$12,000 lump-sum payments for farming families
Government is going to spend a further " $190 million ..(which)…takes the federal government’s drought response to $576 million"
I am 'generally' against all forms of handouts and humanitarianism at a government level (Australia is not a charity) but under some circumstances there needs to be exceptions, especially when helping our own….
How do you feel about your tax funds being used for drought relief?
Also whatever help we provide for their health system is of immediate benefit to aussies in indonesia (bali in particular ofc), since the better the health care is there the less strain on our health system will occur from people returning after issues occurred over there.
Support this but hopefully not become permanent like those car manufacturing industries.
I mean it doesn't make sense for government to ALWAYS help a group of people. Just need to accept the reality as maybe farming isn't suitable in Australia. Don't keep living in a dream. Something like that. Try try and try harder but surrender with dignity when it is inevitable. Better than keep living on someone's else help forever.
I also support:
Get rid of child support, Centrelink help and refugees intake.
Use that money for:
Free transportation, hospital, internet, ulitilies, school etc.
you realise food is a necessity? We can't rely on other nations on food because if they don't like us we'll basically starve to death.
I think I saw on tv that actually those farmers never make good profit ie they make money just enough to pay the loan interest from bank plus daily expenses.
They are in debt, forever, wont be able to pay off.
Should they continue suffering as farmers?
Government aid basically making them to endure another years of suffering, till next drought coming, and another aid.
Why not give them something else, give them education packages etc.
I do not disrespectful, actually sad.
Please, government, make sure your aid is not just temporary fix band aid type of solution tO win next election but look at the big picture.
It is protecting local food production, not just about helping people. If lots of farmers have to sell up, when the drought lifts the industry will not be there, and it would take years to get back to where it was. During all that time we would need to import a lot more food, leaving us vulnerable if other countries have issues or there is a war etc.
Honestly, $576million in the grand scheme of things, is not that much, and if it keeps a primary industry from collapsing, then I'm all for it. Empathy and "won't somebody think of the poor farmers" emotional arguments aside, food production is a strategic consideration for good reason and something which almost all countries safe-guard. Add to that agriculture being such a big industry in Australia (especially as an export industry - the lord knows we need a better trade balance) and one that's intrinsically tied to the character of our nation as a whole… and I have nothing against this so long as it's a one-off, and the farmers use this opportunity to adapt their practices to be more drought-proof and do not depend on such payments on an ongoing basis.
so long as it's a one-off
Sorry, do actually think this is the first time the government has done this?
LMAO.
Yeah. Look at car factories… Yearsssss of aid. Then? Closed down anyway.
Car factories didn't close because of a temporary problem. They died because the industry wasn't profitable here. That is not the case with farmers, who are suffering from a temporary problem. You don't solve temporary problems with permanent solutions (imagine every time you were miserable, killing yourself to solve the problem. Destroying the local food production industry is not the way to fix a temporary drought)
@Quantumcat: It wont be profitable for much longer as the weather is changing all around the the world at a rapid rate. I've been suggesting the introduction of hydroponically grown food for a long time, there will be a point where this is key. Please look at the bigger picture. Throwing money at things never works.
@Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead: do you really think you can grow enough food for the world's population using a method that requires ten times as much water and manpower?
Car factories didn't close because of a temporary problem. They died because the industry wasn't profitable here.
If farms can't save up enough cash in the good years to make up for the bad ones, then farming also isn't profitable. I agree with supporting farms, but not because of this logic.
On the other hand, if farms are profitable in the long-term, why aren't the farmers saving up when they're making profits?
@Quantumcat: Wrong!
Hydroponic greenhouses use about 10 times less water than a field crop, said Pat Rorabaugh, who works at the University of Arizona's Controlled Environment Agriculture Center. However, even hydroponics wastes water. Using data from a greenhouse at the center shows just how much water can be saved.
@Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead: I'm wrong! Hydroponic grown lettuce requires less water. However, it requires more energy. It probably would be helpful to increase investment both in it and in renewable energy to fuel it. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4483736/
@Quantumcat: Hey, I get things wrong everyday!
I believe hydroponicly grown food ticks all the boxes apart from energy as you say. We certainly have the technology and, like you said investment is needed. It certainly would solve so many problems!
Spot on Diji.
Same thing happens every drought, farmers cry poor and the Govts dish out coin.
$0.56 Billion is a lot for the Govt to be giving out considering we are already hundreds of Billion in debt.
There should be no free handouts. At best, give them interest free loans on a means tested repayment scheme (like the sort of HECS-HELP setup).
That way when the years are prosperous, they aren't just blowing their cash and the tax payer gets some back.
Farming has always been cyclic, it's not like farmers don't know another drought will eventually come. The whole industry needs to factor it into their pricing and save money during the good and bumper years.
Robots will be doing all our farming eventually. Until then we need to take care of our human farmers, no matter the cost, as we all need to eat and we all prefer our food is grown here.
I meant the Royal we.
coles/woolies play a hand in driving up produce prices and making it hard for farmers. apparently bucket loads of stuff is rejected because it is slightly blemished http://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2017-10-13/high-levels-toma…
You can blame the end consumer too
Start up a tomato juice/tomato paste/ tomato ____ business
Welfare mentality socialism gone mad- vote Nationals- lower taxes.
The Nationals support this scheme.
No I don't support bailing out million dollar businesses holding valuable assets that employ almost nobody.
Giving a farming family $12K now to help them ride through the drought and feed their livestock is much better than paying them unemployment benefits long term.
Difficult one IMO. Don‘t hear much from them when times are good and there flush with cash.
And if places are in a 7 year drought, maybe thats a signal that that area isn‘t good anymore for farming.
On the flip side I‘m sure theyre mostly hard working stand up people. So why not help them out in a time of need, would much rather they have it than people who don‘t want to put anything into the system.
I‘m against the leveraging of their industry on peoples emotions though. They put food on out table because we pay for it…. Not out of the goodness of their heart.
Majority of ppl are not ready to do farming. So yeah, its their goodness.
That logic doesn’t make sense to me
Agree with you on this Mrgreenz, well balanced argument.
OP,
Why are you against it?
I'd rather give my tax money to farmers than idiots who are on Centrelink their entire lives. At least it's helping their livelihood and not funding some dero's ciggie and booze habit…
if you read my comments to Quantumcat it will give you insight
But i agree with what you are saying i dont think we should give those idiots money either welfare should have a 6 month cut off for anyone who simply refuses to work without a real reason ie disability
That already happens, you have to satisfy your mutual obligations to get paid. That means actively looking for work, or working part time, or volunteering (in the case of older people who are slightly too young for the aged pension). If you don't, you don't get paid.
You should have an understanding of something before blindly forming an opinion.
If you think the system works and that people arent rotting it Quantumcat then i dont know what to say to you anymore
you are closed minded on your opinions and all though you have some valid points you clearly dont have the ability to see past your own nose
That already happens, you have to satisfy your mutual obligations to get paid. That means actively looking for work, or working part time, or volunteering
Rubbish. There are heaps of people getting benefits because, for example they have 5 kids and are claiming they can’t work. I’m sorry but those people shouldn’t be getting benefits from the government becuase they can’t afford a baby or multiple.
I’m sorry but Centrelink is just so broken as to who is able to claim benefits and who can’t. There have been multiple cases where amputees isn’t considered a disability.
Anyway off topic here and this topic will probably be closed by the mods.
Why shouldn't we support these people? Why is there an imperative that we work? How come people can survive on a dollar a day in other countries and not here? It's society's fault that the cost of living is so high, so why not comp the very few people who choose not to contribute, as the rest of us have raised the standard/cost of living so high as to be unachievable for people who choose not to work.
Simple, our standard of living isn't even comparable to $1 a day countries. Forget internet, hot showers, air conditioning, heating, medicine, quality food, and possibly clean water. If it's societies fault that we don't let people live in slums then that's a positive not a negative.
Humans need to eat or we die, and food requires the effort of other humans to create. Why should anyone be entitled to someone else's effort when they're unwilling to contribute their own?
Would you support letting people live in those conditions here? Don't forget that $1.25 USD is the bare minimum required per day according to the World Bank for the average person to just acquire basic necessities, they would be living in extreme poverty.
Why is there an imperative that we work?
There's no imperative that anyone works. But I think there's an imperative that you provide for yourself, which means that so long as a roof, clothing and food take real resources to produce, you have an obligation to make a real contribution to society in return for those things.
Sorry I ran out of negs. You'll have to imagine it.
@BartholemewH:
Haha, i hate it when i run out of negs!
I suspected this would be neg bait, but I do think it's a valid point.
What's even sadder, bottleshops who rely on those customers to stay afloat. The whole system needs to change. (i run a bottleshop/cafe in heavily Centrelink/disability area = depressing.)
Unless you're selling alcohol to minors, they're adults and are responsible for themselves (and their spending) like any other adult.
I feel sorry for them.
but when I can't afford to eat lamb cutlets as they are $40 a kilo.
I say ride it out or leave.
They farm more than Lamb. Also if you think farmers get $40/kg for their lamb you need to learn how the supermarkets work. I know at local auctions the wholesalers where paying around $5 a kg on lamb. The supermarkets then jack the price up. There is very little money in farming nowadays and it is important to help in times of need. I mean unless your happy with massive property sales to China. Another point is they generally pay more tax, than they are getting support. Overall, the choice is support the industry and let it die. No fruit / veg / meat / cheese / wine / nuts. All are at risk
The problem is if you just keep giving free handouts, there is no incentive for the industry to adapt and the whole cycle will just repeat itself again.
Instead the industry needs to adapt so that it can ride through there normal cyclic droughts, even if it takes Govt intervention for that to happen.
With beef (i'm not sure about lamb) the farmer only gets paid for the weight of the eatable meat, not for the whole beast…And not one part of the beast goes to waste. e.g. The leather alone is often worth more then the meat.
The other thing that people don't realize is that most agricultural products are sold as a commodity, supply and demand sets the price not the farmer.
There at $40 a kilo because of the limited supply, but it isn't the farmers getting all that. Many have been destocking over the last few years so prices only go up from here without rain and you will instead be paying imported prices then see how happy you are with the prices. Most farmers can handle a few bad seasons or drought as they expect it, but this drought has been particularly bad and long
It isn't about poor practises or not saving for a rainy day, those that had the poor practises or poor financial viability went bankrupt early in this cycle. What we are seeing now is some of the better run farming businesses going to the wall.
Extremely profitable multinational mining companies operating in Australia receive about $360 million a year from taxpayers in fuel tax credits
Tax credits != actual payments, in the same way that a mugger giving back half the money they took isn't the same as a good samaritan handing out money.
What, exactly, is the difference? If the ATO decided to tax you at half the rate of everyone else, then you're essentially getting a huge handout from the government.
in the same way that a mugger giving back half the money they took isn't the same as a good samaritan handing out money.
"Not taking as much money" != "Giving you money".
In the former, you end up with less money than you started with. In the latter, you end up with more.
It's the difference between 10 - 2 = 8 instead of 10 - 4 = 6, and 10 + 2 = 12.
8 is more than 6, but 8 is also less than 12.
Okay, now I've run out of analogies.
@HighAndDry: It's the same thing man.
It's like how Lumo Energy gives you a 25% discount for paying your bill on time. That's the same thing as lowing the base price, and giving you a 25% late penalty.
Or The Good Guys. No credit card surcharge, but "Pay Less, Pay Cash". It's all relative.
It's like how Lumo Energy gives you a 25% discount for paying your bill on time. That's the same thing as lowing the base price, and giving you a 25% late penalty.
It's not - a handout would be Lumo Energy paying me to use their electricity. Not just charging me less. Relative, yes - the end result is that you have $X more than you would have otherwise, but as a small 'l' liberal, I like to think your property is still your property before your government taxes it.
Price after 25% discount on $1.00 is 0.75c.
But 25% late penalty on 0.75c isn't equal to $1.00
That's why he said the late fee is 33% (give or take) for it to be $1.00
I'm not against the hand out.
But people should realize that not all farmers sell produce into the domestic market. So it isn't as clean cut as saying "support farmers or get no food".
The thing I don't get, is why do we keep paying farmers boat loads of money every time we have a drought.
That's not to say that governments shouldn't be putting money into food security, but how about putting it into infrastructure projects, like running pipes from coastal regions, where water is usually much more plentiful, into the areas where there is none.
Droughts are only going to get more common, if you believe the climate scientists, so either we do something like this, or end-up paying farmers millions to live on worthless land, producing nothing.
You're right, that would be cheaper long term
That is what I think would be good investment of money. Infrastructure to get water to the farming belt that is constantly affected by drought. It requires a large upfront capital investment, but has so much more long term benefits, and the benefit realisation would be relatively quick.
They want it, the government wants it, but the environmentalist blocks any attempts. ie Dams
People have covered it all pretty well. I'm not against the handout, certainly when compared to other jokes of how our tax dollars are spent, but spare the tripe about food security. Before you jump the gun I am very much in favour of having food security; it's just a little hard to take seriously when:
- as mentioned when they have good times, it's actually usually us consumers that are getting screwed-no-thanks; good times basically means good sales and good prices - i.e. we fork out more
- the lack of initiatives (successful ones anyway) that actually promote us to buy locally; the above fact that it costs a bucket load is a big part of that
We're going to have to pay these out more often in the foreseeable future. Another step would be to commit to fighting climate change. IMO these things must go hand in hand otherwise we are going to have to keep bailing our farmers out as droughts go on for longer.
I'm looking at you, Great barrier reef fund.
fighting climate change.
Tell that to the USA, China, Russia and India.
be the change you want to see in the world?
I think the money should be given but as low interest loans that get paid kinda like the hecs debt when they start to be profitable again and can cover their expenses.
At the end of the day they aren't charities and are businesses.
They can access low interest government loans as well.
$12000 is a drop-in the bucket for a farm business , maybe one semi load of hay and a box of weet-bix.
Get over yourselves people , this is what government is for.
Not really - unless the government is giving out money to all businesses which are going bankrupt, this is a special case and so requires special justification. That justification exists, but don't dismiss it as just 'par for the course'.
Not wheely , Maybe get some dirt on your hands .,…
Do you really believe government exists for the purpose of taking money from some people simply to give it to others? Government is merely some type of glorified Robin Hood - taking from those who work to redistribute to those they deem worthy?
We have a very different view on government - and wealth redistribution.
Good , wondering how to phrase this properly.
Your a farking idiot will have to suffice.
@Sleepyweasel: I think you mean "you're".
I'd say it was ironic that you criticised my intelligence with an obvious grammatical error - but I don't have time to explain all the long words to you.
Yes!
Supporting primary industries that provide Australians with food is in the national interest. The alternative is importing food from unreliable sources overseas.
But quite a few farmers don't supply their product domestically at all. Should they be excluded?
no. they're exporting goods to overseas buyers. this brings money back to australia where they are taxed.
I am all for it! It's our food, our drink. However lets try other ways! IE: like the parma for a farmer, or we all donate $1 or $2 if we all do that!
I'd rather the money go to the farmers then the dolebludgers. Plus farming is of strategic national importance, just ask the Chinese who are buying up the big farms.
They aren't buying farms for food security, they are land banking assets.
I’d prefer the government support farmers than give more corporate tax cut to the banks, inflating their profits and not holding them accountable to the despicable conduct found in the Royak Commission.
I support it is but is it really enough? The Agriculture Minister said on Q&A that he doesn't "give a rats ass" on whether climate change is man made or not.
When the livelihoods of farmers depends on the climate and the environment, perhaps the Government should take the problem more seriously just in case all the predictions turn out to be correct, rather than do nothing just in case it turns out to be wrong.
Even if fears about Climate Change turn out to be wrong, that doesn't mean that the agriculture sector can't be transformed with more efficient farming techniques which work during droughts, and would probably yield even more when there's not a drought.
Full Q&A: http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s4871154.htm
Another nugget:
JENNY DOWELL
Yeah, look, I’d just like to bring up something. And I didn’t want to get into an adversarial sort of thing with David, but I would like to raise an issue that’s close to Lismore community, and that is… and broader communities, because it’s about Southern Cross University. Southern Cross University received $15 million to start the Farming Together program which is about building cooperatives. This is the region for cooperatives – we’ve got dairy, beef, fishing, forestry, sugar, lots of cooperatives, a great success story. So there was $15 million put in. I think the aim was to support 100 groups. They actually supported 730 groups in the pilot. The aim was to fund 15 groups. They ended up funding 51. The pilot was cut. And the funding was sought for $5 million more. The expertise was there with about 200 consultants who were experts to help all these groups, not all of which were going to be cooperatives, but they were liaisons or groups of people working together. And I think working together is also a way of building small holdings, working better by coming together to form their own…TONY JONES
Very briefly, where was the funding coming from that was cut?JENNY DOWELL
Federal government, and they were seeking $5 million more. And that program is now going overseas.TONY JONES
We need to get David to respond. Briefly, if you can.DAVID LITTLEPROUD
Yeah, no. Look, the reality is that was a great program, but it was part of the agricultural white paper and was always slated to finish. There was no guarantee ever given. It was going for a set period of time and that was it. The reality was there was never an expectation it was going past the date in which we funded it. And we congratulate them for the work they’ve done, but we have to make tough decisions as a government. We’ve to make tough decisions about how we spend money. And that’s been a great program that was meant to become self-sustaining and self-viable by itself. And to that extent, I think it’s come a long way on that. But we’ve been able to move on and invest in other parts, particularly in research and development.
Cuts a hugely successful program needing $5 million to continue because Yeah, Nah. Meanwhile $444 million lump sum to the GBR Foundation without question is no problem, Just Cuz.
The Agriculture Minister said on Q&A that he doesn't "give a rats ass" on whether climate change is man made or not.
I don't see what's wrong with this - does it matter the root cause if the effects are the same?
And while yes, climate change is real, and I personally believe it's anthropogenic in nature, Australia could be a net negative contributor of carbon emissions and we'd make f-all difference.
No it would actually make a little bit of difference.
He is operating on the assumption that it is just another drought which will pass (as all natural droughts have done before), but someone in such an important position should be looking at it from the perspective that there might be unnatural reasons behind this one and therefore if those unnatural reasons are not alleviated then it may not pass.
From his actions, or inaction rather, he has nothing to help prepare farmers for the possibility that this isn't going to just go away by itself. If action is going to be taken it can be done from both ends - Fix the source of the problem (CO2 emissions), and adapt to the problem (Drought resistant farming techniques). He hasn't done either.
Not to mention that the Water Management in this country has been an absolute shitshow. It is so complicated that I don't understand enough to get into that one, but from everything I've heard it's been mismanaged and water licenses are not being allocated to where it's needed the most.
100% support it.
For a government that is on the wrong side of climate change (propping up coal, pushing back fuel economy standards, removing solar incentives, bogus wind farm investigations, cutting CSIRO funding), they are going to be seeing more and more extreme droughts like this in the future. If handing out money to farmers is their solution, I myself think its bad policy, but its something that needs to be done if we want food security/supply in our own country.
agree. money is never a long term solution, 95% of cases they are just temporary fix, and usually there are some bad motif behind it
you would rather depend on food imports or go hungry? cmon man priorities.
Farm drought aid is a political con, using Australian’s emotional attachment to the land to garner votes. The farmers party, the National Party, have long been pushing drought and flood as being no more than natural cycles, denying Climate Change and refusing to invest any capital in preparing/alleviating Climate Change. So why haven’t farmers prepared for, and adapted to these ‘natural cycles’? Because conservative politicians have always backed farmers over the environment, allowing water theft in the Murray-Darling, land-clearing new areas as past farmland is laid to waste due to soil loss or pollution, live exports, cattle in National Parks, etc. Along the way, farmers have been blessed with a tax avoidance scheme whereby they can invest earnings from good years, before paying tax, to fund their bad years. This fund now holds billions, but the farmers are choosing welfare now, rather than spending there own tax benefited savings. Then there’s the issue of those very same conservative politicians who deliberately undermined the auto industry, an industry that was battling against subsidised overseas competitors and a then high Aussie dollar, driving Ford, Holden and Toyota out and putting all those workers into unemployment. Why? Because auto workers aren’t obvious conservative voters. These are complex issues, but have been reduced to emotional photos ops of politicians and struggling farmers to garner votes, and not actual fix anything.
Don't forget the DPI who were the feet on the ground scientists ,botanists and researchers , who's funding was cut off in the 90's.
Growing up on a farm you could walk into their office with leaves or a plant and they would analyse it within a week and get back to you with a solution to any deficiency or disease for free.
Very handy / efficient.
Don't worry though, in a FREE market you'll soon be paying $100 for a steak.
We pushed all the farms out to the country so we could live in the wet fertile coastal land, so yeah.
We? You mean the farmers sold all their land close to the cities and made millions for their retirement/children?
I'm not sure. I come from the country and grew up on a farm. Now live in the city. I now am removed from the realities of farming but are still interested in what goes on. If you put aside the impact of the drought I wonder how many of those farmers asking for aid would be sustainable economically ?
The handouts should be in form of low rate loan.
Most businesses have cyclical returns, some good years some not so good. I don't see a clamour to help out when its affecting other industries so why are farmers special? The car workers were quickly forgotten.
It was interesting to see recently farmers from Victoria coming up to drought stricken NSW and snapping up livestock for a fraction of its usual value to take back south and sell on at a handsome profit. When interviewed in the news they talked about how it was good to be able to help out their NSW colleagues. Hmm, helping out might be paying closer to what is a normal price for the livestock, not taking advantage of a fire sale to make a buck. Why should the rest of us feel the need to help out when they aren't even doing it for each other?
I think the bail out is justified, however to safeguard against misuse the gov needs to see where the produce is going.
I.E: Is the farmer (esp. within the beef/meat industry) exporting the produce to o/s and none to local outlets. They make ridiculous profits on that meat and refuse to sell to a local market. So in their case they should use the profits to hold out and be exempt from gov assistance.
Many of these concerns have kids away boarding in posh schools, own a plane lease a range rover every 3 years. They are not the average crop farmer that has the family working after school or weekends to just cover their bum and live a modest life
Having said that, after a series of droughts many farmers SHOULD pack it in and sell up move away and do something else the stress of a drought is murderous and suicides and depression are more common than we know
Sure it's hard to give up the farm and move but its harder for the family if mum and dad shoot themselves they still have to sell and move
I suggest you go and spend time in these rural areas and talk with these farmers and look at their properties before making such ridiculous arguments.
I grew up in a farming community and have watched what drought does and farmers having to get their cattle through it. I have seen the heartbreak of families losing farms that were in the family for several generations, people having to shoot their beasts as they are worthless and it costs too much to feed them and much worse.
This drought is much worse and I don’t think it is going away anytime soon.
It is very easy to say they should factor drought into their business planning. This is not possible for many reasons.
Go out and live the farming life for a year and see how hard it is. It is a tough working life for little reward because farmers get so little for their product.
300 mil is a bargain.
-Indonesia is a melting pot of different groups.
-Some are hostile towards Australia
-China is increasingly buying influence in the Australasia region- this is not good for Australia, strategically speaking.
-Indonesia and China aren't best buddies, cause history
-Australia pays Indo $300 mil as a strategic buffer to counter, both the internal hostile groups and Chinese hegemony
As I mentioned before. Bargain.