Dean Jacqui: Budget Debate 
Dean Jacqui: Budget Debate 
[Volume:673;Page:19091] 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 Why does Labour hate farmers? I ask why Labour—in all that it says all that it does and all the policies that it announces—says very clearly to the agricultural sector of New Zealand that it does not like the sector and will bring in measures to clobber it. I ask why that is. 
I remember that when David Parker was the Minister for Land Information in the previous term of Parliament he worked very hard against the interests of high country farmers in the South Island. He brought in measures to include the amenity value in the setting of high country pastoral rents. It meant that because the average merino standing on the lower foothills of a high country lease had the benefit of a good view—perhaps looking down at Lake Wanaka or Lake Hawea—that factor therefore had to be reflected in the rent that the leaseholder paid to the Labour Government of the time. That type of punitive legislation brought in by the Labour Government was brought about purely to drive farmers off the land and to drive the merino industry into the ground but conversely to open up opportunities for people to walk on that land. If that policy of the previous Labour Government was said to be good for the New Zealand economy then I would dispute that. 
It has taken this National Government less than its first term in office to put that right—to put right that travesty that was visited on high country farmers so that now they can once again look to achieve productivity on their Crown pastoral leases and in the high country of the South Island of New Zealand. The merino industry is going from strength to strength and farmers are diversifying their operations and becoming more productive all the time. 
I ask why Labour hates farmers so much. I ask why Labour’s policy in answer to National’s most excellent Budget is to bring agriculture into the emissions trading scheme early in 2013. That I contend and assert in this House would simply be a tax on our productive sector. The impact of doing that is calculated at somewhere around $35000 to $40000 per annum per farm. That would have a huge impact on any business operation purely as a tax but on a farming operation that has years of very variable income it could be simply crippling. It would be I suggest a very short-sighted measure to take. 
I recall that in North Otago in some of the drought years of the late 1980s and early 1990s sheep farmers were earning very little for their stock. They were selling off capital stock just to keep making ends meet. They were going to food banks because they simply did not have the cash to buy groceries for their families. Please do not tell me that farmers are cash-rich and are there to be exploited by a Labour Government. They are not. 
Why would Labour kill off the very sector that is leading New Zealand’s economic recovery? That policy simply does not make sense. Why is Labour blind to the costs carried by the average farmer? Why does Labour mistake turnover for profit? Why does Labour mistake turnover for profit and regard turnover as being what should be taxed? That simply shows a lack of financial and economic understanding which is probably why the New Zealand economy was in the state it was in when the National Government took over in 2008. That is why we needed and we have got the Budget that we have. 
This Budget which has been brought down by Bill English is designed to build a stronger economy. Budget 2011 builds a strong platform for growth and I will talk about an example of that in a moment. Budget 2011 sets out a credible path towards a surplus and that is one of its critical aspects. It also helps to lift the level of national savings while protecting vulnerable families. It boosts investment in health and education and—most important I believe being a South Islander; there is no secret there—it rebuilds Canterbury after the earthquakes. 
I will go back to agriculture for a moment and talk about a couple of initiatives in the Budget that I think will have a long-lasting and very good impact on the New Zealand economy. Budget 2011 will allocate $35 million over 5 years in what is called the Irrigation Acceleration Fund. I and many of my other rural colleagues have been pushing for that for a number of years. I am very pleased that Prime Minister John Key agriculture Minister David Carter and Bill English our finance Minister understand completely the value of not only agriculture but also irrigation to the New Zealand economy. The allocation of $35 million will be used to bring irrigation projects to the investment-ready stage. That means—and this happens a lot in my large electorate of Waitaki—one gets a group of farmers together who know that they need water. They know that they need water in order to break through the cycle of drought low commodity prices and all the other pressures that farmers face as a matter of doing business. They know that water is the key to breaking through and becoming more productive and prosperous. This fund of $35 million will assist those groups of farmers who are business people themselves—forget the old Labour view of farmers being just cow cockies to be exploited; that is not true. Farmers are business people—agribusiness people. They have good heads on their shoulders. I tell members that when farmers set their minds to an irrigation project they really get to work and do it properly. This amount of money $35 million will assist those groups who are determined to get an irrigation scheme up and to take it to the investment-ready stage. What is the benefit of that? It means they can then go out with a good plan in order to get third-party funding. 
That is where the next part of Budget 2011’s announcement comes in and that is the $400 million in equity funding for the construction of regional-sized irrigation schemes. That will provide a little bit extra—well it is actually significant. It is not little; it is significant extra comfort for third-party lenders to become involved in irrigation projects. I have seen that firsthand with the North Otago irrigation scheme. The farmers needed just a little extra third-party funding—in that instance it was provided by the local authority a very far-seeing local authority underwriting the scheme—to enable them to go ahead with that scheme. The benefits of it to North Otago have been huge. 
One cannot underestimate the benefits of irrigation to regional New Zealand. I have only mentioned two allocations in this Budget but I can tell that the impact of those two measures the $35 million irrigation-ready fund and then the possibility of a further $400 million investment in irrigation construction activities will be huge now and well into the future for New Zealand. 
This Budget is sensible pragmatic and a budget for our times. It sets out the next steps to build faster growth to increase national savings and to create sustainable jobs. I go back to the irrigation initiative. That will bring sustainable jobs for New Zealanders. I am very proud to stand and commend this Budget to the House.