Clive Hamilton is right to tell farmers that if the land can't support them they should get off - http://www.abc.net.au/rural/vic/stories/s706548.htm. (I seem to be agreeing with Clive Hamilton's Australia Institute a lot at the moment). And the PM's claim that losing farmers from the land would damage the national psyche http://abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200610/s1765679.htm.

I'd say it would benefit the national psyche because farmers are the last industry group to be feather-bedded. Why should manufacturing, mining and service industries have to compete on a level playing field while bad farmers are propped-up by government grants?

If the government got out of the way those farmers who are properly capitalised and can manage their land would gobble-up the poorer farmers. In the end this would make our farming land much more productive.

So basically you are saying that the big landholders should be allowed to gobble up the small ones. I hate Globalisation. Big conglomerates with too much money eating up all the mom and pop enterprises. Where is itgoing to end? With the whole World living under a Mocrosoft or McDonalds banner?

I don't think farmers should be propped up with drought relief every time the inevitable happens. I'm more of the mind that a longterm solution should be looked at. I've posted about nuclear desalination before. Now that Nuclear Power is definitely going to become a part of our future energy supply we should look at increasing the number of desalination plants.

Desalination is very energy intensive. Until now a large increase in the number of desalination plants would have mean't an increase in coal burning or gas power plants. Gas is a lot cleaner than coal but nuclear is cleaner still. Zero CO2 output. The amount of energy a single nuclear plant can put out is incredible. Sydney and it's surrounding cities could rely on a single plant to meet its energy needs.

With all that ocean around us and salty artesian bore water waiting to be desalinated we could forget about the cities drying up and the farmers could take all of the excess.

Recycling is very noble and all but you can't recycle what you haven't got.

Yes. Howard goes all emotional and funny about the eyes when he mentions the-man-on-the-land. Clive Hamilton said on AM this morning that he thinks it is all to do with the myth about the connection of all Australians to the land. Myth it certainly is, and if farmers can't make a go of it, they should find another occupation, just as anybody else has to. Sentimental claptrap is no substitute for common sense and good management.

The hand-outs would go only to farms, not the many small businesses who support them and who carry their debts "until the wool cheque" arrives.

It wouldn't just be bigger farmers Wayne. It would also be new entrants into the industry, and the guy or gal who own the farm next door or down the road who want to get bigger.

You might not like big farmers, but one of the historical problems on the land has been too many small farmers - look at all the failed soldier settlements.

There's a balance to be struck. An effective market where people aren't locked out of purchasing more land because existing landholders are subsidised to stay put is the best way of striking that balance.

What Male Cow Droppings. This "subsidy" is to give farmers, with no work, on their farms, or in their district, access to the DOLE equivalent.
Now I realise that for many, this should only be available to the "down trodden workers", & the city bludgers, but its time, for a bit of equity. Time for a bit of bush generated wealth to flow back to where it came from.

For the whole country its less than half what Queensland wants, to subsidise just the people of Ipswich. Yes, to build a road so they can get to work in Brisbane. Do I hear you say, "let them work at home, or go without"? If not, why not? Whats the bl@@dy difference? They are both living in the wrong place right now, but that may change. It will rain, & the government may move its offices out to where the workers come from. Fat chance of the latter I suppose, takes some sence to think of that.

Why is it, that some of the sector that holds its hand out the furtherst, & hardest, academia, hates to see any real worker get a bit? Less for them?

Of course farmers should be given support, heck $200 bucks a week is not a fortune and because of the drought they have no job.

But lets treat everybody equally, you know mutual obligation, lets be creative what "work for the dole" schemes could they do?

Can't have these farm bludgers sitting on their bums doing nothing. Maybe a TAFE course in water divining, then they could be called apprentices.

Of course they may have to walk 100 kilometers a fortnight to put the forms in.

There are no shortage of jobs, maybe they could get the $5000 to move to Perth.

Yse they need help, but shouldn't they be treated equally?