Rural Vote Debate on Q&A: Substance or Just Platitudes?

On the morning of Sunday, September 6, just as New Zealanders were getting over the All Blacks’ defeat at the hands of the Springboks, the television programme Q&A with Jack Tame as the moderator ran an hour long special, which all party spokespeople on agriculture (except Te Pati Māori) turned up for.

It was wisely pre-recorded at a Hamilton sports club with an audience made up of locals of all political hues.

Those taking part were Todd McClay (National), Jo Luxton (Labour), Mark Patterson (NZ First), Andrew Hoggard (Act), Steve Able (Greens) and Daniel Eb (Opportunity).

Issues canvassed included biosecurity, the dairy industry and its effects on the environment, the Paris Agreement, free trade agreements, deregulation, rural health and the land tax. In essence, each representative trotted out their party line and it was difficult for those who follow rural politics to be any the wiser because of the event. Perhaps a rather startling revelation was Luxton saying that Labour has yet to announce its agricultural policy.

McClay defended his party’s stance on the FTAs while Hoggard was in jovial form, making a few quips at his opponents and promoting deregulation.

Patterson made some good points but looked a trifle nervous when it was pointed out that he was the first MP to visit India just after the FTA with that country was signed.

Able strictly followed the party line about the need to reduce cow numbers and claiming that this may not necessarily affect total milk production.

Eb defended his party’s controversial land tax policy which came under attack from others on the panel.

One of those at the event was regional councillor and former local Federated Farmers president Keith Holmes. He described the event as being well run and said Tame did a really good job in getting the politicians to state their point of view.

He says his impression was that there was quite a bit of intellectual horsepower on the panel, but noted that many of the answers to question were in the form of platitudes.

“What worries me is whether the rank-and-file voter actually understands the critical components that farming needs and the implications of some parties’ policies to re-engineer the economy,” Holmes told Rural News.

“I worry that people will vote on the basis of the platitudes and not the hard facts. To me, a move away from the present coalition would be a retrograde step,” he says.

He says the implications of the land tax were well exposed in the debate, but while he may have disagreed with speakers from the left wing, he noted they came across convincingly. He says, on reflection, the debate was more entertainment than being of any political significance.