experts or the fears of their administrators. What’s clear is they thrive when rule makers fail to take responsibility for them. Most importantly, we identify opportunities to fix many loopy rules and bust the myths. Our top ten fixes are listed on page 7. We call on both central and local government to stop making more loopy rules.

The legislation which causes most problems are the Resource Management and Building Acts – the source of 32% and 27% of complaints respectively.

They give examples of loopy rules which include:

The rule is not practical The owners of a bus depot structure that has no walls are forced to install four exit signs, just in case people can’t find their way out if there is a fire.

The rule makes no sense The Health and Safety mining regulations define a tunnel as ‘what it is not’ rather than ‘what it is’.

Compliance with the rule defeats its very purpose An owner of a rural property had to spend $30,000 putting in a driveway and watertank to meet the fire requirements. The tank was at the back of the house. When the house caught fire, the fire chief would not drive his truck past the house to the tank in case it caught fire too.

A small change is treated the same as a big change: As part of the refurbishment of an earthquake-damaged building, a pharmacy is being added to the front of a 1950s building. The pharmacy is to be 3.5% of the building. The rest is residential. The pharmacy has triggered the need to upgrade the fire rating of the entire building at a cost of $50,000.

The rule sets a standard that can never be achieved: Converting a shop into a two-bedroom residential unit required a reduction in noise levels from 70db to 35db. We tested the required noise levels in our brand new home; the only place that complied was the wardrobe.

The rule is inflexible and imposes costs far in excess of any benefits: Under direction from Wellington, our council enforces clean air standards. For 12 days of the year our town does not meet the standard for PM10 particles. For the other 353 days of the year the air is great. The council has subsidised the replacement of hundreds of fires – often very efficient ones – and replaced them with inferior models for little or no change.

The rule requires permission to fix something the property owner doesn’t want: An owner had two protected trees on his property, listed by the council. One was dying, the other was unsafe and needed trimming. The owner is expected to get resource consent to maintain the trees on behalf of the council.

The rule means I cannot assume to benefit from value I have created from my own efforts: A farmer planted 5,000 kauri trees and asked the council if he could eventually harvest them. The council said it could not guarantee he could harvest them because they were kauri.

A rule can be interpreted in many ways: Having a level entry to showers: Some councils say yes, some say no, and then charge for an opinion or ruling.

There is no mechanism to update legislation as circumstances change: Long ago, hairdressers were once a source of infection – but no more. Even so, councils must register and inspect them yearly.

A rule has a compliance regime that does not allow for the fact nothing may change: Rigging loops have to be put in to a specified standard but then must be re-certified each year. If a year is missed, they must be abandoned and new ones inserted into the concrete, which would weaken the concrete.

The rule arises from officials’ zealousness and has no material effect: A council advised a farmer it was going to classify his land as a significant natural area under the Resource Management Act. Such a classification would limit his ability to use the land in certain ways, including turning his car lights on at night in case it disrupted the flight of Westland Petrels. The council acknowledged the birds never landed, swam, nested or mated there. It was simply on their flight path.

The report lists its top 10 fixes for loopy rules:

1. Make it easier to get building consents

 Speed up the development of risk-based consenting and investigate other ways to simplify the consenting of minor structures.

 Promote the use of building consent exemptions under Schedule 1 of the Building Act 2004.

 Complete the fix-up of the building fire upgrade regulations this year. Ensure additional requirements imposed reflect the extra costs imposed and the benefits to be gained.

 Use progressive building consents so work can begin sooner, with nonstructural details confirmed later.

 Streamline the determinations process for applicants.

2. Get serious about lifting the skills of building sector

 Develop an industry-wide strategy to lift the professional practices of builders.

 Work towards builders certifying their own work so as to deal with joint and several liability pressures on councils.

3. Make it easier to get resource consents

 Establish an end-to-end relationship management approach for all resource (and building) consenting within councils.

 Require councils to report publicly on their actual performance in meeting the statutory 20-day deadline (for building and resource consents), as well as the total time (including all delays resulting from information requests and so on).

 As part of the planned Resource Management Act 1991 reforms, eliminate the need for resource consents for minor and technical breaches.

 Introduce a faster, more flexible process for changing plans under the Resource Management Act 1991 reforms.

4. Reduce the cost of consenting fees

 Cap government building levies. 5. Sort out what “work safety” means and how to do it  Define what is meant by “all practicable steps” in the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1991 and any replacement term in the Health and Safety Reform Bill.

 WorkSafe should do more about mythbusting, correcting misunderstandings and providing consistent information.

 Develop clear and accessible guidelines and codes of practice once the Health and Safety Reform Bill becomes law, working with all other agencies involved.

6. Make it clear what the rules are

 Define what is meant by “as nearly as is reasonably practicable” in the Building Act 2004.

 Require the Ministry for the Environment to work more closely with the other agencies to provide more timely and comprehensive guidance when developing and issuing national directives.  Make government agencies accept their responsibility to correct misunderstandings about their policies and regulations, particularly in the building and resource management areas, and as noted in health and safety.

7. Establish a new customer focus the public sector  The State Sector Act 1988 and the Local Government Act 2002 should include customer service responsibilities for chief executives.

 All Local Government Chief Executives should have a customer focus component in their Key Performance Indicators. They should consider utilising the Customer Champion and Fast Fix approaches.

 To maintain a permanent focus on loopy rules, establish a website for people to report loopy rules, which are then referred to the responsible agency to put right.

8. Departments should introduce a stakeholder engagement approach to developing local government policies and regulations

 Require all government departments to adopt a stakeholder approach, such as that used by the Ministry of Transport. The Ministry signals policy changes in advance, involves stakeholders early on and is open to critical feedback.

 Require central government to develop a project-specific engagement approach when developing policies and regulations that local government must implement. This approach could be useful for example, in the development of proposed changes to amended shop trading hours (Easter Sunday trading) and the implementation of the Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Act.

 Amend the guidelines for Cabinet papers so they include “consultation with the Minister of Local Government” when a proposal will affect local government.

9. Reform the Local Government Act 1974 and the Reserves Act 1977

 Update the remaining provisions of the Local Government Act 1974 Act.  Review and update the Reserves Act 1977. And, most importantly:

10. Stop making loopy rules

 Develop a coordinated pipeline approach to regulation.  Include a cost-benefit analysis prior to development.

 Create a mechanism to actively review central and local government regulations.

 Extend Treasury’s annual review of departmental regulations, and incorporate an assessment of local government regulations.

In releasing the report, Local Government Minister Paula Bennett findings from the Rules Reduction Taskforce show real opportunities for both central and local government to make life easier for New Zealanders.

‘The loopy rules report: New Zealanders tell their stories’ is being released by the Government today following 50 public meetings and close to 2,000 submissions.

“We have listened to New Zealanders and the message is clear: there are too many frustrating rules and regulations, and too many are being applied inconsistently, and it is holding our communities back,” Mrs Bennett says. 

“The Report outlines practical opportunities for Government departments and local councils to improve the level of customer service they offer, and give that clarity people need. We will be embracing these opportunities finding practical solutions.”

The range of submissions cover 11 Ministers’ portfolios, with the majority relating to the Resource Management Act and the Building Act.

“Over the next few weeks, Ministers will be working with their departments and agencies to progress the quick fixes and what will take a bit longer to tackle. We’ll continue to update and make announcements as this work progresses,” Mrs Bennett says.

“The Government will also be working with local government to ensure they are providing the right advice to their residents about what rules and regulations mean and how they apply in their communities.

“The members of the Taskforce also heard loud and clear that there are several myths about rules and regulations that don’t actually exist. This includes the misconception that lolly scrambles have been banned, and that people can’t use three-step ladders.

“By breaking through this misinformation, New Zealanders will be better placed to focus on the serious rules designed to keep people safe and our economy growing.”

Several common ‘myths’ can be found on the Rules Reduction Taskforce website New Zealanders can continue to share their experiences by sending a message through the Rules Reduction Taskforce’s social media pages.

“I’d like to thank everyone that took the time to share their experience with the Taskforce. I would also like to acknowledge the dedication of co-chairs Jacqui Dean MP and Michael Barnett, as well as the other members of the Taskforce,” says Mrs Bennett.

A lot of these problems  would not have arisen if regard for property rights and common sense were both at the basis of legislation.

If this report is acted on, loopy rules fixed in existing legislation and not added new legislation it will make a significant and positive difference to the country.


Quote of the day

September 21, 2015

Even with recent challenging economic news, New Zealand’s economy is diverse and resilient. – NZ National Party

New Zealand National Party's photo.

Alps 2 Ocean gets funding boost

August 28, 2015

Prime Minister John Key, who is also Minister of Tourism, has  announced a further $935,000 will be invested to help complete the Alps 2 Ocean cycle trail.

“Once finished, the 310km trail will be a major tourism asset for the Waitaki and Mackenzie Districts, helping attract both local and international visitors to the area,” Mr Key says.

“There is strong support from local tourism operators, and a growing number of international tourists are already using the trail, with an estimated 25 per cent more users in January 2015, compared with the same period last year.

The Alps 2 Ocean cycle trail is one of 23 Great Rides that make up Nga Haerenga – the New Zealand Cycle Trail.

“The Great Rides have proven to be a significant driver of local and international tourism which is helping New Zealand stay on the international map as a top tourist destination,” Mr Key says.

“The trails are also boosting economic growth in the regions with reports from individual trails indicating that more than 1,200 jobs have been created.

“Figures also indicate at least 60 new businesses have been established as a result of the Great Rides being built, and over 40 businesses have expanded their operations to cope with the new demand from cyclists.

“The funding announced today will help build on that success, creating more opportunities for the region and New Zealand as a whole,” Mr Key says.

 This additional funding, made available through the National Cycleway Fund announced in Budget 2015, will bring the total Government contribution to the Alps 2 Ocean Cycle Trail to $3,705,000, and to almost $55 million to construct the trails nationally.

The local community has raised $955,000 of co-funding to contribute to the completion costs.

The 41 km section to be completed will connect Sailors Cutting on the shores of Lake Benmore with Duntroon, meaning users will no longer have to cycle on State Highway 83.

This is great news for the Mackenzie and Waitaki Districts, and the many thousands of people who will use the cycle way.

Cycling on the road is neither safe nor enjoyable.

The cycle way is already providing a financial boost for the districts even though it has yet to be completed.

Neighbours offer homestays in their historic homestead and enjoyed heavy bookings last summer from people using the cycle trail.

Other existing businesses on the route report similar increases in patrons and new businesses have been established to service and supply cyclists.

The A2O cycleway starts near Mount Cook and finishes in Oamaru which Lonely Planet dubbed New Zealand’s coolest town.

Plan A is working

August 18, 2015

One message from CEOs last week was the government needs to form Plan B in case the dairy slump worsens.

Lisa Owen put this to Finance Minister Bill English on The Nation and he responded:

. . . We run economic policy that underpins a flexible, resilient economy, so if prices are down in one area, we would expect people to— we’ve got a set of rules that enable them to react fairly quickly to that, and we don’t try and hide the message the world is sending us, for instance, about dairy prices. And lots of other countries, they’re increasing subsidies to farmers in order to brush over and hide that price signal. So this economy will diversify if there are other markets which are willing to pay more for our products. That’s where the investment will flow. And the good news on the horizon is that the US economy is recovering. It’s the world’s largest economy. It’s showing signs of sustainable growth. And that New Zealand businesses are responding to that positively, and I don’t agree with politicians—

But, Minister, that’s your plan A. That’s your plan A. Where’s your plan B?

Plan A is a flexible, resilient economy. If plan B is about politicians sitting on the sideline deciding where hundreds of millions of investment should go next, then we’re not interested in that sort of plan B. It will fail, as it’s failed in the past.

But business people who are on the front lines – 75% of the top business minds in the Mood of the Boardroom – they want you to have a plan B. Are they wrong?

Well, I’ve asked them about what their plan B is, and none of them have a plan B. They’re certainly inviting—

Maybe they’re relying on you for plan B, Minister.

They’re certainly not inviting politicians to say, ‘Right, we’re going to shift a couple of hundred billion— a couple of hundred million of investment from industry A to industry B.’ They are backing the Government approach, which is to ensure that we keep our costs down, the Government invests in infrastructure, because no one else can do that, we work on the pipeline of skills into the labour market so there’s people there that they can employ, and they make their risky commercial investment decisions, and that’s what they’re doing right now. Right around the country, businesses will be thinking about where to direct their investment, given that dairy’s not looking so good for the next year or two; tourism, wine, ICT is all looking better for the next two or three years. And they’ll make those decisions a bit more precisely and more sensibly than government would. .  .

Plan A is what got New Zealand through the GFC and the economy growing again.

We need more of it  – lower government spending, concentrating on addressing the causes of welfare dependency, investing in education and infrastructure, opening more trade opportunities . . .

That’s the business of government and private enterprise isn’t as Mike Hosking reminds us:

What’s a bloke buying a farm got to do with the government?
What has any person setting up a business got to do with the government?
When a shop closes is it the government’s job to mop it up?
When a factory down sizes… Is the govt supposed to do something?

Dairy, like all business products and markets is beyond a government scope.

A government is there to provide over arching policy direction… Like tax and trade deals and welfare.

It’s not there to milk the cows, man the tills and set the price for commodities. . .

If the CEO’s know what’s good for them and their businesses they won’t be asking government to get involved in them.

We don’t need Plan B and we definitely don’t need government minding the business of business.





False friends to farmers

August 12, 2015

In the bad old days a downturn in dairy prices would have led to government “doing something”.

Whether that something would be the right thing is moot.

Thanks to the “failed” policies of the 80s and 90s, the economy adjusts without intervention as Finance Minister Bill English pointed out in Question Time yesterday.

A drop in revenue of this magnitude in the dairy sector will have flow-on effects to the wider economy because the dairy sector makes up about 20 percent of New Zealand’s exports and around 5 to 6 percent of the total economy. The automatic stabilisers, though, are providing support to the dairy industry and to the benefit of other industries. For instance, the New Zealand dollar is down 25c against the US dollar for the last 12 months, and this underpins the returns of all exporters, not just those dealing with low prices. The Reserve Bank has cut interest rates, the overnight cash rate, to 3 percent and indicated this may fall further. The Reserve Bank’s most recent forecasts of the economy show that the economy is growing around 2.5 percent a year, which is solid, sustainable growth. . .

During the ag-sag of the 1980s, when all farming was really in crisis, we were paying more than 25% for seasonal finance and mortgage rates weren’t much lower.

The wider economy was doing badly too, with inflation raging.

James Shaw : Has the Minister of Finance received any reports that show that the New Zealand economy will face a $7 billion hole as a result of low dairy prices, and what specific measures is he putting in place to ensure that distressed dairy farmers are supported through this commodity price crash?

Hon BILL ENGLISH : Yes, I have seen those reports and I am pleased the member asked about them. In order to understand the context of this, that $7 billion reduction is a reduction on nominal GDP of over $220 billion. When you look at it that way, you can see that it is going to have a negative effect on the economy, but a containable effect, and we can continue to grow at moderate rates. In respect of dairy farmers in distress, Governments have had in place for some time measures for those families that are in severe financial distress, but generally the Government would not be looking to financially support dairy farmers because of low prices.

James Shaw : Does he regret telling Radio New Zealand in March that the concentration of capital in dairying was “not a bad thing”, and how will he now ensure that this over-allocation of resources into one sector does not now put out of work thousands of farm labourers, retailers, contractors, and suppliers who all rely on dairy farms?

Hon BILL ENGLISH : The flow of capital into the dairy industry has been based on a longer-term confidence that across the Asia-Pacific region the fast-growing class of middle-income consumers will show more demand for dairy and other protein products. That is a view of the world that is not really disputed by anyone in particular. In the short term, however, the reduction in income will of course have an impact on employment directly on dairy farms, but also in the supporting towns and services. The measures announced by Fonterra last week and the positive indications from the banks that they will finance cash flow for dairy farmers over the next 12 months mean that it will not be as bad as the straight drop in income indicates, because dairy farmers have to spend $4.50 a kilo just to get the milk on the truck.

Tim Macindoe : What implications do recent developments in the international economy have for New Zealand’s economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH : Although there are risks in the global economy, it is evident that growth in our trading partners is holding up reasonably well—in the range of 3 percent to 4 percent. When we look back through the history of New Zealand’s growth patterns, it is reasonably clear that when our trading partners are growing at that kind of rate—3 to 4 percent—that is a positive indicator for sustainable, moderate growth in New Zealand of around 2 percent to 2.5 percent, which is our long-term trend growth rate.

James Shaw : Given his previous answer that investment in dairying was based on a long-range view of the sector, what work has he done to understand whether the dairy price collapse is actually a structural long-term change in the market rather than a cyclical short-term change?

Hon BILL ENGLISH : We try to make an assessment about that, the same as everyone else. It is pretty evident, though, that no one is quite sure. It is likely that dairy prices will not go back to $8 a kilo. In fact, it may well be not a bad thing because what is evident is that the price going that high has stimulated not just positive supply but probably excess supply. No one quite knows the answer to that question, but talking to the people whose capital investment is at stake and whose livelihoods are at stake, they maintain confidence that prices will rise from where they are—in fact, they have to, because they are below the cost of production—and they maintain a positive view about where they put their investment.

Grant Robertson : Has the Minister of Finance seen this report about the economy under his watch, which features a boat that has run aground?

Hon BILL ENGLISH : Yes, I have, and I thought how similar it is to the fate of the Labour Party. [Interruption] . . .

Hon BILL ENGLISH : In the interest of assisting the vice-great helmsman, as I understand it, that is the Westpac Economic Overview, and I note that its forecasts are for between 2 percent and 2.5 percent growth over the next 3 years, despite the fact that it says there is going to be a recession. .

But the Green co-leader still thinks it’s up to the government to do something.

James Shaw : Is he aware that organic milk powder commands up to six times the price premium of conventional milk powder on international markets, and will he turn this crisis into an opportunity by helping move more dairy farmers into organic milk production?

Hon BILL ENGLISH : If the member is correct that farmers can earn six times as much by selling their milk as they earn from organic milk, then I am quite sure they will.

So far organic milk hasn’t got much traction, but if there really is that sort of opportunity it’s up to farmers and processors to make the most of it without interference from politicians.

James Shaw : When he says that this is not a crisis and that dairy is just 5 percent of the economy, is he saying that when the All Blacks lose it just does not matter because they are one of thousands of sports teams playing over the weekend, many of which are winning?

Mr SPEAKER : In so far as there is ministerial responsibility, the Hon Bill English.

Hon BILL ENGLISH : Clearly, the Greens like New Zealanders being able to watch the All Blacks lose, but they do not them to be able to watch them win in the Rugby World Cup. I mean, when people use the word “crisis”, well, the Opposition should explain what that means. If those members think it means that dairy farmers are sitting around with their heads in their hands, paralysed by low prices, then they are wrong. Actually, they are getting up every morning, going out into the cold, wet weather, doing the calving, milking the cows, and spending the money they need to get their production moving and get their product to world markets. Calling it a crisis seems to me to be particularly useless. In fact, it downgrades the resilience and the responsiveness of not just the dairy sector but households right across New Zealand to a bit of economic pressure, which they can handle.

It’s the sad reality of Opposition to try to make the bad times worse. Thankfully most dairy farmers are too busy with calving to hear them.

3. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister : Does he stand by his statement that New Zealand is on the “cusp of something special”; if so, was that “something special” rising unemployment along with plummeting dairy prices?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes, I stand by that statement, for two reasons. The first is that I am positive and aspirational for New Zealand—

Hon Members : Ha, ha!

Rt Hon JOHN KEY : —unlike some people who are always talking the country down. But, actually, the second reason I stand by that statement is that I made that statement on a couple of occasions during debates in the 2014 general election, and we were on the cusp of something special: the worst pounding the Labour Party had ever had—

Mr SPEAKER : Order!

Andrew Little : Given that the number of people who are unemployed has risen by 13,000 and that unemployment in Taranaki alone is now at 7 percent, and there are hundreds set to join them due to major job cuts announced recently, is it not the truth of it that he is sending more and more families to the cusp of poverty?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY : Firstly, the Government has created—along with the people of New Zealand, of course—148,000 jobs over the last 2 years. But I note that the Labour Party has an interest all of a sudden, apparently, in farming. So when prices go up, it is nothing to do with the Government; when prices go down, it is everything to do with the Government! Those members are not asking: “Why are beef prices high? Is that the responsibility of the Government?”. But I make this simple point: the Labour Party wanted to put a huge number of costs on farmers. That was its policy during the election.

Andrew Little : Given that Westpac says that there will be no more job growth this year, and the economy has grown at just a quarter of the expected rate, has he not driven the economy to the cusp of a recession?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY : If the member goes and reads the Westpac report, the glimpse that I had a look through, it showed that growth will be between 2 percent and 2.5 percent over the next 3 years.

Andrew Little : Why has he failed to invest in diversifying the economy, neglected regional infrastructure, and turned a blind eye to the 35,000 jobs lost in manufacturing since 2008?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY : The member needs to get out a bit more—it is as simple as that. If you go around New Zealand and have a look at what is happening around New Zealand, you will see just how diversified the economy is. Tourism spending alone is up over 20 percent from last year, at over $8 billion. The information and communications technology sector is doing well. Kiwifruit growing is back from the lows of Psa. Beef farming is doing extremely well. Horticulture is doing well around New Zealand. Manufacturing—for 33 months in a row the performance of manufacturing index has been expanding. The services sector, export education—the only people who think the economy is solely dairy are in the Labour Party, and it wanted to tax those people— . . .

Little tried again.

Andrew Little : Given that dairy farm prices have already fallen by 18 percent since peaking last October, what preparations has his Government undertaken for dealing with increased sell-offs by insolvent farmers who cannot make ends meet with dairy prices so low?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY : What we have done over the course of the last 7 years, after straightening out the mess we inherited from Labour and with our very strong economic management, is to make the economy more efficient and more productive. Here is a bunch of things that we have not done: we have not brought the emissions trading scheme in straight away, we have not put a large tax on water irrigation, we have not put a capital gains tax on every farm, we have not increased the minimum wage to two-thirds of the average wage, and we have not taken money out of the Primary Growth Partnership. We are in favour of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The Labour Party—

Mr SPEAKER : Order!

Rt Hon JOHN KEY : —is claiming it is the farmers’ friend. They were the policies it took to the election.

Andrew Little : What is the Government’s response to the reports that, contrary to Bill English’s claims, the banks are already forcing mortgagee sales on indebted farmers, and what is to stop more of these farms being bought by overseas investors?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY : Firstly, I am sure that the banks will work closely with farmers, as they typically do, because there is approximately $35 billion worth of debt, I think, sitting on dairy farms. One of the things the bankers will be sitting there and looking at is they will be looking at the policies of the National-led Government, which has supported the farmers; they will be looking at the proposed policies of Labour, which is anti-farmers; and they will be saying “Thank goodness National is in Government.”

The Opposition parties are trying to act like farmers’ friends but you don’t need a long memory to know they’d be false friends.

This time last year they were in campaign mode threatening to add all sorts of taxes, increase compliance costs and complexity and generally make farming less profitable, more difficult and less enjoyable.

And while they keep saying the government should do something about the payout  I haven’t heard  a single farmer echo them.


Quote of the day

August 12, 2015

. . . this Government has always given credit for the stronger economy to New Zealand households and businesses, which, in the face of a recession and an earthquake, rearranged the way they operated, became more efficient and leaner, and got themselves through a very difficult period. We have always attributed the strength of the economy to the people who are the economy. –  Bill English

Fonterra forecast $3.85 plus 40-50c/share

August 7, 2015

Fonterra’s forecast payout has dropped from $5.25 per kilo of milk solids to $3.85 plus 40 to 50 cents a share.

In a newsletter to shareholders chair John Wilson says:

The Farmgate Milk Price forecast has been reduced from $5.25 per kgMS to $3.85 per kgMS due to the continued significant imbalance in the global dairy market between surplus supply in 2014 and current weak demand.

This imbalance and the challenge of lower prices continuing for longer than anticipated is a global issue, and one with which dairy farmers globally are increasingly grappling.

Current prices are unsustainably low and we are seeing them beginning to impact production levels globally.  We have confidence that prices will recover over the course of the season.

This is going to be a tough season, and we encourage you to make your decisions based on today’s forecast Milk Price.  We will update as the season progresses.

We have adjusted the Advance Rate in accordance with our policy.  We need to balance protecting our Co-operative while we have this volatility, with getting cash to you. . .

Forecast total payout available to farmers

We have announced $4.25 – $4.35 forecast total payout available to farmers for 2015/16.  It is made up of:

  • the revised forecast Farmgate Milk Price of $3.85 per kgMS
  • an earnings per share range of 40 – 50 cents.

We have returned to using a forecast total payout available figure to provide clarity on business performance, consistent with the way we have previously reported to you.

The forecast earnings are expected to be influenced by:

  • the positive impact of the lower Farmgate Milk Price on consumer margins globally for New Zealand-sourced products
  • the contribution from changes being made within the business
  • movements in New Zealand product mix returns.

The final decision on what is paid as a dividend will be based on our policy of paying out 65-75 per cent of adjusted Net Profit after Tax over a period of time, at the Board’s discretion.

At this stage in the season, budget on a forecast Cash Payout for 2015/16 season of $4.15 – $4.20.  This includes an estimated dividend range of 30– 35 cents per share. . .

The company can’t control global supply and demand but shareholders are asking why it set the opening price so high.

That price is what farmers and sharemilkers use to set budgets and make decisions on numbers of staff, amount of supplements, whether or not to buy extra feed and if so at what price, and other factors over which they have some control.

Everyone else appears to have known about factors like Russian boycott, the Chinese stock pile, the end of EU quotas and low feed prices in the USA which would all impact on supply, demand and price.

If the company didn’t know it should have, if it did it should have set a far more conservative opening price.

It is better to be conservative, set a lower opening price and increase it later than to set a higher price and have to reduce it.

Agribusiness professor Jacqueline Rowarth has called for a vote of no-confidence in the board.

I don’t think that’s likely but directors up for re-election should face strong nominees contesting them.

As for the rumour that there would be a second announcement today – nothing confirmed so far.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,739 other followers

%d bloggers like this: