Yesterday, Crikey’s editorial agreed with The Australian ‘s verdict on drought relief for farmers:

The trouble with drought relief is that it props up unviable farms. The Australian recognises the terrible pressure a drought puts on individuals, families and communities, but drought assistance is a government intervention and as with any government intervention, it distorts the market. So long as farmers in marginal agricultural enterprises know that the Government will bail them out, they defer the difficult decision to cut their losses and leave the land. Whereas other unviable industries go to the wall in the face of changing conditions, there is an assumption that farmers should not be allowed to go broke, and if they do, they should be given assistance to exit the industry. When droughts break, as the always do, new entrants go in, enjoying the good times and then expecting a handout when the next drought hits.

Christian Kerr concurred: “Why should we treat farmers any differently? Why are they any better than any other industry?” And ex public servant David MacCormack used the word ‘toxic’ in his headline, so you can guess that the general thrust of his argument wasn’t exactly pro-farmer: “The history of agriculture in Australia has been a long story of havoc wreaked on our landscape and waterways, for which we are all now paying the price.”

Between all three items, they managed to p-ss off a lot of people. Here’s a taste of the drought debate deluge from dairy farmers, cheesemakers, citydwellers and cattle farmers that has flooded into Crikey in the past 24 hours, with a good helping of comments from readers in firm agreement:

Managing Director of Atlex Stockyards, Ian Crafter writes: Christian, I’m afraid you have generalized with your article yesterday, which is easy when detached from your subject. What I can offer is a bed and hospitality to show you first hand what the effects of this drought is having. It is not full of generalizations, myths, etc, but reality where the younger clever farmers are being belted big time throughout eastern and South Australia. Farmers were given hope by the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) during the autumn that above average rainfall was expected this spring and the planning commenced on the back of so many poor years. Generally the crops were planted at the correct time, in most areas, due to favorable winter rains throughout eastern and South Australia. The crops emerged and we had some further rain in July. The well informed took out hedging for the projected “bumper” crop where the forecast record crop was broadcast to the world. The sprays were applied; extra fertilizer was applied in many cases to feed the crop. What happened next has defied all the previous experience of farmers, agronomists, and the entire banking community who supported this “bumper” crop. The tap turned off against all the earlier advice of BOM. The hedging has turned so ugly due to the wash out clauses and many people will not survive – literally. This is horrific for thousands of farmers. The multiplier effect is going to be catastrophic for all the rural communities while the majority of city folk drink lattes. I have just driven to WA with my business and returned via Victoria. Only WA will have a decent harvest except for some northern areas within 100km of Geraldton. Perhaps BOM need more resources, but the answer is not saying farmers are inefficient, small, or farming in the wrong areas, etc.

Wendy McMahon writes: What a lot of rot Christian Kerr writes: “What we need is efficient agriculture: efficient agriculture that deliver cheaper prices; prices that remain lower even when supply shrinks because of drought. And if this means agribusiness consolidates and takes over family farms, so be it.” Blah blah blah. What is he going to eat when climate change really hits? Some imported chemical ladened crap from somewhere the farmers are totally downtrodden like the coffee and cocoa growers of the world. All that will do is create more bad health than we’ve already got. Whatever happened to the commonsense notion of strategic industries? Such ideological claptrap has to live in Collins Street or Pitt Street or somewhere miles from where people actually work for their land. Go and eat your PC Christian.

Proud dairyfarmer, cheesemaker, B&B operator and café owner, Sue McGorlick, writes: How can you publish the rubbish you say about “the man on the land”? There are women too, but that’s another matter. When 600 workers in the car industry lose their jobs everyone screams. When 600 farmers lose theirs, as well as their life savings and their homes, it seems to be irrelevant. Even though the income from agricultural production is not as great as it used to be, it is still Australia’s third largest source of export income and should be given a degree of consideration as such. Not only that, the dairy industry in particular has a huge flow on effect on employment – over six people for every single farmer. There is no doubt that improvement is necessary in every facet of production the same as in every other field of endeavor, but no other industry seems to face the constant public degradation and fantasy as farming. From an overall perspective, the city has taken over a great deal of Australia’s productive land for suburban housing and has been forced into lesser land such as irrigation country and marginal rainfall areas for food production. It seems that Crikey would prefer to import all our food requirements and then wear any future problems that that would create. In Australia we are indeed the lucky country with our varied climate and ability to grow nearly everything. Has that lost all importance in Crikey’s view?

Gretchen Sleeman writes: I would have expected that Crikey could have come up with something better than parroting the economic dry nonsense in The Australian’s editorial. The newly announced aid is not there to prop up uneconomic farmers. Get that ridiculous worn-out stereotype out of your head. The aid is to there to ensure civil society can continue to exist in the regions, the situation is so bad. Any farmer, who is not practising enormous economies in every way, is long gone out of existence. What we have now are solid, capable, innovative and incredibly hardworking men and women who know how to run a business. They may be actual farmers, or they may be in service industries that supply the farming needs. Get off these people’s backs, and for once in your life, stick up for these honest Australians.

Lindsay Bussau writes: It is all very lovely to sit here in our comfortable cities and discuss the market distortion that drought aid places on the market, and how unviable farms should be left to fail. However, there are however a couple of things that should be considered. Firstly, there are many (as Christian describes them) “family farms” who are competing against an agribusiness sector that gets massive tax benefits from the government, and run on huge amounts of cash from superannuation or rich city folk looking for a tax break. If you want to help viable farmers stay competitive, get rid of this sort of distortion as well. The other issue is that farms produce food, and without it we starve. Whether or not you believe that climate change is the cause, global grain supplies are at a 30 year low, and there is no suggestion that this is going to improve in the near future. We are experiencing weather drier than has been seen in living memory across large sections of our continent, and other countries are being washed away by devastating floods. Many farms (vines, fruit trees, dairy herds) take years and huge amounts of money to start, but relatively little to keep the place ready to go when the rain returns. Speak to people who lived through the post war famine in Europe, and ask them how much our food security is worth.

Peter Redfearn writes: Fortunately most Australians would not be as ignorant of farming matters as Christian Kerr. It’s a tragedy that a person in his position chooses to insult the farmers with such poorly researched garbage. By any measure Australian farmers are equal to the most efficient and don’t rely on cheap labour, tariffs or production subsidies to continue to produce. They are at the cutting edge of food and fibre production. They thrive under a severe QA compliance regimes the like which is not applied to producers elsewhere, allowing consumers to buy Australian products with confidence. He even suggests that the laws of supply and demand should not apply to food prices, and infers that high food prices exist in this country in spite of the evidence to the contrary. To suggest that some sort consolidated agribusiness would somehow out perform the family farming structure is astounding. With few exceptions the family farming business is the best. You cannot buy the sort of commitment required to farm well and there is plenty of evidence of this in my locality. I challenge Christian Kerr to escape the “Human feedlot” and educate himself on the Australian farming subject before making a bigger fool of himself. One of the great features of this country is that it rallies to support those in trouble. It is apparent that most sectors in parliament support the measures to support agriculture in these difficult times. Even journalists have access to a safety net. I will not presume to judge there worthiness.

Duncan Fraser writes: As a family farmer currently into the sixth consecutive year of drought, I’m bemused by Christian Kerr’s definition of “efficient agriculture”. Two of my neighbour farms are owned by large agribusiness companies and I can tell you that they are suffering as much if not more from this insidious drought which inevitably will lead to higher food prices no matter who is running our farms. So Christian, if you simplistically equate efficient agriculture with low food prices all the time even in drought, go and source your food purchases from imports. This food will invariably (except for NZ) come from heavily subsidised countries like North America or Europe, or low labour cost countries in Asia. But your definition of efficient agriculture probably doesn’t extend overseas.

Andrew Ballem writes : Christian’s comment that “we’ve voted with our feet and wallets in favour of chain stores that offer cost and convenience benefits over family businesses” is disingenuous. Study after study has shown that people don’t behave as model rational subjects and are rather bad at choosing what is good for them. Large businesses have the financial and political power to move into an area and kill off smaller independent ones, and then “people choosing” what’s left isn’t much of a choice at all. Truly unviable farms should not be supported, but it is important to preserve the diversity and choice to the consumer in the long run: consolidating farms into massive agribusinesses can only lead to less choice and diversity overall. The “market” is far from perfect, as is shown by the dominance of the supermarket duopoly in Australia: that’s what an open market has delivered us. That should not be allowed to happen to farming as well.

Heather Stone writes: Irrespective of attitude towards drought relief policies, Christian Kerr has even more rocks in his head than usual if he thinks that farmers (as opposed to wholesalers and processors) benefit from the high prices we pay here for food in the supermarkets. Very obviously he’s never been off the concrete except to drive from one city to the next (on tarmac). Agribusiness! Just what we really need in this benighted country….even more corporate Australia. And you reckon food prices will come down. Ho ho ho! Like fuel prices perhaps? When you think about it, very few workers in this country are actually producers, even less of those primary producers, and farmers are a large proportion of that few. Just maybe his so-called “sentimental blind-spots” are what differentiates a humanist nation from economy driven robots. A great country indeed that rides on the back of primary producers’ labour for a couple of centuries and then kicks them in the teeth. Might as well just shoot the lot hey!

Rachel Williams writes: Never thought I’d write to Crikey again but Mr Kerr has stirred me to action. Mr Kerr contends that drought assistance “encourages primary producers whose enterprises are no longer economically viable to hang on in the hopes the rain will come”. If these producers go under then Australians will still need to eat and will look outside of Australia for the supply of primary produce. To denigrate assistance to farmers denies consideration of a basic tenet for most Australians: that of a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. That produce from overseas is less expensive is because not all countries are in the position to, or choose to pay Australian wages. The environmental cost of transporting primary produce to Australia is considerable. In addition, allowing our agricultural industries to founder and relying on large scale importation of foodstuffs threatens our quarantine system. Mr Kerr also ignores another very real danger of relying on other countries for something as basic as the food we eat. By not producing our food ourselves we lay Australians open to the ingestion of modified foodstuffs and pesticides that are not produced or managed according to Australian standards. The cost not just to our health but to the health of agricultural workers in other countries and to the environment could be considerable. Mr Kerr is sanguine at the notion of consolidated agribusiness giants taking over family farms. This ignores the success stories of small scale agricultural operations moving towards value added agriculture. This drought is severe and the inability of some farmers to survive without assistance is testimony to the severity of the drought, not evidence of any widespread lack of business skill on the part of Australian farmers. As the saying goes, “If you don’t eat, you don’t sh-t, and if you don’t sh-t, you die”. This is why farmers are more important than any other business: because eating is fundamental to whom we are as human beings.

John Litster writes: A paragraph that Christian Kerr wrote struck me as wishful thinking: “What we need is efficient agriculture: efficient agriculture that deliver cheaper prices; prices that remain lower even when supply shrinks because of drought. And if this means agribusiness consolidates and takes over family farms, so be it.” With due respect to Christian maybe he should stick to the political side of this story as farming has become more efficient in the last few decades. Growing systems such as zero till save precious moisture and farmers adapt to new weather cycles. I have worked for large Agribusiness companies and they are no more efficient than a lot of smaller family owned farms. As for prices, it is supply and demand so when there is drought there is demand and little supply. As for why keeping farmers on the land is important, just check out how low the world supply of food stock is as the figures are there and you will be worried. You can go without a lot, but eating is important to keeping body and soul together.

Pamela Curr writes: Most of us do not feel that we willingly embraced supermarkets. Rather we were bludgeoned into them. Same with agri business. Who trusts these monoliths to put our food supply above their profits- and it will come down to this. Chickens fast force fed to hens for slaughter with a little extra dose of hormones, tomatoes shiny and sturdy and devoid of taste- the list of food tampering techniques is endless. So it is with farming. We don’t want to see the monoliths take over. I am not supporting the blatant political handouts to farmers but the issue is more complicated than this. It was the memory of starvation through the war which stirs the Europeans to protect their farmers- sentimental you might say but hunger is not easily forgotten. Australia needs to be looking at our future food supply- its quality and security. Few of us trust this current crop of politicians to look beyond the next election. We have some pretty solid examples in our faces. This current period of economic growth with money sloshing through our economy and next year we face a real drought in doctors. Having under funded our own university places we are reliant on poaching overseas doctors. Now these are choosing other countries- we are stuffed. You think the wait in Casualty is bad now- wait for next year when there are 30% fewer doctors. Our own kids are coming out of high schools with scores of 98 and they can’t get into medicine. How clever is that? Roll on to nurses, teachers and tradesmen- same story. So forget trusting the politicians- long term is not on their agenda. So give us ten years and what will our agribusiness be producing- whatever yields the highest profit. It may not be edible or even life sustaining- just as long as it is profitable. Who will actually ensure that our food supply is safe? Will the clever country have surrendered the possibility of feeding itself?

Michael Krawczyk writes: You are wrong. Unless you actually enjoy eating flavourless supermarket meat, fruit and veg and bulk-grown-milk-and-egg-product-riddled wines, we should do everything we can to ensure the responsible and passionate family farmer has a future. No more capitalist/economy driven crap please.

And in defence of Crikey:

Dean Galloway writes: Brace yourself for the vicious backlash against your sensible, logical comments about the weird special treatment meted out to farmers. I grew up in the country, on farms, and was raised to believe that city-dwellers and townies spend their days lying on plush couches, being fed grapes peeled for them by the long-suffering sons-of-the-soil. When we moved to Melbourne I was stunned to discover that a). City people actually work bloody hard too and b). If their business fails they get literally NOTHING from the government. Here’s a perfect example of the effect this attitude has on its proponents: my half-sister stayed on the farm with her father and I still laugh at a comment she made to me on the phone from the farm: “We needed a new oven and we actually had to save up to buy one! Can you believe it?” She was 18 at the time (straight-A student, mind you) and was genuinely outraged that the government hadn’t just dropped a new one off at the front gate as required. Yes, her attitude was appallingly elitist and narcissistic but, hey, that’s what farmers are like. You’ve raised this issue before and I remember one country-dweller angrily replying that public transport is subsidized, so why not farms? The fact that public transport is a service for everyone, the entire public, but farms are private businesses completely escaped him.

Gary Carroll writes: Christian and The Australian are absolutely correct, but they will never have it accepted. The country lobbyists have more pull than any union.

Sue Pinkerton writes: Here’s an idea that will solve three or four problems facing Australia all at once. The federal government should allow farmers from marginal areas to have poker machines! Then they could tax the “farmers” to the hilt and use the money to educate future leaders and former farmers on what constitutes good economic management. Not only that, but the “farmers” themselves could use the money they get from yet another hundred thousand or so pokie addicts to build desalination plants that will make their “farms” immune from the effects of future droughts.

Bronwyn Humphries writes: It is extremely distressing seeing animals dying and endless landscapes of cleared land and I do recognize that there are many farmers trying very hard. However too many put short term greed before long term sustainable management and our children’s futures. Yes I clearly am masochistic living in one of the safest National Party electorates both State and Federal in Australia. I may well be masochistic (family duties) but I am not politically passive. I have worked on an Independent candidate to stand and finally succeeded rather than let the Nats think they have us carte blanche. I joke to my friends that I returned to see if misogyny was still alive and thriving in the bush (you have to have a p-nis to inherit land in the main). All drought relief should be community based not farmer centric and should always be based upon best business practice so we the taxpayers are not subsidising lifestyles and incompetents. Other essential criteria should be being environmentally responsible and the type of produce. How many cotton t-shirts can we eat? It was beyond belief watching Landline last Sunday and see farmers in such desperate circumstances with the drought when there was not one tree or sign of vegetation on the entire landscape. On the same Landline was a refreshing if also ‘beyond belief’ segment on farmers in our region of New England North West who have “discovered” that having trees and vegetation actually means half your sheep do not die in their severe winters. So glad that obvious fact has been acknowledged in the year 2007! I cover the region in my business and it is so depressing to see stock starving and dying of thirst on one side of the highway and water lying in irrigation ditches on the other.

Brian Moran writes: You don’t expect to get reasoned social policy from a senior member of the government but that’s precisely what we got yesterday from Mark Vaile, Leader of the Nationals and Deputy Prime minister. In seeking to explain the Government’s announcement of further drought relief to farmers, Mr. Vaile said that people in rural areas often choose to live where they live for lifestyle reasons. They may get profits or a good crop one year in, say, 12 and hope that this will sustain their lifestyles for the barren years. Now, this is seriously at odds with the sentiments expressed by his venerable leader in announcing the subsidies and also the offer to pay anyone who chooses to leave the land. Mr. Howard was at pains to point out that the Australian economy is vitally dependent on the contribution of the farm sector and that the economy would be in serious trouble if we did not have the x billions of dollars contributed by the farmers of Australia. Now, come on guys, which is it? Do we live in an economy or a society?

Rick Plinz writes: Governments pick businesses to support for no good reason all the time, the farmers aren’t the first. Look at the millions being pumped into horse racing during the track closures. What a waste! It’s just a horse illness, what cause do they have to get government handouts? No one showed up to bail out merchants in Cairns after 9/11, when tourism died and Ansett went out of business. We sucked it up and muddled thru. I’d like to know how the average businessman can get on the ‘right side’ of government bailouts!

Kerry Henry writes: Re. Yesterday’s editorial. Two points on Howard’s decision to fund the rural sector. Having just returned from a two week business trip to towns along both sides of the NSW/VIC border, yes there are concerns being expressed about the impact of lack of rain and water, however, there’s also a lot that also stated to me that the area has been largely to blame – take and more take, without stopping to consider the longer term consequences. So one must ask, ‘What about assistance to other industry sectors that haven’t been on the take, but have been caught out by the environmental conditions?”. Where does one draw the line? In any event, why should anyone be surprised about Howard’s decision? Like Menzies, Howard’s track record is protectionism and throwing money at dying industries or to poor performers in various industry sectors instead of shifting workers, whilst they have more youth, into new trades and industries. It took the Hawke & Keating governments to reduce tariffs and remove trade barriers; float the currency; open up the finance sector; etc. to make put Australia on the global stage. Vote buying, in part, but more concerning is a lack of commercial vision and forward planning over the last 11 years. On current form, looks like we need another Labor government to implement longer term vision and macro policies to position Australia for the next 20 years.

Doug Pollard writes: The Australian – and Crikey – is spot-on in relation to subsidizing farms. But there is another angle which no-one seems to consider. These farms are using methods and producing crops which are alien to the Australian landscape and climate. The government – any government – would do better funding alternative sustainable farming methods, preferably using crops and animals native to the country and region. When you’ve got lemons, make lemonade! Propping up farmers who use European methods to raise European crops and animals is stupid and wasteful. Using government money to convert these farms to sustainable methods and/or native produce, and to develop markets and industries to utilize those crops, makes sense in both the long and short term, keeping farmers on the land now and building a sustainable and genuinely Australian agriculture industry for the future. The system as it stands is just a futile and expensive cultural cringe.

John Richardson writes: In another amazing coincidence, in the lead-up to the 2004 federal election, our ever selective socialist prime minister announced details of his then much-anticipated sugar-bailout package in the marginal National Party seat of Hinkler, claiming that the package “struck the right balance” between industry needs & taxpayers’ interests. That $444million rescue package, delivered to 6,500 canegrowers, living in a half dozen or so federal electorates crucial to the government’s re-election, was then only the 5th attempt by our non-presidential prime minister to deliver some real aspirational prosperity to a group of our fellow citizens – fallen on desperate times. But to borrow the colourful language of our vain-glorious leader, it is not criticism of his latest round of selective largesse that is “pathetic”; nor even the boring sameness of his blatant pork-barrelling technique, but rather the simple fact that the electorate has been repeatedly taken-in by it.