To Yabby in particular, you are not correct and this is important to those supporting assistance for drought. A farmer or an activity can be very efficient, world standard and yet be economically inefficient. The term “technical” is often dropped when talking about efficiency. So while we can be most efficient (ie. technically so) in something in Australia, it is possible that it is simply economically inefficient and hence better for us to import. So by that we don’t manufacture TVs, bicycles, and a host of things we import.

A mature society trades what it produces efficiently and imports what it cant do well. Australia went through its protectionist era ending under Keating, but we are stuck with the mendicant rural sector that is resisting change (the manufacturers did not have its National Party).

There is no question that the rural sector has its technically inefficient activities – they have to go, like the old manufacturing industry as until the late 1980s. Drought is like competition to the manufacturers who used to ply Canberra seeking relief from “unfair competition”. Drought like “unfair competition” is an inherent feature of being a farmer.

If say Israel can operate to bring our dairy farmers to inquire how come they produce double the milk per cow, and we import their technology for irrigation, points to the malaise in the Australia rural sector.

The National Party, despite their name change, is the political trade union that plays the emotive handout drum. Look to NZ for no handouts (and please Perseus, don’t talk how easier it is there to farm there, that is again not a basis for subsidies any less than manufacturing comparisons. Drought aid, is like the “unfair competition” argument, it should be dead.

Remco, I come from the most efficient farming district in Aus,
namely West Australia. Note for yourself how few subsidies are
paid to WA, as compared to NSW etc. In technical, enonomic or
whatever other comparisons you want to make, we lead the field.

Yet no matter how good we are, we are badly let down by some of
the most inefficient processing and marketing industries in
the country. Our returns for lamb, mutton,
milk, beef etc, are some of the lowest in the country. When we
appeal to Govt to give us the tools to change these things, like
access to overseas labour when we need it, we are denied those
things by the powers of the East. Yet those are exactly
some of the tools we need, to protect ourselves from future droughts.


Yes, some things need changing in agriculture
in the East. At the moment we have a number of major dramas, a
collapsing wool industry, climate change, the worst drought in
history, etc. Those things can be investigated once the smoke
clears from the present dilema and a bit of sensible planning can
go into better water use etc. Some smaller farms will have
to go.

The thing is, don't get high and mighty about subsidies. Only
last week I heard that money was paid to GM for another project.
How much money is poured into the MV industry? How much money
has been stuffed into manufacturing for reform? Its huge.

Farming can and will stand on its own and so it should. But it also
needs some of the barriers lifted, for us to efficiently be able
to get out products from the farm gate to the ports. I wish we
had efficient meat processors here, as they have in NZ. Sadly we
don't, so WA farmers will continue to receive the rough end of
the pineapple. You city slickers can do your bit by
removing those barriers that you impose on us, otherwise don't cry
loudly when we put our hands up for subsidies, as does a large
part of our inefficient manufacturing industry.

Steve Madden says; “Present land use systems are unsustainable in the long-term, as widespread degradation of land and water is already warning us”

And has been warning us for a long time.

This is our very life-supporting primary produce we are talking about here, as well as a significant part of our export-income-earning and thus standard-of-living maintenance system.

It’s the very fundamentals of society. It’s the same thing that has led to the collapse of many civilisations.

We need to pull back on the whole agricultural sector. And for goodness sake, we need to pull back on the whole extent of human activity on this continent along with, or at the very least, STOP GROWING!

The rural situation is just another reason why we need to stabilise population…. and head directly towards sustainability, with all our collective energies.

Comeon, we have to do this. Even if we were to get widespread rains now, even for a few seasons in a row, anyone with any commonsense would still realise that we have to pull right back on agricultural activities.

A variety or resource stresses have manifest themselves in very significant ways in recent times, although the signs have been there for years. So surely the message is now clear – head straight towards sustainability, do not pass go, do not collect $200. End of story

Funny how all these so-called progressives seem to turn into raving, rectal economic dries and social darwinists the moment they get the faintest whiff of a social safety net that might be applied to farmers. Could that be a set of metrocentric biases we see?

What has clearly taken place over the years is that every time a particular region goes into drought and gets relief these urban bozos assume that every farmer is getting welfare. And as there is nearly always some region, somewhere in drought, their simple minds conclude that all farmers are on the drip, continuously.

What it does tell farmers is that any "assistance" that is seen to come from the urban areas to rural areas is, fundamentally, a poison challice. It is like getting a favour from a junkie. You know damned well it is only setting you up for a much bigger rip-off some time later.

Clearly, if there is no capacity to empathise with the bush then there is no sense of common community. And if there is no common community then remaining in the one political entity would be very unwise. There is so much that regional states could do to fix these sort of cyclical problems and the sooner we get the urban drop-kicks out of the decision loop, the better.

You are right about big business caring only that profits are rolling in. This is one of the non-ecomonic reasons that family farmers should be offered assistance to help with the worst of times. Family farmers by nature are more inclined be sustainable (from an environment perspective), as there is an incentive to retain the farm as viable for future generations. There will always be rogue operators, but generally family farmers care for their land, as they know it sustains them.

As for farmers having to get bigger or get out, consider the NSW State governments stance on farm home maintenance sizes. It wasnt until the 70's that restrictions on how much freehold land you could purchase were lifted. Even once the general restriction was lifted you had to pay the govt a fee (currently 3% of your land value, if you still havent paid the fee) to convert your land to unrestricted freehold. This prevented many farmers from expanding to more profitable sizes when they were in the position to do so, when living costs and input costs were both lower, and there was more money to invest in capital expansion. Perhaps the govt should be offering to buy the "good" farmers more land now to compensate for the restrictions they imposed back in these times.

More food for thought. The latest govt aid package announced was $560m. Even if this goes to only 1/3 of farms, this is 100,000 receiving assistance, just $5600 per farm. You'd be lucky to put food on the table.

And again, those farmers that are receiving receiving interest rate subisidies have to satisfy an independent viability test. I have seen applications for support rejected on the basis that the business is not viable. So the theory that this assistance is subsidising unviable farms is a fallacy.

To Yabby let me take your points as you made them as they apply to this debate and those like Perseus championing the good ol days.

>“Yet no matter how good we are, we are badly let down by some of the most inefficient processing and marketing industries in the country. “

Why are you let down? It is your lifestyle choice.

>“Our returns for lamb, mutton, milk, beef etc, are some of the lowest in the country.”

So why don’t you give up? Change the product mix or sell out and live off the capital?

>“Yet those are exactly some of the tools we need, to protect ourselves from future droughts.”

If we replace the word “drought” with “unfair competition” we’d have arguments used during the period prior to Keating for our then protected manufacturing sector. If you chose to farm, you chose to accept the good and the bad. Good times and bad times. It’s your choice and not for me to pay you to pretend otherwise that droughts are inevitable as much as economic droughts.

>“You city slickers can do your bit by removing those barriers that you impose on us.”

Barriers? I thought the issue was the vagaries of climate for which I am being asked to compensate the farmers. Or do you want compensation for perceptions of hindrance to trade?

Droughts are a feature of Australia. There will be many more, perhaps next year, or whenever and I am damned if should dip into my pockets to support marginal activities unless you care to help me and my family survive the next economic drought when it hits, and that is more than once in every hundred years.

I urge you to put your family first as the “city” simply doesn’t care, and nor should it. It’s your life and there’s much money tied up in the real estate. I am not aware of much zero value land meaning there are others happy to take over from those claiming to suffer.