Should the Australian Government provide drought relief funds for farmers?

[nioka]

So now the drought is over should investors get it?

I did not know the drought was over. Is it?. 10 years of drought for some, one bad week on the ASX can't see the comparison. The Broncos got beaten today too, should they get it as well. Although you could ask Johnnie as he is desperate to get reelected so he could have plenty of handouts.

 

[insider]

Relief for the farmers ends up as profit for woolworths and coles

 

[grace]

Interest subsidies artificially prop up property prices. Property prices need to be adjusted for the probability of droughts.

Interest subsidies also benefit those who are in over their heads. Bad operators can benefit from it! Good operators often miss out.

Whatever happened to doing a due dilligence when you buy a business? Unheard of when it comes to buying a farm. A soil test might be about the limit of it.

Disclosure: we are farmers!

 

[2020hindsight]

assistance is the equivalent of unemployment benefits

people on the land have been the first to volunteer for active duty in (legitimate) calls to arms

global warming and climate change mean that reasonable expectations are shifting - much like the sands of the average desert

give em a break - especially the ones that are down to sub-subsistence income.

 

[Julia]

Interest subsidies artificially prop up property prices. Property prices need to be adjusted for the probability of droughts.

Interest subsidies also benefit those who are in over their heads. Bad operators can benefit from it! Good operators often miss out.

Whatever happened to doing a due dilligence when you buy a business? Unheard of when it comes to buying a farm. A soil test might be about the limit of it.

Disclosure: we are farmers!

Grace, your post is interesting. How are you doing where you are?
It sounds as though your efficiency/due diligence is meaning you are surviving reasonably well.

Your comment "good operators often miss out" reminds me of how self funded retirees don't get most of the benefits (discounted rates, rego, pharmaceuticals, electricity etc) available to people on government pensions.
Seems to me that some 'reward' for having been prudent enough to provide for onself should be available. Same principle as you seem to be describing.

Do you feel subsidies encourage people to remain in unsustainable situations, or that it really doesn't make much difference?

 

[The Once-ler]

Drought assistance is very much asset and income tested. So I don't believe it is being abused. Not many farmers get drought assistance. It's a bit of an urban myth that they are all on it. Generally, if you qualify, your in that bad a situation, your probably going out of the industry anyway.

Drought assistance is basically just welfare for farmers. Everyone else in society is entitled to be able to eat if they have no income. If farmers couldn't get drought assistance, then it would mean in reality that every other person in this land is entitled to welfare except if your a farmer, your not.

I would like to see the welfare paid back in a good time. I think that would be fair.

 

[nioka]

Relief for the farmers ends up as profit for woolworths and coles

So does any other benefits like pensions, sole parents benefits, baby benefits, unemployment benefits. Why not just ban Coles and Woolies?

Farmers prop up woolies by producing a lot of produce at below cost. Ban farmers and put up Woolies costs, is that an answer.

If farming is such a good perk then have a go, if you can't fight em join em.

 

[ithatheekret]

I vote yes ,

save the farmer , not the institution or corporate holdings , that may be split into smaller corporations etc. , there's was a corporate decision and a loss can be written of and negatively geared .

A viablity test must be done on each application for relief , not on need , but on economical viablity of the farming enterprise applying .

But , the rural belts feed the cities , ensure its supply line .

 

[pan]

it is one of the major incomes for australians, i think the government should do all it can to help the farmers

 

[numbercruncher]

Yes Farmers should for sure receive finacial help if needed, means tested and they must take into account the Viability of the Farm in Question, some farms have been so devastated by this draught that they will never be viable productive entitys again.

 

[Tisme]

Tamworth

 

[SirRumpole]

IMV drought assistance should be conditional on proper land management.

Don't clear fell, retain a minimum number of trees per hectare, let native grasses grow, don't plant water thirsty crops in dry areas and then over depend on irrigation from drying up rivers etc.

Of course that won't go down well with the "don't tell us what to do with our own properties" set, but the rest of us can say "if you want our money, take care of OUR land".

 

[Tisme]

IMV drought assistance should be conditional on proper land management.

Don't clear fell, retain a minimum number of trees per hectare, let native grasses grow, don't plant water thirsty crops in dry areas and then over depend on irrigation from drying up rivers etc.

Of course that won't go down well with the "don't tell us what to do with our own properties" set, but the rest of us can say "if you want our money, take care of OUR land".

Driving out towards Kingaroy there are plentiful examples of land mismanagement ....angering really when you have spent sometime on viable farms.

 

[Value Collector]

I don't know the answer to this question,

I know when the guy that owns the local cafe goes bust and loses his business, his house and his wife people just shrug and say business is tough, you took the risk, The same applies to farming.

The ones I really feel sorry for are the animals that are out there dying of hunger and thirst, at the end of the day whether the farm is boom or bust, those animals have a terrible end.

People were actually spreading a photo around face book showing that a farmer was forced to shoot his flock of sheep due to the drought, and people were saying "Poor sheep", But in reality the only reason the farmer is upset is because the sheep are dying on his farm and not in the slaughterhouse, he is upset about his balance sheet not the death of the sheep.

 

[SirRumpole]

But in reality the only reason the farmer is upset is because the sheep are dying on his farm and not in the slaughterhouse, he is upset about his balance sheet not the death of the sheep.

Yes and no. It's more merciful to shoot them than let them starve to death.

Things are better these days because prices are reasonably high so some farmers can sell their stock and ride out the drought. Of course when the drought breaks everyone will be trying to restock and the prices will shoot up.

 

[Value Collector]

Yes and no. It's more merciful to shoot them than let them starve to death.

Ofcourse it is, But my point is that we shouldn't be breeding these animals into a life where their only options are .

1, Being Killed in a slaughter house
2, starving to death
3, being shot

Things are better these days because prices are reasonably high so some farmers can sell their stock and ride out the drought.

Thats my point, the farmers are always ok, but either way, boom or bust the animals meet a horrific end.

People are crying about farmers having to shoot their flock, and they act like they feel sorry for the animals, but either way they end up dead in horrible circumstances, the only reason we hear about it at the moment is because the farmers are taking a financial hit to their balance sheet.

 

[Smurf1976]

I used to be a strong supporter of growing food in Australia, helping out in times of drought and so on.

Then I became aware that more than a few farmers will not employ local workers on their farms. Nope, they insist on using a labour hire company who won't employ anyone who doesn't wish to hand back a considerable portion of their pay for accommodation provided by the same company. That rules out anyone already living locally in practice.

Since becoming aware of that I've been more than happy to eat food grown in most countries (with a couple of notable exceptions) and wouldn't pay a cent extra to buy Australian.

I'll support the farmers when they support their own local communities. And no, it's not just one or two it's a reasonably widespread issue with this use of labour hire firms locking locals out of the work.

If the farmers want a share of my taxes then it's time to do the right thing and give Australians a fair go for the available work on the farms.

That said, for those who can prove they have consistently supported their local communities then I'm fine with the idea of government assistance. That rules out more than a few however.

 

[luutzu]

I used to be a strong supporter of growing food in Australia, helping out in times of drought and so on.

Then I became aware that more than a few farmers will not employ local workers on their farms. Nope, they insist on using a labour hire company who won't employ anyone who doesn't wish to hand back a considerable portion of their pay for accommodation provided by the same company. That rules out anyone already living locally in practice.

Since becoming aware of that I've been more than happy to eat food grown in most countries (with a couple of notable exceptions) and wouldn't pay a cent extra to buy Australian.

I'll support the farmers when they support their own local communities. And no, it's not just one or two it's a reasonably widespread issue with this use of labour hire firms locking locals out of the work.

If the farmers want a share of my taxes then it's time to do the right thing and give Australians a fair go for the available work on the farms.

That said, for those who can prove they have consistently supported their local communities then I'm fine with the idea of government assistance. That rules out more than a few however.

These farm subsidies... do they only go to privately operated farms - mom and pop operation. Or as long as you own a farm, big multinational "farmers" are treated the same as local ones?

Seeing how food security is important, I'd be happy with tax subsidies being loaned at zero interest during tough times. To just give it away when the going get tough but then when the profit rolls in, it rolls in... doesn't sound right.

Anyway, as an aside, in Flint Michigan, USA... the city shut down some 1,800 house hold per year because they couldn't afford to pay their water bills. Never mind the water is lead contaminated, still after these years... but residents still got to pay for it.

Those that don't gets their water turned off.

Then a few miles away, Nestle' gets to pump water from the aquifer as much as they like for a massive $400 per year. Now that's a mate's rate.

 

[SirRumpole]

Thats my point, the farmers are always ok, but either way, boom or bust the animals meet a horrific end.

People are crying about farmers having to shoot their flock, and they act like they feel sorry for the animals, but either way they end up dead in horrible circumstances, the only reason we hear about it at the moment is because the farmers are taking a financial hit to their balance sheet.

So you would be happy with grain and vegetable farmers getting assistance, but not meat and livestock producers ?

How about wool and cotton producers ?

 

[Value Collector]

Then a few miles away, Nestle' gets to pump water from the aquifer as much as they like for a massive $400 per year. Now that's a mate's rate.

People crying about nestle's water business are idiots.

Water is free, the cost you pay is for the purification and delivery.

The people that are using water at their homes, get a water bill that pays for all the infrastructure that the local water company built to collect, clean and distribute the water to your house.

When you buy a bottle of water from Nestle, you are paying nestle for the use of the infrastructure that the they built to collect, clean and distribute the water to you in a bottle at a convenient location, any extra charge that the government charged Nestle for the water would flow through to the end customer.

Either at home or in a bottle, you are paying for the cost to get the water to you, and a profit margin to the company that made it possible via investing in infrastructure and stock.