11.1 Social impacts are a very important aspect of OJD. This was indicated by evidence presented to the Committee in submissions, hearings and field inspections. These impacts have sometimes been a consequence of the disease itself, but often of the Victorian OJD Control Program. They are frequently associated with financial impacts.
11.2 Consultants from Victoria University were commissioned to assess some of the social implications of the Victorian OJD Control Program.1 These consultants were Dr Bernadette Hood, Department of Psychology, and Prof. Terrance Seedsman, Faculty of Human Development. Much of their report has been incorporated into this chapter. The focus of their analysis was on possible grief and loss experiences of farmers and local communities, as indicated by evidence presented in the Public Hearings.
11.3 In addition to the consultants' analysis, the Committee examined other evidence. It considered the impacts of OJD itself as well as those of the Victorian OJD Control Program. It also looked at the effects of the Program on staff of the Department of Natural Resources and Environment.
11.4 The Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, Australian National University, developed the use of oral history - `story telling' - as a key method for assessing the social impacts of events and developments.2 According to the Centre, the telling and hearing of stories can become more than a method for gathering information. It can become part of the process of social growth and sometimes of healing.3 The Committee also recognised that its efforts to hear people's stories may have had an effect on those involved and possibly offered opportunity for alleviating some of the pain that has been experienced by rural families and communities.
11.5 In the sections that follow, the Committee will let the words of the witnesses tell their stories of what OJD and the Victorian OJD Control Program has meant for them. It will not identify these witnesses because of the personal nature of the stories.
11.6 Most farms in Victoria are owned and operated by families.4 Consequently, the farm is the family home as well as its business. The wellbeing of the family is intimately tied up with the farm in an emotional and social sense as well as financially.5The attachment of farmers to their stock and their land is frequently very deep. Farmers often "have a high level of emotional - passionate - attachment to their flocks".6 The sheep's suffering and loss of flocks are high among the concerns that farmers described to the Committee. The potential loss of lifestyle and place in the community is also important to rural people. As one farmer said, after contemplating selling the farm:
I discarded that [option] because that would be very stressful and I would have nowhere to go with friends and people who really understand how you are. I think it would be more stressful, leaving the farm and the animals that you love.
11.7 Many farmers referred to both trauma and loss associated with OJD, in particular destocking. How farmers were affected depended partly on the individuals and their circumstances, but the Committee also found that the delivery of the Program was been a major cause of its impact on individuals.
11.8 Many farmers referred directly to the overall experience as traumatic:7I have experienced devastating bushfires and severe droughts but never been exposed to this sort of trauma.
11.9 For several farmers the actual experience of destocking was associated with extensive personal and family trauma, one farmer describing the scene in terms of "killing fields".8Several have described the traumatic experience of having to kill their own sheep. The following are examples:
It was my job to take the sheep which were unacceptable ... to the butcher down the paddock, dig a large hole and one by one shoot them in the head and throw them into the grave - a distressing experience, particularly because they were to me young, healthy sheep with a life expectancy of perhaps another six or seven years, the ewe portion lambing each of those years..
The most shattering time of all was when the lambs that were too young to go to slaughter had to be destroyed on the farm. The DNRE arranged for a dead stock removalist to come and destroy them and cart them away. We were horrified to see them herded into a small pen and then shot. There was blood everywhere and the poor lambs were climbing over the dead ones stacked five deep. It was heartbreaking to see our sheep treated in such a way. We could hear the lambs bleating even after leaving the sheep yards, no longer able to watch. That was our initial introduction to OJD.
11.10 Those farmers who had been affected by OJD spoke of many forms of loss. These were of tangible things - their flocks, income. They were also of intangible, but equally important values, such as respect and a sense of control over life. Flocks may be unique `blood lines'. They are usually deeply loved and may represent an inheritance to which farmers feel a strong sense of obligation:
We have a sheep property at Giffard and we run a self-replacing flock with medium fine merino sheep. The property has been in the family for over 100 years. To be the one in a very long line of sheep farmers to lose all the sheep after all the hard work is quite devastating.
11.11 Those farmers and shearers who had experience of severe impacts of OJD on sheep were deeply disturbed by the losses it caused, the suffering experienced by the animals and the impossibility of treating the disease. According to one farmer and shearer:
I noticed that the disease was getting worse. One farm had what I think was the Gippsland Flock of the Year ... what I really noticed was that instead of it just being what I had heard about, which was the 1 per cent, by the last shearing before sheep were being slaughtered I was shearing 35 a run or thereabouts and I was losing 1 [sheep] a run. ... The owner said, `You think that is bad', and he showed me the killing fields out the back where he had to slaughter his own sheep.
11.12 In contrast to farmers who were told to destock, these farmers faced a stress that was unique to their situation - this was the need of finally having to make the decision themselves to destroy their flocks.9 The Committee came to realise, after meeting some of those involved, that this was no easy choice. It was only the suffering of the sheep, the absence of any treatment and a sense of duty to protect neighbours from the infection that drove some farmers to the decision.10
11.13 The sense of loss caused by destocking at the instigation of the Department of Natural Resources and Environment was very great. In this case the decision was taken out of the farmers' hands, but that also created distress. The loss appears to have been made particularly painful because the sheep destroyed looked perfectly healthy, sometimes even in prime condition. The insidious nature of the disease makes it particularly difficult for farmers. One farmer described OJD as:
Not something we could see, smell or touch, yet our flock was apparently suffering from this disease.
11.14 In another farmer's words:
We lost 4500 [stud] sheep in the destocking program. Our flock was not showing any evidence of an abnormal death rate due to OJD. We had about 3 per cent deaths from all causes. Despite having nine months to prepare for destocking, the whole process created a huge extra workload, expenses and stress.
11.15 Financial difficulties caused by the Victorian OJD Control Program have been a source of anxiety and compounded the distress caused by the threat to a way of life. Several older farmers were reaching a stage in life where they would normally hope to relax a little and reflect on past achievements.11 Some now find themselves thrust into financial insecurity and an uncertain future after years of working to establish good farms and a modest security. One told the Committee:
Financially I am worse off now than I have ever been. I hope some day some of you people see Mr McNamara in the corridors and ask him how his life is going because mine is not good.
11.16 Another farmer spoke of:
Family discord caused by little or no income, banks reassessing property values, an inability to meet day-to-day costs, oppressive stress, elderly people thrown into unexpected debt, relationship pressures, and declining quality of life.
11.17 A powerful theme to emerge from the transcripts was the profound sense of stigma associated with identification of farmers who test positive to OJD or who are `suspect' and put `under surveillance' for the disease.12 One farmer spoke of feeling like "a leper", another "a criminal" and another a sense of being put under "house arrest". For the farmer in whose flock the OJD was identified there was the painful knowledge that this identification placed all his immediate neighbours' flocks under suspicion so that these neighbours could no longer trade.
11.18 This stigma has attached to neighbours and whole districts, not only to infected flocks.
11.19 For the individual farmer this stigma was often so powerful as to determine their decision with regard to their own flock:
They told me that in their opinion if I got rid of all the sheep as quickly as I could it would be no problem to my neighbours. Therefore on that basis pure and simple - because of the people beside us - we decided that even though we had 1300 ewes in lamb and forgo that money, in the interests of our neighbours we would get rid of them.
11.20 Loss of reputation is particularly difficult for stud producers. It causes considerable financial loss and a loss of status. According to one producer:
Flocks built up over a lifetime were slaughtered, and stud breeders whose reputations take years to acquire were wiped out overnight.
11.21 For some reason, this stigma has attached most to properties and regions where OJD was identified first. According to a farmer at the Kyneton Hearing:
I have been lucky because we have been late in the program and the disease has been in the district for three or four years; it was the early producers that suffered a lot [from being stigmatised].13Loss of Identity
11.22 Farmers and farming families identify themselves strongly with their farms. In some cases these farms have been in the family for generations.14 As one community counsellor said, the loss of their flocks or quarantine can destroy:
The meaning in people's lives - people who have put their whole lives into the development of their flocks and so on, their whole purpose of being and living.15Many farmers, when first confronted by this loss, telephoned Mr F. Tobin, Chairman of the Victorian OJD Action Group. His wife was the first person to whom many of these people spoke. In her words:
It was complete devastation for people ... They would ask, `What do I do now? I think I am going crazy, I' - not the sheep - `have tested positive to OJD'.16Loss of Control
11.23 A sense of control over one's life is generally important to people. The ideals of self-sufficiency and "being one's own boss" have particularly been embraced by the family farmer.17 Loss of this sense of control was one of the consequences of the Victorian OJD Control Program. The way in which the Program was delivered (discussed further below) sometimes exacerbated this. According to one farmer:
I was really feeling as if I had got on top of the worst things that have ever happened to me in my 45 years on the farm - that was the drought and the flood and the sickness - and then came OJD. I found that was the most stressful thing in my life - not the OJD but the monster that was handling it and what it had turned into. It was like big brother telling you that you were under his control, and I could not handle that. I had had enough.
11.24 Some people felt that they, or friends, were treated with a lack of respect. This demeaned them and diminished their dignity. An example was provided by one farmer in relation to both himself and a neighbour:
I contacted the rural counsellor twice; he said he would get back to me. Three years later and I have not had any contact from the rural counsellor. My neighbour has been destocked. I contacted the rural counsellor on five occasions and he came to him. He sat with him for one hour and said he would be okay. Three weeks later he got a report asking him to attend the Brunswick Commonwealth Employment Service for reassessment and retraining. That man is 75 years of age. When you are down, let's get kicking.
11.25 It was evident to the Committee that the suffering of neighbours and friends has added to the burden of some farmers, although, for many, it also helped to know that they had people close to them who understood their circumstances.
11.26 For many farmers destocking was interpreted as a sense of personal failure:18If the farmers feel that something is going wrong with their farms they take it as a personal weakness or failure rather than a result of the rain stopping or something else happening . They tend to take it in a very personal way.
11.27 This sense of failure was often related to the heritage of their farming properties:
It was the hardest thing to watch ... after having driven the family's wealth from early in the 1930s.
11.28 As a consequence of the personal stigma and potential feelings of failure, many farmers identified the loss of self-worth or self-esteem that they felt:19It was very difficult for me having my menfolk so upset by the forced program. Can you imagine what it was like for a man who had won so many awards and was so proud of his stock to ride around in the paddocks saying "and they want to chop off their heads" as he looked around the property?
11.29 Many respondents spoke angrily of their lack of confidence in the Program, which they perceive to have impacted so severely on their lives.20 One commented:
I feel the whole program was very like a brain surgeon operating with an axe, with little chance of success and a lot of trauma to the patient
11.30 Individuals spoke repeatedly of their perceptions of the lack of scientific support for the Program:21This whole game is just a pathetic witch-hunt ... The whole testing scheme is a waste of time; the testing is inaccurate; the results are poor; the restocking program allows for OJD to be reintroduced ... and to top it all off, the so-called condemned meats go for consumption to the same place anyway.
11.31 Farmers are blaming `bad science', neighbours, the Department of Natural Resources and Environment, the Victorian Farmers Federation and themselves for the hardship caused by OJD. One farmer, who volunteered to have a sheep tested, told the Committee:
If I had not volunteered that sheep [identified as infected in January 1996] ... [my neighbour] would still have his sheep. I would still have mine and my two other neighbours would still have theirs.22Uncertainty and Anxiety
11.32 Uncertainty about the disease, uncertainty about diagnosis and uncertainty about the future are all factors that make OJD distressing. One witness described it as "living on the knife's edge". The situation is particularly difficult for those under suspicion and surveillance. It is also stressful for those restocking. 23 Farmers fear that:
If we missed the signs of OJD the first time, how can we guarantee that we will not miss them again and start the whole cycle all over?
11.33 As Mr J. Moloney, Office of Rural Affairs, explained:
With a flood or a drought there may be a better chance to recover in that you know that one day it will rain again or it will stop raining, so there is a better chance of thinking about options. Dealing with Johne's [is] ... different in that people do not know what their future will be.24Most recently, the loss of the `safety net' of compensation, while testing and quarantine continues, has made farmers increasingly fearful for the future. As one farmer said:
What if we came up with a positive test now? There is no safety net of compensation today as there was when we first became involved.25Sense of Isolation
11.34 Feelings of diminished self-esteem, sense of failure and personal stigma were further highlighted by the intense isolation that farmers experienced.26 This isolation seemed to result from both the absence of a structured support program and because a personal sense of pride limits the willingness of rural people to seek support:
People in rural areas are not the kind of people who knock on the doors of community service agencies and ask for counselling and support and they find it very difficult to admit that need.
11.35 A difficulty for many who are coping with the consequences of the Victorian OJD Control Program is that they see it as unjust. People who have worked hard all their lives to produce something worth while - a good farm and quality sheep - feel that they are being deprived of these things for benefits that are not evident, at the order of people who they believe cannot be held accountable. One farmer asked:
Do you think it is fair that people who are content and happy in what they are doing, not earning a lot of money but having enough to live comfortably and looking forward to ... semi-retirement, can be told overnight by authorities to sell or kill their sheep and not to trade for at least two summers when, after inspection, they may be allowed to start over again? Is it fair if, in the ensuing week, the Department decides to change its policy and allows people to retain their sheep but does not worry about us or the other 33 families forced to stop and face a future that is completely unsure?
11.36 An important factor that influenced the impact of OJD on many farmers was that this was one more problem after many;27for some `the last straw':
Imagine the conditions of trying to farm in our district over the past four or five years in the worst droughts and floods we have ever had, and every year not knowing whether you are going to be in business or not the next year. It is a horrendous responsibility placed upon farmers. You have to battle with OJD, drought, floods, low wool prices and death.
11.37 The hearing process did not provide any detailed insight into the impact of the Program on families, but Hood and Seedsman found indications of this disruption:28The economic and social effects of OJD cannot be measured but we see families splitting up, people not allowed on their properties for fear of spreading OJD, attempted suicides, children singled out at school and families having uncertain futures.
11.38 Much of the impact of issues described above resulted from how the Victorian OJD Control Program was delivered.29 Many producers indicated that it was not so much the eradication strategy, but the way it was delivered that created their problem:
We have no problem with eradicating the disease but object strongly to the way it was being done.
11.39 The Committee notes that many of these difficulties were most severe in the first year of the Program and were not experienced by all farmers or in all districts.
11.40 Once targeted for destocking, farmers reported a perception of an authoritarian and inflexible implementation policy over which they had no control:
We were informed by telephone that OJD had been found and that destocking papers we had to sign would be posted to us that day.
11.41 The perception of control exercised by the Department and Natural Resources and Environment is described by one participant, who suggests that "the DNRE ... acts as accuser, prosecutor, jury and judge."
11.42 The strict nature of the Program, in addition to diminishing any sense of control for individuals was seen to pressure individuals into action. This pressure was described in many transcripts as a cause of lasting social and economic disadvantages.
11.43 The haste with which some of the first farmers involved were required to destock led to much of the resentment towards the Victorian OJD Control Program and the Department of Natural Resources and Environment. It was this early approach that was responsible for some farmers being forced to kill their own sheep and lambs.
11.44 Another farmer described the distress caused by the apparent lack of consideration and inconsistency displayed by Departmental staff:
Some 150 Angora goats were taken, without agreement, from my property ... They were slaughtered at a knackery on 11 November. It took me until 5 February the next year to get a report on those animals.
We were told that under no circumstances could we have a hoof on our land after 15 December 1997 until 1 March 1999. [We] have since been told we can run agistment stock through the winter for four to six months ... What hurts [most] is that ... we were not informed of all available options before we destocked. It would have been less stressful and confusing if they had [provided] concrete options instead of changing their minds all the time.
11.45 Evidence of farmers who spoke at the hearings suggest that many saw very little acknowledgement from the Program managers of the impact of decisions on their lives. Experiences, and consequently the people themselves, were felt to be significantly devalued:
I addressed the Department on this [confusion over a testing result] ... She would not address the situation and then left. She said it was not really important. I said it was my livelihood we are dealing with here.
11.46 This sense of devaluing was exacerbated by the perceived absence of both social and structural support during the process:
Perhaps most important of all, there was no meaningful social support provided to affected farm families and communities. The information flow was inadequate, contradictory, and changed over time.
11.47 Similarly, another farmer commented:
We have had a program in place for the past four years whereby the Department comes in and cuts the ground right out from under your feet - bang, just like that - and there is no social support ... There was no support from the Government.
11.48 Other aspects of program delivery that have exacerbated, or even been the main cause of, the distress experienced by farmers have included delays in returning test results, the appearance that testing was undertaken in an inconsistent and erratic manner and inadequate provision of information.30Some people found Departmental field staff very helpful. Many of the difficulties with delivery appear to have been beyond their control, particularly given the haste of the initial destocking and lack of additional resources for the Department to implement the Victorian OJD Control Program. 31Strength in Face of Distress
11.49 The Committee observed that many farmers and their families were showing remarkable strength in face of the distressing experiences associated with OJD. Evidence of this was their support for each other, their continuing efforts to manage successful farms, and their ability to speak publicly about their experiences.
Finding 11.1
Farmers affected by OJD are experiencing many forms of adverse social impacts. These have several causes - the disease itself, the Victorian OJD Control Program, the way the Program has been delivered and existing stresses in some districts.
11.50 According to figures provided by the East Gippsland Council, farmers make up only about 17per cent of rural communities, even where towns are small. However, farming is still a key driving force in these communities. As a result, people other than farmers have been affected by OJD.32 The hostility and suspicion to which some farmers were subjected because of OJD has impacted on other community members and their families.33 The Committee was given anecdotal evidence of children being harassed at school because their parents' sheep had OJD.34Mr N. Thurbon, Counsellor-Social Worker, Omeo District Hospital, said:
The large number of my cases have been about depression and anxiety for the future. It does not only concern farmers; it concerns other business people in the community. As you would appreciate, anxiety in families reaches down to the children, which in turn reaches out into the schools.35Mr Thurbon does not attribute all these problems to OJD, but considers that it is a contributing factor.
11.51 Mr S. Beechey, Shearing Industry Co-ordinator, Australian Workers' Union, similarly considered that the impacts of the Victorian OJD Control Policy have reinforced other problems faced by rural employees, particularly their sense of isolation and insignificance to the policy maker. He told the Committee:
In one month - June 1998 - the superannuation fund that handles employer contributions ... had to cope with no fewer than 162 suicides ... What does this have to do with OJD? I think it demonstrates the difficulty and desperation being felt by these rural folk and their families. Farmers, small business operators and workers in small communities have always thought no one cares about their troubles. OJD is just another hurdle in life that these people have had to jump, on their own.36DNRE and Other Government Staff
11.52 As described in the chapter on program delivery, staff of the Department of Natural Resources and Environment were required to implement the Victorian OJD Control Program without any additional resources. This no doubt contributed to the impact of the Program on staff members. It was not the only factor, however. According to Mr J. Moloney:
It [the outbreak of OJD] has ... been a stressful period for staff of various agencies, such as rural counsellors, DNRE, Centrelink and the Rural Finance Corporation, in assisting families to best manage their situations. Some have borne the brunt of the devastation the [farming] families have experienced. That has been exacerbated by the fact that staff and their families often reside in the same community as those in which families who have been impacted by OJD.37The effects of the Program on Departmental staff is best described by the field staff, who provided the following summary:
The enormity of the responsibility for delivering bad news and terminating farm enterprises, many of which have existed for generations, has had an effect.
Another issue was the shared trauma and emotional pain of implementing policy, of repeatedly observing the effects such as anxiety, tears, depression, anger, the disruption of family and neighbourly relations, witnessing and/or conducting the mass destruction of lambs on some farms was an added stress. The program was of an extended duration, which has approached five years, and programs such as the control of anthrax or the eradication of avian influenza, by contrast, were completed within months. A major issue for staff was the loss of esteem and respect of farm families and communities. That extended in some cases to loss of professional relationships or personal friendships that had existed for decades. On occasions staff and their families were subjected to open hostility, vilification and abuse with [as public servants] no right of reply.
A further issue was a lack of public and open support for the program, the general level of hostility in the media against the DNRE and the program and a feeling that the program had lost legitimacy after compensation terminated on 8 November 1999. The fact that increasing numbers of producers refused to co-operate with the program compounded this feeling. Where staff felt unhelpful before the suspension of the program, they felt useless after it. Staff felt they were walking away from a problem, leaving farmers stranded.
With regard to workload issues, staff were working up to 80 per cent full time on OJD and were forced to neglect other duties, with a loss of balance in their working lives and a loss of satisfaction in their jobs.
I turn to psychological impacts. There has been no formal canvassing, apart from a few staff members who have related their personal circumstances. To my knowledge there has been no systematic seeking of information, but one staff member has related stress leading to insomnia and clinical depression, anger, reduced ability to function effectively, such as to organise workloads and manage the program. It has reduced that person's ability to communicate with colleagues. Others have reported gastrointestinal effects, feelings of frustration, uselessness and lack of hope for the future. The stress has resulted from the conflicting pressures of attempting to implement policy and at the same time minimise the damage to farm enterprises. Examples are the double fencing of long boundaries, avoiding boundary paddocks and not using public roadways. Being subjected to ridicule by producers for attempting to implement these policies compounded the feelings of inadequacy.
There was avoidance behaviour, such as delaying the transmission of bad news and hiding in supermarket aisles to avoid affected producers. There were feelings of powerlessness, being subjected to vilification, such as `DNRE bullies', `Nazis', `DNRE intimidators' and so on, with [as public servants] no right of reply.38Under `psychological impacts' I have also listed negative impacts on family units.
Under `community effects' I indicate there has been damage to and in some cases loss of professional relationships with farming clients. The damage is expected to be long term. There has been damage to personal relationships with farming clients, possibly permanent, reduced credibility and standing in the community, and concerns that the loss of credibility and standing will result in a long-term reduction in co-operation with DNRE in future animal health programs.
Under `on the job impacts' I have listed job avoidance. We have anecdotal reports that resignations by some staff were prompted by the stresses of implementing policy [supported by evidence from NSW Agriculture staff]. Staff have sought or are seeking other jobs within DNRE. Staff have taken or are planning to take long service leave. There has been reduced satisfaction in the job and poor morale.39The experience of Departmental field staff was less difficult in some other centres. Even so, the Committee was told that the additional workload and emotional stress took its toll. Mr K. Slatter, Rural Financial Counsellor in the Seymour region, told the Committee:
The efforts of NRE staff to support farmers in the Seymour region have put great strain on staff. There is little support for them, although a Uniting Church counsellor provides some assistance.40According to Dr B. Kefford, Executive Director Agriculture, Department of Natural Resources and Environment, the Department provides support for staff through a commercial company and this service is available to staff involved in the Victorian OJD Control Program.41Finding 11.2
The Victorian OJD Control Program has had negative social impacts on many people in rural communities apart from farmers. These people include rural employees and businesses in the regions and staff of the Department of Natural Resources and Environment.
11.53 The Committee's consultants, Dr Hood and Prof. Seedsman, examined the evidence from the Public Hearings in relation to one of the terms of reference of the inquiry - the impact of the Victorian OJD Control Program on individuals, rural communities and the sheep industry. They concluded that all three of these components have experienced significant psychological distress as a consequence of the Program.42They also concluded that the three components are enmeshed with each other. They consider that the interdependence of these components is critical in understanding the psychological impacts of the Program and determining the best ways to deal with these impacts.
11.54 Figure 11.1 illustrates the interdependence of the individual, community and industry.43Figure 11.1: Interdependence of social and mental health impacts caused by the Victorian OJD Control Program
Individual /family impact
Industry
Source: Hood and Seedsman (2000), p. 8.
11.55 This section will concentrate on psycho-sociological consequences of the Victorian OJD Control Program for individuals and families, but will place these within the context of the community and industry.
11.56 Hood and Seedsman concluded from evidence presented at the Public Hearings that the majority of farmers and communities that have been associated with OJD have experienced major trauma. This trauma has resulted from the impact of the Program on their individual and community lives.
11.57 For some individuals the effects of this experience can be understood within the framework of loss and grief. Emotions such as anger, denial, hostility and anxiety are all components of a loss and grief response.
11.58 As the Committee identified, individuals involved with the Victorian OJD Control Program have experienced many forms of loss. These individuals are now confronted by the task of managing the reality of that loss so that they can move on with their lives in a positive way.44The Nature of Loss, Bereavement and Grief
11.59 A summary is given in this, as well as the next section, of information provided by the consultants on the nature of grieving.
11.60 Grief is commonly thought of in terms of bereavement associated with death, but there are many other sorts of bereavement caused by other forms of loss:
It is also important to appreciate that health care [and other] professionals often fail to recognise that bereavement is an important manifestation of many personal losses other than those resulting from death.45
11.61 Bereavement is something that happens to a person and is essentially an event over which a person has no choice.46 Any understanding of grief must allow for abstract, as well as tangible, loss, including loss of control, self-esteem, image and independence. Grief has the potential to affect an individual's total functioning - physical, social, cognitive, emotional, behavioural and spiritual.47At the same time, Hood and Seedsman consider that it is imperative for grief to be accepted as a natural emotion and not a disease.48 They quote the great German psychologist Frankl, who described the human dilemma that "to live is to suffer, to survive is to find meaning in the suffering".49Grief is shaped by the social setting in which it occurs.50 In other words, an individual experiencing loss is also surrounded by, and interacting with, others who have their own feelings and responses to the loss in question. The family and the community are inextricably linked with the individual in how loss is experienced and runs its course.
11.62 Hood and Seedsman describe experiences and behaviour that often occurs with `normal grieving'. These are summarised in Table 11.1.
11.63 They concluded that the evidence presented at the Public Hearings provided examples of these normal reactions to loss. Sorrow and grief experienced by farmers were clearly evident. Mature men and women, who have lived for months, or even years, with OJD and its consequences, were still suffering the pain of loss. Several, struggling against their emotions to tell the Committee their stories, were not always able to contain their grief.
11.64 A number of people showed disbelief that OJD could cause serious losses or that it might prove possible to contain or eradicate it.51 Some have asserted as fact, without evidence, that OJD is widespread or easily managed.
11.65 The Committee saw considerable evidence of anger, mostly directed at employees of the Department of Natural Resources and Environment and the Pastoral Group of the Victorian Farmers Federation, and less frequently at other farmers.
11.66 The Committee was told that some farmers, while shocked and numbed by the loss of their flocks, had difficulty in making sound management decisions. According to these witnesses, at this stage farmers could make undesirable decisions if not provided with good support and advice.52One farmer referred to an almost overwhelming range of emotions:
Emotionally we are exhausted from the combination of the drought and OJD. Our emotions have covered the whole spectrum: anger ... sympathy ...victimised and discriminated against ... envy ... and finally, despair.
11.67 Hood and Seedsman emphasised that:
a) grieving processes are rather similar across people and across losses; but
b) each person is unique with regard to culture, social context and connections to what has been lost, so that everyone is limited in how much they can understand what another person is feeling.53
|
Emotional states |
Physical states |
|
· sadness · anger · guilt and self-reproach · anxiety · loneliness · fatigue · helplessness · shock · yearning · emancipation · relief · numbness |
· hollowness in the stomach · tightness in the chest · tightness in the throat · oversensitivity to noise · a sense of depersonalisation: `I walk down the street and nothing seems real, including myself.' · breathlessness, feeling short of breath · weakness in the muscles · lack of energy · dry mouth |
|
Cognitive states |
Behavioural reactions |
|
· disbelief · confusion · preoccupation · sense of presence · hallucinations |
· sleep disturbances · appetite disturbances · absent-minded behaviour · social withdrawal · crying · dreams of the past |
Source: Worden (1997), cited in Hood and Seedsman (2000), p. 20.
11.68 Some, though certainly not all individuals, have been able to move through the experience of OJD and re-establish their lives. For farmers, these are found particularly among those that have destocked and been able to restock. One farmer described several in her community who had succeeded in doing this:
We have found that most of the people in our neighbourhood have destocked. [Neighbours] have destocked; they spelled their place and put olive trees in, and they are back in sheep. [Another neighbour] had cattle for a while, but he is back in sheep. We are back in sheep.
11.69 Others have responded to the situation by examining their farm business and introduced what have proved to be beneficial innovations. Options available to individual farmers depend on the particular property, but farmers in Australia have a fine record of innovation in the face of change and adversity. The example above of introducing olives as a new enterprise is one such innovation. During its study tour of NSW the Committee saw an example of innovative management where a farmer had incorporated cropping and selection of a duel purpose wool-meat style of merino into his enterprise mix in order to maximise profits while minimising expression of OJD.54 Others have included placing increasing areas of land under crops and moving to a cattle enterprise at a time when markets favoured these changes.55
11.70 While some of the emotional effects of OJD and the Victorian OJD Control Program can be seen in terms of loss and normal grief, Hood and Seedsman consider that there is evidence of significant mental health issues for some individuals. These issues may be the result of unresolved grief or other impacts of OJD.
11.71 There were signs that, in the words of one witness:
Some farmers were not progressed from the first blame and anger phase of grief.
11.72 For some, who had been very badly affected, anger appears to have turned to bitterness.56Depression
11.73 Both farmers themselves and professionals working within their communities report experiences of depression.57 The drug Zoloft, mentioned in the following transcript, is prescribed as an antidepressant. The consultants concluded that this transcript might indicate the reluctance of some farmers to acknowledge that they were suffering from clinical depression.
At that stage I went to the doctor through lack of sleep and being terribly sick in the stomach and with nerves. He gave me sleeping tablets, which helped a bit. He also gave me - for want of the right word - anti-stress tablets called Zoloft. I think you are probably aware of what they are, and I did not start taking them. We agreed I should only take them if I really started to need them. I started after the vet had been to see me in March. It was very stressing. I still take them, and I will be taking them for quite some time.
11.74 Reports were given to the Committee of both suicidal thoughts and suicide actually occurring or being attempted. While OJD was not described as the sole cause, it was regarded as contributing to individuals' sense of hopelessness. A social worker dealing with the rural communities stated:
There have been at least four potential suicides; none was carried through. None was due directly to OJD, but three could almost certainly have been said to have been aggravated severely by OJD and its implications for future livelihoods.
11.75 A professional social worker identifies symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder in one client.58 These were the result of the farmer's experiences of slaughtering his stock. He can no longer return to the site where his sheep were killed:
I used to think of the killing fields. They were in Cambodia. I now know they are here. I can't go back into that paddock.
11.76 While no clinical symptoms are presented by the social worker, the diagnosis of post traumatic stress disorder is not inconsistent with this narrative.
Finding 11.3
Individual and family responses to the adverse social impacts of OJD show typical aspects of grieving, and support offered needs to take account of stages in the grieving process. While some have succeeded in resolving their sense of loss and grief, for others such issues are still unresolved.
Finding 11.4
Many farmers are showing remarkable resilience in face of the distressing experiences associated with OJD.
11.77 Some of the stories already described mentioned interactions between people - sometimes suspicion and resentment, at other times sympathy and support.
11.78 In some districts the Victorian OJD Control Program has caused social division. This has been, in part, because of different attitudes to destocking. As staff of the Department of Natural Resources and Environment said:
Those who had experienced clinical effects of the disease ... were more prepared than those who had not [to destock] because the latter group could not yet see the impact of the disease on the viability of their sheep enterprise. This led to affected producers having had two distinct but opposite views, each valid [for them].
11.79 The `culture of blame' described earlier as affecting individuals also has an impact on communities. It affects the trust and goodwill between people that has been shown to be particularly important to communities.59A paradox observed by the Committee was that several farmers experienced distressing expression of this blame at the hands of neighbours, yet still felt obliged to destock infected flocks to protect their neighbours.
11.80 Staff of the Department of Natural Resources and Environment have experienced considerable distress, both because of this culture of blame and as a response to the distress experienced by farmers. They report having lost their own sense of value to the community as professional workers.
11.81 Lack of, or inadequate, consultation with most of those affected, while a few were more thoroughly consulted, has added to this source of division.60Some farmers, for a variety of reasons, have tended to withdraw from their communities. A former Rural Financial Counsellor in central Victoria, described how:
A normally jovial friend of mine said it was embarrassing to go into town as people would take a wide berth around him as though he had the disease.61
11.82 Another farmer told the Committee how OJD had affected his friendships:
One of the worst things it has done is that on Thursday nights I used to go down to the little pub - that is virtually the last thing we have in the area [Ensay] - and there is a happy hour ... I do not even go there now because I find it too stressful.
11.83 Some simply cannot afford to be involved in the community because they have inadequate money to go to the pub, football club or other social activities.62One farmer summed up the effects of the Victorian OJD Control Program on his community, and the consequences of the loss of social cohesion:
With regard to the social impacts of the strategies implemented from December 1996 I can only say that there would be no other issue that has virtually destroyed the unity of our rural community [in East Gippsland]. Families have been shamed and farming groups and regions bitterly divided ... Without social cohesion communities become unworkable and fail.
11.84 However, the Committee still observed a great deal of sympathy and support between neighbours during its hearings and study tours in OJD-affected districts. According to a Kyneton farmer:
Within our own community everybody has been very supportive. I have not had a problem [with being `stigmatised'] but in other areas where a farmer is out on his own and [OJD] is unknown in the area it has been different.
11.85 According to Mr K. Slatter, Rural Financial Counsellor, friction between neighbours was a feature of the early stages of the Victorian OJD Program, when less was known about the disease and its distribution.63 This led to blame and aggression. These have not been in evidence in the last twelve months.
11.86 Good information and a realisation that OJD is a problem common to a number of people, appear to reduce adverse social impacts and may be encouraging the mutual support that has often been noted as one of the hallmarks of rural communities.
11.87 There are many factors currently affecting rural communities.64 These influence the impacts of OJD on these communities.
11.88 Some of these factors were described in Chapter 2.65 The last decades have seen continual and rapidly changing trading patterns and technology.66 The `cost-price squeeze' is falling somewhat harder on sheep farmers than on other primary producers. Some rural centres are experiencing falling property values, higher than average unemployment and declining populations. There is a general trend to an aging of rural communities. Reduction in the size of the farm population in turn affects the viability of businesses, educational institutions, community organisations and social amenities in small towns heavily dependent on servicing agriculture.67These trends vary considerably with region.68 The Committee was given to understand that much of central and western Victoria offers quite good employment prospects and the foundations of the local economies are diverse.69
11.89 However, East Gippsland, and to some extent southern Gippsland, have been experiencing particularly difficult times. There have been drought and floods in both regions during the last five years.70 Falling rural population and employment, local government amalgamations, recent closure of the Swifts Creek Timber Mill and few alternatives to traditional enterprises for farmers or other businesses have reduced the resilience of the inland communities and their capacity to cope with new challenges, including OJD.71
11.90 An interesting, and sometimes puzzling, aspect of small rural communities is why some appear to be failing while others, of the same size and with no obvious advantage, remain vibrant and strong. 72 The term `community resilience' has been coined to describe this phenomenon. It is the ability of community members to act together in the face of adversity and change so that community bonds are strengthened and become increasingly effective in mastering future challenges.73
11.91 Factors that contribute to resilient communities were identified in a study undertaken for the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC). 74 One that was found to be essential was what the researchers called `social capital'. This was defined as:
The networks, norms and trust which constitute the resources required for individuals, workplaces, groups, organisations and communities to strive for sustainable futures in a changing socio-economic environment. 75
11.92 The element of trust has been found to be particularly important in Australian communities.76 In the absence of trust, people are likely to follow strategies that limit the pooling of resources, instead promoting ways of acting that are damaging to social wellbeing. The need is to identify the conditions under which social capital, especially trust, can be nurtured and prevented from being lost.
11.93 Social capital also relates to social cohesion, which can be described loosely as the connectedness between people and the support they provide for each other. The absence of this is manifested in symptoms of stress and poor mental health. 77
11.94 The study indicated that there has been very little research done on ways to enhance social capital in Australia.78 Though there may be little formal research, experience appears to provide some useful lessons. One such lesson is that communities need to have the chance to be in control of their own destinies - that is, to have `ownership' of both the problem and the solution.79 They need to be participants in decisions and actions that affect them.
11.95 The researchers emphasised that, for a participatory approach to be successful, it is important to recognise the nature of the `local community'. A community cannot be treated as a homogenous unit. The diversity of interests and experience of the people who make up the community must be taken into account.80 Having heard the points of view of many sheep farmers from across Victoria, the Committee considers that this point might be extended to the concept of the `industry', a word that appears often to denote the total community of sheep farmers without attention to the differences between members of this community.
11.96 Though experience suggests that resilient communities are built from within, there is evidence that steps can be taken to encourage this building process.81 These are aimed at developing networks and helping communities to regain ownership of their circumstances. Service providers do not become redundant, but their roles are redefined from leadership to support and facilitation.82
11.97 The Committee examined two examples of what appear to be useful methods for building social capital. One demonstrates network building and group activity; the other relates to participation of communities in the process of making decisions that concern them - that is, effective consultation.
11.98 A report on workshops run for OJD-affected farmers in NSW suggests that these workshops have a social, as well as educational, function.83 Business Skills Workshops were set up by Livestock Officers in NSW to help OJD-affected farmers. These workshops are aimed at assisting farmers to identify their goals, work out how their businesses are going, compare the real-life circumstances of their farms with their goals and develop pathways to achieve goals. The focus is on the business aspects of farming. The workshops have much in common with the Victorian Farm$mart program, a joint initiative of the Department of Natural Resources and Environment and the Victorian Farmers Federation.84The workshops were flexible and driven by producers.85 The usual format had to be modified, as a great deal of time in the first session was taken up with farmers talking about their feelings of frustration, confusion, distrust and hopelessness. This was an opportunity for them to share their concerns and work through, with others, the new challenges posed by OJD. The role of the Livestock Officers was that of an understanding listener. The focus of subsequent sessions was on identifying those things over which farmers had some control. Examining individual circumstances in a group environment and an agenda set by the farmers offered a means of renewing and establishing networks, as well as restoring a sense of control.
11.99 Neighbourhood groups of affected producers have also been initiated or facilitated by Livestock Officers.86 These usually focus on farm production issues - how to manage OJD and sharing of information. Groups are initiated and supported by Livestock Officers, but driven by the farmers. In this situation the common concern with OJD can be a means of strengthening networks rather than division.
11.100 A development along this line has been recommended for Victoria by the East Gippsland Council:
We suggest an alternative model [to the current social support program] ... that farmers - both those affected and those under surveillance - be encouraged to form small local groups of 8 to 10 properties, with each group provided with a facilitator to help them work through the best ways of managing OJD-affected flocks in their area and implement those agreed strategies.87Community Participation in Decision Making
11.101 The Committee identified needs to repair the bridges of communication and trust between rural communities and government staff, as well as to promote community resilience. This inquiry has provided several opportunities for consultation. However, additional consultation may be required in the future - particularly after the completion of the National OJD Program or in relation to more detailed aspects of implementation.
11.102 A process known as Social Impact Assessment is sometimes used to assess the likely effects on communities of new developments or changes in policy.88 It relies on considerable participation in the process of decision making by the communities concerned.89 Some of the methods used are not unlike the processes used by the Committee to gather evidence in this Inquiry. 90Increasingly the Social Impact Assessment process is being seen as a framework for empowering different groups within communities to participate in decision making.91 This, or similar consultative processes, could be used to return a sense of control over their lives to rural communities and to open up channels of communication and reconciliation.
Finding 11.5
Social impacts of OJD on rural communities in the main have been adverse, but are influenced by many factors, including other changes and difficulties being faced by these communities. The Committee appreciates that loss of reputation and social standing is especially hard to cope with in small communities.
11.103 Support for farming families has been variable. During the early stages of the Victorian OJD Control Program it appears to have been inadequate to absent. Staff of the Department of Natural Resources and Environment provided contact details of Rural Financial Counsellors to OJD-affected farmers, but the Committee found no evidence of any social or emotional support being offered.92 One farmer stated that:
I asked the DNRE, Bendigo branch, what backup resources it had for myself emotionally, physically and financially. It answered `None' and stated that it was my problem.
11.104 Another farmer described anger towards both the Victorian Farmers Federation and the Department of Natural Resources and Environment for lack of support provided to affected farmers, particularly early in the Victorian OJD Control Program:
People are extremely emotional about how they have been treated by the Department of Natural Resources and Environment, having no support, and no support being available from the Victorian Farmers Federation.
11.105 Others praised the support they personally had received from Departmental staff, even if recognising that support had sometimes been less than adequate to others.93 One farmer commented:
I cannot fault the Department people, because any time we wanted to know things we would ring them.
11.106 Farmers have also tapped support, particularly for farm management advice, from Rural Financial Counsellors and a number of private counselling services. 94 These services have provided social support in addition to purely financial counselling.
11.107 Individuals who feel in need of social support most commonly find this through informal and traditional networks of family, friends, neighbours, the church or the local hotel.95 These sources of support have not always proved adequate in the face of the distress caused by OJD.96According to Mr D. O'Brien, Team Leader, Community Connections, someone from within the community is not always the best person to offer counselling on personal matters.97 On the other hand former Community Development Officer employed after the floods in East Gippsland found it to be an advantage to be a local person known and trusted in the community.98 Perhaps an important characteristic of a counsellor is that he or she should be regarded as unbiased, discrete and familiar with local issues, whether local or from another district.
11.108 The support services that are now available for farmers affected by OJD have been described in earlier chapters. The Committee will consider the main ones below in relation to their usefulness in dealing with social issues.
11.109 The primary self-help group for OJD-affected farmers is the OJD Action Group. This has provided a much-needed support network for these farmers. The Group has identified a number of issues for both the Government and the Victorian Farmers Federation to address.99 The Group produced its first Newsletter in March 1998, with informative articles and support provided by the Department of Natural Resources and Environment. It has continued to provide information through its network since that time.
11.110 Other informal networks have also developed. In the Seymour region there is a good local support network for those affected by OJD.100Self-help groups and informal support networks can be very effective, although they may not be so useful where there are isolated outbreaks of OJD.101 They can be facilitated, but the view was expressed to the Committee that they are best not formalised, as this could damage the processes that produce and sustain them.102Rural Women's Network
11.111 The Rural Women's Network does not deal specifically with farmers affected by OJD, but could provide a service to women in this situation. The Network is facilitated by the Department of Natural Resources and Environment. It is not an organisation, but is a communication network, which uses a mailing list and newsletters to provide an opportunity for exchange of information, ideas and resources.103 The distribution list of the Network was approximately 20,000 at the end of 1997.
11.112 Emotional and financial counselling are often sought first by women and so there can be a case for tailoring some services to women.104 The Rural Women's Network provides one step in that direction.
11.113 Furthermore, Community Development Officers in East Gippsland found that women often neglect their own welfare during difficult times, while they concentrate their efforts on the care of their families.105 According to one of these officers the extra needs of rural women in times of stress may be overlooked when they may need particular support.
11.114 Four Community Development Officers, employed for a twelve months period after the Gippsland floods in June 1998, dealt with many issues, including OJD.106 Community development was recognised as being an important tool to assist local people to move on from the devastation caused by the floods.107 These officers were also aware that the impacts of the floods were part of a wider context of challenges faced by farmers in East Gippsland, including OJD.
11.115 Mr Laurie Hiscock, who was employed during January 2000 by the Pastoral Group of the Victorian Farmers Federation to examine social issues relating to OJD, was formerly a Community Development Officer. Mr Hiscock contacted more than 70 OJD-affected farmers, including members and non-members of the Federation.108 He took the initiative in approaching farmers, rather than waiting for them to contact him. He sought information on social supports desired by farmers and also offered support and counselling. His efforts have been praised, particularly because he went to the farmers and spoke with them on their properties.109
11.116 It is interesting to the Committee that Mr Hiscock had no difficulty in identifying OJD-affected farmers, in spite of the confidentiality provision that forbids Departmental staff from providing names. This restriction has prevented the Government-employed company, Community Connections, from using a proactive approach. It seems to be a minor restriction to a person who, as is the case with Mr Hiscock, is well known in rural areas.
11.117 The Rural Financial Counselling Service offers free and confidential counselling on request. It tends to provide crisis counselling, as that is when services are sought - usually when there is a cash-flow problem.110 Increasingly some farmers are seeking its services before a crisis is reached. As indicated above, staff of the Department of Natural Resources and Environment give Rural Financial Counsellors' contact details to farmers when they are told that their flocks have OJD. This may encourage these farmers to seek advice from the Service.
11.118 Though the function of the Service is primarily to give farm business advice, it also has an important general counselling role. This may be partly because farmers have found themselves with little other option for counselling. It may also be because dealing with financial difficulties relieves the farmers of one of their sources of stress and anxiety.111
11.119 The Committee described in an earlier chapter the social support network that is being co-ordinated by Community Connections. As that chapter indicated, Community Connections was contracted by the Office of Rural Affairs (now Office of Rural Communities) to provide a counselling service to OJD-affected farmers across Victoria. Farmers initiate contact by telephone. The initial contact may be followed up by other service providers in the district in which the farmer lives.
11.120 The East Gippsland Council felt that the approach adopted under the Community Connections contract is less than ideal for farmers. In its evidence to the Committee the Council said:
While we are pleased to see that there is an attempt to provide some social support, we do not feel it has been structured in a way that is best suited to its target group ... Support has to be presented in a way that is acceptable to [rural people] and perhaps packaged up with other kinds of useful and practical information.112Uptake of the assistance offered by Community Connections has been low, which supports the comments made by the Council. Another possible reason for the low uptake of this support offer may be that it is seen to be associated with government. According to Mr D. O'Brien, Team Leader, Community Connections:
Once a farmer's property is identified, the farmer feels singled out ... Therefore people are trying to remain ... anonymous because, again, the implication is that if the guy in the middle has been diagnosed with OJD on his property, everybody else around him will obviously share the impact.113Mr O'Brien told the Committee that he considers there needs to be a provision for counsellors to take the initiative in approaching farmers, a view that is supported by the NSW Agriculture approach discussed below.
11.121 The Department of Natural Resources and Environment prepared an information pamphlet that was released early in 2000. This provides contact details of both federal and State support services, as well as Community Connections. Some financial concessions are provided for access to Farm$mart courses, preparation of farm business plans and access to loan subsidies.
11.122 The Committee was not able to obtain information on how useful the pamphlet has been to farmers. Mr O'Brien from Community Connections considers that the pamphlet, though informative, is probably not well laid out for farmers who have just been informed of a positive diagnosis.114 At this stage he feels information in a simpler format would be more helpful.
11.123 Staff of NSW Agriculture explained its approach to the Committee during the latter's study tour of NSW. Effort is made to address the social needs of OJD-affected farmers as part of an integrated approach to their support.
11.124 After infection has been diagnosed in a flock, a District Veterinarian makes the first contact with the farmer concerned.115 This officer is employed by the Rural Lands Protection Board. An offer of help and support is made immediately, but not pressed. Several days later a second contact is made, with a more precise offer of help to work through plans for the future. At this stage an experienced farm business counsellor (livestock officer) is also involved. This counsellor is experienced in assisting farmers to work out their own plans.
11.125 Contacts are timed to take account of the shock of the diagnosis without leaving the farmer too long unsupported.116 Effort is made to ensure that the farmer retains control over any plans for the future, while having the security of good information and advice when required.
11.126 Mr J. Moloney, Office of Rural Communities, has supported such a holistic approach. He told the Committee:
There is strong merit in implementing a holistic approach to the future program, taking into account the socio-economic impacts on families ... The ideal would be having one person for each family to manage the situation. They would have to have good communication and listening skills and be aware of the broader services that are available for families to access. Families may feel more comfortable if they had someone managing their situation on a one-on-one basis.117Finding 11.6
Past provisions of social support for individuals and communities impacted by the Victorian OJD Control Program have been much less than required, dependent very largely on self-help, and almost totally absent for any individuals other than farmers. Recently developed support provisions have gone only part of the way to remedying these deficiencies.
11.127 Hood and Seedsman emphasise that any support programs offered to farmers or other rural people need to take account of the grieving process and the need to work through grief to a successful resolution.118 Helping people to achieve this resolution requires skill and understanding. It also involves appreciating that `working through' grief involves pain.119
11.128 Programs and individuals who offer support need to allow for the attitudes and social circumstances of farmers and other rural people. Farmers have been described as proud and stoical, unwilling to accept help unless desperate.120 This may be only part of the reason why rural people can be reluctant to seek help. There may also be embarrassment. It is very difficult to do anything without neighbours and friends knowing about it in small communities. One counsellor commented that no one wants his car to be seen outside the Rural Financial Counsellor's Office.121
11.129 Some people are frightened of breaking down in the presence of strangers.122 It is therefore not surprising that people build defences in order to present a stoic acceptance of the circumstances surrounding their experience of loss. People will only feel safe to `let go' if they do not feel threatened by the `facilitating environment'. In other words, people must feel safe and confident that others will support them should they lose control.
11.130 Given that Departmental staff will inevitably be involved with OJD-affected farmers, one action to address social impacts of OJD that has been recommended by several people is ensuring that staff are suitably trained.123
11.131 Other proposals that would influence the social impacts of OJD and any control program, particularly those relating to program delivery, have been discussed in earlier chapters. On the basis of these, actions or approaches that might mitigate adverse social impacts of an OJD control program are summarised in Table 11.2.
|
Impact |
Action or approach |
|
Loss from the disease itself |
Good information; grief counselling; neighbourhood group development. |
|
Loss of healthy sheep |
Maximising control options; grief counselling; good information; sensitive program delivery. |
|
Loss of identity |
Farmer involvement in decision making; neighbourhood group development; assistance to return to desired enterprise. |
|
Financial loss |
Financial support to address problems of cash flow; personal and group financial counselling; maximisation of choice. |
|
Loss of reputation |
Farmer involvement in decision making; good and widely distributed information; assistance with maintaining genetic resource; emphasis on the benefit provided to the wider industry by those controlling OJD. |
|
Loss of control |
Farmer involvement in decision making; neighbourhood group development; sensitive program delivery. |
|
Loss of dignity |
Sensitive program delivery; sufficient appropriately trained staff resources to ensure good program delivery. |
|
Vicarious loss |
Sensitive program delivery; neighbourhood group development. |
|
Uncertainty and anxiety |
Good information; financial counselling; farmer involvement in decision making; assistance with obtaining `clean' stock; provision of financial safety nets, including compensation. |
|
A sense of injustice |
Good information; sensitive delivery; emphasis on the benefit provided to the wider industry by those controlling OJD; financial safety nets. |
|
Impacts on people in the community other than farmers |
Investigate circumstances of other community members and find out what they need and want; involvement of community members in decision making; overt recognition of these people and their needs. |
|
Impact on Departmental staff |
Counselling and support services; farmer involvement in decision making; adequate resources and training. |
|
Impacts on community wellbeing |
Neighbourhood group development; additional group enhancement activities; consultation and involvement of communities in decision making; support through facilitation and information. |
Finding 11.7
Provision of appropriate and skilled social support and financial counselling to individuals and families at an early stage, and efforts to strengthen community interaction and participation in decision making are actions that are likely to reduce adverse social impacts of OJD control programs on individuals and communities. This provision will include ensuring appropriate training for staff of the Department of Natural Resources and Environment.
1 Hood and Seedsman (2000).
2 Ross (undated), p. 16.
3 Ross (undated), p. 2.
4 Black, Duff, Saggers, Baines, Jennings and Bowen (2000).
5 Black Duff, Saggers, Baines, Jennings and Bowen. (2000), p. 125.
6 Maguire (1999a).
7 Hood and Seedsman (2000), p. 12.
8 Hood and Seedsman (2000). p. 13.
9 Newcomen, E. (2000), Minutes of Evidence, 17 May 2000.
10 Newcomen, E. (2000), Minutes of Evidence, 17 May 2000; and also Hides, S. (2000), Senior Veterinary Officer, Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Minutes of Evidence, 7 August 2000.
11 Social psychology theory identifies aspects of different life stages. In their sixties and seventies most people wish for relief from striving to establish or advance themselves, with time to review and assess their lives; Saxon, R. (2000), aged care social worker, personal communication, 14 September 2000.
12 Hood and Seedsman (2000), p. 13.
13 Ryan, G. (2000), Minutes of Evidence, 14 June 2000.
14 Black, Duff, Saggers, Baines, Jennings and Bowen. (2000), p. 38.
15 Thurbon, N. (2000), Counsellor-Social Worker, Omeo District Hospital, 18 May 2000.
16 Tobin, R. (2000), Minutes of Evidence, 21 June 2000.
17 Duff, Saggers, Baines, Jennings and Bowen (2000), p. 37.
18 Hood and Seedsman (2000), p. 14.
19 Hood and Seedsman (2000), p. 14.
20 Hood and Seedsman (2000), p. 10.
21 Hood and Seedsman (2000), p. 10.
22 Scanlon, P. (2000), Minutes of Evidence, 14 June 2000.
23 Tehan, J. (2000), Strathbogie Branch, Victorian Farmers Federation, Written Submissions, OJD 043.
24 Moloney, J. P. (2000), Office of Rural Communities, Minutes of Evidence, 7 August 2000.
25 Calvert, D. (2000), Minutes of Evidence, 21 June 2000.
26 Hood and Seedsman (2000), 15.
27 Martin, H. (2000), Director, East Gippsland Shire Council, briefing, 17 July 2000.
28 Hood and Seedsman (2000), p. 15.
29 Hood and Seedsman (2000), p. 11.
30 Bowman, H. E. (2000), Minutes of Evidence, 18 May 2000; and also Best, D. (2000), Written Submissions, OJD 017 and Manning, R. L. (2000), Minutes of Evidence, 10 July 2000.
31 Sievers, J. (2000), Minutes of Evidence, 14 June 2000.
32 Martin, H. (2000), Director, East Gippsland Shire Council, briefing, 17 July 2000.
33 Martin, H. (2000), Director, East Gippsland Shire Council, Minutes of Evidence, 18 May 2000.
34 Anderson, P. (2000), Minutes of Evidence, 14 June 2000.
35 Thurbon, N. (2000), Counsellor-Social Worker, Omeo District Hospital, 18 May 2000.
36 Beechey, S. (2000), Shearing Industry Co-ordinator for Victoria, Australian Workers' Union, Minutes of Evidence, 18 May 2000.
37 Moloney,J. P. (2000), Office of Rural Communities, Minutes of Evidence, 7 August 2000.
38 Button, C. (2000), Veterinary Officer, Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Minutes of Evidence, 7 August 2000.
39 Button, C. (2000), Veterinary Officer, Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Minutes of Evidence, 7 August 2000.
40 Slatter, K. (2000), Rural Financial Counsellor, personal communication, 13 June 2000.
41 Kefford, B. (2000), Executive Director, Agriculture, Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Minutes of Evidence, 7 August 2000.
42 Hood and Seedsman (2000), p. 8.
43 Hood and Seedsman (2000), p. 8.
44 Hood and Seedsman (2000), p. 18.
45 Hood and Seedsman (2000), pp. 2-3.
46 Hood and Seedsman (2000), p. 3.
47 Rodgers and Cowles (1991), p. 449, cited in Hood and Seedsman (2000), p. 3.
48 Hood and Seedsman (2000), p. 5.
49 Frankl, V. (1984), p. 9, cited in Hood and Seedsman (2000), p. 6.
50 Hood and Seedsman (2000), p. 3.
51 Sievers, J. (2000), Minutes of Evidence, 14 June 2000.
52 Hall, J. (2000), Minutes of Evidence, 10 July 2000; and also Evers, M. (2000), OJD Policy Development Officer, NSW Agriculture, personal communication, 3 July 2000.
53 Rosenblatt (1988), p.76, quoted in Hood and Seedsman (2000), p. 20.
54 Morrison, A. (2000), farmer, personal communication, 4 July 2000.
55 Sackett and Holmes (1997).
56 Slatter, K. (2000), Rural Financial Counsellor, personal communication, 13 June 2000.
57 Hood and Seedsman (2000), pp. 18-19.
58 Thurbon, N. (2000), Counsellor-Social Worker, Omeo District Hospital, 18 May 2000.
59 Black, Duff, Saggers, Baines, Jennings and Bowen. (2000), p. 66.
60 Bowman, H. E. (2000), Minutes of Evidence, 18 May 2000.
61 Marriott, J. (2000), Rural Financial Consultant, Minutes of Evidence, 7 August 2000.
62 Lawrence, J. (2000), Kilmany Community and Family Services. briefing, 17 May 2000.
63 Slatter, K. (2000), Rural Financial Counsellor, personal communication, 13 June 2000.
64 Thurbon, N. (2000), Counsellor-Social Worker, Omeo District Hospital, 18 May 2000.
65 Egan and Malcolm (2000).
66 Black, Duff, Saggers, Baines, Jennings and Bowen (2000), p. 35.
67 Black, Duff, Saggers, Baines, Jennings and Bowen. (2000), p. 35.
68 Black, Duff, Saggers, Baines, Jennings and Bowen. (2000), p. 55.
69 Slatter, K. (2000), Rural Financial Counsellor, personal communication, 13 June 2000; and also Marriott, J. (2000), Rural Financial Consultant, personal communication, 14 June 2000.
70 Mildenhall, J. (2000), Minutes of Evidence, 18 May 2000.
71 Martin, H. (2000), Director, East Gippsland Shire Council, briefing, 17 July 2000; and also Angus, S. (2000), Community Development Officer, East Gippsland, Written Submissions, OJD 128.
72 Black, Duff, Saggers, Baines, Jennings and Bowen. (2000), p. 66.
73 Stehlik (1999).
74 Black, Duff, Saggers, Baines, Jennings and Bowen. (2000), pp. 65-66.
75 Black, Duff, Saggers, Baines, Jennings and Bowen. (2000), p. 65.
76 Black, Duff, Saggers, Baines, Jennings and Bowen. (2000), p. 66.
77 Wall (1998) cited in Black, Duff, Saggers, Baines, Jennings and Bowen. (2000), p. 66.
78 Wall (1998) cited in Black, Duff, Saggers, Baines, Jennings and Bowen. (2000), p. 66.
79 Marsh and Pannell (1998), p. 148, cited in Black, Duff, Saggers, Baines, Jennings and Bowen. (2000), p. 66.
80 Black, Duff, Saggers, Baines, Jennings and Bowen. (2000), p. 31.
81 Kenyon (2000); and also Stehlik (1999).
82 Stehlik (1999).
83 Maguire (1999b).
84 Department of Natural Resources and Environment (1998d).
85 Maguire (1999b).
86 Maguire (1999b).
87 Martin, H. (2000), Director, East Gippsland Shire Council, Minutes of Evidence, 18 May 2000.
88 Burdges (1995), p. 33.
89 Black, Duff, Saggers, Baines, Jennings and Bowen. (2000), p. 68.
90 Burdges (1995), and also Black, Duff, Saggers, Baines, Jennings and Bowen. (2000), pp. 69-70.
91 Craig (1991) and Dale and Lane (1994), cited in Black, Duff, Saggers, Baines, Jennings and Bowen. (2000), p. 69.
92 Galvin, J. (2000), Manager, Animal Health Operations, Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Minutes of Evidence, 7 August 2000.
93 Fox, A. (2000), Minutes of Evidence, 21 July 2000; and also Webb Ware, D. (2000), personal communication, 13 June 2000.
94 Webb Ware, D. (2000), personal communication, 13 June 2000.
95 Lawrence, J. (2000), Kilmany Community and Family Services, briefing, 17 May 2000.
96 Kefford, B. (2000), Executive Director, Agriculture, Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Minutes of Evidence, 7 August 2000.
97 O'Brien, D. (2000), Team Leader, Community Connections, Minutes of Evidence, 4 June 2000.
98 Angus, S. (2000), Community Development Officer, East Gippsland, Written Submissions, OJD, OJD 128.
99 Marriott, J. (2000), Rural Financial Consultant, Minutes of Evidence, 7 August 2000.
100 Slatter, K. (2000), Rural Financial Counsellor, personal communication, 13 June 2000.
101 Slatter, K. (2000), Rural Financial Counsellor, personal communication, 13 June 2000.
102 Slatter, K. (2000), Rural Financial Counsellor, personal communication, 13 June 2000.
103 Bennetton, Cashin, Georgalis, Strappazzon and White (1997).
104 Slatter, K. (2000), Rural Financial Counsellor, personal communication, 13 June 2000.
105 Angus, S. (2000), Community Development Officer, East Gippsland, Written Submissions, OJD, OJD 128.
106 Martin, H. (2000), Director, East Gippsland Shire Council, briefing, 17 July 2000.
107 Angus, S. (2000), Community Development Officer, East Gippsland, Written Submissions, OJD, OJD 128.
108 Bray, W. S. (2000), President, Pastoral Group, Victorian Farmers Federation, Minutes of Evidence, 24 July 2000.
109 Partridge, R. (2000), President, Glenorchy-Stawell Branch, Victorian Farmers Federation, Minutes of Evidence, 21 June 2000.
110 Slatter, K. (2000), Rural Financial Counsellor, personal communication, 13 June 2000; and also McPhan, B. (2000), Rural Counselling Service, personal communication, 17 May 2000.
111 King, M. (2000), Minutes of Evidence, 14 June 2000.
112 Martin, H. (2000), Director, East Gippsland Shire Council, Minutes of Evidence, 18 May 2000.
113 O'Brien, D. (2000), Team Leader, Community Connections, Minutes of Evidence, 4 June 2000.
114 O'Brien, D. (2000), Team Leader, Community Connections, Minutes of Evidence, 4 June 2000.
115 Evers, M. (2000), OJD Policy Development Officer, NSW Agriculture, personal communication, 3 July 2000.
116 Evers, M., OJD Policy Development Officer, NSW Agriculture, personal communication, 3 July 2000.
117 Moloney, J. P. (2000), Office of Rural Communities, Minutes of Evidence, 7 August 2000.
118 Hood and Seedsman (2000), p. 21.
119 Hood and Seedsman (2000), p. 21.
120 Partridge, R. (2000), President, Glenorchy-Stawell Branch, Victorian Farmers Federation, Minutes of Evidence, 21 June 2000; and also Lawrence, J. (2000), Kilmany Community and Family Services, briefing, 17 May 2000.
121 Hiscock, L. (2000), personal communication, 16 May 2000.
122 Hood and Seedsman (2000), p. 21.
123 For example, Marriott, J. (2000), Rural Financial Consultant, Minutes of Evidence, 7 August 2000.
