Irrigation ‘absolutely vital’ for Canterbury

Press, 4 June 1982, Page 17

Irrigation ‘absolutely vital’ for Canterbury

For the cost of the drought this year, at around $lO a head over 12 million ewes in Canterbury, irrigation could have covered the plains, the North Canterbury presidenf of Federated Farmers. Mr A L. Mulholland, told the provincial annual -conference last week. Mr Mulholland said he totally supported the call for irrigation to be the Think Big project for Canterbury. “We believe it will be

necessary to apply continuing pressure on the Government to achieve this end." he said.

“If the production of the Canterbury Plains is to be maintained and increased, then irrigation is absolutely vital and the downstream effect on job creation and added value should not be overlooked." he said.

“I hope that we can convince environmentalists and sportsmen that it is not our intention to destroy the Rakaia River and that with reasonable and responsible planning there will be sufficient resource for all.”

Mr Mulholland said he didn't have to tell anyone at the conference that no farmers were getting rich on S.M.P.s. He said that the formation of the Meat Industry Reserve Account, with farmers' money after the Second World War. stabilised the industry right through the 19505. 1960 s and 1970 s and played a very significant role in further development of

freezing, fertiliser and aerial topdressing industries. He said the concept oi C.E.R. with Australia was causing much comment. Hopefully it would bring about free and open trade between Australia'and NewZealand. “I have been, and still am. highly critical of the protective mechanisms which have been created around New Zealand industry. ■‘l freely admit that an expanding ’ industrial complex is vital to both our countries in terms of employment and for any new industry to be protected during its formative stages is both sensible and necessary. “However, if at the end of. say, a five year period, such industries are not able to stand on their own feet against competition, both in quality and in price, then 1 do not believe we can afford them.

"Protected industries tend to be inefficient.

“Farm equipment is a classic example. If a farmer wishes to purchase a seed

drill, for example, he has literally got Duncan’s choice, as there is only one company manufacturing that particular implement. Hopefully with the advent of C.E.R. we would have a much wider choice. “With the termination in March of the two assistance schemes, L.I.S. and L.D.E.L.. there has been considerable discussions on possible replacements. "The land development encouragement loan has been responsible for bringing large areas of semi-produc-tive land into full production, and it is my belief that New Zealand has already been fully rewarded for the money spent. '“The livestock incentive scheme, on the other hand, has. I believe, back-fired to a certain extent.

"It has tended to place the emphasis on stock units per hectare rather than stock performance and the current drought has aggravated this situation.

“It must be firmly stated, of course, that manv farmers

have been forced to take risks in carrying more stock than they should, in an attempt to" maintain their incomes in the face of inescapable increased costs.

"The current system of disaster relief involving special loans from the Rural Bank, while a much fairer scheme than the previous drought relief measures, does have many problems.

“Many farmers are reluctant to borrow any more, because of the very practical reason that they are already heavily committed. “I have always held the view that the best drought and disaster insurance would be that set up by the farmer himself. “Such a scheme would require incentives by Government to store surplus grain, etc. Such incentives could include concessions on the

construction of silos and hay barns, which I know has been tried before but the taxconcession did not have sufficient attraction.

“A revamping of the income equalisation account, which currently attracts an unrealistic 3 per cent interest rate and is at the mercy of galloping inflation, is required." Mr Mulholland drew attention to the estimated gross export receipts from farming this year of more than S5OOO million. "One would assume, by the coverage of the media ol S.M.P.s in the worst possible light, that the rest of the nation was carrying us. "Why don’t they give headlines to the $62 "million subsidy to city commuters or the’ $lBOO million for superannuation. for example. “Why don’t they make headlines of the fact that if

the Public Service was to be granted a 10 per cent increase in wages, that increase alone would cost the country $350 million, the bulk of which goes to people who do nothing to increase our national wealth or overseas exchange?

"Where do we. the farmers, stand in this nation of ours?

"Who cares if the farmer sinks or swims? "On an industry founded by our forebears we have built one of the most efficient agriculturally-based economies in the world.

"At a meeting in Christchurch which I addressed recently, a member of the audience commented that farming was finished and it should be let go. “I got fighting mad and told him: ‘Like hell we will'," said Mr Mulholland.