Redesigning Animal Agriculture

24 M. Alston
the then Deputy Prime Minister and Leader
of the National Party in a speech to the
National Press Club when he notes the possibility
of Australia becoming two nations:
The sense of alienation, of being left
behind, of no longer being recognized and
respected for the contribution to the nation
being made, is deep and palpable in much
of rural and regional Australia today. While
there are areas and industries that are doing
very well, there are many that are not.
This issue must be addressed by all of us
who collectively make up Australia, if we
are to be a whole nation, because we can
and must do everything we can to draw
alongside those facing great challenge.
(Anderson, 1999)
a view shared by the Australian Catholic
Social Welfare Commission in their 2000
report:
There is now such a deep, almost
pathological, cynicism amongst rural
Australians about the nature of government
interest in them.
(ACSWC, 2000)
A lack of trust in institutions, and in pol icies
and political processes, continues to frame
the views of many in rural Australia as they
struggle to cope with significant changes
(Alston et al., 2004; Alston and Kent, 2006).
Increasing levels of social isolation and
declining levels of social cap ital 4 are evident
in rural communities under stress (Alston
et al., 2004; Lawrence, 2005; Alston and
Kent, 2006). Yet there is also strong evidence
of resilience amongst rural people
(Stehlik et al., 1999). Can this resili ence
maintain agricultural productivity if rural
Australians are not supported and valued; if
their services continue to erode and if their
trust in the Australian community and its
institutions is corrupted?
Why Do We Need Rural Communities?
Given the issues facing inland rural areas, it is
useful to ask why do we need rural communities?
Drawing on the issues raised already
in this chapter, it is clear that rural communities
offer services to agriculture – the infra-
structure, commercial hubs and educational
and health facilities so vital to the economic
viability of agriculture. The removal of services
from rural communities also impacts
on the ability of farm families to access input
supplies, technical advice, loans and marketing
information (Losch, 2004, p. 348). What
is also evident from the previous discussion
is that they also offer loci of much needed
employment for farm family members to
source the income that underpins agriculture.
Less clear is that rural communities can
provide the sites of social integration and
social capital generation so vital to farm family
functioning and the health of rural people.
They offer quality of life facilities – sporting
fields, perhaps a movie theatre, a community
centre and adult learning facilities. Even less
clearly articulated is that they have heritage
value and hold a special place in the national
psyche. Becoming more critical in the new
century is the fact that they offer front-line
defence against disease and biosecurity risks.
There is no doubt that rural communities are
significant to the future of agriculture and the
country, but providing for rural communities
and the people who live in them requires a
change in policy drivers. One area where we
might find inspiration is in the language of
multifunctionality.
Multifunctionality
Neoliberalism has gained precedence in
Australian government policy circles, a discourse
that prioritizes market primacy and
reduced government intervention (Gray and
Lawrence, 2001). This discourse also dominates
World Trade Organization (WTO)
negotiations and thus international agricultural
policy (Potter and Tilzey, 2005) and
hence has a significant impact on papers such
as the Corish report. None the less, as I have
argued, neoliberalism has had a significant
impact on Australia’s rural areas, resulting in
a withdrawal of services and infrastructure
and significant stresses for rural people. In
Europe and the USA, resistance to this discourse
has developed as a result of the consequences
productivist agriculture has had