So that’s the water story. But we can only watch with trepidation as the next instalment of government meddling is written. I refer to the pleas for more support for dairy farmers, regulation of milk prices and a levy to go direct to the milk producers. You don’t need an economics degree to understand that such measures only put off the inevitable. Of course the plight of these farmers is very sad. It reflects the ancient conflict between farming as a business and as a way of life. When the business fails it takes families, culture and heritage with it. But empathy should not drive policy. I am reminded of my very first agricultural economics essay exactly 60 years ago, on the topic of price-fixing of farm produce based on production costs and a ‘fair profit’. My references dated back to 1928! My conclusion then was that such policies must fail. Nothing has changed.

It's important to remember when reading an article like this that the author has no actual interest in the health of the Murray River, only his bank balance. Now it is possible for the two to coincide but in this case it's unlikely.

While it's true that the lower lakes were at times estuarine, the reality is the river run dry at times as well, reduced to a series of billabongs, and it also flooded. Now i'm sure the author isn't calling for a removal of all the barrages, locks and ways on the Murray-Darling? Maybe just the ones that wouldn't adversely effect him and his business.

@Tombee " But empathy should not drive policy." how very un-Australian of you. What ever happened to a fair days pay for a fairs days pay. Risk and profits should be share thought the supply-chain and governments have a legitimate role to play

Sorry that should have read a Fair days pay for a fair day's work.

Hi Cobber

No doubt Mr Kahlbetzer, as a successful businessman, takes a keen interest in his bank balance. He also has a long running interest in the health of the Murray River, and particularly the restoration of the Murray River's estuary. Removing the barrages, or at least their adaptive management, would be a win for irrigators across the Basin, and also for the natural environment of the Coorong, Lower Lakes and Murray Mouth. He's been at this issue for sometime, as you can see from this letter written in 2011: http://www.mythandthemurray.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Let_SA-Politicians_JK-_final.pdf

The announced subsidies to dairy farmers is just another vote-buying exercise and looks more generous than it really is. $555 million of discount loans sounds a lot but in reality the subsidy will only be a small fraction of the loan amount. I agree with the author that the assistance package will make little long term difference to the industry.

The author is probably still laughing all the way to the bank following the grossly excessive price the former Labor government paid for Twynam's water entitlements.

He is nevertheless right about the stupidity of water policies that cost billions in lost agricultural production to support an esturine system that would be more healthy, if fed naturally by free water from the sea instead of by billions of dollars of our precious irrigation water.

Cow's milk is not really suitable for human consumption and once pasteurised, milk has already lost most its nutrients.

There is no basis for government subsidising anything, let alone unhealthy products.

If government wishes to help dairy farmers, then it should allow them to sell unpasteurised milk, which despite the drawbacks and risks is at least nutritional, in more demand and could fetch the farmers premium prices.

Ever heard the expression, if it ain't broke don't fix it?

And exactly what happened when ideologically offended troglodytes were handed control and deregulated a mostly family owned cooperative industry that was once protected by a government guaranteed floor price.

And as a still Australian owned enterprise, would have been able to go head to head with our now foreign masters, whose management costs are much more costly than the cooperative model.

All those (be careful what you wish for) folks complaining now about (milk and sugar) government overseen outcomes, were first in the queue to over leverage in order grab former family farms and embrace dog eat dog free market models.

This is how a free market model operates and adjusts! Get used to it.

If the big two won't pay enough for the milk? Sell some of the older less productive cows, and don't cover the heifers this year, to in effect guarantee a future domestic shortfall? Which will ensure farmers become price setters for a change?

The taxpayer is already on the hook with the same government handout benefit other much less well resourced Aussies are expected to survive on.

Me, if I was asked to agree to a retrospective price contraction; I'd say that's a breach of contract and look for someone else to buy my production!

And underline my determination with other equally affected (former millionaire) farmers, pour the milk on the parliamentary pavement for the two or three days it would take for one of the big two to capitulate with a return to decent prices.

Or instead, I'd offer their competition sole supply at cost plus 10%?

And better than selling, so called over production, at a loss!

In conclusion let me add I've never bought anything but branded milk!
Alan B.

The 2700 gl was a response to the climate scam. It followed earlier confected scares by the Wentworth Group that claimed we would be inundated with salt unless irrigation was sharply reduced.

Garnaut said that we were in a continuous dry period and irrigated ag in the MD had at best 50 years.

All these myths are now shown to be false. We should immediately start reselling the bought water . After all the budget deficit need some help and the policy is crippling ag.