JF Aus
Of all the arguments for giving handouts to farmers, the fact they work outdoors is perhaps the strangest. Should we also give subsidies to gardeners, building workers, and foresters? Mining and tourism are also affected by weather – do they deserve handouts too?

Rhian,

One flood or one week without water for stock can destroy a farmers whole income for the year and for some, their whole farming life. Once the animals and plants are dead that's it. Not so for those you mention.

It is not just a matter of handouts either. Finance repayment and interest can be suspended. Big banks do not need such huge super profits. Government could set up lending or farmers if banks are not interested in giving impacted farmers a go.

Most importantly drought affected stock could be bought provided agistment by government, in a special project to increase the national herd, instead of culling and killing it.

There is a shortage of affordable animal protein worldwide and the situation is worsening especially due to collapse of world ocean seafood supply sustainability involving devastation of ocean food-web nursery ecosystems

JF Aus
Farming is a tough and risky business. But every farmer knows that.

Favourable loans are a form of handout whether from shareholders and superannuants (if by the banks) or taxpayers (if by government).

If there is a shortage of protein overseas, farmers should be able to make a living exporting their animals. Why should Australians’ taxes be used to pay to feed your livestock so you can ship them overseas for someone else to eat?

Yes farming is risky. So is a lot of other business these days, including motor car manufacturing and the airline business.

There is not just a shortage of affordable animal protein overseas. More than 70 percent of fish product consumed in Australia is imported.

Loans favorable at the time of lending can get out of control and cause stress and even suicide, for example just because of natural or AGW influenced drought. (and I do not agree with the CO2 angle)

Farmers are making a living exporting their animals and that business is generating revenue for government in Australia and all of us.

Australian government used to guarantee a price for wool and I think it could do similar for cattlemen by way of helping to keep breeding stock alive when the chips are down due to drought.

JF

The wool price scheme was a perfect example of how agricultural protection can prove counter-productive. The price was too high, so producers kept on producing far more than the market was willing to take at the floor price. Eventually the stockpiles got so huge that the scheme became unsupportable and collapsed. The results was a massive drop in sheep numbers, years of depressed market prices as the stockpile was gradually sold off, and millions of dollars charged to the longsuffering taxpayer.

OLO even has an article on it:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=12493&page=0

Rhian,
I am not talking about defying the markets as the wool industry did.
I am suggesting farmers get help in a similar way as the wool industry got help.

There is opportunity for taxpayers by increasing the national beef herd.
Why dump older cows for a pittance price, when cows that could deliver another calf or two could help increase the national herd and help farmers at the same time?

The banking/finance industry generates a fortune in tax revenue for government from the blood of borrowers. Surely government could help stay the execution of genuine drought impacted farmers.

I really cannot comment on the wool industry assistance failure except to say many country towns are now on their knees because of the wool industry collapse and that must be now costing taxpayers much more.
Bourke for example used to be a thriving town with a meat works and rail link to Sydney, but not anymore.

What do you think should happen to drought and associated stress impacted farmers?