Oh yeah.

That’s SOCIALISM.

Only $350 million in drough relief! “Tuppence!” Mark Vaile isn’t working hard enough, bring back *Black Jack* McEwen, the farmer’s friend.

He pursued what became known as “McEwenism” – a policy of high tariff protection for the manufacturing industry, so that industry would not challenge the continuing high tariffs on imported raw materials, which benefitted farmers but pushed up industry’s costs. This policy was a part (some argue the foundation) of what became known as the “Australian Settlement’ which promoted high wages, industrial development, government intervention in industy (both as an owner- Australian governments traditionally owned banks and insurance companies and the railways and through policies designed to assist particular industries) and decentralisation.

State-capitlism anyone?

Hang about a bit. The land will inevitably be used better by a smaller no of farmers left in the industry using less intensive farming.(Think about stocking rates for dairy farms vs Outback cattle stations now) To do that the price of land must reflect its long term sustainable return, including drought years. It can never do that while we continually subsidise farmers to stay on what is clearly unsustainable long term farms now. Let the market and individual investors make those perpetually adjusting decisions rather than PSs or science boffins in Canberra. If you are viable long term, any bank will lend on your assets to stay afloat over general droughts or temporary market downturns. If not, you’re undercapitalised or a dodgy risk. That rule applies to any capital intensive biz. Stuff the special interest pleading to privatise the gains and socialise the losses.

Back on topic: The government has a role to play in supporting farmers while they move to more sustainable modes of farming. What constitutes ‘marginal’ land under traditional methods of farming may not be so marginal under precision farming, using both high and low tech water and soil saving technology.

Shipping people off the land before trying new methods doesn’t sound so great. Also, someone will need to stay in place to manage the severely degraded land that is left behind. Farmers as park rangers doesn’t sound like such a bad idea.

ms lee, that does seem a rather more sensible solution than “kick ‘em of the land” or pay farmers to continue using unproductive and unsustainable techniques. I’m interested in what you mean by precision farming, using both high and low tech water and soil saving technology though. Could you elaborate?

As to Clive Hamilton’s rhetorical style, one of the more useful techniques of public debate is to have some of your supporters abrasively put purist and unpalatable versions of their positions. That creates space for “moderates” to put less extreme versions of the position. Hamilton is playing the out-there extremeist role, so others can come in and say, “while clearly, our farmers should be helped in the short term through these extreme weather conditions, thought has to be given as to whether all our current agricultural practices are sustainable in the light of our changing climate, and if they are not how best we can manage the transition to economically and environmentally sustainable ones”.

Clive is playing bad cop, in other words.