It would appear that some posts on this forum are not aware of the tractor convoy from Tasmania through Victoria and NSW to Canberra, gathering support from farmers in all these States to give proper protection from disease borne by imports and shelf identification to food grown in Australia so that consumers can choose to buy Australian. Our farmers food production can compete in a world market with countries with equal wages and work conditions. It is the disparity of wages and work conditions that place our farmers at a disadvantage; as well as the merchants sourcing cheaper product from third world countries.

The Tasmanian farmers are part of Australia, and the convoy was supported by farmers in all other States. It is just that they were being financially impacted at this time by a $10,000,000 loss to their industry. Farmers throughout Australia suffer the same fate for their product, example bananas from Argentina, beef from Brazil etc etc.

Philo, there is no alternative to fossil fuel energy at our current rates of consumption! Below is some stuff about biofuels copied from http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/SecondPage.html which also has some great stuff about other alternatives such as solar. I found out about peakoil early this year and the more I read the more I am convinced!

The main point I wanted to make in my earlier post was that if the full cost to the environment was added to products then imported goods could not compete due to the vast distance they are transported which will advantage our farmers in the local market and disadvantage them in foreign markets. But it would be fair.

I agree we cant be totally self sufficient in our backyards but without oil, modern agriculture cannot provide all our food for the current population.

"What About Biofuels Such
as Ethanol and Biodiesel?"

Biofuels such as biodiesel, ethanol, methanol etc. are great, but only in small doses. Biofuels are all grown with massive fossil fuel inputs (pesticides and fertilizers) and suffer from horribly low, sometimes negative, EROEIs. The production of ethanol, for instance, requires six units of energy to produce just one. That means it consumes more energy than it produces and thus will only serve to compound our energy deficit.

In addition, there is the problem of where to grow the stuff, as we are rapidly running out of arable land on which to grow food, let alone fuel. This is no small problem as the amount of land it takes to grow even a small amount of biofuel is quite staggering.

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/SecondPage.html

There have been posts saying farmers should not be subsidized.
As a farmer I will agree totally.
I will also agree to all subsidies being removed from the domestic market as well.

As a farmer I compete on the world market to sell my product.
This means I receive a world market price for my product and labour.

So how many non farmers receive a world market price for the product / service they sell.

I would say it’s almost between zero and none.

So who pays for the difference?

Maybe it’s the reason for the extraordinary high production costs farmers have in this country?

How about the agriculture sector demand world market production costs?

The difference between world market production costs and Australian market production costs is a subsidy to the urban areas from agriculture.

Quote;
As Churchill said, “trying to tax / regulate your self into prosperity is like standing in a bucket and trying to lift your self off the ground.”

It would seem that my sarcasm with regards to protectionism and regional patriotism was misunderstood as a serious proposal. Somehow its appropriate for Sydney to be dependent on food from Tasmania but wrong if it gets dependent on food from New Zealand.

I agree with Dunart regarding the removal of all subsidies

Terje,
You seem to be talking in a moral sense about good and bad sourse of supply. This is not the issue, the issue is a social responsibility to our Australian economy. New Zealand do not finance our unemployment queue, or receive taxation from our farmers. We Australians must firstly support our own nation's employment and income.
Quote, "Somehow its appropriate for Sydney to be dependent on food from Tasmania but wrong if it gets dependent on food from New Zealand."

For instance we do not import apples from New Zealand because of fire blight; they may be cheaper, but of inferior quality. We need to protect the quality of our fresh farm produce, and by importing we may be importing disease.

The problem agriculture is faced with, is not the fact cheaper food can be imported from overseas.
The problem is that we are not allowed to import the cheaper cost of production that allows overseas producers to out compete us.
This whole debate will only turn out to be a negative for the rural sector, as this thread is.

The protection the urban areas get, as well as the direct subsidies they get as well are our problem.
Take a look at this fact;
Farm gate price goes down
Retail price goes up
Urban areas reward themselves (thanks to regulation) with a pay rise.

This is after their productivity has declined.
It now takes more farm gate kg of potatoes to buy an urban product.
In any sense of the word, a decline in productivity and an area the govt should be made to address due to the fact that the gap should be declining with productivity improvement, not increasing as it has done for the last 50 plus years.