And while there appear to be similar debilitating pressures on the family budget, no matter which part of the country you regard as home, there are also distinct differences based both on how citizens are handling the hard times but also the remedies they are using in trying to accommodate them.
For example, most livestock farming regions have taken advantage of the record export market red meat prices by spending windfall money on much needed deferred maintenance, replacing worn out machinery and reducing debt but few will be wasting the opportunity on frivolous spending. That is the nature of most Kiwi farmers, who regard those tactics as the right thing to do - because they have been here before and once burned - twice shy.
However there have been opportunities for managers of regional industries not so dependent on the international farmers market to take advantage of the entrepreneurial skills they possess - enabling them to develop niche markets where they are competing against the best in the world or are adapting to the fluctuating supply of home-grown resources (oil and or gas) that would otherwise have to be imported at great cost.
Recently, I enjoyed a meal with new-found, extended family friends, one of which had been working at the (soon to be closed) Taranaki Ethanol plant, south of New Plymouth. Presuming that this pending closure would result in layoffs that would add to the dole queues, I was pleasantly surprised to hear that he and others were travelling to Wairakei (north of Taupo) on a weekly basis to work as contractors at the expanding geo-thermal plant owned by local iwi Incorporations.
While that example is only one of many that reflect an ability to adapt to economic situations not previously envisaged, it does represent a growing determination amongst the managerial staff and the workforce that our future is in our own hands and we are up to the task of filling the gaps when traditional workplace opportunities no longer exist or have become a shadow of their former self.
Similarly our economy has benefitted from entrepreneurial industries that have developed new products for sale on new overseas markets which are prepared to pay a premium for items they would normally have sourced from counties that have become (sometimes through no fault of their own) unreliable suppliers.
There is no question that the Middle East oil crisis has turned the supply routes on its head and the world economies are being forced to do business with people they traditionally couldn’t and wouldn’t trust.
And this is where a government that refuses to take sides in a conflict not of their own making or be closely aligned with either one of the main players will benefit as an honest broker who can, during trade negotiations, deliver on promises made when dealing with both.
International relationships that last are usually based on the representatives of both parties being able to sign up to deals that are based on mutual trust.
With an election coming up, my guess is that the outcome will be determined by the numbers of punters who base their vote on who they can trust to deliver on promises made during the campaign, let alone any trade talks that follow.
While this might always have been the case for a majority of my vintage, under our MMP system the consequences of electing people of no experience in governing the country in these current, volatile economic conditions is something that should concern us all.
Let’s not be persuaded that our future can be entrusted to a bunch of novices in an alliance with political has-beens and separatists - history shows that option rarely works.
We are better than that.
Clive Bibby is a commentator, consultant, farmer and community leader, who now lives in Taranaki.
5 comments:
Is there any party we can trust to deliver promises?
Do the natives exhibit the same respect shown (or feigned) on the East Coast? With the personage of t Egmont on their side and a myriad co governace schemers they do not need to be subtle.
The Naki and the Gas/Ethanol business.
Thank you Sir Robert Muldoon, a pity that Labour in the years following did not do more to enhance what had been started.
It was a boom time (the creation of jobs, aligned business ventures, income) but of recent years we have had "loony tunes" in Wgtn, who could not read, let alone write.
We now have people who 'assume' that -
- off shore business will come to NZ and create supermarkets
- off shore business will come and look at drilling for future gas wells, sadly our RMA puts paid to that, along with 'loony tunes' who protest against such activity.
I feel fort the people of the Naki, who now see that financial enterprise is going, so to the jobs, the income.
Clive, enjoy your days in the West, I hope you have up the 'winter style' clothing and re equipped with gumboots.
There are some fair observations here about the resilience and adaptability of New Zealand businesses and workers, but your argument seems to make several fairly large leaps from individual examples to conclusions about the Government and the economy as a whole.
Farmers using strong red-meat prices to repair machinery and reduce debt is sensible business behaviour, but it isn't evidence that the Government's economic approach is working. Likewise, a worker moving from a closing ethanol plant to geothermal contracting is a good example of an individual adapting to changing circumstances. It tells us very little about whether the wider economic settings are producing good outcomes. People and businesses adapting to difficult conditions is something that happens regardless of who is in Government.
The same issue applies to the claim that New Zealand is benefiting from changing international supply chains. There are certainly opportunities, but there are also substantial risks. MFAT's own assessment of the current Middle East disruption says New Zealand exports to Gulf countries fell by around 37% in March and April compared with the previous year, with meat exports down 59%, dairy down 30% and horticulture down 79%. That's hardly evidence that geopolitical upheaval is simply creating an economic opportunity for New Zealand.
The argument about being an "honest broker" also deserves more scrutiny. Being able to maintain productive relationships with different countries is valuable, but international trade isn't primarily based on whether other countries personally "trust" our Government. It depends on market access, diplomatic relationships, trade agreements, economic interests and the reliability of our institutions and exporters. In fact, New Zealand's response to the current crisis has involved actively working with international partners on supply-chain resilience, including an agreement with Singapore guaranteeing reciprocal access to essential supplies.
Most importantly, I think the post conflates describing resilience with demonstrating successful economic management.
The Government can legitimately point to things it has done in response to the Middle East crisis: it established a Ministerial Economic Security and Supply Chains Group and updated the National Fuel Plan in response to the risks to fuel supplies. But those actions are responses to an external shock. They don't establish that the Government's broader economic programme has caused New Zealanders' current circumstances, good or bad.
And the final argument is particularly weak: that voters should be concerned about "novices", "political has-beens and separatists". That's rhetoric rather than an argument. Under MMP, coalition governments necessarily involve parties negotiating with one another, and the relevant question isn't whether someone belongs to a particular political category. It's what policies they propose, what their record actually shows, what compromises they would make in government, and what evidence supports their claims.
If we're going to talk about "trust", then surely that standard should apply to everyone. Politicians shouldn't receive credit simply because they promise to manage the economy responsibly, and opponents shouldn't be dismissed simply because they are labelled inexperienced.
New Zealanders can judge the competing parties on their policies and records. But individual examples of entrepreneurial Kiwis coping with difficult circumstances aren't, by themselves, evidence that one political approach has succeeded or that another would fail.
Fair comment but you’re wrong to be critical of the messenger for the observations he makes rather than the veracity of those observations in the context in which they are made.
I simply referred to interesting aspects of a changing world and how different approaches to managing the difficult issues reflect either positively or poorly on the individual or groups who are involved.
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.