David Carter’s fibbing, Ctd

David Carter has been caught out for his fibbing over the implications of the One Plan and its costs to farmers. He has continued to fib about 22-43% costs increases.

Now he has fibbed even further, and his department are leaking like a sieve, with huge concerns about his misleading use of data that is contrary to court findings.

He has started peddling the latest MPI/ Landcare report for political ends, spinning that the One Plan decision will put farmers out of business. My sources are saying that the authors of the report a really unhappy about this because the report makes some serious omissions, or is not to be used to criticise the One Plan Decision.

The tipline tells me the Report does not even assess the One Plan Regulatory framework for intensive farming. The report does not undertake an economic assessment of the One Plan rules for intensive farming The report cannot be used to make a statement about the economic costs to farmers about implementing the One Plan decision.

The big question is when the Greens or Labour will start asking David Carter tough questions in the house about his fibs using this report.

Tagged:
  • DairyMan

    Here’s a link to a Federated Farmers press release for you to read, backing the notion that the impact on profitability will be in the region of 22 – 43%. Especially interesting is the case study of an organic farm that will no longer be compliant under the One Plan.

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU1211/S00673/government-report-confirms-horizons-farmergeddon.htm

    • http://www.whaleoil.co.nz Whaleoil

      Those figures were completely discredited in the Environment Court, laughed out in fact. Federated Fuckwits keeps on pushing them

      • farmboy

        i just pissed in your drinking water later on i might take a shit in it theres an economic assessment for ya

  • cows4me

    Why can’t the report be used to make a statement about the economic costs to farmers?. Oh wait, I know, like anything these Marxists bastards would introduce the costs are well hidden in the fine print or they are appraised year on out on what the funding short fall will be for the parasites administering the bullshit plan. It fucking sucks, it’s nothing more then the con that is the ets only many times more destructive.

  • Callum

    I need some clarification here Whale. You keep saying David Carter is talking about 22-43% increase in COSTS then link to a story about 22-43% reduction in PROFITS. Earlier storyyou linked the court accepted 5-16% increase in COSTS, vast majority of businesses hit with 5% increase in COSTS (the lower end of the range the court accepted) would see an easy 22-43% drop in PROFIT. So who is fibbing about what and where?
    Clarity on this is severely lacking.

    • DairyMan

      I just came here to ask this very question. An article I read mentioned increased costs of 5% of TURNOVER, which would easily equate to a 15% reduction in profits.

      You are dead right Callum, Feds are talking about % reduction in profit and WO is talking about % increase in costs. They may very well be one and the same.

104%