NSW election 2023: show us ag funds that count

Now just imagine folks in regional and rural NSW yelling this well-known phrase uttered by the character played by Cuba Gooding, Jr, in the 1996 film Jerry Maguire.

But instead of the character's sports manager actually hearing the message, it has fallen on deaf ears from the major parties in the lead-up to this election.

Sure, they, especially the Coalition, have made loads of cash splash announcements, like former US president Donald Trump on a maniacal Twitter frenzy.

But if you look beneath the surface, much of it is for infrastructure and not much reoccurring money for wages to fund public servants, nurses and teachers and Landcare.

Why would anybody want more public servants, you say?

Well, if the feedback about the need for on-ground support and advice has been anything to go by, organisations such as the NSW Department of Primary Industries, Local Landcare Services and Landcare have been playing an increasingly important role in recent years, including in areas such as natural disaster management.

More reading:

Landcare, meanwhile, could have a larger role to play as farmers look for support and programs to adjust to the barrage of changes now being rolled out as we head down the road of a carbon economy.

Most recently, this sentiment has been expressed at the NSW Farmers election forums, which were held at various locations across the state and covered a broad range of issues affecting rural and regional NSW.

However, as the election battle gets played out on a sports ground somewhere in western Sydney, these broader-reaching issues critical to the longer-term success and resilience of our economy are being palmed aside.

There's been $200m allocated for 'safety improvements' at 'critical sections' of a 1.1km long stretch of road in western Sydney - this price works out at around $182,000 per square metre.

What about the billions that are needed to repair flood-damaged rural and regional roads, which really do have "critical sections"?

And even $65m to restore an old mansion near Penrith. Sure, it's a nice old house, even with some important history attached to it, but $65m after the floods, droughts, fires, and COVID has hit the economy, might the money have been better spent elsewhere?

And what about some more boots on the ground to better manage state and national parks, maintain fire trails and hazard reduction?

But again, it is all this falling on deaf ear because, let's face it, any money spent where a concentration of voters can see the results - and especially where it makes their life more idyllic or helps the value of their housing investments - is going to bring more bang for the buck in terms of potential return on investment at the polls.

Just like the super fund that bails out of ag investment at the first bad drought, our political parties lack the grit needed for the long term.

Rural and regional industries and commodities helped the economy bounce back from COVID and have enormous potential to grow the state's economy overall.

Figures from the Small Business Commissioner show an increase of 60,000 new small businesses in regional areas since 2017 (see p5).

So if the regions could get the funds it needs to develop housing and services, health and education, imagine the growth then.

A little bit of visionary thinking could go a long way.

But hey, right now, rural areas can't even get a commitment to Landcare's funding.

So how is it there are all these discrepancies when it seems there's money being thrown all over the place with all the election promises? And where is the money coming from?

Is it coming from state treasury, or is it going to be money the state will have to borrow post-election?

The beauty of that is you can make all the promises you want for the election and worry about the money later - if you get elected.

This is why the major parties need to "show us the money".

Otherwise, we may be voting ourselves into deeper debt on the whim of a promise.

So where does that leave the bush, Landcare and the elephant in the room, electronic identification tags (eID) for sheep and goats.

Eight months ago, the NSW government made a big song and dance about the need for NSW to step up and be part of the mandatory rollout of eID.

While the government announced grants of $5000 to $15,000 for saleyards and processors to commence essential modifications and the critical infrastructure required, producers are still left in the dark as to what NSW will commit to this plan.

Does the silence this time around for sheep and goats, mean there is no money to announce? Or does it mean the government doesn't care?

With just 10 days to the election, it's unlikely any funds will be announced because unless you live in western Sydney, you don't count.

Subscribers have access to download our free app today from the App Store or Google Play