Before last year’s federal election, Tony Abbott promised his incoming government would produce an Agricultural Competitiveness White Paper before the end of 2014. The aim would be to exploit Australian agriculture’s potential to maximise investment, jobs and services.
The government has now delivered the first stage of this commitment, with the release of the terms of reference for this policy process which, it says, will outline its “long-term strategic direction and policy commitments to promote competitiveness, farm-gate profitability, investment and jobs in the sector”.
Just to explain, production of a government White Paper is a process that enables informed development of government policy objectives, through engaging in debate with people who have an interest in that policy area.
There are three phases in the development of a White Paper: an Issues Paper, which raises the relevant questions; a Green Paper, which usually flags the government’s initial response to those issues; then the White Paper itself.
The taskforce that has to do the footwork on the three stages of this latest process has begun its task, gathering reaction to the issues paper. In fact, it started in Tasmania last week with meetings in Launceston, including with the TFGA board, Devonport and Hobart. Over coming weeks, the taskforce will hold hearings in 25 towns and regional centres and eight cities around Australia.
What are the issues so far?
• food security
• improving farm gate returns, including drought management
• access to finance
• competitiveness through the value chain
• regional communities
• inputs along the supply chain
• reducing inefficient regulation
• enhancing agricultural exports
• the effectiveness of incentives for investment and job creation
These are all important issues. Let me highlight a couple for now – and we’ll look in more detail over coming weeks at others.
The Issues Paper notes that we grow enough to feed 60 million people but there is an estimated 840 million in the world who face a daily challenge to eat. Farmers can rightly ask whether government is sending the right signals to encourage them to play their role in addressing this world-wide problem.
Do Australian policy makers (and consumers of food) really understand what is meant by the words ‘food security’, or are we too complacent in our safe first world environment? Are we really operating in the optimum research, development and extension regime at the moment so that rural industries and governments can identify, prioritise and fund the programs the country needs in order to play its role in world food security? How can young people and new farmers be attracted to agriculture and how can they leap the hurdles to achieve farm ownership? How can we compete in a global market with others who don’t play by the same rules?
It may surprise some to read that I agree that rules are important for economic and social reasons. However, all regulation comes at a cost, and farmers are usually the bunnies in agriculture. So regulation has to be rational, effective and not self-defeating in terms of the burdens it places on those who must comply.
The Issues Paper cites one authority as estimating the cost of complying with regulation could be around four per cent of total farm expenses. In Tasmania it is far higher than that, due in no small part to the plethora of overlapping and often duplicative state regulations.
In 2012, when we had reached the Green Paper stage of a National Food Plan, I noted that the regulatory environment in Australia was much more demanding than in most other jurisdictions. Tasmania had the most stringent regulatory requirements of any Australian state and faced significant challenges in competing even in domestic markets, let alone in export markets, particularly in markets such as those in Asia where costs of production are low.
“Furthermore, domestic producers are subject to a range of market behaviours designed to maximise profits at the retail end to the detriment of the production end of the value chain.
“The continual downward price war being engaged in by the two major retail outlets is taking its toll – with many Australian farmers already being driven out of business,” I said then.
Nothing has changed – in fact, those comments are even more relevant today than they were then.
It is impossible to avoid a sense of déjà vu about this; and we can perhaps be forgiven for the collective eyebrow-raising at yet another planning process by government. Think National Food Plan, think Asian Century.
Is this to be another interminable talkfest where we all spend our valuable time and resources responding to the call, but nothing actually eventuates?
Agriculture Minister Barnaby Joyce started debate on this latest White Paper with the undeniable truth: “Agriculture policy can be the architecture for success or the cursed prelude to failure.”
Or it can be an absolute waste of time.
Having said that, I believe we should all give this process a fair go. This time, though, we should all keep the pressure on the government to actually deliver something worthwhile that will move our industry forward.
TFGA CEO Jan Davis’ Tasmanian Country column today
