Recent comments by: Barcoo
Agribuzz with David Leyonhjelm
G'day David. I liked your comment about the actual age of "old growth forests". Do not forget that here in Australia, much of the so-called old growth forest is in fact regrowth that germinated as recently as 1989, the year before the Native Vegetation Act definition of regrowth.
G'day David. Could not agree with you more.
"Farmers who cannot survive drought without help from their fellow Australians should not be propped up...".
City people who cannot survive periods of unemployment should not be propped up, they should all become brain surgeons and CEOs.
It is very hard for a farmer to prepare for drought when he is legally prohibited from developing his farm. We are still waiting to see you manifest the support for farmers that you voiced in your maiden speech in Parliament.
Further to "Jen from the bush".
I heard an exporter of live goats being interviewed on radio recently. This chap has contacted me in the past wanting to know if I would supply goats to him. In the interview he stated that under ESCAS rules he is required to inspect each property from which he obtains goats and that his response to that will be simply to not deal with smaller producers.
How many Australians knew about that provision in ESCAS?
Like many other farmers, I have hundreds of hectares of pre 1990 regrowth that is now renamed as being "old growth forest". The regrowth is so dense that there is no feed underneath it. The trees have stopped growing because they have reached the growth limit set by soil fertility and rainfall. I still pay Council rates on the land and under the new proposals for funding the LLS, I will be paying rates to them based on the area of this regrowth.
If the Abbott Govt wants me to contemplate growing more trees, they will need to first sort out the problems created by the Native Vegetation Act..
Many years ago I read in a book named "The lonely furrow" that in Japan there is a long established tradition of men working in the factories until age 55 and then returning to run the family farm. This custom would tend to raise the median age of farmers there.
For myself, 73 years old, kids have left and are not interested in work, I am committed to staying long term, until the Native Vegetation Act is repealed and I can get back to improving the place.
David, you say that the restrictive regulations in the EU lock farmers into the status quo.
What do you think the Native Vegetation Act does?
Well Sam, I am 74 and still working and I can tell you it does get harder. Not knowing how long I have left becomes a nuisance. Should I embark on a ten year program or am I going to die without seeing it finished?
You must be slipping Sam. I agreed with everything you said except the last line. I am in my mid-seventies and I read Facebook. I use it to follow the activities of my far-flung children and grandchildren.
With regard to the grandchildren, I see them living a lifestyle that saw some of my friends put into reformatories in the 1950's.
Which confirms my long held belief that the cause of the juvenile delinquency lay with their parents trying to impose the 1920's on to postwar teenagers.
A matter of opinion
I agree with you Victor. A neighbour of mine and myself, at different times, both found that on reporting theft of sheep, a hundred or more at a time, to the local police Stock Squad, received nothing more than a commitment to "make a note of it".
You are really game Gregor to suggest that urban populations should curb their extravagant lifestyles.
The problem of urban contribution to climate change was solved when John Howard and the state premiers came up with the idea of forcing farmers to grow gum trees that would sequester the carbon output from the towns.
Maybe the one biggest change that could be made to the urban extravaganza for the benefit of the planet would be a ban on overseas holidays. Would be good for the Australia economy too.
Burrs under my saddle
Good article Pete. As I see it, and as you have referenced, the big problem is the creation of employment for the ever-expanding urban population. City people still expect to live well without competing in world markets. If farmers were to achieve a bigger income from exports to China, the government of the day would respond to electoral pressure by finding novel ways of extracting money from farmers and using it to support city populations in the style to which they have become accustomed. Somewhere in the future, city people are going to have to compete with Chinese manufacturing industries.
You are spot on Pete. But the effect of the restrictions on farming are not restricted to the north of the state. Remember that Peter Spencer comes from the south and he was one of many in the same position. Did you read July "National Geographic" and the article The Next Breadbasket? It writes about small farmers in Mozambique being forced off their properties to make way for international companies. Seems that farmers have no rights anywhere.
Given that almost everything sold in the shops is made in China, to consider retail sales as an indicator of health of the economy is a mistake to say the least. If the Coalition is really concerned about Agricultural Competitiveness, they should start by forcing the States to repeal their Native Vegetation Acts and restrictions that seek to lock agriculture into 1990.
What is the purpose behind re-running a story from 2009?
This is the standard response from those wealthy individuals who want to continue with their planet-destroying lifestyles and still have a warm fuzzy feeling that some where, some farmer is doing something to preserve the planet on their behalf.
If The Wentworth Group is serious about saving the planet from human activities lets hear them support a ban on overseas holidays. That would indicate support for the principal that care for the environment takes precedence over the right to unrestricted use of private wealth. See second paragraph under "Duty of Care" above.
Rather than a 10% GST on everything, would it not be cheaper and simpler to put all income tax rates up by 10%. Then there would be no need for the Government to be collecting and then paying out monies as compensation to those deemed too poor to pay GST.
Very fine words indeed from Mr Cosier. But to make any sense of them one has to try to discover what meaning he is giving to the words he uses. When he says "end fossil fuel subsidies" does he mean "impose a road-funding tax on fuel used on-farm"? When he says "improve environmental outcomes" does he mean "grow more gum trees"? And what on earth is he saying in the sentence "If we use part of the savings from subsidies to fund an increase in land tax, there will be a net saving on tax, and it will produce several billion dollars that can be made available to landolders”. .
What Australia gets out of the FTA with Japan is the ability to sell more food into Japan.
The question is, how much more food will the Japanese buy given that their population is in rapid decline?
In a "dry" economic model, it makes no sense to pay drought relief to farmers. The professor is correct in that if one person has to leave a farm then the land will be taken up by another hopeful. But if we are going to apply dry economic theories to farmers then we cannot claim to be a fair society unless we apply the same dry principles to all of the national economy. That would mean no more setting of award wages, no more unemployment benefits, maybe even no more pensions. No more restrictions on the establishment of private universities selling degrees, no more restrictions on farming.
Maybe we should start with some facts. Dingos are not native to Australia. They arrived about 4,000 years ago which is the blink of an eye in comparison to the time that our native animals have taken to evolve.
In southern Australia at least, if we want to reduce bush fires, get rid of the fire-loving and fire-causing eucalypts and restore the native vegetation of Antarctic Beech that the Aboriginals destroyed with fire so allowing the eucalypts to come to dominate the landscape.
This is reminiscent of when the Australian government destroyed the Wool Reserve Price scheme in an overnight move and the way that the Chinese wool buyers reacted.
They showed then that they have no concept of business ethics as we see it and it seems that little has changed.
The big question is, just what is their long term plan.
I do not think the Chinese will continue to supply the world with low cost manufactured goods once the rest of the world has lost the ability to manufacture those goods.
I wonder who owns the sheep. Listening to the women talking about the sheep it becomes clear that they know nothing about sheep. They seem to think that because they got their hands on the sheep first, they now own it. Admittedly, from the photos I can see no earmark. I was also concerned to hear them say that the sheep was "unable to go to the toilet". Will this be their next demand, that we build toilets for the sheep? Long drop or flushing?
Buying a farm has always been difficult. I decided in 1953 that I wanted to farm, no family farm or money to inherit so I had to do it on my own. I worked and saved, when I was younger I worked two full time jobs for five years. Had two marriages fail because the wives found the struggle too much. Lost most of my savings to the Family Court. Now 75 years old and owning a 2,000 acre development block (I hope you know what is meant by development block in farming terms) which under the Nat. Veg. Act I am not allowed to develop. If your young blokes still play football, they are not serious.
An interesting story. Much of the red area seems to be in NSW. The suggestion is made that this is due to ongoing land clearing. Who the hell gets a permit to clear land in NSW? We are told that sustainability is the goal we are to aim for. There is absolutely nothing sustainable in the present model of unlimited consumption of fossil fuels and the closing down of agriculture as a way of mitigating the effects of unlimited consumption.
This does explain something that has bothered me for the past few years. The Coalition Government has always claimed to be "pro small business' yet they are so often"'anti-rural". It had never occurred to me that my farm was not a business. Now that the Govt realises that farms are businesses, can we expect to be treated differently?
Wacko! A new income stream for farmers. Deer heads worth $300. Where are the buyers?
The down-side of giving more latitude to individual schools is that some Principals see it as an opportunity to inflict their own weird views onto the students.
@Jacky, you did not mention hunters shooting stock, throwing their kill in farm dams, leaving garbage around and probably a lot of other very annoying things. But the behaviour of individual hunters is not the only aspect of hunting. I have almost closed my property to hunters because so many of them are uncivilised but I still have some who have been coming for more than thirty years and they are civilised. The smart ones value their access to a very expensive piece of real estate and always bring "the key to the gate", usually bottled in Scotland.
Tony Abbott did not make a mistake, he is a mistake. I wonder is his attitude to the English royals simply part of a plan to emulate his predecessor, Bob Menzies, and get himself the title of "Chief Warden of the Cinque Ports" for when he retires and returns to his homeland.
There have been plenty of sheep herding and cattle herding nations that have managed without dogs. But that requires the herders to be in better condition than most Australians are. The young blokes will waste all their energy playing football but if you ask them to muster on foot without a dog they are suddenly too tired to move. Since farming has become an occupation almost exclusively for old men, dogs have increased in importance. Even the author quoted here admts to being a "dog lover" and as such is not a reliable source. Yes, I am an old man and rely on my dogs.
I agree with you Inverell about the question of old firearms. I have a number of old rifles, no longer needed, and in a free society I would sell them and recoup what is left of their value. I paid money for them years ago. Under the present laws, I have to pay a fee to the local shopkeeper if I want to sell them privately. Surely if the prospective buyer can show his photographic licence and prove that he is legally entitled to own a firearm of that calibre, that should be sufficient safeguard.
Developing farm biosecurity is going to take a change in the public mindset. It is hard enough with family, telling them that they can no longer drive their cars into the paddock, but a recent transaction with the local policeman indicates just how difficult it will be. When coming to do a firearms inspection, rather than use the driveway and open and close two gates he drove directly across the paddock to the point nearest the house and then expected me to remove a gate so that he could drive into the house yard. For me to have refused would amount to a "failure to co-operate" and an offence
One aspect of the Australian economy that you failed to take into consideration: governments of all persuasions seek to run the nation for the benefit of the urban population. That is why we have awards setting wages for the city people but no longer any reserve price scheme for wool and why the meat industry is a free-for-all. The present situation is based on a set of circumstances that existed one hundred years ago and is no longer a viable economic model. With governments determined to stock the continent to its full carrying capacity of humans, collapse is inevitable.