Recent comments by: Mranda
Agribuzz with David Leyonhjelm
Of course producers deserve a say on how much they pay and who they pay and how it is spent. Most Levi funded organisations do have channels and checks through which this can occur but they are obviously not working well and probably it is mostly a communication problem. Secondly It is very difficult to measure the end result of Levi expenditure. You have to consider things like prevention of reduced farm gate returns as well.
I agree a regular vote by Levy payers on the amount of levy they wish to pay and on the way it is spent would make the process more transparent. However producers would need to have a lot of information at hand and a very good understanding of the cost of the various activities funded by levies to really answer that question thoughtfully.
David, for once I agree with most of you're article. People need to be told the truth about organics to stop these poor city folk from wasting all their money on it. If people want to buy it, of course it's their choice but it should not be able to be marketed as a safer, more nutritious, healthier alternative. It's just not ethical marketing.
I agree another White Paper, like most government reviews, is not likely to achieve a lot, but it shows the government has the importance of agriculture on the agenda. It's not just another industry like the tattoo industry. It feeds and cloths people and brings money into this country; it's future ability to continue doing this warrants some thought from government. Also, I doubt there are many dole recipients willing to work as hard as a farm labourer for less than minimum wage. There is currently a shortage of farm workers. As for removing levies, farmers need some form of representation.
Dropping all trade barriers will just leave Australia even more open to being taken advantage of by larger protectionist players. There are many good reasons countries use to justify protecting their industries,especially food industries, food security for one. This is not likely to change any time soon.
I agree, it's time agriculture and industry organisations stopped pandering to the ideals of extremist groups disguised as the views of consumers. The certification movement is going too far with certification for everything, consumers must be thoroughly sick of it, and of paying the premiums for these unwanted stickers on packages. It's time industry bodies stopped pandering to the retailers and stood up for the industry they represent.
What a shame Australian Agriculture and the people of Russia have to bear the brunt of this. How long does Putin really think he can last without decent food to eat. I would like to know what Ms Bishop had in mind when she said the Australian Government would do everything in their power to minimise the impact of the embargo on Australian Agricultural producers. That's a very big statement - have they thought of anything they could do yet?
A review like that suggested was conducted in 2011 by the Productivity Commission. It cost the R&D organisations in question, government and other farmer funded participants a lot of time and money to respond to, and didnt recommend or result in much change. Another inquiry this soon is likely to have a similar outcome. Yes, value received by farmers is questionable but some important things wouldn't get done if these organisations didn't exist. More farmer input is needed to ensure only activities that deliver real value and wouldn't occur via the market are funded by levies.
We've already sold our manufacturing sector, why not sell our farming and agribusiness sectors too? Then we will be dependent on other countries for just about everything we need. Who exactly will benefit from more half baked FTAs if the farms are all owned by overseas investors anyway?
I think the anti-live export commenters have missed the point once again. It's not about exporters not wanting to pay their own way, or about government supporting business with taxpayers money. It's about government over-regulation and government inefficiencies, once again stifling otherwise viable Australian businesses. Sounds like some members of the Coalition may have had to go against their own principles, and let this Bill through in order to win on something else; or perhaps it was just to keep the greens quiet for a while to prevent a worse outcome for the live export industry.
I think calling it an Ag-gag law is the wrong approach and gives the impression the industry has something to hide. The issue is, that farmers must have the same legal right to protect their property from trespassers, damage and potential litigation as anybody else. This should also extends to the right not to have their businesses and characters misrepresented in films made public by animal activist. Surely these laws already exist. The authorities need to take the issue more seriously.
How about a female opinion writer.
*Editor's note: Yes please! We're working on it, Mranda. Watch this space.
What a waste of taxpayers money. It will take some poor junior public servant days or longer to dig up the requested documents, and just so the Greens can attempt to get some dirt on agriculture. It's unlikely anyone will even bother to read all the documents anyway. Just the Greens flexing whatever muscles they can maintain on a vegan diet.
If our land and agribusinesses are owned by Chinese investors then who would a free trade deal with China really benefit? On another note, typical of government to be grappling with definitions and issues regrading differences between state and federal systems. To think silly things like these are responsible for holding back change in this country.
Considering there is such an opportunity for growth in the sector, the Australian government needs to get behind agriculture with everything it's got instead of hindering it by increasing regulation and overemphasising minor issues such as (dare I say it - animal welfare) that markets will take care of. The rest of the world is already realising the value of Australian agribusiness and it's time Australia stopped taking it for granted.
Never has Barnaby spoken so much sense. It is nice to have an Ag Minister with such a passion for the industry. As for the Greens, banning an Australian industry from supplying a market overseas? How will this improve animal welfare? All it will do is move the issue of live export welfare completely out of Australia's hands and into the hands of another willing supplier.
A Positive for the industry but I hope the publication of this decision is well handled by industry groups. It might be a problem if green and activist groups were allowed to run away with the story and used it to make out that agvet chemicals are poorly regulated.
There are lots of ways yet to be fully explored that May enable us to produce more food from the land area available - GM technology for example. Not to mention that much of the land in the world is not being farmed to its potential because old methods are still being used, or because protectionist policies mean that that land is not necessarily being used for what it's best at growing. The challenge for agriculture across the world is finding a way to best work together to produce enough food sustainably as the population grows. A challenge I believe we are up to.
Wow, a third world country? With arguments like that who could doubt the integrity of the CSG industry and those running it. And he hasn't managed to name one of these benefits to rural communities that he says we need to recognise.