News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 General 
 Proposed drought aid changes 'devastating for producers' 

Proposed drought aid changes 'devastating for producers'

30 Oct, 2008 04:14 PM
The Productivity Commission’s recommendation to remove Exceptional Circumstances drought assistance without replacing it with a significant instrument to encourage drought preparedness would leave farmers completely high and dry, according to AgForce president John Cotter.

Mr Cotter said the wholesale adoption of the commission’s recommendations released today would be devastating for producers.

The recommendations would remove existing support and substitute it with capacity-building options but no financial incentives.

“If adopted, this would take away more than its returns to rural Australia at a time when families are either still in prolonged drought or just recovering from it.

"That would be a disappointing body blow to many producers,” Mr Cotter said.

Some substantial preparedness policies and improved arrangements in relation to the Farm Management Deposits scheme are needed.

“We were looking for the inclusion of financial and taxation instruments to encourage farmers to physically prepare their properties for drought - the absence of any recommendations along these lines is concerning.

“Research, training and human capacity-building will not work alone without incentives for better preparedness such as taxation breaks or subsidies to make capital improvements like building bigger water storage capacity or fodder reserves."

At least, Mr Cotter said, it was reassuring the Government has given an iron-clad guarantee that it would not withdraw EC until the current drought is over.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
Still they do not acknowledge or even appear to understand that drought is not the root of this problem. The real problem is that farmers are not allowed to make enough money when they get a good season to make adequate provision for drought. The economic rationalism that we have seen since Whitlam dictated that if you put the screws on industry you get rid of the least efficient operators. Our seats of learning teach that this is the way to improve efficiency. Prior to Whitlam we had governments (backed by a well educated non partisan public service) whose much more effective policy was to aid less efficient operators to get them up to scratch. Australian agriculture has been forced to operate with minimal assistance in a world market in which our competitors are heavily subsidised. It is a continuing mystery as to why our educated people do not understand the significance of this policy. Our own lobby believes that to fix the farmers' problems we have to get rid of farmers. This is madness.
Posted by Ted O'Brien, 31/10/2008 3:32:15 AM
Why don't we take the pure subsidized incomes of the productivity commissioners salaries and distribute that among drought affected farmers?
Posted by Ken, 31/10/2008 5:16:15 AM
Withdrawing EC grants and subsidies would certainly be devastating to some individual producers falling on hard times mostly to no fault of their own. Still, if these producers could bow out with dignity instead of hanging in there haemmorraging, the whole sector would benefit.
Posted by sad, 31/10/2008 6:54:28 AM
don't you understand rudd government doesn't want farmers. Labor party never has wanted to help farmers. We're not classed as working families even though a lot of the time Husband Wife and children are out there working together to get through these horrible times of drought. Do you really think we like being on EC. We aren't to encourage our children to work on the land. There is nothing in it when you have every government department state and federal putting farmers down.
Posted by rod, 31/10/2008 7:21:09 AM
“The Productivity Commission has recommended to remove Exceptional Circumstances drought assistance”...I'm not surprised to hear that. The productivity Commission is just a puppet of the Government of the day. The left in the Rudd government has been very vocal about removing EC drought assistance for some time. So it would be no surprise to me if KRudd implements the PC recommendations. These EC changes would be devastating for farmers and rural communities alike.
Posted by Ben, 31/10/2008 8:18:31 AM
So, the answer to managing the disaster of drought is research, training and human capacity-building. It looks likes new jobs for all except drought-affected farmers. Why not apply these same principles when the Government gives away our dollars in the hundreds of millions for disaster relief overseas? The stressed citizens of Ethiopia and Aceh would regard the offer with the same degree of enthusiasm as the distressed farmers of Australia.
Posted by jd, 31/10/2008 9:06:42 AM
Exactly Ted. And if they can add fuel by encouraging farmers to buy out their neighbours and bicker with each other about being the most efficient so much the better. Add to that the obscene manipulation of markets by company backed speculators that gave us wheat prices of $100 in 2005 after four years of drought. Comments then were "Australia is only a small player in the world". Funny then, on the UK's BBC earlier this year they stated "much of the rise in food costs (in the UK) can be attributed to the drought in Australia". And we're told farmers are inneficient? The trouble is, nearly everyone is haemmorraging, not just the "inefficient producers". Our last profitable year was 2001 and we've been farming our land for 90 years. Oh well, may as well follow our friends to the coast, it's an easier option than supporting our dying town.
Posted by Bluey, 31/10/2008 9:51:20 AM
Ted is spot on, the fundamental problem is Ozi growers third world terms of trade, how can we survive the tough years when during the better seasons economic rationalism steals away any profitability.
Posted by Ken, 31/10/2008 9:59:42 AM

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
POLL
Q: Should there be mandatory labelling laws to advise consumers if food contains ingredients from genetically modified (GM) crops?

Yes
(86.9%)

No
(11.1%)

Undecided
(1.9%)

Total Votes: 1507
Poll Date: 27 October, 2008

Most popular articles

ELDERS NEWS MREC FW

Irwin Hunter 160x160
 
Banjawarn Station


Farm Weekly







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...