Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Mr Chair. I'd like to start out by saying that while I'm on the Primary Production Committee second time around I wasn't there for the review unfortunately. But I have read the papers and I am going to focus on Crown Irrigation Investments Ltd—what's in the review and ongoing matters as is allowed under the Standing Orders.I am a little disappointed as to how it's come out in the last few days with Crown Irrigation Investments Ltd in the review quite clearly touching on what was within the coalition agreement around winding back irrigation investment. They didn't at that stage know what was in store and we now do know that and they know that and what's come out is that actually the Minister didn't contact Crown Irrigations Investments Ltd himself. The Minister is better than that and I hope he reflects on that because while he may not be required to do it it's a common courtesy. Why he's done that or why that didn't happen I don't know but I hope he reflects on that because as I said he's better than that.I want to focus on two of the projects that have been cut as a result of this and there were some quite erroneous things said today in the House by a member—from New Zealand First I think it was—who spoke about the Hurunui Water Project. If he went down and cared to actually have a look at it he would realise how far off the mark he was.Those projects like the Hurunui Water Project for example—it's not a cheap scheme by any means. It'll be $1000 a hectare or $10000 a hectare—that's a lot of money—to put in place. What Crown Irrigation Investments Ltd the purpose of that and what was reported on in the report is—it funds overbuild. What that means is that instead of putting in a pipe this big in the sure knowledge of knowing that it'll need to be bigger later they enable the pipe to be put in a little bit bigger. That saves money in the long run.Irrigation schemes—having been involved in getting a community irrigation scheme and in fact chairing it from scratch to up and running—are in fact a real challenge. The challenge is getting over the funding hump—getting enough people on board to actually get the money up and get the scheme to a bankable stage. And people say Well it should stand on its merits." Well they do in the end but the ability to get there is quite fraught. If you look at the costs for consents for a large project compared to the costs for a small project they are in fact about the same. So if you can get a group together and get the scheme up and running then you will get there because of that—not you Mr Chair of course. Then the community will be able to get those schemes up and running and actually it is an infrastructure that pays itself back.The best example is the Waipara irrigation scheme not far from the Hurunui Water Project which was put in at $5.7 million. That's what it cost to put in. That scheme within 10 years was returning that much money per annum in excise tax on the wine produced off that irrigation scheme. So that irrigation scheme would have paid back the cost of the irrigation scheme the capital cost year on year in excise tax alone—not counting income tax not counting GST and not counting the return of the investment of those people and their annual returns and the money flowing through the community. We do know from studies that every dollar spent invested inside the gate returns $2 outside the gate—the farm gate.So these schemes pay for themselves very quickly. These schemes provide a huge community benefit and in the case of the Hurunui Water Project only 10 to 15 percent of the irrigated land would be either dairy or dairy support. So the scheme is well ahead of what would be expected otherwise. So I'll leave it at that and I might come back later but that's a brief rundown and I do hope the Minister reflects as I said. So thank you."