Cost of politics and the cost of living

One thing farmers and anyone involved in the agriculture supply chain can't control is the weather.

Come to think of it, there are a lot of variables that are always out of the hands of farmers who typically are price takers, not price makers.

Challenging weather conditions aside, one of the major frustrations for experienced primary producers is governance.

On a regular basis farmers must deal with compliance and governance issues, some good, some not - and despite all the headwinds, agriculture continues to be an economic powerhouse and continues to be the nation's food bowl.

But given the latest bombshell - the Federal Labor government forging ahead with its plans to make live sheep exports by sea industry nothing but a memory by May 1, 2028 - many are asking how long this will be the case.

There are serious concerns for agriculture and the regional communities it supports.

Despite limited access to facilities and services in regional and remote outposts, people still live outside coastal strips and city centres, many either directly involved or playing a crucial support role in agriculture.

With the end date set for an industry that is also dealing with record-breaking dry spells, the idea of sticking with sheep will not be an option for many.

They feel like the government has abandoned them.

They feel like the Eastern States-based decision makers are not listening to the concerns from WA.

They feel like they are being lectured to by people who have only recently become involved with agriculture.

And despite producing a world-class product that is in demand by a growing global population, they are made to feel ashamed by activists and people who proclaim to know better.

In the not-so-distant future, the political playmakers involved will finish their dabble into agriculture and move onto other portfolios, or exit politics, leaving primary producers to be thrown around in their choppy wake.

And on and on it will go.

Just as much of a concern is what a reduced WA sheep flock will mean.

There will be less demand in the comprehensive supply chain, which ultimately, could see people leave the regional areas they live in to seek alternative employment.

This will have a knock-on effect.

There will be less students in the local schools, less money spent in the local economy and less people living in these regional towns.

Only last week we heard of a Bunbury hospital cutting its maternity services because it can't attract enough qualified staff - adding to the very long list of regional hospitals that no longer offer this service, along with other medical procedures.

This means more travel to Perth, higher fuel and accommodation bills - and an extended time away from home.

All while MPs discuss ways to address higher costs of living.

It doesn't take a mathematician to work out that less services in regional towns, such as maternity, will only add to these much-talked-about cost of living pressures.

When the government signed the live sheep export industry death warrant a couple of weekends ago, it spruiked a $107 million transition funding package, using commentary like it was a lot of taxpayers' money to fund an industry in decline.

How much of that figure will trickle down to farmers is in question, but I would suggest the cost of living in regional areas would become a lot higher - and the future of some towns will be in limbo.

If the industry is in as much of a decline as the government would lead us to believe, why the rush to end it?

Surely it would just die a natural death some time in the future?

Or is this just politics at its worst?

The sheep industry - and agriculture at large - doesn't want a handout, it wants a fair go.

It just wants MPs, you know....the ones who are elected by the people, to advance our communities, to help them out.

Not to drive them to despair.