As a young person passionate about the food and fibre industry and climate action, I find it deeply saddening to see division and hate that exists between our rural communities and the government.
Like many farmers, I am highly critical of the current farm-level emissions pricing. However, I have to point out one glaring contradiction in the recent protest: It's largely directed at a policy that the farming industry recommended in the first place via He Waka Eke Noa (HWEN).
Christopher Luxton and Nicola Grigg have smartly used the political division and disdain against agricultural emissions pricing to gain political points with scathing comments against the government. The problem is, the National Party's policy is not too different from Labour's.
Our country's division deepens with this rhetoric.
Start your property search
I'll briefly point out the two key differences that have led to this nationwide uproar:
First is the levy price will be set with primary consultation from the climate commission, not a recommended industry advisory group. The climate commission considers both socioeconomic consequences and emissions.
The second is sequestration.
Without going into the details, if you look at the policy, the sequestration suggested is a vast improvement on the status quo with the intent to reward farmers where possible for riparian vegetation and the possibility of pre-1990 native forest.
As Andrew Thompson put it on the Rural Roundup: "Are we dying in a ditch over something that's not that significant?"
This last point is technical and a good topic for more debate, but surely these two differences can't be the sole reason for division.
Imagine if we went to the cigarette lobby and asked them to write their own tax policy, backed them 100 per cent in whatever they come up with then let them set the tax price?
Farmers have authored some great solutions to emissions pricing and are the key group to consult on the levy price, but can't be sole decision-makers of their own policy.
The timing of this seems completely wrong.
The whole country accepted over a year ago that we would have a price on agricultural emissions and has moved on to collaborate on the best way to do it. If farmers wanted no emissions price, they should have been protesting last year and against their industry representatives who were moving forward.
The policy has been criticised because of a projected reduction in stock numbers in the sheep and beef sector but, I'd like to point out, National and HWEN have not made any claim their endorsed policy would lead to a lower reduction in stock numbers.
Kelly Forster HWEN Director said using the government prices in HWEN modelling, "there wasn't by any stretch of the imagination a 20 per cent reduction in the sheep and beef numbers".
Sure the industry has some valid concerns but is it reasonable to expect the government to accept 100 per cent of an industry proposal on how they are taxed?
I think the industry representatives are worried about a backlash from their constituents on their policy which endorses emissions pricing, which is why they need to be seen driving such a hard line.
Some in the industry have said no deal is better than a bad deal but is this really worse than agriculture going into the ETS? Because that's what happens under no deal. Most Kiwis have accepted the need for agricultural emissions pricing, as we do for every other industry. Emissions pricing is critical to keep building on our position as the world's food and fibre leader.
Despite some other technical differences, there are some major wins for the sector: split gas approach, farm levy level pricing and recycling 100 per cent of levy money.
Let's reframe the discourse and have a healthy debate on this, ultimately, we all have the same goals, to ramp up our fight against climate change and to continue to innovate as the best food and fibre producer in the world.
Surely, we can all unite around this goal because this toxic division is destroying our industry opportunities.
