. . . Last year’s results were boosted by a $20 million gain on milk futures, whereas this year, there was a $1 million loss. This was a significant contributing factor to Pāmu recording a net loss after tax of $26 million compared with a loss of $9 million in the prior year. . .
Even when the company makes a profit, which doesn’t happen nearly often enough, it is a very poor return on capital.
The public are generally averse to the sale of state assets, but Pāmu, or Landcorp, isn’t an asset, it’s a liability. It has far too many losses and far too few, if any, respectable profits.
The government simply can’t afford to keep farming at the best of times and certainly not now when there are so many other calls on public funds.
Some of the company’s land is banked for Treaty settlements but there aren’t many still to be settled and some must be surplus to that need.
Selling a lot of farms at once would not be sensible, but a gradual sell-off and a commensurate downsizing of head office would start to turn red ink into black.
Balloting farms to young people as happened after both World Wars might make sales more politically palatable, as would using the proceeds for infrastructure be it hospitals, roads, schools or any other area where more funding is sorely needed.
But if that wouldn’t work, the farms could be leased which would again allow a considerable reduction in company overheads.
Whichever way ridding itself of this unaffordable burden would provide far more benefits than carrying on farming at too high a cost and too little benefit.
Ele Ludemann is a North Otago farmer and journalist, who blogs HERE - where this article was sourced.
The public are generally averse to the sale of state assets, but Pāmu, or Landcorp, isn’t an asset, it’s a liability. It has far too many losses and far too few, if any, respectable profits.
The government simply can’t afford to keep farming at the best of times and certainly not now when there are so many other calls on public funds.
Some of the company’s land is banked for Treaty settlements but there aren’t many still to be settled and some must be surplus to that need.
Selling a lot of farms at once would not be sensible, but a gradual sell-off and a commensurate downsizing of head office would start to turn red ink into black.
Balloting farms to young people as happened after both World Wars might make sales more politically palatable, as would using the proceeds for infrastructure be it hospitals, roads, schools or any other area where more funding is sorely needed.
But if that wouldn’t work, the farms could be leased which would again allow a considerable reduction in company overheads.
Whichever way ridding itself of this unaffordable burden would provide far more benefits than carrying on farming at too high a cost and too little benefit.
Ele Ludemann is a North Otago farmer and journalist, who blogs HERE - where this article was sourced.
2 comments:
Once again. Give it a Maori name and watch it fail.
'Some of the company’s land is banked for Treaty settlements but there aren’t many still to be settled and some must be surplus to that need.' Any land banked will never be surplus. Iwi, backed up by a one eyed judiciary, will never let it go anywhere but to some I'll deserving Maori group.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.