Times are changing, politics are more diverse, and advocacy hasn't kept up
Nuffield Scholar Laura Egan and her husband Brad, in England. Picture supplied. Politically, farmers and policy makers may not always see eye to eye, but both sectors have been at the helm of changing. . .
Nuffield Scholar Laura Egan and her husband Brad, in England. Picture supplied. Politically, farmers and policy makers may not always see eye to eye, but both sectors have been at the helm of changing technology, demographics and cultures. Subscribe now for unlimited access to all our agricultural news across the nationor signup to continue readingEOFY SAVE 50%All articles from our website& appThe digital version ofThis Week'sPaperOur entirenetworkAn area which has not kept up to date with the mechanics of policy making has beenagriculture's advocacy space, and the details of how the agricultural industry sits in the context of parliament and government have been outlined by a WA grower. Laura Egan (nee Bennett) is a broadacre farmer at Scaddan, and was awarded a Nuffield Scholarship in 2024 to evaluate advocacy within the Australian agricultural industry, and look at better solutions for policy success. "Times are changing, we need modern advocacy frameworks for modern agriculture," Ms Egan said. In her report, Ms Egan reflected briefly on her own experiences with farming advocacy organisations, stating she did not feel represented by the organisations available, which made it difficult to contribute to policy discussions. . Ms Egan's original Nuffield scholarship topic was about building climate resilience under changing rainfall patterns, but found WA's growing areas was a unique situation not found elsewhere. A theme which came up repeatedly during her travels was how farmers were dealing, or struggling to deal with burdensome regulations. Almost half of Australia's current parliament are women, with cultures, ages and backgrounds creating more diversity than ever before. On the other hand, across all State farming organisations and the National Farmers' Federation, women are represented at a rate of just 20 per cent. This demographic change has been overlooked when it comes to attracting the attention of policymakers and sharing agricultural messages. Ms Egan said across the European Union, young farmers unions consistently gain more traction in parliaments than other types of unions. Laura Egan in Zimbabwe, where she observed a significant disconnect between farmers, policy makers and the general population. Picture supplied. When asked why, one Dutch farmer said these young farmers bring solutions to the table, not just problems, and recognised that most methods of advocacy were outdated. "There was an example in Germany where the vice president of one of the farmers unions said 'we had the same type of people at the top for a very long time, and then we realised we were way more successful when we brought women and young people along with us'," Ms Egan said. "They had more support from their growers because people were feeling like those groups reflected them. "If there are growers who avoid policy conversations because they don't feel supported or represented, it excludes an entire range of thought and perspective. "The predominantly reactive nature of SFO advocacy results in proactive farmers struggling to see their interests reflected, leading to reduced engagement from these forward-thinking members of the industry," Ms Egan wrote. "Typically, these growers have previously identified future challenges and either adapted their management strategies or moved away from certain practices to reduce the impact of impending legislation or evolving market demands. "While in Europe, Ms Egan spoke to policymakers who showed genuine interest in speaking and working with farmers but found it difficult to work productively - some of the key reasons being too many voices are brought to the table, and the assumption that policymakers are not interested in the conversation. "It feels like you're constantly up against it on farm, and this legislation keeps coming, and you're thinking 'oh, they don't care about us', but are we actually working with them, and trying to make their jobs easier too?" she said. On the other side of the conversation, Ms Egan also looked at common personality traits of farmers, identifying a need to play to these strengths and tailor advocacy methods to the types of people farmers are. In her report, Ms Egan cited a 2000 survey from the University of Queensland which said five out of 14 personality types were represented by farmers, the traits of these types being capacity for hard work and perseverance, decisiveness, stoicism, and comfort in solitude or small circles. What can be inferred from this data is that farmers may prefer to engage one-on-one with policy makers, and for most of the time, their stoic natures means they will largely 'get on with it' instead of asking for help with problems. These traits are what sees farmers successful in farming but challenges the advocacy space. A 2019 survey was able to place 80pc of farmer participants into two out of four categories, identifying they were practical types of people who were focused on the present, thought logically, focused on what is real and concrete, and valued reliability. Ms Egan suggested this may be why concepts which are based on future or long term trends or predictions, feel too hypothetical or disconnected from reality. With 80pc of farmers fitting into these two categories, these two types only represent half the broader population. In total, Ms Egan said the agricultural advocacy space needs to be tailored to the way farmers think and act to have equal success to that of other advocacy pieces. Another core component of good advocacy, as highlighted by Ms Egan's research, is the need for collaboration. Agricultural groups are fragmented by farm management styles such as regenerative or biodynamic, as well as climatic conditions and soil types. "While it is challenging to represent all interests, there needs to be active efforts to work collaboratively to increase collective influence and power," Mr Egan wrote. In her report, she quotes a New Zealand farmer who said it is better for groups to come together on the largest percentage of issues as opposed to none at all. Ms Egan said across Europe and New Zealand it was identified that being 'against everything' weakened influence and credibility overall. She said advocacy groups needed to be selective and strategic about setting priorities, focusing on what mattered most. Ms Egan's report is a clear display of problems and solutions, but she believes farmers are already on board with the need to change and are willing to learn better advocacy strategies to achieve better outcomes. "I think it's more of a sticking point for the great people we have involved, that the reality is, there needs to be a shake up and we need to reassess, because it's not working," she said. "It's a red flag that you have young, progressive, intelligent and educated farmers who are too scared to speak up. "The current framework isn't working, but current growers don't feel like they're empowered enough to push against it. "Additionally, Ms Egan quoted an Australian grower who said farmers need to be accessible. "The days are gone where you go to your local farming group's branch, put your hand up to be elected or get told to wait your turn," the report states. "We need to build relationships now in whatever capacity we can and be available when we are needed. "Ms Egan hopes her report can become a reference point for change, saying her work fits in with a number of learnings from other scholars over the years. "I'd like it to spark conversation and empower some of the farmers that might have been on the fence, or have looked at recent legislation over the past 12-18 months and haven't felt like they know where to go, inspire them to become more involved, or to understand the tools and power they have to shake up some of our current systems. "As it happensBreaking news alertBe the first to know when news breaks.