Departments of Agriculture could have an important future in rural policy

Unfortunately, this is very true. A lot of the anti-rural sentiment is politically motivated by highly organized market "theologists" and single issue urban groups seeking to influence the political process. What does not seem to be understood by agro-politics and Departments of Agriculture is that political objectives of these groups lie beyond market achievement. Legislative change through the political process by agitation becomes their alternative to market solutions. They can be countered only by active educational programs into urban homes by a more highly organized and professionally skilled agro-political movement. The support role of Departments of Agriculture could be vital in providing professional input for this purpose (a possible example of the 'honest broker' role?)

• National Competition Policy and the increasing shift from government supported 'agrarian socialism' means it is no longer acceptable to support publicly individual landowners in Australia.

National Competition policy was the logical outcome of economic orthodoxy. It has institutionalized by legislation the microeconomic reform agenda of the market 'theologists'. A change in community tolerance to Australia's economic orthodoxy could quickly moderate Competition Policy legislation. In the US, farmers are given limited exemption from anti-trust legislation under the Capper-Volstead Act because unequal distribution of market power between farmers and the agro-business sector is understood; and, considered detrimental to fair farm gate pricing.

Australia's support of agriculture has fallen from 0.8 per cent of GDP in 1986-87 to 0.3 per cent in 2001. Comparative EU figures are: 3.1 per cent in 86-87 to 1.7 per cent in 2001. The US is 1.4 per cent in 86-87 to 0.9 per cent in 2001. It is always interesting to read public servants and university academics - whose salaries and departments are fully funded by Australian taxpayers - pointing to the evils of supporting other important sectors of the economy. Try making the same GDP percentage comparisons for the bureaucracy and the political nature of this thinking becomes exposed.

The role of Departments of Agriculture have certainly changed. Changes that have been wrought on Australian institutions have been driven by political economics in the name of reform agendas. A lot of this change has failed to deliver promised outcomes. Projecting future roles for public service departments therefore becomes more speculative than logical. Alterations to the underlying political philosophies could change the current direction of agricultural policy and the role of Departments of Agriculture.

Meanwhile a fruitful direction for Departments of Agriculture would be to research agricultural policy in other mature economies and seek to coordinate Australian farm policy with their findings. Our "holier than thou" attitude to market driven agricultural policy is out of step internationally and it is us who need to change.