"Easing the squeeze" on farmers

I've just finished watching the one and only televised debate between the Prime Minister, John Howard, and Opposition Leader, Mark Latham, scheduled for the federal election campaign.

Rural and regional Australia was mentioned just once -- when the Prime Minister said no-one understood the bush like his Deputy Prime Minister, John Anderson.

Neither leader mentioned the word "environment".

Defence, health and education were the issues that dominated discussion.  Mr Latham often repeated the phrase "ease the squeeze on middle Australia".

There is also a need to "ease the squeeze" on the bush -- including the squeeze created by the environmental policies of the Federal Coalition and State Labor governments.

A lot of pressure has been created by giving into environmental activists in a bid to neutralise "the environment" as an issue -- including as an election issue.

There has also been an increase in funding to environmental groups.

In its report, "Taming the Panda:  The Relationship between WWF Australia and the Howard Government", The Australia Institute shows that over the last 11 years funding to WWF has increase by more than 500 per cent and is now around $11 million.

Much of the increase is attributed to increasing Federal Government funding of this environmental organisation.

I am for the environment.  But thinking globally and acting locally, I reckon the best thing any government can do for the environment is to back Australian farmers rather than broking deals which result in increased pressure on them to give back land and water.

The world's population is predicted to increase by another three billion people before stabilising at around 9 billion in 2100.  This represents a lot more people to feed and clothe.

I would prefer not to see any more land brought under cultivation, and no more water infrastructure developed.  But I also don't want to see people go hungry.

Given the global outlook, people who really care about the environment should be looking to back efficient farmers -- farmers who can produce a lot of food and fibre from the smallest area of land and with the least amount of water.  In this regard Australian producers have long reigned supreme.

Most of Australia's primary production is concentrated in the Murray Darling Basin.  This is not because this region has the most suitable land or because this is where most water falls but rather because this is where the water infrastructure has been developed.

Forward thinking politicians who are genuine about protecting our remaining wild rivers would support Australian agriculture where the infrastructure is now already developed.

Instead farmers in the Murray Darling Basin are under the most pressure and are being "squeezed" the most.

Over the last 40 years the world's farmers have managed to produce double the quantity of food from approximately the same area of land (1.5 billion hectares) by adopting new and improved technologies including better irrigation, fertilisers and pesticides.

The next big efficiency gains are potentially through biotechnology advancements and GM food crops.

Yet during this election campaign, no-one is defending, let alone promoting, the best thing for the environment -- modern high yielding agriculture.

ADVERTISEMENT