ARTICLE IN PRESS

0743-0167/$ - se

doi:10.1016/j.jru

$In this pap

used interchang

and other majo�CorrespondE-mail addr

Journal of Rural Studies 24 (2008) 351–366

www.elsevier.com/locate/jrurstud

Counter-geographies: The campaign against rationalisation ofagricultural research stations in New South Wales, Australia$

Chris Gibsona,�, Rae Duftyb, Samantha Phillipsc, Heather Smitha

aGeoQuest Research Centre, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Wollongong, Wollongong NSW 2522, AustraliabGeography & Planning, School of Behavioural, Cognitive & Social Sciences, University of New England, NSW, Australia

cSchool of Biology, Earth and Environmental Science, UNSW, Australia

Abstract

This paper discusses an example of community action mounted in a rural region of New South Wales, Australia, in response to

proposals by the State Government to rationalise agricultural research stations operated by the Department of Primary Industries.

Informed by a Foucaultian understanding of power and the concept of governmentality, neoliberalism is theorised as being the broad

governmental context in which rationalisation proposals were put forward. Recent literature drawing on this theoretical perspective has

emphasised that neoliberalism is enacted through a relationship of power, and is not monolithic or inevitable. Neoliberalism is always

negotiated by those seeking to govern and those who are the object of such governmental actions. This paper analyses how plans to

rationalise publicly funded agricultural research stations were opposed by those seeking to keep research facilities open in the case study

area. The paper discusses the methods and scope of community action and, drawing on interviews, identifies a series of discourses

articulated by campaigners. Non-local actors were depicted as uncaring and insensitive. In contrast, campaigners discussed the

emergence of a ‘city-country divide’ in domestic politics; the need for specialist agricultural knowledge given the region’s unique

geographical location; and local impacts of an economic, social and emotional nature. Central were discourses of maintaining

community, tradition, and continuity in unique local places defined by their climate, biophysical environment and economy. These were

‘counter-geographies’ that sought (successfully, it would transpire) to disrupt the state’s imagined geography of a homogenous and

flexible administrative space in which research services could be relocated wherever most efficient. Important too were embodied

resistances to the way rural industries and people were subjected. Campaigners refused to accept preferred codes of neoliberal behaviour

(particularly mobility and rationality) and instead demanded respect for their careers, families and communities. Important

considerations are suggested for further research on impacts and negotiations of neoliberalism. This study particularly highlights the

successes—as well as contradictions and limitations—of arguments that construct rural places as socialised, unique and unfairly treated

(by governments), in opposition to metropolitan dominance and ‘placeless’ neoliberalism.

r 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Neoliberalism; Counter-geographies; Community activism; Local politics; Agricultural research facilities; Northern Rivers region; New South

Wales; Australia

1. Introduction

This paper describes and analyses a campaign under-taken to prevent the closure of agricultural researchstations in rural New South Wales. The context for the

e front matter r 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

rstud.2007.12.011

er the terms ‘rural’, ‘regional’ and ‘non-metropolitan’ are

eably to refer to Australian locations outside capital cities

r urban centres (such as the Gold Coast and Newcastle).

ing author. Tel.: +612 4221 3448; fax: +612 4221 4250.

ess: cgibson@uow.edu.au (C. Gibson).

paper is the debate about the impacts of neoliberal policieson rural service provision. Much research has concerneditself with the ways in which neoliberalism has come toconstitute a dominant contemporary governmental ration-ality (Tonts and Jones, 1997; Dean, 1999; Peck and Tickell,2002; Argent, 2005). More recently, commentators haveargued for further research that details examples ofattempts to challenge or resist neoliberalism (Larner,2003), and more specifically, how such attempts might berealised in rural contexts (Naylor, 1994; McKenna, 2000;Herbert-Cheshire, 2003). Our article responds to this.

ARTICLE IN PRESSC. Gibson et al. / Journal of Rural Studies 24 (2008) 351–366352

It discusses the methods and scope of a communitycampaign and, drawing on interviews with key stake-holders, identifies a series of discourses articulated byactivists in reaction to proposed rationalisations. Centralto these discourses were affronts to the way the stateimagined geographical space, and resistances from activistsin reaction to the ways they were subjectified, as individualresearchers, farmers and citizens. We make a case forinterpreting resistances to neoliberalism not simply interms of factors that led to ‘success’ (or not), in terms of thepolitical goals of specific campaigns, but in terms of moreprofound renegotiations of space and identity. We beginour paper by reviewing work on rural governance, andmore specifically, how particular concepts of power informour work. Further sections discuss debates about theimpacts of neoliberalism in rural Australia (and resistancesto neoliberalism); an attempt by government to rationaliseresearch services in rural Australia, and the subsequentcampaign to resist rationalisation. Our conclusion rotatesaround observations from this campaign, and morebroadly the idea of ‘counter-geographies’ as a means tonegotiate or resist the exercise of governmental power.

2. Rural governance

In the last decade various authors have noted asignificant shift in the ways that rural communities aregoverned (Goodwin, 1998; Marsden and Murdoch, 1998;Murdoch and Abram, 1998; Woods, 1998, 2005; Woodsand Goodwin, 2003). Research has shifted from a focus onthe ‘impacts’ of government decisions on rural areas, tomore thorough theorisation of the ways that governingtakes place. Structuralist (e.g. neo-Gramscian and regula-tionist) and poststructuralist (e.g. Foucaultian, govern-mentality) approaches to understanding the governing ofrural communities often stem from similar impulses toidentify and analyse instances of injustice, yet they aredistinguished in how each understands the concept ofpower (Herbert-Cheshire, 2003). These differences areimportant and inform the approach taken here. Differencesin how power is conceptualised influence how relatedconcepts such as discourse and resistance are understood,as well as the role that space plays in governing processes.These latter concerns—about discourse, resistance, andspace—are at the heart of our paper.

Foucault (1980) understood power to be the exercise ofintentions and actions, existing within relationships, ratherthan as a ‘thing’, a resource or a capacity held and wieldedby the powerful over the powerless. Nor could power beremoved from the powerful and ‘redistributed’ moreequitably. Instead power was something that could notbe present unless both parties involved in such a relation-ship had the ‘freedom’ to act and react to the ‘exercise’ ofpower (Foucault, 1982). Only when power is beingexercised and actively resisted can it be said to ‘exist’. Inaddition to freedom being an essential ingredient to theexercise of power relations, knowledges and discourses

were also understood to be integral (Foucault, 1994a, b).Knowledges and discourses are not produced external topower relations but are integral in the exercise of power.Likewise, the exercise of power produces new knowledgesand discourses. This will be particularly relevant later inthis paper, when we come to discuss the manner in whichideas about agricultural research and knowledge produc-tion themselves become the subject of government policydiscourse. Agricultural research services were depicted in aparticular manner by governments seeking to exercisepower through rationalisation, and were re-cast in otherways by those seeking to resist such moves.Extending his theorisation of power, Foucault (1991)

developed the concept of governmental power or ‘govern-mentality’—‘a way or system of thinking about the natureof the practice of government’ (Gordon, 1991, p. 3). Sinceused regularly to describe and analyse the effectiveness ofliberal and neoliberal forms of government (e.g. Larner,2000; MacKinnon, 2000; Raco, 2003; Lawrence andGibson, 2007) governmental power (as part of a broadspectrum of possible power relations) was seen to be aparticularly effective relationship of power because itinvolved the subtle process of conducting the conduct ofthose individuals or populations being governed (Dean,1999). That is, those seeking to govern did not try toimpose their will on a population as this had invariablyproved to bring about significant resistance. Instead thoseseeking to govern sought to direct individuals’ andpopulations’ actions by ‘acting’ on them so that they‘practiced their freedom’ in relatively predetermined ways(Foucault, 1994c). This approach to power does notunderestimate the subtle, yet effective, ways in neoliberalgoverning strategies operate; nor does it automaticallyconceive power to be negative and repressive. Rather,relations of governmental power can be understood asalways able to be negotiated or resisted at various scales—from the nation or region to the individual body (a pointcrucial to our later analysis, when we analyse howgovernments conceived of desired behavioural change fromworkers in rural agricultural research stations, and howthose same workers resisted such change).Rural research using such concepts has blossomed in

recent years (cf. Woods and Goodwin, 2003), bothinternationally (Larner, 2005; Murdoch, 1997a, b; Thomp-son, 2005; Ward and McNicholas, 1998) and in Australia(Argent, 2005; Herbert-Cheshire, 2000, 2003; Herbert-Cheshire and Higgins, 2004; Herbert-Cheshire and Lawrence,2002). This paper contributes to this growing literatureon rural governance. It more closely examines govern-mentalities in Australia, spatial aspects of neoliberaldiscourses articulated by government, and how these wereresisted by actors at the local scale through their ownparticular, contrasting spatialised discourses—whatGregory (2005) called ‘counter-geographies’ (see alsoWoods, 2003; Fincher and Panelli, 2001 for comparativegeographical interpretation of rural protest movements).Outcomes of neoliberal governing rationalities always

ARTICLE IN PRESSC. Gibson et al. / Journal of Rural Studies 24 (2008) 351–366 353

remain uncertain, because inherent in any form ofgovernmental power relationship is the possibility ofresistance. In the Australian example discussed here,resistances took a particular form, and though ultimatelysuccessful, were not without their own contradictions. Tounderstand these it is also necessary to more fullyappreciate the Australian governmental context.

3. Antipodean neoliberalism: annihilating space?

Neoliberal approaches to government emerged inAustralia in the early 1980s. Such approaches wereassociated with: the rise of global trade; the promotion ofmarket based regulatory mechanisms; the ascendancy ofindividualism; and broad structural changes in the worldeconomy that followed the post war boom in the 1970s (seeTonts, 2000). The application of neoliberal governmen-talities by Australian governments was manifest in policiesand public sector changes that emphasised economicefficiency, privatisation and minimal government interven-tion: ‘Increasingly, Commonwealth, State and local gov-ernments opted for market-led solutions in deciding how tobest allocate and deliver the limited resources available forpublic services and infrastructure’ (Tonts, 2000, p. 61).Structural reforms were introduced across a range of stateand federal government activities, from banking andfinancial regulation to health, welfare provision, employ-ment schemes and the telecommunications sector; althoughas O’Neill and Argent (2005) have pointed out, this differedsomewhat from the roll-out of neoliberal policies in thenorthern hemisphere, because early deregulations andreforms were undertaken by a previously social welfaristFederal Labor government, while the subsequent conser-vative Liberal/National Party government, who soughtmore extreme neoliberal changes, were for most of their11-year term hamstrung by a hostile senate which amendedand hybridised much of the neoliberal legislative reformprocess.

Nonetheless, as in Britain and the United States, it waspresumed that changes in policy emphasising minimalgovernment intervention would ‘improve Australia’s eco-nomic competitiveness and productivity, thereby restoringprofits, economic growth and socio-economic wellbeing’(Tonts, 2000, p. 61). Neoliberal policies that focussed oneconomic efficiency included three strategies—privatisa-tion, rationalisation and deregulation—all of whichAustralian governments have since deployed to varyingdegrees in their attempts to transform the provision ofpublic services and infrastructure.

Accompanying privatisation, rationalisation and dereg-ulation in Australia was a shift in the spatial objectives ofpublic policy. Australian Governments have generallyunderstood space to be a negative impediment to economicprocesses, both nationally and internationally (Dufty,2007a). For example, Australia has consistently imagineditself through its distance from important markets in thenorthern hemisphere, while its enormous interior, although

very much valued for its productive capacity, was seen as aproblem because of vast distances between farms andmines and major national ports. The problem that spaceposed to economic security, and therefore security ofgovernment, was addressed in significantly different waysdepending on the particular governmental rationalityinfluencing policy responses. Through much of Australia’shistory as a federated political entity, Australian govern-ments thought that security of government was assuredthrough the pursuit of socio-spatial equality (Dufty,2007a). Originally a collection of previously independentcolonies, Australia enshrined fiscal equalisation responsi-bilities in its 1901 constitution. Fiscal equalisation com-pelled federal governments (who raised taxes) to distributefunding to the original states (who provided the bulk ofservices) in a differential manner depending on a range offactors that influenced the states’ ability to provide servicesequitably. Geographically-large states and those withhigher numbers of highly-disadvantaged social groups(like Western Australia and the Northern Territory, bothof which are very large and have substantial Indigenouspopulations) consistently received substantially moreannual per capita funding for services (in the case of theNorthern Territory, it has regularly received over fourtimes the amount of annual funding per person comparedwith southern states). Along with the central role of theunion movement in negotiating standardised national wageaccords with federal governments throughout the twentiethcentury (Beer et al., 2005; O’Neill and Argent, 2005),Australian governments have consistently sought to over-come problems of space through mechanisms that equalisenational space administratively, evening out the ‘playingfield’ otherwise made disadvantageous by distance anddiffering regional economic fortunes.Neoliberal governmental strategies introduced in the

1990s still sought to address Australia’s problems ofdistance and enormous space. Yet, the manner in whichthey attempted this changed: governments progressivelysought to remove spatial impediments in different ways—by presuming or aspiring to forms of aspatiality, in contrastto social liberal approaches such as fiscal equalisationstrategies that sought to identify spatial unevenness andameliorate it through redistribution (Dufty, 2007a). Thatis, they sought to: (a) annihilate the economic and politicalcosts of space (for example through promoting hyper-mobility of people, goods, infrastructures and services);(b) homogenise space (for example, re-imagining internallydifferentiated polities as spatially uniform ‘markets’);(c) supersede space (for example, by dismantling nationalregulatory mechanisms and encouraging internationaltrade); or (d) re-arrange space, downplaying the impor-tance of local specificity, by for example generating costefficiencies through closure of regional government officesand centralising tasks. Although thoroughly spatial,neoliberal governing strategies in Australia were thus notusually articulated in ways sensitive to the particularities ofplace, even when targets for reform in particular locations

ARTICLE IN PRESSC. Gibson et al. / Journal of Rural Studies 24 (2008) 351–366354

were identified. Instead, neoliberal strategies were putforward as broad, overarching policy instruments—technologies of a particular governmental rationalitydepicted as occurring at the supra-metropolitan or nationalscale, often replacing state-sponsored decentralisation,regional development and place-based interventionistefforts (Beer et al., 2005). Diverse regions whose citizenshad specific, and uneven social needs were re-imagined asmarkets populated by consumers—‘rational’ economicactors seeking similar products from service providers,guided by principles of competition, choice and perfectknowledge (Larner, 1997; Dufty, 2007b). In Australia,neoliberal governments with new objectives thus sought toreconstruct geographical scales and reinvent jurisdictionalspaces.

Ironically, some of the commitments to providing socialservices in a spatially equitable manner (as enshrined in theAustralian constitution) remained intact, even when newneoliberal ‘principles’ of entrepreneurial and competitivestatecraft were being introduced in the 1980s. In accor-dance with the constitution, the Commonwealth GrantsCommission continued to distribute large tied and untiedgrants on a preferential basis to States and Territories withcertain geographical and other disadvantages—eventhough both state and federal governments were simulta-neously undermining interventionism in other ways. Thiscontradiction—between older rationalities premised onequalising economic performance through strong govern-ment intervention, and new rationalities seeking toreconstruct space or annihilate spatial variations throughmarket forces—would set the stage for the conflicts thatemerged over provision of rural agricultural researchservices in New South Wales—the case study which formsthe basis of our analysis below.

4. Local communities: the travel and translation of

governmental power

Even though in Australia neoliberal governmentalstrategies have presumed or aspired to aspatiality, theirapplication and implementation is necessarily entangledwith geographical difference. Neoliberalism is felt atdifferent geographical scales, and has specific spatialimpacts. Most immediately, rationalisations, deregulationsand privatisations have heightened economic and socialproblems in rural and regional Australia (see Stilwell, 1994;Anderson and MacDonald, 1999; Lawrence and Gray,2000; Tonts, 2000). Examples of neoliberal policies in non-metropolitan Australia include withdrawals of governmentservices in rural towns with declining populations; com-munity development schemes intended to ‘empower’ ruralpeople in the absence of government funding (Herbert-Cheshire, 2000); and removal of subsidies for agriculturalproducers and encouragement of rural producers (eithervia market mechanisms, or coercively, through regulationand legislation) to become larger, more efficient, export-orientated ‘business units’.

Real as these impacts have been, academics have recentlyargued for more nuanced analysis of the ways in whichneoliberalism is created, disseminated and enabled viadifferent actors and institutions. Partly because of itspervasiveness and apparent power to transform places indetrimental ways, neoliberalism, like globalisation, hastended to be portrayed in critical analysis as a ‘monolithicproject’ (Larner, 2003), inevitably imposed upon localpopulations in an irreversible fashion. This depiction,although emphasising ‘the inescapably political characterof the globalisation project and the hegemonic position ofneoliberalism’ (Peck and Tickell, 2002, p. 383), runs therisk of ignoring the extent to which neoliberalism is indeedspatially embedded (despite its aspirations), is logicallycontradictory (Gough, 2002; Gibson and Klocker, 2005;Larner, 2005), and is indeed a hybrid state/civil societycreation, rather than a ‘pure’ private sector imperative (Belland Lowe, 2000; Rumming, 2005).In addition, in understanding how specific neoliberal

strategies have been implemented and resisted acrossuneven geographical space, it is necessary to conceptualisehow the practice of government is enacted via particularinstitutions and actors in and across space and time.Neoliberalism, like all prior governmental rationalities,requires translating by a range of actors and institutions.Governments always carry out the governing of citizens ‘ata distance’ (Latour, 1987; Rose, 1999), via mechanisms,agencies and the deployment of ‘experts’ who implementpolicies across space (in Australia’s case, across quite vastterritories). Locally deployed experts act as translators andadministrators of governmental rationalities. However,because of this, processes of translation or ‘governmentat a distance’ are always potentially susceptible todisruption. Locally deployed experts may wrongly trans-late directives, or chose to emphasise certain directives overothers, while those populations intended to be governedmight not accept the terms of translation.In this paper, we interpret a case study of resistance to

the rationalisation of services in light of this disruptivepotential in governing at-a-distance, building on thetheoretical position that resistances are inherent in theexercise of power. Our article responds to critiques whichargue that previous work on governmental power hasattended too much to official discourses and not enough tothe struggles that exist in power relations betweengovernors and the governed (Argent, 2005; Gibson, 2001;Larner, 2000, 2003, 2005; McNay, 1994; O’Malley et al.,1997). Moreover, we also seek to provide an alternativeperspective to the one so often put forward, where thenegative impacts of neoliberal policy approaches on localcommunities are emphasised. Prior research has oftendepicted affected communities and places as helpless andmarginal, reluctantly accepting the latest governmentdictate (and continuing to be burnt by it). As Allen(2003) argued, critical research has lacked supplenessin its analysis of spatial relations. Despite acknowledgingthe importance of how governmental rationalities are

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 1

Interview participants, occupations and dates of interviews

Interview

number

Occupationa Date Formatb

1 Dairy farmer-Casino 21.07.2004 I

2 Dairy farmer-Casino 21.07.2004 I

3 Farm manager-WAID 21.07.2004 I

4 Farm hand-WAID 21.07.2004 I

5 Leading hand-WAID 21.07.2004 I

6 Soybean farmer-Casino 22.07.2004 I

7 Clerical officer GARAS 09.08.2004 E

8 North coast waterwise on the

farm facilitator-GARAS

09.08.2004 E

9 Mayor, Lismore city council 28.08.2004 E

10 President, Grafton chamber of

commerce

30.08.2004 E

11 Research agronomist-GARAS 07.09.2004 E

12 Technical officer-GARAS 08.09.2004 E

13 Technical officer-GARAS 09.09.2004 E

14 Client services forester—Forestry

NSW (GARAS)

09.09.2004 E

15 Purchasing/contracting

administrator-GARAS

10.09.2004 E

16 Regional weed control

coordinator-GARAS

10.09.2004 E

17 National aquatic weeds

coordinator-GARAS

20.09.2004 E

18 Beef cattle farmer-Grafton 23.09.2004 E

aActual names of participants have not been included here to improve

anonymity. Interview numbers have been randomised for quotations in

the main text of this article to further assist in protection of anonymity.bI ¼ face-to-face interview; E ¼ email interview.

C. Gibson et al. / Journal of Rural Studies 24 (2008) 351–366 355

‘translated’ as they travel from centres of administrativepower to the provinces, research has still tended to portray‘remote objects of authority follow[ing] the dictate of thecentre’ (Argent, 2005, p. 32), rather than highlight thecapacity of local communities to react and resist neoliber-alism. Frustrated by such shortcomings, Brenner andTheodore (2002) argued that much more research wasrequired on ‘actually-existing neoliberalisms’, meaningempirical studies of the path-dependent and context-specific implementations of neoliberalism, and how thesevary (see also Rumming, 2005; Larner, 2005; O’Neill andArgent, 2005). In the rural context, a small number ofresearchers such as McKenna (2000), Herbert-Cheshire(2003) and Anderson (2004) have also more recently takenup this challenge.

The remainder of this paper discusses one neoliberalpolicy initiative in light of these developments. It deals withthe ways in which a community campaign was mounted inopposition to rationalisation proposals in a rural Australiancontext. The case study explores the ‘political possibilities’(Larner, 2005, p. 9) for subjects to resist the implementationof neoliberalism. After brief explanation of our researchmethods, we discuss the context of government amalgama-tions and rationalisation, and the specific proposals torationalise agricultural research facilities operated by theDepartment of Primary Industries. We then describe effortsin the Northern Rivers region of NSW to prevent closure ofagricultural research stations, including the campaignmethods used, stakeholders involved, and discoursesarticulated. Drawn from both publicly available statementsand our own interviews with stakeholders, discourses ofopposition provide a useful means of exploring howneoliberal ideas were unsettled, and how other discourseswere thrust into the spotlight. The campaign was largelysuccessful in ‘saving’ the research activities targeted forrationalisation, although the neoliberal ‘threat’ remainsever-present. The case study nonetheless demonstrates thatneoliberalism is neither inevitable nor incontestable. More-over it stresses how both neoliberalism and its resistancesmobilise highly geographical discourses. Argumentsmounted in resistance to rationalisation revolved arounddiscourses of rural places as local, specific and unique, andsought to prevent change, in contrast to the perceivedspatial insensitivity of rationalisation proposals. As suchthey were articulations not just of appeals for social justice,but for spatial justice: power relations were re-configuredthrough activism across time and space (Fincher andPanelli, 2001; Panelli, 2007); constituting counter-geogra-

phies (Gregory, 2005). We conclude our article by reflectingon the politics and meanings inherent in this overtlygeographical approach to resisting neoliberalism.

5. Methodology

The research on which this paper is based was under-taken over a 4-month period from July to October 2004—at the height of the ‘Save Our Stations’ campaign to

prevent closure of agricultural research facilities. We weremade aware of the campaign through a long-held contactin the relevant government department, whose owninstitution was threatened by rationalisation plans. Someof the researchers for this paper subsequently becameinvolved in the campaign, in a supportive (rather thanhighly active) way, forwarding email announcements,signing petitions and attending rallies. A decision wasmade to study and write about the campaign, especiallywhen the above debates about resistances to neoliberalismcoalesced at that time, in a workshop organised by theEconomic and Rural Study Groups of the Institute ofAustralian Geographers (in which two of the researchersparticipated; see collected papers in Geographical Research,v43 n1).A qualitative methodology was deemed to be the most

appropriate approach for this study, as it allowed fordynamic and flexible information collection, from whichmultiple discourses could be collected. The principalresearch technique was semi-structured interviews withkey stakeholders. Eighteen interviews were conducted bothin person (n ¼ 6) and via email (n ¼ 12), with a variety ofparticipants from different stakeholder groups (Table 1),producing over 30,000 words of interview transcripts.Informants for this study were selected due to theirinvolvement in or connections with agricultural research

ARTICLE IN PRESSC. Gibson et al. / Journal of Rural Studies 24 (2008) 351–366356

in the Northern Rivers region. Those interviewed wereapproached via contact information gained either fromtheir place of employment or from their contributions tothe media. Semi-structured interviews enabled some degreeof predetermined question order, while still allowingfor both flexibility and diversity of opinions. Someinterviewees who were employed by the Department ofPrimary Industries were effectively censored from publiccomment, and were consequently unable to answer all ofthe questions asked.

Our research sought a range of comments from thoseemployed by the Department of Primary Industries, thosewho utilised the services offered by them, and those inpositions of influence in the wider community. Weinterviewed at least two contacts from each of GraftonAgricultural Research and Advisory Station and Wollong-bar Agricultural Institute (two of the affected agriculturalresearch facilities), as well as representatives of the dairyfarming industry, the beef farming industry, soybeanfarming industry, and prominent members of the localcommunity (mayors, presidents of chambers of commerce).Interviewees were initially contacted by telephone to gainpermission for an interview and to arrange a time and aplace to meet. Participants were given the opportunity toread questions that would be asked. Interviewees wereinformed that their anonymity would be respected.Researchers gained permission from the interviewees totape the interviews. Other interviews were conducted viaemail, after email addresses and permissions were gainedthrough contacts provided by the first set of interviewees.The Minister for Primary Industries, Ian MacDonald, wasalso approached for comment on the topic, but declined toparticipate in an interview.

Secondary source data, such as press releases, Hansardtranscripts and newspaper articles were also consulted.Relevant articles were tracked in National and State media(Sydney Morning Herald, The Land, ABC Rural News

Online), in a range of local newspapers (The Star, The

Northern Daily, The Clarence Valley Review, The Northern

Rivers Echo, The Daily Examiner), and in press releasearchives of relevant organisations such as the NSWFarmers Association. This type of data was sought as itprovided historical, economic, social and political contextsfor the primary data. These sources also provided namesand (sometimes) contact details for key protagonists whowere subsequently approached for interview. In some cases(in particular where key protagonists were quoted on thetopic) secondary source data was treated as a discursivetext interpreted using the same approach as interviewtranscripts.

6. Proposals to rationalise agricultural research facilities

On July 1st 2004, four New South Wales govern-ment departments—the Departments of Agriculture,Fisheries, State Forests and Mineral Resources—wereamalgamated into the Department of Primary Industries

(DPI). According to the Treasurer of New South Wales(2004), the creation of the new Department would achievebudget savings of A$37 million in 2005, and A$37 millionin the following year, rising to A$58 million by 2007/08.This represented a total of A$132 million out of an overallbudget of A$400 million, itself reduced from A$600 millionfor the four departments a little over a decade ago.According to projections outlined in the 2004 budget, thedecision would result in the loss of 325 jobs from officesof the DPI throughout the State (Gay, 2004). These cutswere justified by the newly formed DPI as ‘improvedeconomies and organizational efficiencies’ (Gerritsen, 2000,p. 125)—a classic tenet of neoliberal reorganisation ofgovernment agencies:

They [the proposed changes] are not about doing less,but doing things better. Consolidation measures in someareas are necessary to modernise research programs toensure their viability. (Macdonald, quoted in Blok,2004, p. 8)

Reasons given for the rationalisations also highlight thecontradictions of rolling-out neoliberalism while olderprinciples of spatial equity were still being maintainedwithin the Australian federal system:

With the Federal Government stripping of $350 millionfrom NSW through the Grants Commission, it’s nowonder the State had to look for efficiencies. (Macdonald,quoted in Blok, 2004, p. 8)

The context here was that those States (i.e. New SouthWales and Victoria) with larger populations and higherstandards of living had, by the 1990s, become net losersfrom the process of spatial equalisation. Via the FederalGrants Commission redistributive mechanism, NSW hadeffectively lost substantial funds to other States andTerritories. This was one of the key rationales providedfor the creation of amalgamated ‘super ministries’ such asthe DPI: cash-strapped state governments felt the need tocreate greater economies of scale in portfolio managementand service provision and, thereby, deliver budget savings,as a direct outcome of the maintenance of ‘pre-neoliberal’Federal level spatial fiscal equalisation.In a circular sent to affected staff via the departmental

intranet (NSW Department of Primary Industries (NSWDPI), 2004) it was mandated by the NSW Minister thatwith the formation of the new Department of PrimaryIndustries, all four merging agencies would need to makesavings and/or generate additional revenue. The proposedPlan contained seven key recommendations:

�

co-location of DPI offices in the same or nearby towns; � relocation of under-utilised offices to better-equipped

sites;

� consolidation and centralising of cross-agency func-

tions;

� a flatter structure with fewer senior managers; � increased revenue streams across all four agencies;

ARTICLE IN PRESSC. Gibson et al. / Journal of Rural Studies 24 (2008) 351–366 357

�

the focus of resources on core business across all fourDepartments; �

Fig. 1. Location map, Northern Rivers NSW, Australia.

voluntary redundancies.

Proposed rationalisation and relocation of researchstations was extensive, involving the splitting, redistribut-ing and/or closure of fifteen research facilities in allparts of the state. The NSW Minister for PrimaryIndustries, Ian MacDonald, argued at the time that therelocation of research services would help build abetter research network and better accommodate thechanging expectations of some farmers who are increas-ingly looking towards applied on-farm research (The DailyExaminer, 2004). It was proposed in the Interim Board

of Management Proposed Workforce Management Plan

(NSW DPI, 2004) that the surplus property from theclosures/relocations of research stations would be soldand the funds utilised to facilitate consolidation to fewer,better-equipped sites, deemed ‘Centres of Excellence’.At the heart of the proposals was therefore an aspirationto re-arrange the administrative space pertaining to theproduction of agricultural knowledges, by funding fewerresearch stations to cover a wider range of regions andindustries.

Two of the agricultural research stations threatened bythe budget cuts to the DPI were the Grafton AgriculturalResearch and Advisory Station (GARAS) and the dairysection of the Wollongbar Agricultural Institute (WAID),both located in the sub-tropical climatic zone of theNorthern Rivers Region of NSW, on rich soils of volcanicorigin (Fig. 1). At the time, GARAS employed 47permanent staff and up to 15 casual staff, and WAIDemployed 5 permanent staff and 1 casual staff member.Projects undertaken at GARAS’ large (and historical—being established in 1902) research facility includeddeveloping new soy and adzuki bean cropping systemssuitable for the region; breeding of insects for biologicalcontrol of lantana and bitou bush (two local weed species);developing land and water use plans for regional irrigators;agronomic extension services; coordinating national aqua-tic weed control programs, and providing services tofarmers and their families affected by drought. At thesmaller WAID facility, projects included developing newshade and sprinkler cooling systems and nutritionalsupplements for cattle and new management systems forlocal pasture types.

The proposals for GARAS and WAID were that thedairy research function at Wollongbar be relocated toElizabeth Macarthur Agricultural Institute (EMIA) atCamden, located approximately 700 km south, nearmetropolitan Sydney. The agricultural functions at Graf-ton were to be relocated to Wollongbar (110 km north ofGrafton), Glen Innes (110 km west of Grafton) andArmidale (180 km south-west of Grafton). Staff in thefisheries division at GARAS were to be relocated to eitherMaclean (40 km south-west of Grafton) or Port Stephens(400 km south of Grafton). All permanent staff affected by

the proposed restructure were given an offer to relocate topositions at other DPI sites (NSW DPI, 2004).

7. The campaign to prevent rationalisation: practices of

resistance

When interviewed, staff from GARAS and WAIDuniversally complained about how the decision to rationa-lise research stations was made, without consultation, andwith minimal (and at times patronising) communicationfrom the departmental headquarters. According to oneemployee:

We received an email on the afternoon of 23rd June thatsomeone in head office would be here at 4 pm thatafternoon to discuss the new DPI structure. This personarrived and told us that as part of the restructure severalresearch stations would be closing and ours would beone of them. She said that ‘‘certain agriculturalfunctions could be relocated to Wollongbar, Glen Innesor Armidale, and that a document would be on the DPIintranet tomorrow morning with the details’’. She couldnot say which ‘functions’ or which work groups were to

ARTICLE IN PRESSC. Gibson et al. / Journal of Rural Studies 24 (2008) 351–366358

go where. Many professional and technical staff wereout in the field or away on other business, and were notpresent at this meeting. The farm staff who start at 7 amhad already left for the day. They had to find out fromcolleagues the next day or some supervisors rang themat home that night to tell them. We downloaded thedocument the next morning [NSWDPI, 2004]. It did notcontain details about which ‘‘agricultural functions’’were to be moved where or how this would be done.(Int#11)

Reactions to the proposed rationalisations were swift,loudly vocalised, and hastily consolidated into action—vital factors to the success of the campaign, and importantobservations to make in light of the above debates aboutresisting neoliberalism. A ‘Save the Station’ committee wasestablished, largely by staff of the affected researchstations, and a set of tactics planned that relied on raisingpublic awareness in the region, galvanising support from arange of stakeholders, and lobbying relevant ministers andlocal MPs. An email list was established to keep informa-tion dissemination current, and committee meetings wereheld every Tuesday to update the more active players.Consistent throughout the 3-month campaign was a desireto destabilise the government’s argument that plans toclose research stations were ‘rational’, or constituted soundeconomic management. This involved uncoupling themotivations behind the proposals (fiscal tightening) fromtheir scientific and industrial merit (or otherwise): ‘it ispurely a budgetary driven proposal that has no demon-strated logic behind the decision’ (Int#8). For oneinterviewee, ‘This is a classic example of the long terminterests of the rural industries compromised to meet short

Fig. 2. Flyers for ‘Save our Station’ cam

term budgetary problems. Once you sell land you cannotbuy it back’ (Int#17), while for another, ‘This researchfacility should be improved and handed on to the nextgeneration of farmers and scientists to address the issuesof the day. It belongs to the people of NSW and shouldnot be sold off to solve short term incompetence infinancial management’ (Int#11). Such discourses immedi-ately affronted the claim that rationalisations were sensibleor logical.Public support for the campaign was raised through

protest placards strategically placed on major roads in theregion, the production of ‘not for sale’ flyers outliningbackground issues, letter-writing bees, and petitions(eventually obtaining 10,000 signatures, or about 1 in 5residents of the affected towns). Rallies were held inGrafton (where 800 people turned up—a substantialnumber for a town of its size—see Fig. 2), Temora(an even smaller town, where 500 attended), and Sydney,where the Save Our Station committee joined forces withthe Public Sector Union (PSU) in blockading the stateparliament house (see Fig. 3). Committee membersresearched and wrote briefs for press releases and flyerson the heritage and environmental values of affected sites(thus generating counter-discourses), and organised localChambers of Commerce to calculate estimated negativemultiplier impacts from loss of jobs. The NSW FarmersAssociation was approached and became involved bydeveloping taskforces for each threatened DPI location,compiling data on the economic and scientific contribu-tions of the research stations to local industries, andorganising to meet with the Minister to discuss issuesrelated to proposed closures and impacts on affectedcommunities and industries. Parallel to this, leaders from

paign rallies, Grafton, NSW, July 2004.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fig. 3. Blockade of the NSW State Parliament, Sydney, 2004 (Photo:

Heather Smith).

Fig. 4. ‘Stop killing country NSW’: placard at Parliament House, Sydney,

2004.

C. Gibson et al. / Journal of Rural Studies 24 (2008) 351–366 359

key industries (oilseed, beef, soybean, fisheries) preparedfully detailed submissions to the state government high-lighting specific impacts on sectors and projects. In otherwords, a range of local ‘experts’ were approached toproduce new technical knowledges and discourses tocounter those deployed by the NSW Government in itsexercise of governmental power.

These tactics were considered preferable to industrialaction because they ‘chipped away’ at the legitimacy andcredibility of the rationalisation plan in the public arenaand through industry networks, rather than concentrateresistances on-site (which happened to be less-visiblelocations out of town). These tactics also enabled researchactivities to continue. It was deemed important that thestations be seen to continue to operate professionally,averting any potential criticism that they were inefficientlyor unprofessionally run. As one key player described at theheight of the campaign:

We have a many-pronged attack in progress to getenough publicity for this issue to at least embarrass theMinister into justifying the decision to get rid of usyMy involvement has included being part of theorganisation of a rally in Grafton; participating in therally in Grafton; being at the local shopping centre, raceweek and markets to get petitions and form letters

signed; asking shop owners to run the petition in theirshops; putting together information on our research andlocal agriculture for industry bodies assisting thecampaign; canvassing colleagues and industry bodiesto support Grafton; assisting in the organisation of abus load of locals to the Sydney PSA rally; participatingin the Sydney PSA rally. All this, while trying to keepour current work and the beginnings of our next projectrunning, so that we can show that we can do this workreliably. (int#12)

Importantly, the issue gained daily coverage throughregional television, radio and print press. Local mediainfrastructure was fruitfully accessed in the campaign.Often regional media outlets are stretched in their capacityto search for and find local stories (given limited resources),and gaining air-time can be relatively easy if a story haslocal currency. The ‘save our station’ campaign committeewere able to use regular press releases as a simple means toget such coverage.Newsworthiness was effectively guaranteed, not just

because of the preponderance of ‘slow news days’ in ruralareas, but because the committee were effective in pinningthe rationalisation plans to the wider context of budgetcutbacks and withdrawal of services by all levels ofgovernment to non-metropolitan areas (see Fig. 4). Whenthe Federal Liberal/National Party Government assumedoffice in 1996 its rationalisations saw the scrapping ofregional development grants, and losses of hundreds ofpublic sector jobs, as regional government branch officeswere closed down and consolidated. In the months prior tothe proposal to rationalise agricultural research stations,the NSW government also ceased its State Rail services totwo of the region’s key centers—Lismore and Byron Bay—despite railways having over a century’s heritage andcultural significance in the area. For many involved in‘Save our stations’ campaign, the decision to rationalise

ARTICLE IN PRESSC. Gibson et al. / Journal of Rural Studies 24 (2008) 351–366360

agricultural research facilities was a ‘last straw’—and whenseen in the context of cumulative cutbacks by government,it is hardly surprising that regional media coverage wasextensive. This form of activism thus had a crucialtemporal context and was shaped by cycles of discursivepower relations that over several years had linked ruralservice provision cutbacks to neoliberal governing ration-alities (cf. Panelli, 2007).

Building on public concern, a second rally (on July 28,2004) was organised ‘to air grievances over the [NSW] CarrGovernment’s attacks on public services in rural andregional communitiesy This rally has been brought aboutby the cumulative effects of all the job cuts. They rangefrom the ag station, the proposed cutting of budgetaryfunding from the jails, the Business Enterprise Centresfunding being cut, you’ve got national park jobs beingdislocated—and you go on—it just seems to be neverending’ (Walker, 2004, p. 3).

The NSW Minister for Primary Industries reacted toearly campaigning by announcing a ‘moratorium’ on theproposals, arguing that space and time were necessary forcommunity consultation: ‘The final decision on theproposed relocation of the Grafton, Gosford, Deniliguinand Temora research stations has been delayedy This willenable further discussion between the Department, stake-holders and communities on a range of creative proposi-tions’ (MacDonald, 2004a, p. 2). Key actors in thecampaign were told by Ministerial advisors that

they’re probably going to give us a bit more time to puta case forward. If we can’t come up with a goodargument well then they’ll probably say that Grafton’sgoing to be closedy [unless] we can prove that werequire it and we can fund it and be able to get themoney somewhere else (Int#2).

The moratorium was evidence that the early tactics ofresponding quickly to the rationalisation plans, andembarrassing politicians, were effective. Rapid multipleresponses to rationalist discourses about cost-savings andefficiency gains unsettled the way in which the decisionswere depicted as ‘sensible’. Escalating public concern andcontinued negative media coverage quickly altered theclimate of political decision-making—in other words,disrupting the NSW government’s attempts to governeffectively at-a-distance. What was previously announcedas part of rationalist bureaucratic restructuring process hadbecome a hot regional issue. Exacerbating this wasthe looming federal election (held on 9 October 2004),and the possibility of electoral backlash in marginal seats inthe region (the Labor party, who held office at the statelevel, and were thus the authors of the rationalisation plansfor agricultural research stations, had hoped to topple thesitting conservative Liberal/National coalition federally bytargeting key marginal electorates, including two on theNSW north coast). Announcing a moratorium alsoenabled politicians to put off making a decision, tempora-rily placate campaigners, calm the surrounding debate, and

attempt to rein back control of how neoliberal policyimplementation would occur. This could enable thegovernment to ‘re-rationalise’ the issue, to ‘re-translate’it, in effect, and thus appear once again to be undertakingsensible service delivery planning based on informedanalysis. In contrast to publicised intentions, subsequentdialogue between the Minister’s office and staff at affectedresearch stations was minimal, demonstrating the NSWgovernments’ desires to control the terms on whichregional, at-a-distance translations of its objectives wouldoccur:

Whilst the Minister talks in the press about themoratorium being a time for ‘staff consultation’ this isnot occurring. We are sending submissions in but we arenot receiving any replies, not even acknowledgementthat our submissions have been received. I do not believethat the Department wants to consult with staff on thisissue. Nor have they actively consulted with industrygroups. The industry groups have sent them submissionsbut replies and meetings have been very few to date.’(int#11)

For another key staff member involved in the campaign,

y communication has been exceptionally poor. We arecurrently under a moratorium where no decision issupposed to be made until after the federal election.Supposedly we are in a period of staff consultation, butthere has been little communication at all, let alonemeaningful consultation. Staff work groups have all sentinformation and proposals through our programs to theheads of the Dept, but after two months have not evenreceived notification that these have been received. Wehave heard recognisable excerpts from our proposalsbandied around in parliament and in newspaper articles,so obviously they are getting there, but no communica-tion has come back to us. (int#12)

On September 23rd, 2004, the Minister for PrimaryIndustries issued a press release outlining the department’sfinal decision. According to the Minister, ‘Since theDepartment first proposed the potential relocation of theGosford, Grafton, Deniliquin and Temora Research andAdvisory Stations, I stressed that I would listen to each andevery constructive idea put to me—and I have’ (MacDo-nald, 2004b, p. 1). Research stations originally targeted forrationalisation at Grafton, Gosford, Deniliquin andTemora were to stay open, although the future of thedairy section of the Wollongbar facility had not beenresolved (it would eventually be closed), and the beefresearch section of Grafton was to be shut down. Althoughnot a complete reversal of all proposed rationalisations,members of the Save Our Station campaign and lobbygroups were keen to claim success. For Sue Doust,spokesperson of the campaign:

The community effort in rejecting the State Govern-ment’s proposal to remove staff and facilities from the

ARTICLE IN PRESSC. Gibson et al. / Journal of Rural Studies 24 (2008) 351–366 361

Clarence Valley has resulted in the Grafton Researchand Advisory Station not only staying in Grafton, buthas created an opportunity for its future operation to beimproved. Sadly we were not successful in saving theland and specialist staff needed for beef breeding andnutrition research, for which this station is purposebuilt. However, if strong local community and industrysupport had not rallied behind the station as it did, DPImanagers would have carried our their intention todiminish and dispose of all this unique research andextension asset, specialist expertise and up to 47 localjobs. (Doust, 2004, p. 12)

According to NSW Farmers Association President MalPeters,

We drew a line in the sand and I am pleased thatcommonsense has prevailed to see a positive andproductive future for agricultural research in NSWy

The Minister has shown he is serious about research inthis state and I am pleased to see that he is looking atthis from a local level. Farmers around the state cannow be assured that vital research relating to theirclimate type and soils will be carried out to benefittheir own operations. (NSW Farmers Association,2004a, p. 1).

A series of ‘negotiated agreements’ with each station wasalso outlined in an appendix to the Minister’s press release.In addition to the retention of staff and services, newfacilities were promised at some stations, land sales wereconfirmed (with proceeds to fund research infrastructureupgrades) and intentions were articulated to pursue furtherindustry funding. According to the Minister,

Following three months of negotiations, I have success-fully brokered a series agreements [sic] that will deliver amore viable future for research and extension in theGosford, Grafton, Deniliquin and Temora communi-tiesy These agreements represent a new era ofcooperation between parties who share an interest inbuilding more productive, cutting-edge research in thisState. They will see stakeholders working together tosecure increased investment from industry and commer-cial partners to make the stations more productive andviable for the long-term. (Macdonald, 2004b, p. 1)

Pertinent here is not simply that rationalisations wereaverted, but that survival of the research stations wascontingent on new kinds of rationalities directing theirmanagement, financing and staff behaviour. Research wasno longer a public service offered by government as a formof industry support (a principle that campaigners werekeen to emphasise). Instead, surviving staff were obliged tochange existing practices and philosophies, encouragingmore user-pays, industry-funded research:

The plain truth of the matter is that research at thesefour stations has been hampered by a steady decline ofindustry investment, over a number of years. If industry

is not motivated to back certain stations and projects,then the State Government simply cannot continue toserve as a life-support system. We must direct ourresources to the areas that have industry support. Theproposed closures of the four stations spurred commu-nities and industry groups to actively seek innovativesolutions that could make the sites more productive.(Macdonald, 2004b, p. 1)

Although one neoliberal policy decision was reversed,another manifestation of the same governmental ration-ality was deployed. Survival of the research stations wouldcontinue to rest on their performance against yardsticks ofproductivity, private-funding and (lack of) reliance ongovernment support. However, as Sue Doust was keen topoint out, beyond the matter of the maintenance of thestations (and regardless of the terms of their futuresurvival), new and unpredictable kinds of socialisationswere created by the campaign, meaning its impact wouldlikely be felt well beyond the time and space of the issue:

As well as the anxiety and outrage, there have beenmany pleasant aspects to this campaign. Several localpeople who attended the rallies and signed the petitionsaid that they had ‘never done this sort of thing before’,but had no hesitation in getting out of their comfortzone to save the station. Some who attended the ralliesin Grafton and Sydney said that their first experienceof ‘civil disobedience’ was rather enjoyable and thatthey would happily do it again tomorrow. (Doust, 2004,p. 12)

The campaign had contributed substantially to the widerpolitical culture of the region.

8. Resistant discourses

This paper does not seek to evaluate the campaign interms of the key factors that led to its various successes.Rather, in light of the above discussions about governing,translation, resistance and space, we seek to explore howsocial and geographical dimensions of rationalisation planswere resisted (in the case of discourses of the aspatiality ofgovernment rationalisation plans, and ideal, ‘rational’,calculating citizens) and how new discourses were deployedto create ‘counter-geographies’. A range of discourses—social, technical, emotional—were articulated in thecampaign and in interviews we conducted with mainplayers and representatives of affected industries. Impor-tantly, arguments articulated by interviewees in response tothe proposed rationalisation of agricultural researchfacilities contested the imagined spaces of neoliberalgovernment, and re-constructed alternative geographiesabout their region, communities and industries. In theremainder of this paper we discuss discourses thatreclaimed local specificity, and (re)humanised rationalisa-tion plans, through for instance, discussing its social andemotional effects.

ARTICLE IN PRESSC. Gibson et al. / Journal of Rural Studies 24 (2008) 351–366362

8.1. Counter-geography I: local specificity

Plans to rationalise agricultural research stations inNSW relied upon a conception of the space of governmentin which research services could be more efficientlyprovided by centralising efforts in a smaller number oflocations. Counter-arguments articulated in the ‘save ourstations’ campaign emphasised the uniqueness of theirgeographical location, latitude and industries, local adap-tations to climate and soil, land resources, and researchinto specific and relevant regional agricultural and sub-tropical beef disease and production issues: ‘the point we’vegot to stress to the pollies y is to say here’s a topo[graphicmap] and highlight where your subtropical area actually is-where Wollongbar sits on that map’ (Int#2). Volcanic soilswith sub-tropical climate is indeed an unusual combinationfor NSW, which is otherwise dominated by temperatecoastal regions, sandy soils, dry highlands and inlandscrub. For interviewee 12, ‘production and disease issuesfacing sub-tropical coastal beef producers can not bestudied in Glen Innes, which although is only 160kilometres away, is in a completely different climaticregion’. For interviewee 7: ‘much of the research carriedout at GARAS cannot be carried out in other locationsyno other facility is carrying out research in sub-tropicalagriculture systems’. For another involved the soybeanindustry, ‘soy beans are latitude conscious because theyflower according to day lengthyso it’s very critical that thework stays within that latitude’ (Int#6).

One description by a dairy farmer and a regular user ofWAID’s research services contrasted discourses of localspecificity against poor geographical awareness on the partof government:

yif I just said to you well we’ve got a research stationthat’s only two hours away, you’d probably look at itand say well what’s the point of having two stations?Let’s just bring it back to one. We’ve got to cut thebudget so cut two back to one. But you’ve only got to gofrom Byron Bay to a farm in Bangalow to a farm here inCasino, and although you’ve driven 20 kms, it’s thesame as 20 hours inland. That’s the difference incomparisons of the varieties, the rainfallsy you knowyou just can’t grow a variety here and send it up to thetablelands and grow it up there and vice-versa. So thepoliticians have looked at a map and said, ‘okay,geographically the centres are not that far apart’, but therealistics and the nuts and bolts of it are different. That’sthe point we’ve got to stress to the pollies—thegeographics.

Interviewees also discussed what the loss of researchfacilities would mean for farmers who need advisoryservices: ‘where do I go to learn about the latest researchand management techniques? We live in times of rapidchange’ (Int#18). For interviewee 16, ‘the closure andrelocation of the station will mean that most of the currentprograms, such as beef, soybeans, weeds, acid sulfate soils

and aquaculture will cease or be significantly reduced’, aswould the capacity for future specific longitudinal research:‘If we shift all that now (soybean research at Grafton) thatold data becomes less valuable because it’s a totally newsite, new soils, new everything, so how those things haveperformed in the past are fairly irrelevant’ (Int#6).The campaign thus particularised the places subject to

possible rationalisation, and highlighted the wider localimplications of closure, in contrast to the abstract andbureaucratic conception of organisational restructuringpurveyed by the Minister (which rested on a much more‘blank slate’ image of geographical space). Sydney-baseddecision-makers were thus depicted as ignorant of localconditions, resources and industries: ‘the people that makethese decisions have no idea of the size or the implication tothe soybean industry on the North Coast’ (Int#6). For thegovernment, agricultural research was a kind of servicetransferable from location to location, across an internallyhomogenous administrative space. Rationalisation wasthen simply the technique deployed to achieve moreefficient service delivery. This spatial discourse was pivotalto the state’s attempt to roll-out budgetary cuts, and thusgovern rural space at a distance. For people in the SaveOur Stations campaign, however, the Northern Rivers wasa unique place, defined by its latitude, physical geographyand climate. This counter-geography resisted the attemptsby the government to translate a neoliberal rationality intoparticular actions—and proved highly effective. In onecase, an interviewee argued that decision-makers wereignorant of local specificity even when they resided in theregion: ‘neither the Minister for Agriculture nor the SeniorPolicy Advisor Rural Affairs have visited GARAS to findout what we actually do hereyeven though the SeniorPolicy Advisor Rural Affairs actually lives in the area’(Int#7). For this interviewee, the imagined administrativespace of government was not thus simply produced bydistant decision-makers living in Sydney—it was animagined geography chosen deliberately by politicians,even when they were ‘locals’, against physical evidence tothe contrary.

8.2. Counter-geography II: the ‘city-country divide’

As well as emphasising local specificity, counter-geogra-phies articulated by campaigners also tapped intothe widespread distrust amongst rural residents towardsthe inhabitants and politicians of metropolitan centres. The‘city-country divide’ is a powerful discourse in Australianpolitics and society (Pritchard and McManus, 2000). It islinked to ideas of rural people as ‘honest’, somehow unitedculturally, through hardship and ‘countrymindedness’(Aitkin, 1985), holding a ‘rural world view’ (Share, 1995,p. 10) against uncaring city folk. The city-country dividehas come to encapsulate polarisation of economic oppor-tunities, access to infrastructure and different standards ofliving of those in rural and urban areas. Related argumentsand media debates include the paring back of rural

ARTICLE IN PRESSC. Gibson et al. / Journal of Rural Studies 24 (2008) 351–366 363

infrastructure, bank branch closures, restricted access totelecommunications competition and infrastructure, anddeclining populations in some areas. The commercialmedia, politicians and some academics have reinforcedthis impression of an emerging ‘gulf’ between capital citiesand regional Australia. The overriding image is of urbandwellers, corporations and decision-makers drifting furtheraway from the ‘rural heart’ of Australia in both culturaland economic terms.

Interview transcripts reveal some of the bitterness andanger felt by rural residents to this, and their perceptionthat rationalisation of agricultural research stations wasanother example of city-based administrations punishingrural areas without care. Common themes were: ignoranceof the contributions of rural areas to city life (‘It’s timecountry people united and stopped sending food productsto New South Wales because Mr Carr and his puppets ingovernment don’t need them. The supermarkets produceall the food these cities need’; Hughes, 2004); exclusionfrom the political process (‘they haven’t told us whatthey’re going to doythey still haven’t detailed how they’regoing to make it work’; Int#6); discrimination against ruralresidents (‘So they’re basically saying ‘‘who gives a shitabout the country? Just chop here and there by rationalis-ing’; Int#2); and targeting by city-based governments forcutbacks in service delivery (‘the government seems to beout of touch with rural and regional Australia; seems to becommitted to taking funding and facilities out of the ruralareasy agricultural services, train services and theamalgamation of health and education services at a timewhen decentralisation should be a prerequisite’; Int#9). Inmany cases accusations against city dwellers and politicianswere personalised, transforming the issue from theabstract to particular, and also blurring distinctionsbetween city-country divide arguments and the morespecific localisms discussed above. The counter-geographyof a ‘city-country divide’ was also the most commonlyarticulated at rallies: many participants took up sloganssuggested by campaign organisers’ such as ‘stop killingcountry N.S.W.’, ‘I want to live and work in countryNSW’, ‘If you eat you are a partner in farming’, ‘HelloSydney! We grow your food’, and ‘Old Macdonald had afarmy until he sold it’.

The politics of this are complex: critics have argued thatdiscourses of city-country divide are unhelpful because theyoverlook the stark divisions in income and opportunitieswithin both urban and rural areas (Gibson, 2002, 2003).Such discourses only serve to continue to simplify,generalise and partition social groups in Australian societyin potentially harmful ways. But on the other hand, in thecontext of this campaign, the city-country divide didprovide a counter-geography to the rationalist adminis-trative space of neoliberal government. Discourses of thecity-country divide were a means to unsettle presumptionsof homogenous administrative space across which servicescould be relocated in an effort to achieve cost- savings andefficiencies. They were also a means of galvanising public

support, gaining media attention, and transforming theissue, depicting metropolitan governing at-a-distance asuncaring, in contrast to rural Australia more generally.

8.3. Counter-geography III: the local economy

Arguments were also mounted by interviewees (and incampaign material and placards at rallies) about thenegative impacts on local industries and the regionaleconomy:

Closing Grafton research station means a direct loss of42 jobs in the town which, based on accepted Govern-ment economic multipliers, would lead to a further lossof 192 jobs—a total of 232 jobs gone. This downgradehas been calculated at $4.1 million in income tax lossesand a likely increase of $2.7 million in Centrelinkpayments—a cost to government, and the people, ofabout $6.8 million a yeary The 232 jobs lost wouldmean about 532 children leaving local schools, thenfewer teachers, a downgrading of medical and hospitalservices, fewer police on the streets, reduced transportservices, and so it goes on. (Harvey, D, Grafton CityChamber of Commerce and Industry 2004)

Such arguments both emphasised the loss of jobs atresearch stations (and associated flow-on effects), andselectively appropriated aspects of neoliberal discourses injustifying the economic reasons for maintaining researchfacilities. Farmers, local politicians and some research staffhighlighted the contribution of previous research toproductivity (‘Their research has helped our businessincrease production levels over a twenty year period from300,000 litres [of milk] to 1.5 million’; Tonge, 2004), andargued that export markets would be affected, as researchwas necessary for the region’s agricultural base to remaininternationally competitive (‘Agriculture competes in aninternational market place, as approximately 80% of allour production is exported and we must remain competi-tive through good research’; NSW Farmers Association,2004b). These arguments could be interpreted in two ways:they could be seen as a deliberate commandeering ofnomenclature of neoclassical economics to unsettle thefinancial justifications for rationalisation plans—using thelanguage of the dominant governmental rationality. Theyare also reflective of a tension interviewees embodiedbetween having to perform neoliberalism in the course oftheir everyday behaviours (for example, as farmers alwaysseeking new markets, as researchers developing newtechnologies to improve productivity and efficiency) andbeing punished by market logic when it manifests itself incutbacks to services and regional infrastructure. Thistension was observed across a number of interviewtranscripts, where participants both reproduced neoliberaldiscourse (when talking in terms of specific industries andmarkets) and contested it when seen as a policy stanceaffecting public infrastructure and service provision in the

ARTICLE IN PRESSC. Gibson et al. / Journal of Rural Studies 24 (2008) 351–366364

region. In some instances interviewees acknowledged theirown contradictions, as in this case, a local dairy farmer:

I suppose that is what this national competition policy isall about—that industries will move to where they canproduce most cheaply, in the cheapest fashion. Certainlysome of the work that has been done suggests thatVictoria can produce milk cheaper than us, but they alsohave their disadvantages down there: the very fact thatall the milk is produced in that one area and it’s doneseasonally; the disadvantages of then having to freightthat milk everywhere; it adds a environmental cost andit also dislocates people. I think there’s a huge socialcost, you know, if people are forced elsewhere. You’vegot people that either have to relocate or in manyinstances simply leave the industry totally. I think thatgoing after the lowest price and pushing people to thatarea has a lot of other social and environmentalrepercussions. (Int#1)

What was consistent throughout discussions of theeconomic impacts of planned rationalisations was thatthe economic space affected was local and regional—evenwhen connected to global export markets. Although notreplacing neoliberalism with alternative ways of imagining‘Economy’ (c.f. Gibson, 2001), such discourses do makeconnections to social and environmental problems (spheresmarket discourse usually refuses to acknowledge, otherthan as ‘externalities’), and localise conceptions of eco-nomic relations.

8.4. Counter-geography IV: embodied resistance

In contrast to the rather dry, neoliberal language inwhich economic impacts were described, many intervieweeswere much more forthcoming when discussing the socialand emotional impacts of proposed closures. Argumentsincluded the loss of important members of the localcommunity (‘many of the staff are also involved in othercommunity positions e.g. local rural fire service, emergencyflood committee, P&Cs etc’; Int#8), as well as their ideas(‘the last thing that Grafton needs is for 50 professionalfamilies to leave town. These people bring a lot more thantheir wagesy they bring information and ideas fromoutside’; Int#12). Interviewees emphasised the personalstresses on families forced to consider relocating (‘Well, Idon’t want to leave here; really I don’t. I’ve only got 5 yearsto go and I’ll lose all that superannuation if I leave’; Int#5)or cope with one parent working away from home andreturning only intermittently (‘it’d cost you a lot of moneyand I’d go on my own because the family would stay herebecause my wife worksyI guess I’d go down there(Camden) and travel home every three weeks for a weekif I had to’). Discussion of strains on active members of thecampaign having to organise activities on top of theirregular working lives was also common (‘Much of the workof the campaign has been done outside work hours and onhome computers and at our own expense’; int#11).

There is a practical dimension to this aspect of thecampaign relevant for a wider consideration of the mannerin which neoliberalism can be resisted. Unlike traditionalforms of opposition (for instance, through industrialaction), staff had to perform the tricky double-role of bothcontinuing to professionally perform their research duties,and sacrifice family and leisure time to run a complex, multi-faceted political campaign. As Argent (2005, p. 37) hasargued, ‘under neoliberalism, the devolution of deliverysystems and the continued churning of policy strategiestends to (over)stretch the capacities and diffuse the energy ofoppositional movements, rather than opening up the spacefor more progressive local initiatives’ (see also Peck, 2001).This was certainly true in this instance. But it was alsoimportant to note that in this case, embodied resistance didnot just entail people attending rallies, signing petitions andparticipating in letter-writing campaigns. Resistance wasembodied in the very act of staff talking about the emotionaltoll, challenges and stresses of being part of a campaign.Recognition that there was a human toll to the campaign,and moral imperatives to resist the planned rationalisationssignalled a deeper form of resistance: campaign participantsdirectly challenged the subjectification process—reclaimingthemselves as human, moral beings, and not homo

economicus (Argent, 2005, p. 33), the ‘ideal type consumer’or ‘rational, self-interested individual’ which neoliberalismsubjectifies, and so desperately needs.

9. Conclusions

In this article we have not intended to review tactics onsuccessfully resisting neoliberalism. Just as neoliberalismrequires translation into policy practice when it is playedout in different places and societies (Larner, 2003), sotoo must it be negotiated in ways appropriate to thecircumstances affecting places and people. Indeed,although campaigners were successful in stemming closureof agricultural research stations in the Northern Riversregion, neoliberalism has certainly not disappeared as agovernmental rationality in New South Wales. Neoliber-alism continues to lurk (Heys, in O’Neill and Argent, 2005,p. 5), and even as the future of research stations in questionappears more secure, new neoliberal strategies have beendeployed at the micro-scale through new demands placedupon staff who saved their jobs to behave in certain ways:to find cost-savings, source outside research contracts andbecome more self-funding/self-sufficient.Brief acknowledgement is also due of the relatively

powerful position of most of the campaigners resisting theState Government’s rationalisation strategies. Many ofthose leading the campaign were quite highly educated, andskilled at managing the media in order to mount aneffective public relations exercise (cf. Essex and Brown,1997). It remains questionable whether such a well-co-ordinated programme of resistance could be realisticallyexpected to be raised in all small rural communities threate-ned by private and public service losses. The particular

ARTICLE IN PRESSC. Gibson et al. / Journal of Rural Studies 24 (2008) 351–366 365

socio-economic and locational context of the campaignmust be recognised.

Instead of judging the campaign against arbitraryyardsticks of ‘success’ and ‘replicability’, we have soughtto explore more modestly how neoliberal discourses wereaffronted by actors being governed at-a-distance, remain-ing sensitive to the geographical imaginations involved.Power was not merely a capacity held by government (andsomehow wrestled from them by an organised localcommunity). Instead, power can clearly be seen asdifferentially enacted by all parties in relationshipsmediated by distance and time, and through particulardiscourses and knowledges. It is our contention thatresistances to neoliberalism were not just those practical‘tactics’ undertaken in the campaign (such as writingpetitions or emailing campaigners)—though these are ofcourse vital. More deeply, what was significant in ourexample were the ways in which neoliberal discourses werechallenged, undermined, and replaced by counter-geogra-phies that re-imagined place, economy and identity.

The discourses of rational decision-making, efficiencyand economic ‘common-sense’ put forward by proponentsof rationalisation were unsettled on multiple fronts:rationalisation plans were problematised as only seekingshort-term gains; were depicted as shoddy because of thehaste with which they were hatched; and through swiftpolitical action and intense recruitment of the generalpublic in the campaign, the smooth translation of governingrationalities from centre to distant region was upended.Justifications based on ideas of rational service deliveryplanning quickly started to sound like stories about ruralcommunities being punished by an uncaring distantgovernment (cf. Allen, 2003). Maintaining professionalconduct was important to research station staff, yet, as withother examples of where neoliberalism has been seen to failor collapse (Argent, 2005), embarrassment of key protago-nists in the wider campaign proved mightily effective.

We have thus outlined here four ways in which counter-geographies were constructed in opposition to rationalisa-tion plans: of the local environment and its uniqueness, the‘city-country divide’, negative regional economic impacts,and of embodied emotional impacts. The internally homo-genous administrative space of neoliberal service provisionwas replaced with other vivid ways of imagining geography:as particularised regions with people and industries, uniquefeatures and injustices suffered. It remains to be seen howthe affected staff and stations will deal with new demands tobecome ‘more productive’ and seek outside private-fundingfor their activities. In the meantime, though, what is clear isthat, far from being logical or absolute, the implementationof neoliberal governmental rationalities is always negotiable.

References

Aitkin, D., 1985. ‘‘Countrymindedness’’: the spread of an idea. Australian

Cultural History 4, 34–41.

Allen, J., 2003. Lost Geographies of Power. Blackwell, Oxford.

Anderson, J., 2004. Global trade liberalization, the state and farming

traditions: a case study from Far North Queensland, Australia.

Culture and Agriculture 26, 137–148.

Anderson, J., MacDonald, I., 1999. Regional Australia: Meeting the

Challenges. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.

Argent, N., 2005. The neoliberal seduction: governing-at-a-distance,

community development and the battle over financial services

provision in Australia. Geographical Research 43, 29–39.

Beer, A., Clower, T., Haughtow, G., Maude, A., 2005. Neoliberalism and

the institutions for regional development in Australia. Geographical

Research 43 (1), 49–58.

Bell, M.M., Lowe, P., 2000. Regulated freedoms: the market and the state,

agriculture and the environment. Journal of Rural Studies 16, 285–294.

Blok, N., 2004. Farmers to fight. The Weekend Star, July 17, 2004, 8.

Brenner, N., Theodore, N., 2002. Cities and the geographies of ‘actually

existing neoliberalism’. Antipode 34, 349–379.

Daily Examiner, 2004. Farmers, ag staff unite in protest. The Daily

Examiner, 6 July, 4.

Dean, M., 1999. Governmentality: Power and Rule in Modern Society.

Sage, London.

Doust, S., 2004. Power of people saves station, The Daily Examiner, 29

September, 12.

Dufty, R., 2007a. Rethinking the politics of distribution: the geographies

and governmentalities of housing assistance in rural New South Wales,

Australia. Ph.D. Thesis, University of New South Wales, Australia.

Dufty, R., 2007b. Governing through locational choice: the locational

preferences of rural public housing tenants in south-western New

South Wales, Australia. Housing, Theory and Society 24, 183–206.

Essex, S., Brown, G., 1997. The emergence of post-suburban landscapes

on the North Coast of New South Wales: a case study of contested

space. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 21,

259–285.

Fincher, R., Panelli, R., 2001. Making space: women’s urban and rural

activism and the Australian state. Gender, Place and Culture 8,

129–148.

Foucault, M., 1980. Power and strategies. In: Gordon, C. (Ed.), Power/

Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972–1977.

Pantheon, New York, pp. 134–145.

Foucault, M., 1982. The subject and power. In: Rabinow, P. (Ed.), The

Foucault Reader: An Introduction to Foucault’s Thought. Penguin,

London, pp. 239–256.

Foucault, M., 1991. Governmentality. In: Burchell, G., Gordon, C.,

Miller, P. (Eds.), The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality.

Harvester Wheatsheaf, London, pp. 87–104.

Foucault, M., 1994a. Truth and juridical forms. In: Faubion, J.D. (Ed.),

Michel Foucault: Power, vol. III. Penguin, London, pp. 1–89.

Foucault, M., 1994b. Truth and power. In: Faubion, J.D. (Ed.), Michel

Foucault: Power, vol. III. Penguin, London, pp. 111–133.

Foucault, M., 1994c. The ethics of the concern for self as a practice of

freedom. In: Rabinow, P. (Ed.), Michel Foucault: Ethics, Subjectivity

and Truth, vol. 1. Penguin, London, pp. 281–301.

Gay, D., 2004. NSW Legislative Council Hansard (proof) Agricultural

research and advisory stations closure 31/08/04.

Gerritsen, R., 2000. The management of government and its conse-

quences for service delivery in regional Australia. In: Pritchard, B.,

McManus, P. (Eds.), Land of Discontent. UNSW Press, Sydney,

pp. 123–139.

Gibson, C., 2002. Rural transformation and cultural industries: popular

music on the New South Wales Far North Coast. Australian

Geographical Studies 40 (3), 336–356.

Gibson, C., 2003. The digital divide in New South Wales: a research note

on socio spatial inequality using 2001 census data on computer and

internet technology. Australian Geographer 34 (2), 239–257.

Gibson, C., Klocker, N., 2005. The ‘cultural turn’ in Australian regional

economic development discourse: neoliberalising creativity? Geogra-

phical Research 43 (1), 93–102.

Gibson, K., 2001. Regional subjection and becoming. Environment and

Planning D: Society and Space 19, 639–667.

ARTICLE IN PRESSC. Gibson et al. / Journal of Rural Studies 24 (2008) 351–366366

Goodwin, M., 1998. The governance of rural areas: some emerging

research issues and agendas. Journal of Rural Studies 14 (1), 5–12.

Gordon, C., 1991. Governmental rationality: an introduction. In:

Burchell, G., Gordon, C., Miller, P. (Eds.), The Foucault Effect:

Studies in Governmentality. Harvester Wheatsheaf, London, pp. 1–51.

Gough, J., 2002. Neoliberalism and socialisation in the contemporary city:

opposites, complements and instabilities. Antipode 34, 405–426.

Gregory, D., 2005. Geographies, publics and politics. Progress in Human

Geography 29 (2), 182–190.

Herbert-Cheshire, L., 2000. Contemporary strategies for rural community

development in Australia: a governmentality perspective. Journal of

Rural Studies 16, 203–215.

Herbert-Cheshire, L., 2003. Translating policy: power and action in

Australia’s country towns. Sociologia Ruralis 43 (4), 54–73.

Herbert-Cheshire, L., Higgins, V., 2004. From risky to responsible: expert

knowledge and the governing of community-led rural development.

Journal of Rural Studies 20, 289–302.

Herbert-Cheshire, L., Lawrence, G., 2002. Political economy and the

challenge of governance. Journal of Australian Political Economy 50,

139–145.

Hughes, K., 2004. Ag station, letter to editor, The Daily Examiner, 29

June, 15.

Larner, W., 1997. The legacy of the social: market governance and the

consumer. Economy and Society 26, 373–399.

Larner, W., 2000. Neo-liberalism: policy, ideology, governmentality.

Studies in Political Economy 63, 5–25.

Larner, W., 2003. Neoliberalism? Environment and Planning D: Society

and Space 21, 509–512.

Larner, W., 2005. Neoliberalism in (regional) theory and practice: the

stronger communities action fund in New Zealand. Geographical

Research 43 (1), 9–18.

Latour, B., 1987. Science in Action. Open University Press, Milton

Keynes.

Lawrence, R., Gibson, C., 2007. Obliging indigenous citizens? Shared

responsibility agreements in Australian aboriginal communities.

Cultural Studies 21, 650–671.

Lawrence, G., Gray, I., 2000. The myths of modern agriculture:

Australian rural production in the 21st century. In: Pritchard, B.,

McManus, P. (Eds.), Land of Discontent. UNSW Press, Sydney,

pp. 33–51.

Macdonald, I., 2004a. Towards 2020: growing the future. $25 million

reinvestment plan for agricultural research, press release, Minister for

Primary Industries, 22 July.

Macdonald, I., 2004b. Minister delivers major win for agricultural

research in NSW, press release, Minister for Primary Industries, 23

September.

MacKinnon, D., 2000. Managerialism, governmentality and the state:

a neo-Foucaultian approach to local economic governance. Political

Geography 19, 293–314.

Marsden, T., Murdoch, J., 1998. Editorial: the shifting nature of rural

governance and community participation. Journal of Rural Studies 14

(1), 1–4.

McKenna, M., 2000. Can rural voices effect rural choices? Contesting

deregulation in New Zealand’s apple industry. Sociologia Ruralis 40

(3), 366–383.

McNay, L., 1994. Foucault: A Critical Introduction. Continuum,

New York.

Murdoch, J., 1997a. Governmentality and territoriality: the statistical

manufacture of Britain’s ‘national farm’. Political Geography 16 (4),

307–324.

Murdoch, J., 1997b. The shifting territory of government: some insights

from the rural white paper. Area 29 (2), 109–118.

Murdoch, J., Abram, S., 1998. Defining the limits of community

governance. Journal of Rural Studies 14 (1), 41–50.

Naylor, E., 1994. Unionism, peasant protest and the reform of French

agriculture. Journal of Rural Studies 10 (3), 263–273.

NSW Department of Primary Industries (NSW DPI), 2004. Bulletin No.

5: Interim Board of Management Proposed Workforce Management

Plan, internal circular, DPI, Sydney.

NSW Farmers Association, 2004a. Farmers unity wins the war on

research, NSWFA press release, (PR201/2004) September 24.

NSW Farmers Association, 2004b. Farmers won’t budge—research must

be saved, NSWFA press release, (PR143/2004) July 20, 2004.

O’Malley, P., Weir, L., Shearing, C., 1997. Governmentality, criticism,

politics. Economy and Society 26 (4), 501–517.

O’Neill, P., Argent, N., 2005. Neoliberalism in Antipodean spaces and

times: an introduction to the special theme issue. Geographical

Research 43 (1), 2–8.

Panelli, R., 2007. Time-space geometries of activism and the case of mis/

placing gender in Australian agriculture. Transactions, Institute of

British Geographers 32, 46–65.

Peck, J., 2001. Neoliberalizing states: thin policies/hard outcomes.

Progress in Human Geography 25, 445–455.

Peck, J., Tickell, A., 2002. Neoliberalizing space. Antipode 34 (3),

380–404.

Pritchard, B., McManus, P. (Eds.), 2000. Land of Discontent: The

Dynamics of Change in Rural and Regional Australia. UNSW Press,

Sydney.

Raco, M., 2003. Governmentality, subject building and discourses and

practices of devolution. Transactions, Institute of British Geographers

28, 75–95.

Rose, N., 1999. Powers of Freedom: Reframing Political Thought.

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Rumming, K., 2005. Partnership, master planning and state provision: a

case study of ‘actually existing neoliberalism’ on the Central Coast of

New South Wales. Geographical Research 43 (1), 82–92.

Share, P., 1995. Beyond ‘countrymindedness’: representation in the

post-rural era. In: Share, P. (Ed.), Communication and Culture in

Rural Areas. The Centre for Rural Social Research, Wagga Wagga,

pp. 1–24.

Stilwell, F., 1994. Economic rationalism, cities and regions. Australian

Journal of Regional Studies 7, 54–65.

Thompson, N., 2005. Inter-institutional relations in the governance of

England’s national parks: a governmentality perspective. Journal of

Rural Studies 21, 323–334.

Tonge, F., 2004. Dairy. The Weekend Star, July 17, 2004, 9.

Tonts, M., 2000. The restructuring of Australia’s rural communities. In:

Pritchard, B., McManus, P. (Eds.), Land of Discontent. UNSW Press,

Sydney, pp. 52–72.

Tonts, M., Jones, R., 1997. From state paternalism to neoliberalism in

Australian rural policy: perspectives from the West Australian

wheatbelt. Space and Polity 1 (2), 171–190.

Treasurer of New South Wales, 2004. Mini Budget 2004. NSW State

Government, Sydney.

Walker, T., 2004. Pressure mounts for ag station decision. The Daily

Examiner, July 17, 3.

Ward, N., McNicholas, K., 1998. Reconfiguring rural development in the

UK: objective 5b and the new rural governance. Journal of Rural

Studies 14 (1), 27–39.

Woods, M., 1998. Advocating Rurality? The repositioning of rural local

government. Journal of Rural Studies 14 (1), 13–26.

Woods, M., 2003. Deconstructing rural protest: the emergence of a new

social movement. Journal of Rural Studies 19 (3), 309–325.

Woods, M., 2005. Rural Geography: Processes, Responses and Experi-

ences in Rural Restructuring. Sage, London.

Woods, M., Goodwin, M., 2003. Applying the rural: governance and

policy in rural areas. In: Cloke, P. (Ed.), Country Visions. Pearson,

Harlow, pp. 245–262.