Farming's fair weather friends

Fairly obviously, farmers produce food because it is profitable, not for charity

NOT many people, with the exception of tattoo artists, claim to identify with the needs and aspirations of the tattooing industry. Neither do many empathise with selling cars, installing kitchens or making bread unless they also work in those sectors. They have few, if any, external cheerleaders.

And yet there are many people who, despite having trouble identifying which end of a sheep eats grass, nonetheless claim to be totally on side with farmers and their quest to make a living. Moreover, they advocate using other people’s money to help farmers financially. For some reason farming, and farmers, are seen differently.

This phenomenon is not new, but I was reminded of it recently when listening to the maiden speeches of two of the Palmer United Party senators, Dio Wang and Glenn Lazarus. Neither has a background in agriculture, yet both waxed lyrical about farming and its need for support.

Lazarus said Queensland agriculture was “losing farmers everywhere”, and “we should be supporting our farmers and producers .. (and) not stand idly by and watch our farmers and growers decimated by inaction, weather, subpar infrastructure, poor economic conditions and ruthless corporate greed.”

Wang said, “our farmers are doing it tough. We need to do something about it so … our farmers do not lose out.”

Various others have expressed similar sentiments, and not just in Australia. Since 1985 an organisation in America called Farm Aid has held benefit concerts to rescue family farmers from mortgage default. In countries like France and Germany, farmers are viewed as cultural custodians and paid to run their farms inefficiently in order to meet the expectations of their urban supporters.

And yet nobody says a word when tattoo parlours, car dealers, kitchen installers or bakeries are in trouble. Politicians do not rush to their side and nobody suggests they should be bailed out with taxpayer funds. If they strike trouble, they are on their own.

The reasons for this difference are neither amenable to rational analysis nor a product of deep thinking. It is mostly about feelings and emotions. To the extent that reasoning is found, it is mainly along the lines of: farmers are producing food (even those who grow cotton or wool) and if they didn’t, we would starve. By contrast, if all the tattoo parlours in Australia were to close down, life would go on.

Fairly obviously, farmers produce food because it is profitable, not for charity. Moreover, supply responds to demand based on price signals. If it becomes unprofitable to produce one type of food, something else is grown, potentially including cotton or wool. Even when there is perceived to be a single ‘crop’ option, such as in the top end with beef cattle, there are different markets that can be targeted.

Also obvious is the fact that while all tattoo parlours could be literally closed down (although backyard tattooists may continue), it is inconceivable that Australian farms would stop producing food. Even if every farmer in Australia was to go bankrupt, the farms would remain in existence and inevitably bought by others to return to production. The only exception is land on the edges of deserts, which tends to move into and out of production according to seasons and prices.

Claims that agriculture is unprofitable and that farmers are doing it tough are really referring to the performance of individual farms, not the overall situation. Moreover, they refer to a temporary situation; if they are genuinely unprofitable, farm owners will either find a way to return to profitability or transfer ownership to someone else. In either case the farm will be profitable again.

When Glenn Lazarus bemoaned the fact that Queensland has lost over 100 dairy farmers since Coles initiated the milk price war in 2011, he ignored the fact that national milk production has not declined. Victorian dairy farms, which are vastly more efficient, have filled the gap. Complaining about that makes no more sense than arguing that Tasmanian farmers ought to be able to grow pineapples competitively.

Where the outside cheerleaders for agriculture go wrong is in assuming that individual farms should all be profitable, and if they are not, they should be helped with the false generosity that comes with handing out other people’s money.

While it might be a nice wish, and certainly individual farmers would like it to be true, the profitability of every farmer should be of no concern to governments. Just as individual tattoo parlours are allowed to fail, often to be taken over by new owners who make a better go of it, individual farmers must be allowed to fail so their farms can be taken over by those who are more capable. The use of taxpayers’ money to prevent failure is immoral, whether it is a tattoo parlour or a farm.

But it is not immoral for governments to seek to overcome the barriers that prevent businesses, farms included, from increasing their profitability. Indeed, since many of those barriers were erected by governments in the first place, it could be seen as a basic duty.

Thus Glenn Lazarus was on the right track when he referred to subpar infrastructure, power costs, government fees, taxes, labour, insurance, red tape and slow, erratic and often questionable decision making, because these are either a function of poor government policy or substantially influenced by it. Other examples include under investment in infrastructure at the expense of over-staffing of school; inflexible labour rules, subsidised renewable energy, and high taxes.

But he was wrong to imply it is the government’s role to save farmers from drought, weather, falling world commodity prices or low supermarket prices, because that would require the expenditure of other people’s money. And unfortunately, a lot of people are too fond of that.

Page:
1
FarmOnline
David Leyonhjelm

David Leyonhjelm

has worked in agribusiness for 30 years and is a Senator for NSW representing the Liberal Democrats.
Date: Newest first | Oldest first

READER COMMENTS

Headbuzz
16/10/2014 7:50:48 PM

People may have a little more respect for what you say David if you didn't sneak into politics through the back door via voter confusion. But what you must remember is a great percentage of farmers don't receive any handouts just like not all politicians are not useless and corrupt
JT
17/10/2014 5:55:17 AM

Headbuzz, I have asked the big mouth phantom farmer haters to give us a list of the claimed true handouts that farmers receive. They have never been able to do so. The best they can ever come up are false things like off road diesel fuel rebates or single desk marketing which of course are not Govt handouts or subsidies in any shape or form. The farmer hand out lies are a weak attempt to add to the list of sad people who are envious of the farmers' "get up and have a go mentality".
Bushie Bill
17/10/2014 5:59:17 AM

Not a lot of surprises in most of these posts. RARAs still attack the messenger rather than trying to get their heads around the message. It is a lot easier, on the "relaxed and comfortable" register, isn't it, to ring Fred next door with claims that David is a farmer's enemy rather than to ring Fred to rationally and objectively analyse David's thoughts, so foreign to concrete-set minds of "you owe me a living" agsocs? There is no other industry that believes long-term profitability of their businesses is someone else's responsibility.
Hydatid
17/10/2014 6:16:37 AM

JT...its called a Tautology...look it up
argis
17/10/2014 8:40:13 AM

Hydatid, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones because you need to learn how to spell or take more care with your spell checking.
Qlander
17/10/2014 2:02:31 PM

Actually it would be a reasonable statement to say 'Farmers produce food in spite of their profit, rather then because of their profit'. Australia stands alone in the developed world, with the 18th century idea that framing is only about profit.
Piet
19/10/2014 9:49:28 PM

The reason that the European Union has a policy to support farmers came from the experience of the second world war.People starved to death because of hunger. Australia has been an exporter of food and has never experienced those conditions. Food is important!
argis
20/10/2014 1:39:00 PM

Bushie, did you see the comments by JT about big mouth farmer haters who cant substantiate their claims with any facts?
Frank Blunt
21/10/2014 6:23:19 AM

Oh yes there is Bushie , the banking industry.
Rational Ag Policy
21/10/2014 8:08:49 PM

JT - you receive some pretty serious subsidies that other industries don't and shouldn't enjoy. These include interest rate subsidies or exceptional circumstance payments (every time a serious drought hits and you are yet again financially unprepared), subsidised research (you receive a massive subsidy from the taxpayer in the form of Agricultural research, you should pay for thing that make you money, its only fair), subsidised education (you have the luxury of being rounded up by a taxpayer funded educator to be given free business mgt advice).
< previous |  1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6  |  next >
Agribuzz with David LeyonhjelmCommentary, news and analysis with agribusiness consultant David Leyonhjelm. Email David at reclaimfreedom@gmail.com

COMMENTS

light grey arrow
I'm one of the people who want marijuana to be legalized, some city have been approved it but
light grey arrow
#blueysmegacarshowandcruise2019 10 years on Daniels Ute will be apart of another massive cause.
light grey arrow
Australia's live animal trade is nothing but a blood stained industry that suits those who