I agree we should let farmers farm: they own the land it's theirs to do with as they wish. In doing so, of course I'd remove the interest rate subsidies; the tax concessions; the protections in the form of import restrictions that apply to bananas and apples etc.

Ahhhh, the joys of agrarian socialism: capitalise the profits; socialise the losses.

Yes, this is a drought, one in a series that seem to be getting worse. Climate change? Well, not in the sense that "in the next hundred years...etc" but in the sense that Peter Cullen suggested: that we could be in the first part of a fifty year dryer cycle.

The hairy chested-knee jerk almost 'either you are with us or against us' negative response of the Prime Minister and others to the suggestion of offering farmers the opportunity to depart the land had a Jack Black McEwen-ness to it. I'd say to the PM et al to set up a such a scheme---rural (and other) industry adjustment is nothing new--and see how many farmers would like to leave farming with their dignity (and some capital). If there are no takers, so be it. Create a market: let it decide.

Each of our major metropolitan centres have entire suburbs that fail every credible test of economic, social and ecological sustainability. So if the safety net of farmers is to be subjected to a "viability test" then when can we see the rest of the safety net withdrawn from these suburbs? When will we see the family payments being withheld from families that some faceless bureaucrat has deemed to be "unviable".

Wrap the argument in as much eco-babble as you will but it is still the same old ugly Dickensian era message.

Louise,
If you want to educate yourself I suggest you buy a book, any book written by Dr.David Suzuki, I am embarresed for your ignorance.

plerdsus,
Farmers are Agri-socialists, if the butcher goes broke, no one gives him a handout, but you can hear the farmers bleating from Cairns to Coonawarra, drought relief, flood relief. If they can't make a go of their business get out, and let someone buy the farm who has innovative new ideas. They can't have it both ways, though they try. They whine about dole-bludgers getting handouts from the government, similtaneously holding their own hands out for a drought relief handout, whilst driving their new $80,000 4WD's living in their million dollar houses, hypocrisy at it's best, and here are you defending them, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Ok, some farmers may need to be seriously reconsidering getting off the land - there's validity in the assertion that these particular farmers should be assisted into leaving the land instead of staying.

Here's what I disagree with, in terms of the views expressed by some posters -

The difference between a butcher and a farmer is simple: a butcher is operating on a local market - the farmer is often operating on an international one.

And on this international market, these farmers need to compete with other nations, many of whom subsidise their farmers to get an advantage. Then there are the farms that are permitted to use near-slave labour. This isn't just third world countries, some have it both ways - US farmers have been known to receive subsidies AND use cheap labour from mexico. How on earth are the Australian farmers supposed to compete with that?

Australian farmers operate some of the most efficient farms in the world. If you don't believe me, ask those in the know.

So my point here is, if you're going to compare a farmer to a butcher, compare him to a butcher that in many cases is also receiving a handout.

It's not just an international issue either. In the domestic market, Coles and Woolworths make up a massive proportion of the customer base. When they have that kind of a dominant position, they dictate what price they'll buy produce at.

Just keep this in mind before you go making simplistic comparisons.

Yes, we may have changed the landscape - but then you show me a country unchanged since being home to humans.

I'm in my final year of an agricultural degree and this year we've had guest speaker after guest speaker immersing us in details of climate change and the fact we need to do something about it. These speakers have been both environmentalists and agriculturalists and both sides have understood that agriculture does need to change to make a more sustainable future. The point is, climate change or not, we're in a period of warmer temperatures and less rain. We can't continue on methods and ideals we've had in the past - and we're not. Australian agriculture is looking not only to increase yields and production, as was the aim of the green revolution, but is increasingly looking to fulfill the triple bottom line ideology.

Australia's farmers are some of the most innovative and efficient in the world. It's part of the game. If you lose on innovation and lose the ability to compete with other primary producers - nationally and internationally - then you may as well shut up shop. You'll find that governmental subsidies (including drought relief) provided to farmers are some of the lowest in the world. For example:
Wheat producer subsidy estimates 1999–2001 (A$ per tonne):
Australia: $9
Canada: $25
US: $147
EU: $170
(Source: The Boston Consulting Group, ‘Maximising Returns to Growers Supplying The National Export Wheat Pool: Strategic Review for AWB (International) Limited, July 2004)

Rural Australia is hurting. You only need to be aware of the youth exodus, high suicide rates and withdrawal of services from rural areas to see that.

As for the new $80,000 4WD and the million dollar house... the majority of us can only wish.