Today I attended an Australian Farm Institute (AFI) seminar to hear the results of their research underpinning the report “Opportunities to Improve the Effectiveness of Australian Farmers’ Advocacy Groups – a Comparative Approach.”
The central theme was that unless farmer advocacy groups change, they will die. This conclusion won’t surprise anyone in agriculture.
The launch of the report was covered by the media HERE and HERE.
But what got me thinking was the session on journalists’ perceptions of the effectiveness of Australian farmer advocacy groups.
The AFI surveyed journalists in the national press gallery, most of whom worked for larger media outlets such as the ABC, Fairfax and News Corporation. It should be noted that 55% of the journalists specialised in agricultural or rural issues.
Journalists rated the Australian Consumers’ Association (CHOICE) the most effective advocacy group, based on their capacity to achieve policy change and the quality of their materials and research. In second place, was the National Farmers’ Federation (NFF) followed by the Australian Food and Grocery Council and the Minerals Council of Australia.
(Interestingly the RSPCA seems to be rated as having an equal capacity to achieve policy outcomes as the NFF, but their media materials and research reports were rated lower in quality.)
This is a great result for agriculture, or is it? The NFF brand might be strong, but what about agriculture more generally?
The AFI asked journalists which sectors of the economy had the propensity to achieve positive policy outcomes and they rated consumers’ groups and labour unions as the most effective.
While union links to the ALP will strengthen their position when the ALP is in power, their well-documented declining membership would provide an interesting comparison to farmer advocacy groups.
So while the NFF was the second most effective advocacy group, agriculture as a sector was considered unsuccessful in achieving positive policy outcomes.
As a sector it rated lower than all others, including manufacturing, IT and big (and small) business.
The AFI speculates that this is due to the declining number of agricutural specific policy issues, meaning more competition in the policy space.
But that doesn't really explain the difference, does it?
Is it harmful to agriculture that press gallery journalists think the sector is poor at achieving positive policy outcomes?
As a communicator, the challenge becomes positioning agriculture as a sector that does achieve success to a press gallery that doesn't believe it...
