Part 4 Farming In Context – Then And Now
To understand farming in transition we explored how farming people in the mid Rangitikei saw farming prior to the 1980s; and examined some of the changes that took place in the 1980s before concentrating on the present.
4.1 Then <----- pre-1980s:
It can be argued that there were clear definitions and patterns related to farming in the past [ See appendix c – a brief description of Mid-Rangitikei history] . Farming rested upon a taken for granted ‘solid’ base of assumptions, with change being considered an integral part of farming. Discussion with people in the mid Rangitikei identified a number of points which illustrate these patterns:
- Family Roles: ‘normal expectations’ in farm families were clearly defined; the farmer was male, and his wife responsible for housekeeping, bringing up the children, helping on the farm before the children arrived, and in emergencies
- Farm roles - likewise were prescribed - the farmer was boss; workers on the farm, permanent and casual, responded to his requests and demands
- Community roles: the road, the valley, round the local school, were also taken-for-granted. Men were expected to help each other on the farm on regular occasions, when the need arose, and attend working bees; women to fundraise, organise help for neighbours and sick people in the community, and to be ‘the glue’ in the community
- Urban/rural roles: relationships with rural urban areas were defined and complementary, for each was dependent on the other
- Farming business relationships: farm advisors, producer boards, government departments were likewise circumscribed. There were taken for granted assumptions on both sides that one would look after the other providing ‘the rules’ were followed
- Viability of farming: there was, mostly, a sense of viability about farming. Some would always be ‘at the top of the ladder’, others would ‘fall by the wayside’ but for most farmers there was a confidence. It was known what it took to be a ‘good farmer’- and the way to become a good farmer was to work hard and build up your farm. All the money went back into the farm.
- Succession: the ‘rule’ was to hand the farm on to one of the sons early in one’s fifties or sixties, and retire to another place; other sons and daughters often got financial help on marriage, or when starting a business
- Self-sufficiency: there was a strong belief in the independent way of life, of being in control- of one’s land, stock, family, of one’s life style
- Belief in one’s self: and his/her ability to survive; in the general pattern of things, the order of things; each knew his, her, their place
- Government support: a fundamental assumption that government would always come through for the farmers
- Place in NZ life: there was a strong belief that farmers were ‘the backbone of this country’.
4.2 Now -----> the 1980s changes
From 1984 on a massive number of changes took place which shook the whole of New Zealand, not just rural communities and farming. These changes were based upon an ideology or philosophy of liberalisation, meaning less government intervention, more reliance on the market, increasing emphasis on economic efficiency and on the rights, and responsibilities, of the individual as being paramount.
Technology, social mores and markets were also changing, and together some of the results for farmers were:
- ongoing government restructuring - eg the health system
- government re-focussing - eg police relocated away from rural areas
- rapid escalation of interest rates
- devaluation of the dollar
- inflation remaining high
- the stock market collapse
- privatisation of basic services - eg telecommunications
- devolution of responsibility to local communities - eg Tomorrow’s Schools
- withdrawal of services eg local government offices closed
- improvement in roads
- improvement in farm technology - eg fourwheel bikes
- government acknowledgment of the Treaty
- introduction of new legislation and changes eg RMA; local government legislation.
- Changes in business regulations - eg GST, ACC/OSH penalties and conditions
Sandrey and Reynolds (1990) outline in their text the specific major changes in agriculture policy that took place between 1984 and 1989.
The new Labour government accelerated the withdrawal of agricultural supports; concessionary farm loans were progressively brought into line with market rates, cost-recovery plans were announced for product inspection and advisory services, and input subsidies were terminated. By 1989 assistance to agriculture had been reduced to very low levels.
Agricultural support for the economic reform programme was based on the understanding that other sectors in the economy would also face adjustment pressures, and a belief that the devaluation... would result in a favourable exchange rate. Neither of these came to pass in the short term.
(Sandrey and Reynolds, 1990:3,7)
Some people we interviewed in the mid-Rangitikei are still disappointed or angry about what happened in this period. Many suffered, and continue to suffer, with high debt servicing as a direct result of paying too much for their land, and high interest rates. One family spoke of buying a farm and having interest rates rise from 7-17% within a short period of time, others of losing their retirement investments, of having to ‘un-learn’ their reliance on a system which had become
... the target of extensive production-promoting assistance... through the late 1970s and into the early 1980s.
(Sandrey and Reynolds, 1990:1)
Not one person intimated they considered subsidies should/could be restored, nor were they suggesting a turning-back of the clock. They do, however, want recognition of what they do, as farmers, and the contribution they make to the country. The almost total withdrawal of interest from the rural sector, by those implementing the changes has left rural people feeling they are insignificant, invisible and irrelevant to those in power. They argue that farmers, and farming, have been marginalised. They see government as being fixated with Auckland: this country exists north of the Bombay hills - [that is] the new economic structure.
The following quote captures a dilemma facing a number of the farmers interviewed. None would doubt the truth of the first sentence. To state, however, as baldly as the authors do that For the most part it is in their interests... that they leave farming is simplistic. It fails to acknowledge the complexities of the situation, the cumulative impact of the changes, and the embeddness of farming as a business, with farming as a lifestyle. Some want to leave, but to do what?
The farming sector has shown that it can adapt to changing economic circumstances. However, despite the resilience and adaptability of the industry, there are farmers without sound prospects of long term viability. For the most part it is in their interests, as well as those of the industry and the country, that they leave farming so that the resources may be put to more productive use.
(Sandrey and Reynolds 1990:181)
The quote illustrates a concentration on viability and sustainability viewed primarily through an economic lens. In the following three Parts focus is on the continuing social, economic and political impact of these ‘changing... circumstances’ and their bearing on sustainability.
Contact for Enquiries
Rural Affairs Coordinator
Sector Performance Policy
MAF Policy
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
PO Box 2526
Wellington
NEW ZEALAND
Phone: +64 4 894 0675
Fax: +64 4 4 894 0745
Contact this person
