Should National MP Shane Adern be prosecuted for driving a tractor up the steps of parliament during the "fart tax" protests?

The question has preoccupied parliament and the media for days. There are two ways of looking at it, IMHO. The first way says "it was just a bit of a stunt. Stupid maybe, but essentially harmless. Give the guy a break"

The second way asks: "what would have happened if it had been a bunch of students, or an unemployed rights demo?" It is hard to imagine students getting big machinery anywhere near parliament, never mind up the steps. Even driving on the forecourt would probably have resulted in being wrestled to the ground in a headlock, as well as criminal charges.

Having been on one or two demonstrations in my time, and having been on the receiving end of 'demonstration policing' I am finding it a bit rich to hear Shane's National Party mates calling for leniency in his particular case.

This was the party whose government presided over the "policing" of the 'Free Tibet' protests in 1999. Those operations saw the police arrest and release demonstrators without reasonable cause, in order to clear the area, and even tear down flags and use buses to block protestors from view, to avoid the Chinese Premier suffering any embarrassment.

A select committee inquiry under the new Labour government ended up recommending revisions to the police manual on demonstrations as a result of those actions, to ensure that police not only recognise but actively protect the rights of protest.

Farmers, like all other New Zealanders, should have their fundamental rights of protest protected. Their protest in this case was imaginative and effective. Big ups to them. It's a pity that the aim of their action was so misinformed.

The so-called 'fart tax' is in reality a levy on ruminant animals to fund research into ways of reducing their methane emissions. If farmers were treated on an equal basis with every other greenhouse gas emitter, they would be charged a carbon tax from 2007 of around $1 billion per year. Instead they will be exempt. The proposed levy, in contrast, will cost around $8 million.

Climate change is a reality and farming is a major contributor to it. 70% of methane emissions are generated by human activity and, in NZ, around 55% of that comes from pastoral farming. Isn't it reasonable for farmers to pay a part of the cost of researching how to reduce that?

The levy aims to pay for two-thirds of the research, with the rest of us picking up the remaining costs. Farmers will directly benefit from the research as the results will almost certainly lead to increased productivity and greater profitability.

Instead of griping about the small charge (about 9c for each mature sheep, 54c for each mature beef animal and 72c for each dairy cow), farmers would be better advised to make sure the research is not GE.

Because of much greater potential impact on the profitability of the farming sector will be the lifting of the GE moratorium on Oct 29.

The promises of increased productivity from GE have been proven false by experience in the US and Canada. But more significant is the effect on markets. US corn growers suffered a 98 per cent drop in their exports to the European Union and Canadian canola growers lost their market entirely - a 100 per cent drop in export sales, as a result of going GE. The government's economic impact report shows that just a 20 per cent decline in demand for NZ produce as a result of GE would result in a 43 per cent reduction in farmer returns.

All the fuss about the 'fart tax' isn't worth a hill of beans compared to that impending reality.