Rojo, thanks for that new piece of information.

If the growing of cotton is both so risky and so expensive as well as being so water intensive then I wonder why we do not use a risk management technique and leave it to those, say on the Indian sub-continent (or anywhere else on the planet for that matter) where the climatic conditions are right?

People is those locations seem to be able to grow the stuff, create the cloth and pay their workers and still make a profit without needing government assistance that is paid for my everyone else in the society that earns money and pays taxes. They also do not seem to leave their river systems so depleted of flows that there is inadequate water to drink, increasing salinity etc etc.

If the world of business is as advertised, then it is a dog eat dog world and competition is king.

It is becoming apparent that in Australia we are not competitive unless we are subsidised - and that of course is not competition at all.

garpet, it's risky to grow anything, so the best you can do is minimise the risks. The reason why we should grow cotton alongside indians or whoever, is because we are one of the most water efficient producers on earth(second only to isreal) and hold world record yields. Irrigated cotton yields in Australia are approx 3 times the world average. If your logic was correct we should be the only ones growing cotton.

garpet, I missed the subsidy comment, sorry. Irrigators have been able to access exceptional circumstances assistance for the first time in the past year. Because the drought is exceptional. To find fault in that is pretty tough. Not all irrigators, cotton or otherwise, are eligible so it couldn't be called a subsidy for growing anything. And it certainly isn't a production subsidy because there's not much growing going on.

53% of the worlds cotton is subsidised. India subsidises cotton production, as do the US, China, Greece, Spain, Turkey, Brazil, Mexico and Egypt.
To put it into perspective the US subsises its cotton producers to the tune of $4.2 billion.

Australia has no production incentive subsidies whatsoever. Cotton in Australia is grown purely on it's merits, competeing with subsidised production from other countries. Successfully.

"It is becoming apparent that in Australia we are not competitive unless we are subsidised - and that of course is not competition at all."

Actually not so. Australian farmers are known to be some of the
most competitive and efficient in the world. If you look at
farmgate prices for lambs, sheep, beef, various grains etc,
take a State like West Australia which is very export focussed,
you'll be hard to find anywhere cheaper, better or more
efficient.

Alot of the problem lies with people who value add our products
and the rules imposed on them by city based voters. Take
payroll tax, a tax on exports. Why not wipe payroll tax
for exports, if you want to help us rather then hinder us?

Yup, the Murray Darling is a mess, but again most of it imposed
by Govt rules and regulations. I'm told that irrigators have
to pay for water, even if they are not allowed to use it.
So if they get a bit of that money back, good luck to them.

yabby,
between fixed water charges and shire rates, govt bodies claw that money back and then some.

Garpet, to add to rojo's comments re cotton production, places like India and China can produce cotton, pay workers, convert to goods and still make a profit, only because they rape the environment, have little or no restrictions on chemical usage, have workers living in huts on the edges of fields for months at a time, and employ child labour in both the farming production and manufacturing process. Because we in Australia require a higher standard from both our farmers and our manufacturers, it costs us a lot more to produce the end product. In fact, because our farmers can produce and profit from that production 95% of the time, and still meet all of our societal expectations about environmental management, and human/workers rights, I suggest that we do very well indeed!

I note the comments about the Murray Darling system, lack of water and costs to irrigators.
1. MOST of the dam systems in the rivers were put in place to facilitate irrigation. So, the logical conclusion is that irrigators (who have mostly paid for this) should be able to use them. There have been overallocation problems in some valleys, and these need to be addressed equitable, as producers have generally paid good money for the land based on its access to irrigation water. Decent compensation needs to be paid in these cases, as the overallocating was done by governments in the first place.