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
