There is a case for drought relief but it must encourage farmers to adapt to the changing climate.
 |
| August root-zone soil moisture data Source: BoM |
As country towns across the inland run out of drinking water, the federal government has started to show its concern for farmers affected by the drought.
Prime Minister Scott Morrison went to Dalby in Queensland last week to announce a $100 million drought package and Treasurer Josh Frydenberg has taken time off his day job for a three-day tour of NSW and Queensland.
On one hand, country people will be comforted that the government is paying attention to their plight. On the other, they will ask whether another parade of politicians putting on moleskins and fronting a press pack in the dust will make any difference.
Everyone says the government needs to do something but for now the government’s basic approach is to dribble out more money and hope that it rains.
That is probably all that can be done in a crisis.
But it is not the whole answer. It ignores the crucial issue of what to do if the scientists are right and droughts are becoming longer and more frequent.
This question should not be conflated with the equally important issue of whether Australia should have a stronger climate change policy.
Deeper cuts in Australia’s carbon emissions are needed to help slow the rise in global temperatures but it will not solve the farmers’ problems overnight. Scientists say droughts will get worse for decades.
The Herald backs drought assistance to help farmers cope but it should be fair and efficient and it should be designed to encourage farmers to adjust to the new climate conditions.
In fact, the Productivity Commission says a lot of money is already being spent. Sheep, cattle and grain farmers in 2017-18 received about $1.3 billion in state and federal government subsidies. Those farmers now receive 5.8 per cent of their income as subsidies from the government, compared with just 3.7 per cent five years ago, a higher rate of subsidy than any industry sector.
Farmers also receive lots of other indirect help such as state subsidies on freight for fodder as well as generous household payments worth up to $37,000 per couple, far more than age pensioners or single parents.
Yet many people who receive drought relief are not poor. The latest drought package has allowed people with assets up to $5 million to apply.
Mr Morrison says this is not welfare but it is still taxpayers’ money and it should be spent prudently.
Sometimes it seems it is not. The government was left red-faced this week when it emerged that Moyne Shire in western Victoria that got $1 million under Mr Morrison’s announcement was not actually affected by the drought. Equally, it appears that former “drought envoy” Barnaby Joyce was was not required to produce a report to justify his salary and expenses.
Many economists are concerned more deeply that the cash will distort farmers' decisions about how to react to the changing climate. For instance, some drought assistance compensates farmers who decided not to manage their risk by selling stock at a better price early in the drought.
Farmers groups sometimes call for more dams as a panacea. But it is often hard to produce a long-term business case for them. Fans of dams also often ignore the risk that they will reduce water flows to surrounding farms and the environment.
Unfortunately, even with the best government plan, climate change will reshape Australia’s rural society.
Some farmers will adjust their methods and succeed. Some will decide to sell up their farms to big businesses and do something else. Governments should help those in need but rural Australia must accept that the times are changing.
Links
Prime Minister Scott Morrison went to Dalby in Queensland last week to announce a $100 million drought package and Treasurer Josh Frydenberg has taken time off his day job for a three-day tour of NSW and Queensland.
On one hand, country people will be comforted that the government is paying attention to their plight. On the other, they will ask whether another parade of politicians putting on moleskins and fronting a press pack in the dust will make any difference.
Everyone says the government needs to do something but for now the government’s basic approach is to dribble out more money and hope that it rains.
That is probably all that can be done in a crisis.
But it is not the whole answer. It ignores the crucial issue of what to do if the scientists are right and droughts are becoming longer and more frequent.
This question should not be conflated with the equally important issue of whether Australia should have a stronger climate change policy.
Deeper cuts in Australia’s carbon emissions are needed to help slow the rise in global temperatures but it will not solve the farmers’ problems overnight. Scientists say droughts will get worse for decades.
The Herald backs drought assistance to help farmers cope but it should be fair and efficient and it should be designed to encourage farmers to adjust to the new climate conditions.
In fact, the Productivity Commission says a lot of money is already being spent. Sheep, cattle and grain farmers in 2017-18 received about $1.3 billion in state and federal government subsidies. Those farmers now receive 5.8 per cent of their income as subsidies from the government, compared with just 3.7 per cent five years ago, a higher rate of subsidy than any industry sector.
Farmers also receive lots of other indirect help such as state subsidies on freight for fodder as well as generous household payments worth up to $37,000 per couple, far more than age pensioners or single parents.
Yet many people who receive drought relief are not poor. The latest drought package has allowed people with assets up to $5 million to apply.
Mr Morrison says this is not welfare but it is still taxpayers’ money and it should be spent prudently.
Sometimes it seems it is not. The government was left red-faced this week when it emerged that Moyne Shire in western Victoria that got $1 million under Mr Morrison’s announcement was not actually affected by the drought. Equally, it appears that former “drought envoy” Barnaby Joyce was was not required to produce a report to justify his salary and expenses.
Many economists are concerned more deeply that the cash will distort farmers' decisions about how to react to the changing climate. For instance, some drought assistance compensates farmers who decided not to manage their risk by selling stock at a better price early in the drought.
Farmers groups sometimes call for more dams as a panacea. But it is often hard to produce a long-term business case for them. Fans of dams also often ignore the risk that they will reduce water flows to surrounding farms and the environment.
Unfortunately, even with the best government plan, climate change will reshape Australia’s rural society.
Some farmers will adjust their methods and succeed. Some will decide to sell up their farms to big businesses and do something else. Governments should help those in need but rural Australia must accept that the times are changing.
Links
- Andrews hands out $31.5m, admits 'drought packages don't make it rain'
- More Than Climate Change Driving Queensland Fires, Explain Climatologists
- ‘Dead Things Everywhere’: Is Australia Facing The Summer From Hell?
- Farmers Call For National Strategy On Climate Change And Agriculture
- Extreme Weather Caused By Climate Change Has Damaged 45% Of Australia’s Coastal Habitat
- Drought Now Officially Our Worst On Record
- Australian Federation Drought, Painting Grim Future For Australia’s Biodiversity Under Climate Change
- A New Team Is Working To Predict The Danger Zones Of Australia's Deadliest Heatwaves
- 'Drier Than Millennium Drought': Satellite Shows Toll Of Big Dry
- NSW Towns Including Dubbo And Tamworth Face Water Emergency Within Months
No comments :
Post a Comment