Parties must give the bush straight answers Rural voters want sensible political leaders who propose sensible policies,writes Ed Gannon. RURAL voters reflect the wishes and aspirations of their metropolitan cousins in this election. They want a bright future, a vibrant economy, job security for them and their children, good health and education systems and knowledge that law and order will prevail. They want sensible political leaders who propose sensible policies that achieve all of the above. And they don't want to be seen as a special interest group, because they believe their interests align with the interests of the nation. A vibrant rural sector and agricultural economy is good for the rest of the population. But when they see how other interest groups or issues have fared in recent years, they are perhaps justified in pushing their own cause. Here are some of the issues where rural Australia feels railroaded by outside interests. And they are the issues on which they want leadership from a future government. The environment: The battle over water in the Murray-Darling Basin in the past decade has been a classic green-versus-farmer fight. And the environment has been the clear winner. Farmers have never argued water should not be returned to the environment. They just disagree with ripping water from communities rather than investing in on-farm savings so all sides can win. Live animal trade: The trade hangs by a thread, constantly attacked by a vocal group that stirs the masses with unfair and sometimes mischievous information. The fact animal welfare is best served by Australia supplying the demand for live animals is lost in the one-sided debate. World trade: SPC Ardmona is currently fighting a case against cheap imported fruit and tomatoes being dumped by Chile, South Africa and Italy. Yes, I know the inquiry will decide if it is dumping, but let's call a spade a spade. Talk about SPC taking on a fight against the world on its own. And I mean on its own, because the Federal Government has done next to nothing to help Australia's once-great food manufacturing sector for fear of offending other countries. Which brings me to the next bugbear. The car industry: Why oh why do American and Japanese-controlled companies get so much money from taxpayers and then are allowed to renege on their job promises? Yet when Australian farmers ask for help in fighting dumping cases or tackling other countries over trade cheating, the Government looks the other way. Infrastructure: This doesn't get many headlines, but the past decade has all been about mining infrastructure or ensuring voters in sensitive urban seats don't have to sit in peak-hour congestion. Basic infrastructure such as fixing the rail system in western Victoria or improving mobile phone reception has been pushed to the back of the queue. This is already possibly the most urban election we have faced. That's because the seats Labor needs to retain and the seats the Coalition must win are in heavily populated western Sydney. That is why we can't go a day without the asylum seeker boats from Indonesia not dominating the headlines. But is that the big issue for our future? As Miles Hannemann, Nationals candidate for the South Australian seat of Barker, told The Weekly Times: "People aren't talking about the issues like boats and the carbon tax here. The main thing is people are just trying to keep their doors open. All politicians are able to parrot that we are on the cusp of a "dining boom" with Asia. But few, if any, can actually point to concrete plans to capture that market - plans like improved transport infrastructure, free-trade agreements with countries such as China and taking on the grossly unfair trade policies of the northern hemisphere. Sort those out and rural Australians will see a brighter future for themselves and the rest of the nation.