The great Aussie obsession with the heroic farmer

Today on ABC's AM radio, Clive Hamilton of the Australia Institute criticised the latest drought relief package ($350 million) the government is setting aside for Aussie farmers.^[1] There are two interesting points here:

1. Hamilton suggests such a relief package is practising bad economics; and
2. such bad economics are supported by what he calls the "bush myth".

Hamilton points out that the government consistently bails out farmers who manage their land poorly, continuing a vicious cycle of bad land management and bad farming.

"Droughts happen regularly in this country and there is a marked difference between how farmers prepare for drought ... some do it well, some do it badly and if the soil blows away that is a sign of bad farm management." ...

... Dr Hamilton says he believes it is other farmers who often feel most frustrated by the awarding subsidies.

"The real difference is going to be within the bush itself because there are more and more farmers out there who are managing for drought. They are the ones who manage to maintain grassed areas, or covered areas, which continue to be grazed during a drought," he said.

"They don't qualify for drought relief because they are good managers, they are the ones that are becoming annoyed because they see the farmers in the next paddock who aren't managing for drought are constantly getting bailed out by the taxpayer."

This is a completely fair point. The major agricultural industries are very protected in Australia for various reasons, but that level of protection does absolutely nothing to discourage poor farm and land management – in both an economic and environmental sense. And, perhaps more pertinently, it does nothing to encourage untalented farmers to try their hand at alternate professions!

When I was of pre-school age, my family bought a piece of land which included an area about twice the size of a footy oval which was simply a huge dustbowl. The previous owner had allowed cattle or some other livestock to overgraze this delicate, low-lying area rendering it completely useless for any farming with it's nutrient-rich topsoil having blown away long ago in the wind.

My father's first act was to fence that area off and leave it alone. Now, twenty years on it is almost completely covered in saltbush and is minimally useful for occasional grazing – such as during a drought. And a small part of it – no doubt with the help of inorganic fertilisers – has been annexed to the area used in the crop-growing cycle. Most importantly though, it's being used in a sustainable way now.

Now, Hamilton is known for his "radical" or "forward-thinking" ideas in Growth Fetish but I find nothing overly radical or revolutionary about the following:

The great Australian bush myth, Dr Hamilton says, is behind the community and bipartisan political support for farming subsidies.

"I think the only way to explain why the governments, that otherwise claim to be economically rational bail out families constantly is because they are such an important part of the Australian mythology," he said.

I've carried a similar idea myself for some time but not been able to articulate it.

"I mean we love to imagine ourselves to be stoical Aussies out there battling against the elements and I think we in urban areas get a kick out of thinking those farmers are somehow representing our better selves.

"But it is a very expensive way to maintain a national myth." ...

I think some people may claim that this is a gross over-generalisation by Hamilton, but no one can claim the heroic conceptualisation of Australian sheep, cattle and crop-growers in previous decades didn't exist and doesn't still pervade Australia today. There are numerous examples. Think of iconic Australian paintings — Tom Robert's Shearing the Rams or Russell Drysdale's Drover's wife, etcetera... Think of classic Australian poetry — the narrator in Banjo Patterson's Clancy of the Overflow talks dreamily of swapping places with Clancy the drover, and the jolly swagman in Waltzing Matilda steals a sheep!

To be fair, the heroic Aussie farmer is not a national myth, but neither is the hopelessly incompetent Aussie farmer. And it's hard not to begin to suspect that this national obsession with overprotecting agricultural industries in Australia doesn't have a detrimental effect on the health of the land for one, not to mention progress in indigenous land rights...

I clearly would like to stand behind Hamilton here and say how about taking a different approach where farmers who really are heroes, who treat the land with respect, who educate themselves on how to manage it properly and sustainably get the rewards. Let's not reward those who mistreat land their ancestors got for free 200 or less years ago and make no effort to adopt measures to ensure their farming is at a level of intensity appropriate to the changing environment and changing climate. Above all, let's not let politicians who want to reward bad farming practices get away with it!

Woolgrower and dog image courtesy of Woolisbest.com.
Categorised as: politics, nature
Technorati Tags: Australian politics, Clive Hamilton, drought relief, Australian drought, woolgrowing, sheep husbandry, sustainable farming, sustainability, Australian culture, Australian agriculture, farming