News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 General 
 Farmers face drought relief at dole rates 

Farmers face drought relief at dole rates

31 Oct, 2008 05:45 AM
Drought assistance for farmers would be replaced with a Centrelink payment set at the level of the dole under a radical plan prepared for the Federal Government.

Existing drought-assistance measures would go and no new areas would be drought-declared.

The draft Productivity Commission report finds that current measures encourage dependence and are beyond public scrutiny.

The commission says that weeks before the 2007 election, the Howard government declared 14 areas eligible for interim drought assistance without receiving applications from the communities or state governments concerned.

In late 2006, it lifted the maximum drought interest rate subsidy payable over five years from $300,000 to $500,000 and then a year later, before the election, raised it to $700,000.

Despite "stringent criteria" that limit the declaration of exceptional circumstances drought assistance to areas suffering from a once in 20-to-25-year drought, "as at June 2008, more than half of the country was declared and some areas had been declared for 13 of the past 16 years".

"When compared with rainfall records, it would appear that a generous interpretation of the criteria, rather than protracted low rainfall, is mainly responsible for such widespread declarations," the report says.

It says the entire process "lacks transparency" and that deciding who is eligible for assistance on the basis of "lines on maps" is "divisive within and between communities".

It quotes farmers who say the process promotes "worst-practice farming, ie to overgraze and overspend in good times, knowing the criteria for subsidy will be met in the drought".

The draft report proposes ending all drought-specific assistance schemes from mid-2009 and replacing them with assistance, available to all farmers in difficulty, set at the level of the dole and delivered through Centrelink rather than agricultural departments.

The payment would be subject to an assets cap and would be conditional on the farmers seeking independent financial advice about the viability of their business and taking action to improve their self-reliance.

No new areas would be drought-declared and all existing declarations would end on June 30, 2010.

The National Party's agriculture spokesman John Cobb described parts of the report as "garbage" and said not even the best farmers could have prepared for the current drought.

The National Farmers' Federation said it supported moving the criteria for farm support away from drought but that the Productivity Commission appeared to be putting nothing in its place.

The commission will deliver the final version of its report to the Government in February.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
I wonder as they eat their steaks for dinner how some of these "decision makers" would feel knowing the producer of those steaks did so for a loss. I'm also tired of hearing some farmers belittling others about "productivity" and "efficiency". Everyone's circumstances are different and a lucky storm can make anyone a winner. We need to pull together, it's the only way we'll have any strength to fight these recessive policies. Fine tune the EC by all means but we must support ALL farmers and their communities in extreme weather events like these.
Posted by Bluey, 31/10/2008 11:21:38 AM
I was recipient of drought assistance and it was only of short-term value. I did not leave because of drought but because I was fed up with dealing with adverse times. All farmers need to do a thorough risk assessment to ascertain their acceptable level of risk. Then they need to treat that residual risk either by leaving farming or having funds set aside to carry them through a long patch of maybe up to similar numbers of years as mentioned. There is life after farming.
Posted by Past farmer, 31/10/2008 3:28:17 PM

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
POLL
Q: Should there be mandatory labelling laws to advise consumers if food contains ingredients from genetically modified (GM) crops?

Yes
(86.9%)

No
(11.1%)

Undecided
(1.9%)

Total Votes: 1507
Poll Date: 27 October, 2008

Most popular articles

Advertisement



Stock & Land







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...