Assistance for farmers

[Rosy]

That's rubbish Rosy and you know it.

* You seriously can't expect the Government to throw good money after bad, on the HOPE that it might rain.
* You can't call it "exceptional circumstances" if it's not going to rain.
* And you can't just keep propping up farms in areas that may have been viable farming areas at one stage but the change of environment and climate means that it might never be a viable farming area ever again.

*I've asked what alternative you propose to feed the families if you don't want them to get EC benefits Livers and would be interested to know your answer.  Judging by some of your comments on other threads I wouldn't be surprised to read you say let them starve.
*It IS called exceptional circumstances and it is expeted to rain again.  If it doesn't there will be more than farmers needing help to survive.
*Might be the case for some but as I've repeatedly pointed out not for a lot of Vics who are struggling.  Their farms were perfectly viable before the drought and if they're not viable at the moment it's because of the lack of rain and deciding to change tack probably wouldn't make them any more so.

It's not up to the farmers to guarantee it will rain.  Silly comment.

 

[jayfox]

Liverpool, I know that you surprise many on this forum with your views, but your opinion on this issue truly astound me and honestly make me think that you have little idea of the importance of farmers to the public and our economy, in which case I would recommend not commenting on things you don't understand. If I had more time I would look up some stats that would help prove this point. In fact, in a week or so I will.

Here are some things that I heard today -
The Riverland in SA is in big trouble because of the lack of water. SA struggles more than anyone with the lack of rainfall as we are "the driest state in the driest continent in the world" as constantly gets quoted to us. But worse than that SA get the dregs of water from the Murray that are left over from NSW and Victoria. NSW shaft Victoria and Victoria shaft SA as far as water usage and allowances go.
Anyway, the Riverland relies on permanent plantations. That is, plantations that last for many, many years and don;t need to be resown each year. Many of these plantations are not getting enough water to survive. It takes a long time for these to become mature and so it is not possible to simply rip up this years crop and start again next year.
An investigation into the plight of the Riverland has found that if the Government doesn't support the area in the way of financial and liquid support, then most farmers will not survive. They have calculated that this result would be far worse, in relation to job loss and financial ruin of so many people, than our states worst business disaster, The State Bank Collapse. They have also calculated that it would be a greater disaster than if the Mitsubishi plant here in Adelaide collapsed. This is significant as Mitsubishi are constantly being propped up by our State Government.

Secondly, it was reported today that there are 1 million people in the UK who are eligible to vote in our forthcoming federal election. Why are so many eligible Australians living in the UK? Well, the major reason given was that it is far easier to be entrepreneurial in the UK than in Australia. Why would anyone risk becoming a farmer in Australia if they know that there will be little Government support for such an important industry?


There are 1 million people in

 

[Disco08]

Agriculture itself is about 4% of Australia's GDP. When you factor in all the services and sales industries associated with the primary source of agriculture it doesn't take a genius to figure out how important this industry is to the country.

 

[Tiger74]

I won't comment about sugar or rice because I don't know much about them and I've found that forming an opinion from what you've heard and read isn't always the most accurate guide. Journos and pollies say what they want people to hear and depending on their personal mindset and agenda can paint completely opposite stories. I'd prefer to discuss Victoria from actual experience (I don't think rice is grown here is it?)

Not everyone is in the position to leave the land to work T74. Although there is no income on the farm there's actually more work for many keeping the farm going through the drought. There is also the mental and health aspect, farmers have had to put aside their pride and seek councelling and help just to get through the day. How much work do you think there is around anyway for all the farmers to leave the land to work, bearing in mind the rural areas they live in?

You seem keen on crops as an answer. There hasn't been much success with crops over the past few years. They need water to grow...the water they haven't had. Canola is usually a reliable crop but last year it was all rolled into bails rather than harvested for grain. If it grows sucessfully most years I don't think your solution to change crops would have made much difference. Interestingly some of the benefits you oppose are directly for advice on changing farming practices.

As for your comment about dairies some of Australia's richest milking land is in Western Victoria and Gippsland yet those areas are suffering too and are declared, as with the rest of Victoria, drought areas. What if all those dairies gave up milking and cropped the land instead? We need dairy products.

I'll use our farm as another example. We've been able to carry a flock of ewes over so we can breed up again. If we'd got rid of them and put in a crop we'd just have had paddocks of dust the last couple of years. This is usually very good sheep country and produces lovely fine quality wool. We usually grow feed to store for a few years but haven't been able to do that in recent years because of low rainfall.

How recently have you had a discussion with the lot "who consider it beneath them to work off the land" and are they receiving EC benefits? That is a very different situation to what I find and those who've never worked off the farm before jump at the opportunity if their situation allows it.

You and Livers paint farmers as useless bludgers to me whereas in reality I think they're some of the hardest working, honest people around and they find it very hard to accept charity.

You also give the impression they are living in the lap of luxury when all they are getting is a few consessions to help keep our economy running and help to buy some basic groceries each week. Even that is only for those who pass the qualifying criteria and there are plenty struggling who don't.

The drought has been going for about 10 years and EC benefits have only been around for a year or so. Many farmers have changed practices but it's hard to have agricultural success without water.

I really don't understand why anyone would be so against Exceptional Circumstances benefits. They're certainly not ideal but they are the difference between a family eating or starving for many.

What alternative solution could put food on struggling farmers' tables, bearing in mind there isn't always outside work available nearby and they are often needed on the farm still?

Actually Rosy I am not against EC benefits. Show one post where I have said that. What I am against is what was being discussed at the beginning, which was the need for subsidies for Australian agricultural products.

On the expression "crop" this is a trade term for anything grown, so it also includes wool, beef, lamb, pork, and dairy. It took me ages to get used to hearing it, and now I find myself saying it without realizing, so sorry for the lingo.

I also do not think farmers are bludgers. What I am against is inefficient farmers only surviving because of Govt welfare LONG TERM.

Let me make this very clear Rosy. T AM NOT AGAINST EC - I AM AGAINST ONGOING GOVT SUPPORT OF ANY INDUSTRY IN GOOD TIMES AND BAD, WHICH IS NEEDED TO PROP THE INDUSTRY UP IN GOOD TOO.

On rice, some is (I was in NSW yesterday, and QLD seem to think we grow it by the bucket down here). I understand though most of the rice is done in NSW in the central irrigation areas.

On Vic dairy, you are right on the drought issues, but these are short to mid term. My focus is more on the long term, where we have many farmers in the Murray irrigation areas on land which is almost arid, or they can only grow crops (which ever it may be) with over allocations of water. I am against this, because the days of a 300% water allocation are gone, and if you need this to survive you are in major trouble long term.

With regards to my hate of the people on the land, my family are farmers, I spent much of my life growing up on farms, nearly my entire career has been supporting farmer incomes, and some of my best mates are farm managers. I have nothing against farmers or farming. What I am against though, is any industry not being treated the same as all others.

Also on the work issue, I am similar to Liv, on call 24/7 and usually working at home nights. Its just part of my role (its an international one), so working around timezones and Just In Time supply chains is part of the course.

 

[Disco08]

nearly my entire career has been supporting farmer incomes

I don't understand this statement.

 

[Liverpool]

*I've asked what alternative you propose to feed the families if you don't want them to get EC benefits Livers and would be interested to know your answer.

Money to train farmers in other areas apart from farming...aren't we short of tradespeople at the moment?
Use their 'hands on' skills in other areas away from farming.
If university graduates who get a degree in engineering, for example, can't get a job....they go and wait tables, work in a supermarket, or wherever they can to pay the bills. That is what is expected of them. They are NOT expected to gather unemployment benefits until they can get a job in their field.
It's called diversity.
If the farm is going under...farmers need to get experience in other fields, and the money should go to them to do this, not just to keep propping up a farm that might not be viable ever again.

*It IS called exceptional circumstances and it is expeted to rain again.

Yes....that is what you say, but it is all pie in the sky.
It is expected to rain...it might rain...it might not rain....it won't rain...it used to rain....the fact is, it isn't raining and it hasn't rained, and nobody knows when it will rain to make farming in certain areas viable again.
There has to come a time when enough is enough...let's look at some other options, such as diversity....closing some farms down...instead of trying to keep farsm going in an environment that might not be suitable for farming any more.

*Might be the case for some but as I've repeatedly pointed out not for a lot of Vics who are struggling. Their farms were perfectly viable before the drought and if they're not viable at the moment it's because of the lack of rain and deciding to change tack probably wouldn't make them any more so.

Yes....I'm sure they WERE viable...but times have changed, the climate is changing, the environment is changing...there are a lot of variables that have come into the equation that might mean that some of these farms may never be viable again.

It's not up to the farmers to guarantee it will rain. Silly comment.

Sure, they can't guarantee rain...but I think they need to start justifying why the taxpayer should continue this type of funding. It can't go on forever because it 'might rain' next year or the next year or...
In my company...if I wanted to invest $10-million dollars into some excellent new equipment, then I would have to justify why we need it, how much it was going to cost....and what will the return be over 1 year, 5 years, 10 years, etc to prove that it is worthwhile for the company to go down this particular path.
I have to show some proof that the company will get 'bang for their buck'.

I have no problem farmers getting assistance for 1 year or even 5 years....but there has to be a point where we say, enough is enough.....and then we can use the money in other areas that can justify the need for the money and can show that it is worthwhile investing taxpayers money into it.
Other industries also need help...it isn't just farming.

 

[Liverpool]

Actually Rosy I am not against EC benefits. Show one post where I have said that. What I am against is what was being discussed at the beginning, which was the need for subsidies for Australian agricultural products.

On the expression "crop" this is a trade term for anything grown, so it also includes wool, beef, lamb, pork, and dairy. It took me ages to get used to hearing it, and now I find myself saying it without realizing, so sorry for the lingo.

I also do not think farmers are bludgers. What I am against is inefficient farmers only surviving because of Govt welfare LONG TERM.

Let me make this very clear Rosy. T AM NOT AGAINST EC - I AM AGAINST ONGOING GOVT SUPPORT OF ANY INDUSTRY IN GOOD TIMES AND BAD, WHICH IS NEEDED TO PROP THE INDUSTRY UP IN GOOD TOO.

On rice, some is (I was in NSW yesterday, and QLD seem to think we grow it by the bucket down here). I understand though most of the rice is done in NSW in the central irrigation areas.

On Vic dairy, you are right on the drought issues, but these are short to mid term. My focus is more on the long term, where we have many farmers in the Murray irrigation areas on land which is almost arid, or they can only grow crops (which ever it may be) with over allocations of water. I am against this, because the days of a 300% water allocation are gone, and if you need this to survive you are in major trouble long term.

With regards to my hate of the people on the land, my family are farmers, I spent much of my life growing up on farms, nearly my entire career has been supporting farmer incomes, and some of my best mates are farm managers. I have nothing against farmers or farming. What I am against though, is any industry not being treated the same as all others.

Also on the work issue, I am similar to Liv, on call 24/7 and usually working at home nights. Its just part of my role (its an international one), so working around timezones and Just In Time supply chains is part of the course.

Totally agree with your post '74....especially the bits I highlighted in bold.

 

[Disco08]

Yes....that is what you say, but it is all pie in the sky.
It is expected to rain...it might rain...it might not rain....it won't rain...it used to rain....the fact is, it isn't raining and it hasn't rained, and nobody knows when it will rain to make farming in certain areas viable again.

Hundreds of meteorologists say hi.

 

[Tiger74]

I don't understand this statement.

Sorry, Im trying to say what I do without saying who its for.

I have worked primarily in dairy, but also fruit/veg, seafood, beverages, processed foods etc. My roles have seen me selling product on behalf of farmer co-ops, or working for organizations that directly generate farmer incomes.

As such, seeing farmers do financially well is something I had a vested and personal interest in for a long time.

Sorry for the poor wording, I appreciate the confusion on second reading.

 

[evo]

Totally agree with your post '74....especially the bits I highlighted in bold.

Me too.

 

[Knighter]

Me too.

Thanks Kevin Rudd.

 

[evo]

Thanks Kevin Rudd.

Infectious isn't it.

 

[Disco08]

I'd like to look at the one statement everyone seems to agree with.

What I am against though, is any industry not being treated the same as all others.

Do you all agree that this means no extra assistance or do some of you take it to mean that all industry is given assistance when it's required?

 

[evo]

The key words you have omitted Duckman is 'long term'

I s uppose it's already been mentioned in this thread-I haven't read it all- but the car industry is a good example.

 

[Disco08]

Good point. They probably need defining too.

So it's fair to say your position would be to give all industry equal assistance given a reasonable timeframe?

 

[evo]

Good point. They probably need defining too.

So it's fair to say your position would be to give all industry equal assistance given a reasonable timeframe?

It depends on

- what you mean by 'reasonable timeframe'

- what factors lead to the industry in question struggling.(Will they recur in the future?)

-an assesment on the industy's potential viability going forward

among other things

 

[Disco08]

Agreed, one of the other factors I'd include is what percentage of the population is dependent in some capacity on the industry itself?

So in that respect I don't see giving every industry equal assistance as a healthy philosophy.

By reasonable timeframe I meant the figure that you guys using the proviso of not providing support 'long-term' were referring to.

 

[evo]

Agreed, one of the other factors I'd include is what percentage of the population is dependent in some capacity on the industry itself?

So in that respect I don't see giving every industry equal assistance as a healthy philosophy.

Well I would differ with you that number of dependents on an industry should be considered a relevant factor when determining it.

If it's in the short term and the industry has excellent chance of recovering then it's ok.But if it will struggle over a medium to longer term(without assistance),then no.

A good example is the car industry in Geelong.The argument always put forward for continued government intervention in favour of the car industry is that so many people depend on it.

I don't see that it holds sway.

 

[Disco08]

I'd say it would be similar to defining timeframes in that you would have to determine what a reasonable number of dependents was. If the collapse of an industry is big enough it can have substantial impact on the entire economy. If that's the case then any government would be negligent to not give that industry more scope than other smaller industries.

 

[Disco08]

Sorry, Im trying to say what I do without saying who its for.

I have worked primarily in dairy, but also fruit/veg, seafood, beverages, processed foods etc. My roles have seen me selling product on behalf of farmer co-ops, or working for organizations that directly generate farmer incomes.

As such, seeing farmers do financially well is something I had a vested and personal interest in for a long time.

Sorry for the poor wording, I appreciate the confusion on second reading.

Thanks, so in other words the statement 'nearly my entire career has been dependent on farmer's produce' would be equally apt?