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
79% Yes |
21% No |
59% Yes |
18% No |
13% Yes, but only small local farms instead of large corporations |
3% No, end all government subsidies and let the free market run its course |
6% Yes, but only as a temporary measure to stabilise prices |
|
1% Yes, but only for organic farms |
See how support for each position on “Farm Subsidies” has changed over time for 37.7k Australia voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
See how importance of “Farm Subsidies” has changed over time for 37.7k Australia voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Unique answers from Australia users whose views extended beyond the provided choices.
@4YCFYM43yrs3Y
Yes, to boost new technologies, new products, innovation.
@9992HTR 2mos2MO
Yes, farmers are important and I am supportive of most welfare programs for the poor. I would regulate the subsidies to prevent abuse.
@9GDYFR66mos6MO
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.
@9C4C7NN11mos11MO
Yes, but only organic farms and small local farms.
@99MZ87B1yr1Y
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
@97Y7YNR1yr1Y
Yes, but only as a relief in extreme conditions, such as floods
Explore other topics that are important to Australia voters.