The Country 10/09/26: Jane Smith talks to Jamie Mackay

A North Otago farmer and award-winning environmentalist sings the praises of Open Country Dairy's Mark de Latour and his Paris Agreement stance. Plus, she says the Opportunity Party’s ag policy is a cross between Gloriavale and the Jetsons.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Jane Smith is a North Otago farmer, former winner of
the Balance Farm Environment Awards. Jane, what did you make
of my commentary to Winston that the two key issues,
or two of the key issues out there in rural
New Zealand, one, Paris, and I reckon the rural community
is pretty split over that, and the other one is
pricing ag emissions. And everyone seems to be in agreement

(00:22):
with that. We don't want to do it.

Speaker 2 (00:24):
Good afternoon, Jamie. And firstly, Jamie, welcome back. I didn't
know if you were actually sick or whether you'd been
kidnapped by the Greens as part of their policy to
cleanse the world of white middle-aged men. But certainly pleased
to hear you back on the airwaves. But yeah, I
absolutely agree. And it was really refreshing to hear Mark
Delatour speak. from Open Country a couple of days ago

(00:45):
in terms of his reality or the reality around, you know,
they're playing in the same product, same markets. He hadn't
been swept up in the, you know, self-imposed righteousness of
emissions assumptions and subsequently punishing farmers for an issue that
is actually a non-issue if you look at it And

(01:06):
I guess Silver Fern Farms have, of course, been chasing
the methane apologist road for quite some time now, which
is such a shame because they do some excellent marketing,
but have certainly taken it a bridge too far. And
if we really look at this, we're simply adding costs
onto a product that beyond the premium that people are
willing to pay for something that we've already got balanced out.

(01:29):
And the reality is that we haven't actually managed bothered
as a country to genuinely market the other attractive aspects
of our pastoral production, i.e. GE-free, our hills are producing
free-range protein where no plant-based diet would ever be able
to grow. So, you know, the real cost of staying
in Paris when everyone's just too scared to pull out
of a meaningless piece of paper, Jamie.

Speaker 1 (01:49):
But what are the consequences of the Paris Agreement, Accord,
whatever you want to call it? Because As Winston pointed out,
food was meant to be exempt. And if we don't
meet our emissions targets, what happens to us? Do we
just get a slap over the wrist with a wet
bus ticket?

Speaker 2 (02:10):
Exactly, Jamie. And again, adhering to a very expensive piece
of paper. And let's put some, you know, some figures
around this, you know, in terms of what we're trying
to be meeting in terms of net zero, agri zero,
carbon zero, hero zero, and the Paris peril is, you know,
being modelled to be over sort of anywhere between 200,000
billion and a trillion dollars for our country if you

(02:30):
scope that right out. For what, Jamie? And this is
the thing, we should be putting that money into infrastructure,
et cetera, and some of our real basics in our
country in terms of healthcare and water storage and education.
And I guess this is the thing, like Again, as
a country, we need to actually be focused on our
attributes rather than a fallacy that we're going to change

(02:52):
anything in terms of the climate. That is already changing
and will always change in perpetuity. So what can we
do to actually be a more robust country? And it's
really interesting. We seem to be sort of self-sabotaging. And
I think the most embarrassing reality is we've done all
of this to ourselves. We've created our own hoops. And
there's something really confronting about not being able to blame

(03:14):
someone else for burdening our country with a disturbing suite
of self-imposed penalties that everybody knows will not make one
iota of difference to how the climate may change over time.
And so, again, and I agree with the tradies that
when they say that our reputation is essential to our
trade relationships... But this could have all been put to

(03:35):
bed when we can actually, you know, you can say
a high proportion of our country's emissions are biogenic methane,
but at the same time that can be completely put
to bed by explaining the methane cycle and stable methane
is not contributing to any additional warming. And that is it.

Speaker 1 (03:51):
So that is a massive cost. Absolutely agree with you.
Ruminants aren't the problem. Man-burning fossil fuel is the problem. Hey,
do you know what keeps me up at night, other
than influencer A Jane Smith? is the prospect of a
centre-left government for farming and for small business. I watched
that Q & A rural leaders debate and I thought,
heaven help us if the centre-left, and I'm talking about

(04:16):
Joe Luxton who said nothing, Daniel Ebb who frightened me,
and Steve Abel who showed his true colours. If that's
what we're up against, last one to leave, turn the
lights out.

Speaker 2 (04:26):
I know Jamie and I thought I would have to be,
I did actually hesitate to watch that because I thought
I'd have to be heavily sedated before doing so and
you know they really did dance around the key issues.
I would have said rural healthcare and freshwater ownership with
the iwi lining up to own the South Island if
not all freshwater. None of that was put forward but

(04:46):
probably the most disturbing narrative I heard was the opportunity
cost party and you just mentioned Daniel then and his
vision for farming. So He did mention in a Chloe
Swarbrick-type scenario that he would help us transition from our
current farming practices. And, of course, he wants farm values
to fall between 10% and 15%, because apparently we're all

(05:09):
farming for capital gain, he said. And certainly one way
to decrease our rates, thank you, Daniel, would be that.
But his vision was sort of a cross between Gloria
Vale and the Jetsons. And he said each farm would
be farming less livestock, supporting two or three or four
families in a sort of socialist utopia where one family
would be paid to plant native trees. I'm not sure

(05:32):
by who. One would be doing a project on farm
connected to education. Sounds lovely. And one might be doing
some country calendar type of version of farm work. And
I'm not sure who he thought was going to be paying...
to keep our roads, schools and hospitals going, let alone
the universal beneficiary concept. And I think these people tend

(05:52):
to forget that a 1% drop in GDP equals at
least $ 500 million less tax collected. And this is a
scary thing. It's really, in terms of economic benefits, insanity,
all of these things lead into this. So yeah, it
was an interesting sort of entertaining but also equally concerning
Q & A. I will say about Steve Abel, he's

(06:15):
actually a reasonable, rational type of person. And I guess
when you're surrounded by three or four crazy Green Party
female rainbow warriors, it is probably easier to look pretty rational.
But he does actually... That did come across as very good,
but certainly not a reason to be putting the Greens into, yeah,
and to be there with top and their socialist utopia. Jamie,

(06:37):
that would absolutely keep, should keep every New Zealander awake
at night.

Speaker 1 (06:40):
Bring back James Shaw, I say. Jane Smith, thanks for
your time today on The Country.

Speaker 2 (06:44):
Thanks, Jamie.