$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?
I think it’s reasonable to expect contingency planning and preparing for situation. If you spent time with farmers, this is well understood given their dependency on Mother Nature, they make arrangements. And yes, they weather the proverbial storms many times over.
But it’s a tall ask to expect all farmers to be prepared for one of the worst droughts in history. This is unprecedented, and extraordinary circumstances brought on by factors well outside the control of any farmer, government, or industry.
I don't doubt it's hard to predict droughts, but everyone has to plan for events outside their control all the time. It's a little redundant to only have contingency plans for things within their control.
And while this recent one is bad, Australia isn't exactly a stranger to droughts. Have a look at this article:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-11/drought-how-bad-is-it-…
especially the graph here:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-11/autumn-rainfall-graph/…
The latest one is severe, but it's not significantly more severe than the droughts we had during the mid-2000s. Indeed, the article quotes a climate scientist as saying:
The current dry is not as extensive as the long-term droughts of the past.
"We certainly don't have those long-term drought conditions in New South Wales in the way that we had in the 1900s or the 1940s or 2000s," Dr Trewin said.
The most recent bad run of droughts was just a decade ago. To fail to plan for it when we had such a recent warning and knowledge of what to expect is borderline negligent.
I seem to recall reading once about a CSIRO (or other agency) report to the Australian government in the 1930's. The conclusion was that the farming sector was mired in a constant 'boom and bust' cycle, determined by both environmental and market factors. Most significant was the conclusion that the normal state of most of Australia's rural sector was one of drought. In other words, the good times, the times of good rainfall (but not too much rainfall), were the exception, not the norm. I think there was a proposal to research crops and livestock better suited to our environmental conditions.
Fast forward 80 years… What has changed? Much of our rural sector is still neck-deep in boom and bust. Years of drought followed by a few good years, then more drought. Still mostly growing grains and raising livestock from other continents, other conditions.
Even if one willfully blocks one's ears and closes one's eyes to the brutal and inevitable reality of climate change, does anyone, anywhere, anytime really think that this cycle will not continue? Will the lessons of the last 200 years (er, well, actually, if you look at our country's original tenants, and their management of environmental conditions, the last 40,000 years) never be learned?
Prior to WWII there were reasonable strategic and geopolitical reasons for subsidising and propping up key farming sector resources. In the interconnected reality of the twenty-first century these reasons are no longer meaningful. Due to technology, basic subsistence agriculture, in the event of world-wide disaster, war, plague, famine, asteroid hit, etc, could likely suffice for our distributed population. But simply throwing more and more money at a system which has proven time and again to be a failure is just not rational. There are other countries far better suited to growing stuff.
Surely we should finally detach ourselves from the overly-emotional 'connection' to the land; the viewing of our rural past through rosy-coloured glasses, and make decisions based on science and rational thinking?
Rather, I would prefer tax incentives, low interest loans, extensive research and development of alternate agricultures, and land use consistent with our current (and future) situation. Just growing nineteenth century crops, raising northern European (or SE Asian) animals is perpetuating a failed process.
There will be another drought when this current one ends (likely in floods…), and then another, and then another. Sadly, however, I expect our grandchildren to be having the same discussion in 50 years.
I'm just gonna leave this here:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-14/malcolm-turnbull-corre…
Our farmers are among the least subsidised in the world
— Malcom Turnbull, on Q&A in 2014
Australia has a producer support estimate of 3 per cent, making it the second lowest in the OECD, and the third lowest in the report. The OECD average is 19 per cent and of the 47 countries in the report the average is 17 per cent.
How do I register myself as a Farmer ?
Please find out and post a deal on OzBargain.
[FREE] AU$12,000 from the Australian Government
We'll all become professional farmers pretty quickly.
Strongly agree.
I don’t think people understand how important it is to keep a dynamic where we have a good surplus and not a shortage.
Venezuela has a food shortage, perhaps look into the social policies that caused this - and compare it with how the USA set a minimum price for corn to keep farmers farming.
I voted yes, but my view is this should really be a short term stop gap. Australia's environment is harsh, extreme conditions like flood and drought cycles through. If Australia think food production is an important industry, we should really invest in Agri-tech that allows us to de-risk the industry from nature. The technology potential is there. We can create vertical warehouse farms for crops now. Investment in creating vertical warehouse farm land for live stock isn't that unreachable.
If we can invest billions of dollars in building subs, why can't we invest a fraction of that on Agri-tech?
Well, if we don't support our own farmers (Australian grown and owned) then we won't see much of it going forward. Reason why Army hasn't assisted is because this drought isn't classified as a Natural Disaster. Some people are wanting classification to change for this reason.
I'm not sure how much Farmers earn or potentially earn though compared to Companies, incomparable.
If there's a farmer out there using Ozbargain - they should do an AMA.
100% support it. Farming is the most important sector in a country. Farmers are the most important workers. I'd happily pay more taxes to support our farmers. And if $12k isn't enough give them more. Give them everything they need. Not being sarcastic - farmers are important.
As long as the money isn't being given to rice farmers and anything that requires copious amounts of water I'm all for it.
I'm not a fan of "bail-outs" in general, but every situation has to be looked at independently.
If we were discussing large car manufacturers or banks, then my answer would be a solid no.
Farmers, and the animals which are suffering in particular, is a different story.
Like everything, there will be some genuine, good people who deserve our help and likely much more.
There will also be a large amount of people who likely wouldn't say no to some hand-outs, but won't be dependant upon receiving them.
And of course there will always be people who will scam the system, often at the expense of others, just because they can.
As others have already said, I definitely prefer for aid to be distributed within Australia first and foremost, rather than overseas.
Also as others have said, Australia, thanks to our brilliant government and all their fart-sniffing butt-buddies, have turned the country into a place where everyone is drowning in political correctness, and doing anything that could offend even one person on the other side of the world (such as giving your opinion), basically automatically classes you as a racist, discriminatory bigot.
Others have already explained the real deal behind foreign aid, which may help explain the government's initial reluctance to give aid (nothing to gain).
The only thing that remains constant throughout, is that the animals are completely innocent, and they are suffering.
I'm sure some will be headed for slaughter regardless, but that is beside the point.
I am glad our tax dollars are going towards something that I care about, rather than the usual cases we are so used to seeing.
I know it won't make much difference, but I personally gave $20.00 to a relief organisation (not the dodgy Red Cross), which will pay for a small bale of hay.
I think that Australia is the best country in the world and showing compassion is one of those qualities that make this place really special. We should definitely be helping out the farmers.
I'd rather the money went to help our struggling farmers than be used to expand Newstart or our bloated Social Welfare system.
Farmers are doing it tough, can't say the same for those on fake disability pensions and the generational jobless that refuse to look for work but whinge and cry all the time.
Would certainly prefer to see the assistance being offered (exclusively) to Australian owned and operated farms, but given that we all need to eat I'm in favour of it overall.
Australian Financial Review - Experts question drought severity, farmer subsidies
The lack of rainfall across NSW, which has led to $1 billion in farmer assistance from the state government, isn't a severe drought by historical standards, according to a climate expert.
A drought policy expert at the University of Canberra, Linda Botterill, questioned why the NSW subsidies aren't being means tested. The Department of Primary Industries confirmed that farmers who earned $10 million last year would be allowed to claim $20,000 cash back for transport costs.
Professor Botterill also asked why there was no requirement for farmers to access money held in officially sanctioned tax shelters before receiving extra government assistance.
There is around $6.6 billion of these shelters, which aren't taxed until the money is withdrawn, allowing farmers and other primary producers to smooth their income over time and reduce their income taxes.
In most places hit by low rainfall in NSW farmers have missed out on one or two crops. But many farmers see droughts as a normal phenomenon and accept they may have to go several years without income.
"We make 80 per cent of our cash flow in 20 per cent of our years," Mr Colless said.
I'm against it. I would rather see that money used to (at least begin to) build a yuuge inland sea in the middle of Australia, as existed during the Cretaceous period. It would change the climate of our entire continent, for the better. Drought would be a thing of the past, and we would have much more pleasant, productive and temperate weather year-round. It's time our leaders showed some real vision for our country for once, instead of mindlessly following whatever the EU/UN think, like drones.
We need to support Aussie farmers better than supporting people coming in on boats and wasting money on Malaysia Airline MH370 search
Dear OP
I think you have not researched this topic past a "headline read"
Go do your research and you will find a list of qualifications and exclusiosn as with every government subsidy
I decided to donate some money to the farmers myself. Unfortunately what the government are giving I don't think is going to be enough. At least I will get some tax relief on that donation.
Wouldn't more effective drought relief be giving them water? $600 mill can buy a lot of water.
Buy it from where? Coles?
Victorian De-Sal for a start. It’s unlimited freshwater that you can buy.
How does it get from Wonthaggi to the rest of the country?
@Burnertoasty: Australia doesn't use billions of litres of petrol everyday and petrol is refined in a few states, not one location in Wonthaggi
@chumlee: Ok, but you’re missing the point. Transporting water en mass is not a huge challenge. It’s feasible and a few truck loads would quench many dams in drought ridden areas.
Transporting water en mass is not a huge challenge. It’s feasible and a few truck loads would quench many dams in drought ridden areas.
…
Replenishing dams with trucked water for livestock drinking needs I can see that but trucking in water to water grazing land would be seriously pricey.
Most rainfall data of mid west NSW locations seems to show around a 6 month dry spell.
With previous years normal.
A regular part of farming in that area.
eg
Parkes rainfall
Annual
Average 647.6 mm
2010 1087.8
2011 783
2012 638.6
2013 559.6
2014 716.6
2015 508.8
2016 833.2
2017 561.6
Jan, Feb, Mar, April, May, June, July
2018 35.2, 20.4, 6.4, 6, 21.2, 28.4, 2
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/wData/wdata?p_nccObsCode=…
I wonder if many farmers cringe a bit at the lather the media has worked itself into.
I suppose the farmers won't be voting for the Nationals as they don't believe in Climate Change which is partially to blame.
If the state collectivised the farms and implemented a Down to the Countryside Movement policy this wouldn't be an issue.
Are the people against this, also against foreign aid? You damn well should be.
I cant speak for everyone else but im 100% against foreign (financial) aid - Giving money to people who haven't earned it is a proven to not actually help. - if you really want to be compassionate go to poorer nations and build infrastructure and 'aid' them in other ways with skills not with money. Make them stand on there own two feet instead of giving money to corrupt governments who hate us.
in regards to farming
If the government was spending the 500 million to improve irrigation, build damns to make the farm industry more resistant to drought i'd be all for it but simply handing an individual cash does f*** all to improve it long term viability of the industry. - in all truth 12k does nothing to help farmers in the long run…
Yes but in the short run,
there's an election coming so..
Everything wrong with Australia is due to our PMs only actually worrying about self interest
Are people against fish on Fridays also against Blue Heaven Big M's? Bloomin' well should be.
I would hope that using computers and climate data, droving runs could be designed to make the most of season fluctuations.
the correct solution is 15 years ago to buy insurance from a global insurance company. the government should have required this for all farmers.
just like you buy compulsory 3rd party car insurance.
so now when it comes to today we wouldnt have to pay them a cent. the insurance company does.
Bloody hell - the government even gives farmers a hand out so they can apply for insurance.
http://www.agriculture.gov.au/ag-farm-food/drought/assistanc…
I support it as only those most affected by the droughts will receive the package. We can’t afford to have farmers going bankrupt enmasse . Try living in Japan, where a punnet of defrosted strawberries is close to $10.
Not really, $12k for a farmer is not nearly enough. It should be more. I like to eat fresh food and not have to pay $12kg for my tomatoes. Do you know they have to pay people to pick the crappy dried up produce they can't sell so the plants can continue their cycle in drought, they still have rates, water, wages, running costs, animals to feed a family to feed and too many good Aussie farmers have committed suicide so their family can pay the bills(life insurance) in the last decade already.
Also if we don't support our local farmers, pretty soon you are going to have factory farms owned by big supermarkets and big oil selling you tasteless GM food, and it will be your only option. They will undoubtedly be subsidised by the government, so the real question is, who do you want the government to give the money too?
Government should allocate some money to build a dam/ dig a well / find ways to irrigate/ do research on local area on best way to obtain water, etc.
And in the meantime, give Food/ Fuel Vouchers/ Hay/ Animal Feeds and organize for water to be transported to the town/ farms
So many other ways which are more sustainable than just giving dollars.
I have always thought pumping our sewage into the desert instead of into the ocean was a good solution, it would help regenerate the parts of the desert we nullified.
Privatise profits, socialise losses.
Good business practice.
Well done farmers!
I kinda agree but the only people making profit from farming (any more than a meagre living) are:
Maybe the govt should redistribute from the bottom two.
Just 18 months ago this was published in the SMH
https://www.smh.com.au/business/farm-incomes-and-profitabili…
According to this WA farms returned over 4% - not bad in a very low inflation environment.
https://thewest.com.au/business/agriculture/strong-farm-retu…
I think you'll find that farms may be a little more successful than you think. Another win for the Farm PR department - convincing all of Australia that farmers constantly live hand to mouth.
Breakup all of them.
Don't agree with this.
If these people exploiting animals aren't able to keep themselves afloat they should go out of business.
They are the same people who grow your bloody mung beans. You think not eating animals makes you pure, but look in your heart, you just wished a person you haven't met broke because they don't hold your ideals.
On the fence about this, farmers know that farming is gambling and payments like this encourage a cycle of reliance on the government when things are bad.
I think they should be giving more personally. But it's a good first step at least.
Very much support this. Since when was it Australian to turn on back on those suffering?
I support non-interest handouts to farmers up to a certain size, with most but not all part of the support repayable when farmer returns profits again.
This should be only given to smaller/medium sized farming businesses and not to the big conglomerates that shifts profits offshore or reduce the workforce.
I also support foreign aid similarly done in certain northern-Europe countries like Norway and Sweden. It should be about 2-3 % off GDP and long term it would ensure Australia is favorably seen in poorer countries of the world, thus improving security and safety.
So when farms are in drought they live off their overdraft at high interest. So once again the country is effectively propping up the banks.
Not a big fan, especially when it's indiscriminate.
The fact is most farmers are considerably asset-rich, often worth millions, and that wealth can often be traced back to generous land grants to their ancestors. That's what privilege looks like.
It's a business, and they should plan for drought in the same way any other business plans for (say) recession.
The economic argument is if they don't plan, then let them go broke - someone else will buy up and probably manage it better.
AngryChicken
Serial Entrepreneur & Influencer
Rarely do you see someone as ill-informed and ignorant as yourself.
That's all you've got?
Oh i see, everything is fake and climate change is all boogey man stuff.
My advice to you: stop reading News Corp press and finish High School.
Oh, there's this as well!
Yeah mate, everyone who disagrees with your bare assertions "hates Australia".
That's what i call hard-hitting analysis!
And don't worry, you'll still be able to take advantage of the Domino's deals as someone else will take over the farm and more likely run it properly.
Back into your horse and buggy ya nuff nuff.
Love the assumption of generous land grants to ancestors and privilege. Evidence please.
Sorry, only just saw your message.
Not assumption, but fact. This gives some of the background for you.
The only people that would not agree with helping aussie farmers are people who hate Australia.
If we can't grow our own food, then where does it come from?
The only people that would not agree with helping aussie farmers are people who hate Australia.
There's a metric fu ckton of them out there, we're being colonized rapidly.
If we can't grow our own food, then where does it come from?
Why, from our soon-to-be colonialist overlords at an extortionist rate of course.
Spend money helping Aussie farmers or spend that money propping up the immigration Ponzi scheme? Hmmmmm, decisions decisions… real tough one there.
Abosultely….not much of a discussion unless you prefer imported fresh produce with no safety guidelines of using pest chemicals/methods of cultivating of the crops.
Just Imagine the life of a farmer and the bourgeoisie giants like woolies and coles.
I believe they should also contribute as they are the ones who put a leash on the farmers, obey or begone or should I say provide at our asking price or we will just find elsewhere or import.
Do you know the life of a farmer? if not watch this
Farmer Life
Drought issue
Drought issue 2 - the kid is underage to drive but it's a farm life everybody in the family contributes.
It will get worse with global warming. Well done earth's human population its like we are striving to reach our doom.
Seriously most people just take things for granted. Once it's gone its GONE.
Assumption: every farm is managed by a specific farmer, and only that farmer will be able to grow anything on it.
Reality: if they go broke and someone else buys in, they most likely still run it as a farm and do it better.
All these baseless arguments about "where will our food come from" is remarkably short-sighted.
You just don't understand Angrychicken.
If drought-striken farmers go broke and have to leave the land somehow every other farmer throughout country stops producing too. Its 'one out all out' for farmers apparently. No more food for anyone. Even the successful farms suddenly stop producing, and the land that the farmers used to till now just lies fallow - no-one else can do anything with it.
All farmers just constantly lose money every year. The rest of the country just needs to pay them so we can convince ourselves that although we live in one of the most urbanised countries in the world we are all still the Man from Snowy River.
/s
Firstly they're not all going broke - most do plan for drought and will get through this perfectly fine.
Secondly with drought, no matter who's managing the estate, production will be cut. That's whether we throw money at them or not.
Plenty of folk with expertise in market competition understand all this perfectly well.
I'm not saying it's easy - for some farmers it's not - but the money is coming from the rest of us and this is just band-aid knee-jerk crap. You're telling me someone cleaning dunnies on minimum pay with no assets should contribute through their taxes to a wealthy landed farmer because they forgot to check the forecast? Nup, not working for me.
Compare this with a Sydney business dealing with recession - they don't tend to get these kinds of handouts and the business folds and you and others don't bat an eyelid.
AngryChicken
Cold Bastard Market Economy Guy
band-aid knee-jerk crap
That's exactly what this is, but the media is also telling us that the government isn't just giving them the cash, it's helping them find a solution to survive against future droughts/floods.
These farmers in question should have spent/saved the money that they made in the boom times to survive the bust period. Hopefully, this is a 'kick in the butt' that the farmers need to bring themselves up to be less dependant on the rain. I doubt $12k will help crops/animals survive, only the farmers, but maybe enough to to go 'well, the government is going to bail us out enough to make it worth while continuing the way we have'.
According to that article, they'll be providing the $ to farms that are worth < $6m… so Millionaires.. :)
TL/DR: Agree to the short term hand-out to get them on their feet, but the handoutee's need to show that they're working on sustainability as this is not a 'surprise natural disaster'.
@rompastompa: Not always “Boom and bust” can have a good season with low commodity prices, and as is the case now good commodity prices and poor season, very very rarely do good prices and good seasons occur together. So by the nature of farming you have to be hyper conservative with expenses or you will go broke really fast. This is mainly because as an industry we are price takers and cannot dictate the price received.
Perhaps everybody everywhere should prepare with their own resources for floods, fires, job losses or economic downturns and no one receive any assistance whatsoever.
@blaircam: Oh, that would mean 'sarcasm' then. Yes i did. My apologies. I thought the phrasing was a little odd…but then i read plenty of comments on here that really are quite insane. Sorry, for everything…
I read an article about a farmer who had prepared for a drought as best he could, and was frustrated that seemingly mismanaged farms were talking about how catastrophic the drought is. Of course it is, but it's the #1 risk that you need to mitigate.
In terms of these handouts, sure. Food security, yup. But next time, we should have mechanisms in place to ensure that handouts, if required, only go to those who saved appropriately during the good times, and thereby the 'worse' farmers can be absorbed by the 'better' ones during droughts.
Obviously a gross simplification and ignores the human cost, but food for thought.
A big issue here is coles and wollies squeezing the farmers. Surely we could pay a bit more for milk and bread.
I also can't work out why the farmers who are effected by climate change the most keep on voting the Nats when they are the climate change deniers. Weird.
First off I am a beef and wool producer, I live in northern NSW rangelands which is currently in drought. I do support the drought payments of 12k as they are distributed through the Rural Assistance Authority and are means tested.
I have not applied for any drought assistance at this stage nor have I received any in the past as I have been able to survive previous droughts with management decisions. I have no money in the Farm Management Deposit scheme as I’ve never had enough spare for that. I’ve never received money from the government low or no interest loan scheme as another loan doesn’t fit with my management.
Eeples I vote National because in our area that is the best worst option.
It needs to be structured as a loan which they pay back once they are profitable again. They are getting heaps of donations from the general public in addition to this amount which they don't have to pay back.
If this was the case with ALL government handouts i'd have no issue with them
12k is not enough to be honest,having witnessed what some of the families have to go through
Did anyone see this: https://www.watoday.com.au/business/the-economy/our-concern-…
He says pretty much exactly what I think.
Specifically people like OzBargainers who screw the last penny out of our farmers who are actually putting them out of business by buying everything at rock bottom prices, just to save five cents.
Once the farmers are gone then where will we get our food OzBargainers?
The level of ignorance on this website is astounding
Why is this not possible? If farming is profitable long-term, it'd be as easy as banking money in the good years. The only reason this would not be viable would be if the profits during the good years don't offset the losses during the bad - and that would mean it's not profitable long-term.
I'm sure it's sad when a family farm has to be sold, but plenty of family owned businesses go broke and there's no blanket handout for those either.