Should the government subsidise Australian farmers?
Australia farmers currently receive approximately 4% of their income in subsidies from the government. Farmers in the European receive 35% of their incomes in subsidies and farmers in the U.S. receive 28%. Proponents of higher subsidies argue that they are necessary to compete with agriculture exports from other western countries. Opponents argue that the farmers should fend for themselves and point out that 2,300 farmers who do not grow crops receive annual subsidies
Yes, to boost new technologies, new products, innovation.
@9S25CV34mos4MO
Yeah, reduce taxes and then use the remaining money to take money off environment funding and put it towards farmers who help the economy
@9992HTRSocialist Alliance 9mos9MO
Yes, farmers are important and I am supportive of most welfare programs for the poor. I would regulate the subsidies to prevent abuse.
Yes, but only for crop farms, instead of constantly padding the profits of beef and dairy farmers to neglect their livestock, while those growing the actual food are abandoned.
@9294HWC3yrs3Y
Yes, and make supermarkets buy Australian produce before international products
In some cases but gov shouldn’t be propping up unviable farms
Yes, in keeping with economic reality, and subsidisation levels of other industries.
Yes, but only to ensure national food security
@8ZLMKPH3yrs3Y
As long as they a owned by Australians. Not owned for example by India but have an Australia manager running the farm
@8M5Y6ZS4yrs4Y
Australia’s government should push for a return to the ways of the First Nation people and their approach to agriculture
@8H5SJ684yrs4Y
Yes but try to remove subsidies through comprehensive free-trade agreements. The government should also ensure that a national capacity to be self-sufficient is maintained and that supply chains are sufficiently diverse.
@8CLZPSW4yrs4Y
Only for sustainable and environmental farming practices
Yes but not for animal farms, only plant.
@9C4C7NN2yrs2Y
Yes, but only organic farms and small local farms.
@99MZ87B2yrs2Y
Yes, subsidise small, local farmers, and/or farmers who are prioritising sustainable practices and agriculture, and generally subsidise as a temporary measure to stabilise prices
Yes, but only as a relief in extreme conditions, such as floods
@96SYDV82yrs2Y
Yes, but only for veganic plant agriculture.
@969K9292yrs2Y
Yes, but not to cotton farmers as they caused the droughts we are currently facing with their inexcusable use of river water while also playing the water market like a stock exchange oh and Barnaby Joyce giving 120% more money to cotton farmers for a fraction of the water required the the amount of money (tl:dr yes but not to cotton farmers)
@9355X523yrs3Y
Yes but not for animal agriculture
@934HSDC3yrs3Y
Yes, only Australian owned farms
@932MZ4Z3yrs3Y
Yes, but only for small, local, organic farms, as a temporary measure to stabilise prices
@92VPDGG3yrs3Y
Yes, but only if the farmers are struggling to produce
Yes but they have to commit to being sustainable, and economical ie replanting paddocks etc to help erosion and changing what they grow with the areas climate. Ie just because granddad grew cotton, if the pesticides are polluting the towns water, switching to another crop
Yes, to move to a plant only agriculture
@8X48LMGOne Nation3yrs3Y
yes only on the largest employers.
@DrewWolfSP3yrs3Y
No, farmers with unsustainable business models should be able to access support to reform their operations to be feasible.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
