That is where I must correct him.
Having a foot in both camps (so to speak) my wife and I run a small, 144ha dry stock farm and for the past 17 years have run and developed a tourism venture in Rotorua District.
Firstly, Emerson’s perception the Tourism Council was slagging off farmers by supporting the Choose Clean Water accord.
Surely supporting Choose Clean Water is what every New Zealander wants and how we go about it and the levels we, as a country, hope to obtain should be robustly debated by all and sundry.
Secondly, Emerson attacks the biosecurity threats tourists bring to our shores.
I would hazard to guess we are more at risk by the shiploads of palm kernel imported to our shores.
He does, however, raise some valid points in expenses picked up by Kiwi taxpayers in unpaid hospital costs and search and rescue missions incurred by our overseas visitors.
Finally, Emerson’s assertion that tourism is heavily subsidised.
Sure, there are the cycle ways as per this Government’s promise in trying to get the NZ economy moving.
True, there are parts I would raise an eyebrow at. One part runs past the entrance to our business but, like it or not, cycling is a growing pastime worldwide and in the past few years some great trails have come about from this Government’s cycleway initiative.
If you choose to take an alternative view maybe Emerson would like to do the sums in that we currently get in excess of a million foreign visitors a year to our shores with an average spend of NZ$5000 a head. The GST take alone is $652/head.
Of that $5000 spent by visitors in NZ-owned and operated businesses, most, if not all, of that is retained in NZ.
Can you honestly say Emerson that all money earned from agriculture, horticulture and forestry is retained in NZ?
