CountryGal,

Very good point you make about government paying back farmers to the tune of that 3% of property value that had to be paid to convert to unrestricted freehold. I suspect that many of the viability problems of the very long term business that is farming are due to just such discriminatory taxes levied mainly against farmers in the past that have effectively established much of urban Australia (especially the public sector and academe) in such metaphorical clover.

I wonder what would happen if we factored past death duties into the drought assistance equation? The simple fact may well be that government took too much tax for too long for this industry to survive.

Remco, if farmers gave up as easily as you encourage, when they
hit a snag, frankly you would starve :) Do not forget that you
city slickers are not very good at earning forex, trading houses
amongst each other does not pay import bills!

Of course we are let down. You talk of economic efficiency. Why
can't the same apply to processors? I am simply applying the same
criteria to the city. Why can't we get our produce to ports, at
world standards? Why do we have to subsidise you? Why is so
much money paid to the MV industry and others?

Free up the meat industry, we might then be able to at least achieve
world parity prices, as our NZ brothers do. Don't charge for water
which you don't supply. Get rid of payroll tax on our exports. etc.

Actually, most of the so called "drought assistance" is little more
then city people get anyhow. Much the same as dole payments, when
they don't make a living. Well thats whats happening right now,
lots not making a living, so they get dole payments, much like
in the city. City people arn't required to move, to take on a job,
city people live in expensive real estate, whilst claiming the
dole. So where is the big difference?

BTW, personally I have never received a cent in any kind of payments
for anything. My point is your flawed argument. When huge payments
to manufacturing stop, when world class efficiency finally hits
the cities, then I'll take some notice of your complaints.

Meantime I'll continue to make sure that you don't starve :)

Remco likes to rant on about economic efficiency. Consider that agriculture is most heavily subsidised sector in the world. Australian farmers get a mere 4% of their gross earnings as ecomonic transfer from taxpayers. Much of this relates to the diesel fuel rebate, which is merely a refund of the road tax component of diesel fuel tax, to recognise those vehicles such as headers, tractors and farm trucks that are not used on public roads. Other countries receive up to 68% of their gross income in the form of taxpayer support, and operate with import tarrifs as high as 800% - Australia has next to no tariff barrier for agricultural imports. This is why our country enjoys some of the lowest food prices in the developed world. Our farmers can still compete... just. I'd consider that to be economically efficient, which stems from being technically efficient.

Farming might account for 3% of GDP, but consider the export factor? In 04/05 farms accounted for 20% of our export value - this has fallen to 15% expected in 06/07 given the drought halving farm incomes and the resource boom (more on this later). Where would our already terrible current account deficit be if we stopped exporting farm products and starting importing them instead. Basic analysis would show that this would well and truly leave us up the creek without a paddle (yes I'm aware of the irony given the rivers have stopped running). The solution to the CAD - stop your luxury imports city-slickers. You are driving this countrys overconsumption problem.

Back to mining, being 55% of export value in 06/07. Great, lets get right behind mining, tear up the countryside (or bury a few more miners underground). What happens when we've sold off our limited resources? Bugger! Farming is more environmentally friendly than mining and (done correctly) is sustainable long-term. Why do you think there is such a push at the moment towards bio-fuel.

We need some analysis done to show the twits in suburbia where their bread and butter comes from and why they get it so cheap.

Some interesting comments so far, and the negative ones against farming always come from people who have a subsidized job in a subsidized industry. I would like to be proven wrong, but doubt that would occur as most non rural industries receive govt assistance, no questions asked, or the employees receive increased wages as a result of govt regulation.
Where does this leave agriculture?
As you cannot subsidize yourself, the industry that gives handouts to the urban areas.
Stop and ask your self, if we had real free market in the Australian economy tomorrow, who would be the winners and who would lose?
Agriculture would have the same income
Wages would drop as we substituted imported goods with imported labour until it was no longer viable. (Can some one tell what the difference is anyway?)
All the tariff and govt subsidized industry’s would suddenly have to become more efficient, bring their sale price in line with the world market.

Result, an economy where everyone was treated equally
Result, an economy where agriculture would be able to survive droughts without need for what is called govt assistance, but in reality is just a small % of our funds being returned, minus huge costs to do so.

Another questions I have to ask, is if agriculture is 3% of the economy, then why are we having an effect on the economy? After all, a small drop in another industry would and does not have the same effect.
Maybe it’s because we value the goods and services produced by different industries, differently.
For instance, wheat is valued at $125 (until recently) at the farm gate, with a pair of trousers being valued at $50 retail
In china, wheat was valued closer to $300; let’s say $250 at the farm gate, with retail value of the same trousers was $7.
Let’s do a GDP for both countries; (1 tonne of wheat and 10 trousers for both countries)
The higher price for wheat in china is the farm gate in Australia, plus the cost to get it to the same place, full market competition.)
Australia
• $125 plus $500 equals $625. this is 20% agriculture and 80% secondary

China
• $250 plus $70 equals $320. this is 78% agriculture and 22% secondary

Yes you can buy trousers in china, retail for that price, and the same quality.
Importing costs would, at most 20 cents each. So the cost between $7 and $50 occurs domestically.

Maybe that explains why, while we have a low GDP against agriculture, we still rock the economy when we have a less than average season.

Maybe these quotes explain why many do not wish to understand things?

Quote;
A person ability to understand a new idea,
Depends on if their salary depends on them mis-understanding it

Quote;
Trying to tax yourself into prosperity, is like standing in a bucket and trying to lift yourself off the ground.

Winston Churchill

How amazingly self centred are those that can lay claim to public money to practice their business and seek others to insulate them from the vagaries of the weather.

Look at yourselves those that that justify their claims based on the "country would starve" and we are doing our bit for the country bit. What false martyrdom.

You are in the country because YOU want to be there and then want the rest of the country to dip into their pockets each time the inevitable happens.

What utter self denial of the fact, you are there by choice pretending to help others.

A word with the letter "h" comes to mind (and ending with "y" if you dont get it).

Its going to get worse before it get better. I urge you to sell out as there are others willing to buy you out.