Minister denies ‘rip-offs’ in sheep scheme

Press, 18 July 1979, Page 2

Minister denies ‘rip-offs’ in sheep scheme

PA Wellington Assertions that fanners were “ripping-off,” the Budget livestock incentive scheme were denied yesterday by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr Maclntyre). On Monday the Labour member of Parliament for Western Maori (Mr K. I. Wetere) suggested that $2 million had been paid out for sheep that did not exist. The Agricultural Review Committee had estimated New Zealand's sheep flock last ’-oar at just over 60 million. The Minister, in reply to • question in Parliament recently, said that money was paid out for almost 65 million sheep. Mr Maclntyre said yesterday that he was “sick and tired of persons who should know better, insinuating that fanners were ripping off Budget incentives schemes.” He was astounded by Mr Wetere’s statement contending that the Government had made payments to farmers for 4 million “phantom sheep” which existed only in farmers’ minds. Payments had been made for 400.000 sheep, at 50c a head. There was no record? that tues. sheep existed. ■

i However, this did not mean they were “phantom 1 sheep,” said Mr Maclntyre. “I would point out to Mr Wetere that all sheep- ’ owners were eligible for payments under the scheme, and it was not just limited ’ to bona fide farmers running ’ large flocks,” he said. ; Payments were made to ' persons running even one animal, and with about , 20,000 o.Bha block-owners in . New Zealand who traditionally did not file annua! ; sheep returns, there were a “considerable number,” of animals which never appeared on the records, 'said ; Mr Maclntyre. “Far from being dishonest as regards the number of sheep they claimed they were running, there were instances where farmers were inadvertently over-paid and who returned the excess.” The payments were taxable and some of the money would have come back to the Government by way of income tax. “The net cost of the scheme was less than the sum paid out,” he said. Mr Maclntyre said Mr i Wetere had appeared to base his al' ..ations, on figures contained in the report of the Agricultural Review Committee, which were only estimates. “Subsequent information clearly showed that the Agriculture Review ComI mittee’s estimates were extremely conservative and did not reflect the increased stock numbers largely reI suiting from the Governiment’s Livestock Incentive Scheme.” he said.