So: I was watching Lateline last night (not so much watching avidly as listening idly) when a debate about Drought Relief caught my attention. Mostly what caught my attention was the absolute naivety of this guy called Brian Toohey who was arguing that farmers should "drought proof" their farms. OK, let's be fair to Brian: he was arguing that government subsidies to farmers are too extensive.
Still sounds like he's talking out of that place where the sun doesn't shine if you ask me.
Let's for a moment place the Drought Relief Scheme in the context of today's agricultural situation. There's a far reaching drought that is essentially facing all of Australia, and most of all, her farmers, all 15-20, 000 of us. This drought has been going for 7 years now without sufficient or significant rainfall - it's at its worst.
Brian claims that drought relief is distributed like cookies, and is "not good for farmers on marginal land." Jack Laurie, from the NSW Farmer's Association, rightly points out that "it's not just given out to anyone, anywhere...the farmers must be viable and judged as such." Drought relief is not like the $3000 baby bonus - given to and welcomed by all new parents. It's assistance farmers hope like hell they'll never need, because they'd rather not be in a drought situation. Such financial aid is hardly life saving - it's crutch to prop up a struggling industry.
So Brian concedes that point (as far as I'm concerned), but he won't give up. He proposes that there's "no point and it's not compassionate to keep people on farms...where they're not going to make a living." Why shouldn't the government support small businesses, when farms are only going to go bust?
It's like this, Brian. The agricultural industry is a fickle industry - some years it rains, and some years it don't. What are the consequences of the drought so far? Stock die. Crops fail. You can't sell. Nobody wants to buy, because prices are high and there's little for sale. That's why we need subsidies - to be able to support farmers until those grey clouds gather again.
Because the reality about a drought is that you can't plan for it nor predict it, nor can one "drought proof a property" as the newsreader (somewhat ignorantly) suggests. You can prepare for it, to a certain extent - you can buy feed, and you can set money aside, etc, etc. But once a drought is in place, you can't create any kind of rigid plan for it - you can't say "in 10 years, we're cutting off subsidy no matter what the situation is." You need to be able to say "our short term plan is this. If it continues, our longer term plan is this."
The answer to Brian's question is this: on what basis would the government support small businesses? A bad economy? High interest rates? Inflation? The government is supporting farmers because of the environmental and economic implications of the drought. Why does the government support farmers? Because we put food on your plate, that's why. We grow the rice you eat, the bread you toast, the cotton you wear; we feed the beef you cook and the lamb you roast; we shear the wool that keeps you warm. I'm not saying we give you everything - but agriculture is one of Australia's primary industries, and one of the main sources of the food you buy and eat. And yet I don't hear you complaining about that.
Brian begins to understand, I think - at least his next idea is less preposterous than the last (two). He suggests that farmers should have to pay back the relief they receive in a HECS scheme. Now there’s a debate worth having (seeing as I have effectively demolished Brian’s previous arguments.)
So: to pay or not to pay? On the one hand, you could look at it like university – you pay back what you’ve received. On the other hand, it could be argued that farmers’ produce is the repayment.
The jury’s out on this one.
I should mention that my absolute hardline approach to this topic stems from the fact that I am a farmer's girl and have lived on a farm all my life. Not only do I love it, but I staunchly defend it.
x
Just a girl
2 comments:
Did you read the Letters section of The Age today? "Plant, not plough" being the letter I'm talking about.
I think I agree with aspects of both sides of the argument (my traditional position perched on the fence comes to the fore). On your points, I agree that "the agricultural industry is a fickle industry" and right now it's going through a bad time. Enough to require aid - but what kind of aid is most effective?
Speaking, perhaps, as a "silly" city slicker, I believe that there doesn't look like there'll be much improvement in climate change in the near future, and subsidies aren't exactly sustainable for long periods of time. It seems like a short term solution for me.
Speaking as the daughter of someone who runs a SME, I don't think you can assume that there is no basis for the gov't to provide support for small businesses. We're fine right now, but I know there have been rough patches in the past, and I'm also sure other SMEs are going through the same at present (perhaps triggered by current economic conditions).
"We grow the rice you eat"
^ That got a laugh out of me. Our economics class is quite vocal in our thoughts about farmers growing rice on Australian land.
Hey Sara,
Firstly, as an "ignorant" country gal, what are SMEs?
I haven't read that letter, but I'll check it out.
I can see your point about small businesses. I'm not dismissing the importance of small businesses in the society and to the economy, nor the struggles they face in establishing and maintaining a business. I was angrily retorting Brian's argument that drought relief should become subsidies for small businesses. I agree that it can be very difficult for small businesses to be created successfully in Australia - I remember from Business Management in yr 10 that something like 80% of small businesses fail in the first five years of set up...
It is also true that subsidies are not a long term solution, and I'm not promoting them as such; but then again, neither are water restrictions without implementing some support structure like rain water tanks in every house (I don't see why most people don't have one. I live off rainwater - drink it, wash in it, cook with it. And it tastes far better than the city stuff.) Much more sustainable!
Although my IB co-ordinator/TOK teacher (one and the same) would turn red in the face at your arguments because you are sitting squarely on the fence! He he. I, however, appreciate your opinion. :-)
x
Just a girl
Post a Comment