- Building relationships
- This chapter examines the relationships which underpin trade. It highlights the importance of long-term investment in relationship building, and collaboration between government and industry—including the need for a ‘Team Australia’ approach. It also highlights the importance of collaboration with Australia’s trading partners in achieving mutually beneficial outcomes. Cultural literacy, the role of Agriculture Counsellors, and the role of funding agencies and programs in market engagement is also discussed.
Long-term investment
3.2Much of the evidence received by the Committee highlighted the importance of developing long-term relations with partners in the region, both between governments, between government and industry, and between industry operators. According to Dr Rieks van Klinken of the CSIRO, ‘the big factor in accessing markets, maintaining markets and improving market access is trust: trust among consumers, trust among the supply chain actors and trust among the regulators’. Dr van Klinken’s research identified the ‘need for really long-term building of relationships’ and how Australia ‘can build a culture with our trading partners that can lead to longer-term relationships and stronger relationships that will lead to longer-term gains’. Dr Jennifer Taylor highlighted the need for continuous effort, ‘checking in, exploring new options’, and looking at how Australia can deepen collaborations in its supply chain for producers, while building systems that go beyond individual relationships. Dr Taylor stated:
It is about building platforms that not only allow the one-to-one relationship between our producers and the potential market there but also build that institutional capacity in Southeast Asia. We need platforms that engage a range of producers across Australia and a range of potential supply chains into Southeast Asia.
3.3Dr Lilly Lim-Camacho told the Committee that for Australia to successfully operate in Southeast Asia, it needs to understand the system and be part of the community.
3.4The National Farmers’ Federation (NFF) emphasised the need for ‘a strong in-country presence representing the agricultural sector, facilitating industry engagement, investing in capacity-building exercises and growing people-to-people links’. In dealing with barriers to trade, the NFF also highlighted the need for persistent effort.
3.5Representatives of the grains industry also emphasised the importance of building and maintaining relationships in the region over the long term. Mrs Courtney Draper, Executive General Manager of the Australian Export Grains Innovation Centre (AEGIC), noted that continued engagement with grains customers is crucial to maintaining and growing exports in the region. She also observed that expanded, well-targeted and long-term government resources are key to maintaining and growing Australia’s grain exports to Southeast Asia. Mrs Draper stated that relationships and trust are at the forefront of trade in Southeast Asia.
3.6Similarly, Dr John Ackerman, General Manager Trade and Market Access for Grains Australia Limited, stated that Grains Australia believed ‘in more than just transactional trade’. It aims to understand the unique challenges that Southeast Asia faces and works collaboratively to find solutions that benefit all parties involved. He observed that this approach is based on building long-term understanding and trust, and requires a commitment from all parties to ensure a whole-of-Australia approach.
3.7The representatives of the grains industry emphasised the need for long-term investment by government and industry in initiatives targeting Southeast Asia; creating certainty of funding and certainty of ongoing funding for industry-led projects to allow continued engagement with these markets; and a ‘long-term strategic approach’ and long-term commitment. Ms Annabel Mactier, representing GrainGrowers Limited, stressed the importance of ‘long-term sustainable funding’ for the Agriculture Counsellor network; while Mr Tim Ross, Projects and Operations Manager for Grain Trade Australia, highlighted the importance of ‘mutual benefit’—programs that ‘focus on what's beneficial for the market as well as for the production sector in Australia’. Dr Ackerman also emphasised the importance of bringing industry along at every step. He pointed out that ‘even if the funding is shorter term, if industry is brought in from the beginning through to the end, if it is a viable program and if there is benefit on both sides then industry will continue to pick it up, even if the funding drops off’.
Engagement and collaboration
Government and industry
3.8Collaboration between government and industry is seen as vital to success in developing trade and partnerships in Southeast Asia. The NFF stated:
Our experience is that a collaboration of industry and government works really well. Industry has business relationships in there. These things need a government approach because government to government, bureaucrat to bureaucrat and minister to minister are really important as well. What we've found to be incredibly valuable and incredibly beneficial is the industry-government partnership.
3.9LiveCorp was of the view that the ‘longevity and the effectiveness’ of industry-government collaboration had underpinned ‘achievements in market access, preventing or reducing the impact of disruptions, and implementing animal welfare improvements’. It stated that the Agricultural Counsellor network and the Animal Biosecurity and International Trade and Market Access Division of DAFF had ‘been critical’ in developing and growing the relationships with in-market governments needed ‘to achieve and retain agricultural access in the region’. LiveCorp concluded that:
These relationships also allow us to stay informed of trading partners’ goals, concerns, and current areas of focus and there have been many examples where the Australian Government and industry have been able to partner together to address these areas.
3.10The grains industry emphasised the need for ongoing industry-government collaboration. Grain Trade Australia indicated that ‘market opportunities are best progressed through joint industry and government programs’. It desired more government support for industry lead initiatives, and more timely access to Australian Bureau of Statistics trade data. It suggested that ‘more timely release of this data, would assist grain exporters, consumers and growers in navigating markets, improved understanding of demand, and management of market and logistical risks’. Similarly, Grains Australia stated:
When developing and implementing strategies, programs or initiatives related to trade and investment, government would benefit by partnering with industry and industry associations for the activities’ entirety.
3.11The Australian Export Grains Innovation Centre (AEGIC), an initiative of the Western Australian State Government and Grains Australia, recommended ‘government investment that supports industry-led collaborative programs’. This includes market intelligence collection and a permanent industry presence in the region, including technical support. This would require ‘adequate long-term investment from government and industry’.
Team Australia
3.12An important part of industry-government collaboration was taking a united ‘Team Australia’ approach. The Australian dairy industry endorsed adopting a unified Team Australia approach to promoting Australian food and wine in the region. Mr Stephen Sheridan, CEO of Australian Dairy Farmers, told the Committee:
Just addressing that question on the cross-sectoral approach, I would say a good example last year was during the EU free-trade agreement negotiations, where a cross-sectoral approach worked very well. There are a lot of commodities that are going into Southeast Asia, whether it be red meat, grains or dairy, working collectively. If you're negotiating an FTA or whatever, then it is across all sectors of the economy. I think having the sectors working in concert with each other really pays dividends.
3.13As an example, Mr Sheridan highlighted the opportunities presented by Indonesia’s planned school meal program:
That will involve cross-sectoral work, not from just dairy and dairy products but potentially a live export of heifers as well. So it would mean a lot of industries coming together collectively to try and fulfil those trade objectives.
3.14Team Australia went beyond government and industry. The CSIRO’s Dr Rieks van Klinken observed that ‘lots of people within CSIRO and other partner organisations have important relationships with people in Southeast Asia’. He suggested that Australia ‘take a much more “one-Australia” approach in terms of who we engage with, how we engage and have a longer-term strategic goal around those engagements’.
3.15AUSVEG suggested promoting Australian agricultural products ‘globally under a unified national brand that emphasizes quality, safety, and sustainability’. It proposed strengthening the ‘Brand Australia’ initiative—Australia’s Nation Brand—'to associate Australian products with quality and reliability, enhancing their appeal in Southeast Asian markets’.
Collaborating with trading partners
3.16Collaboration with trading partners was also a key message from stakeholders in industry and the region. LiveCorp viewed genuine collaboration and cooperation in the areas of priority for trading partners as vital. It stated that:
Trading partners are increasingly looking for partnerships alongside trade and access agreements that allow for information sharing, technology development and capability building in priority areas for them (including opportunities to improve farm incomes and agricultural productivity).
3.17An example of collaboration was the Livestock Export Program (LEP). The LEP in-market program is a collaborative mechanism for exporters and producers to deliver programs in:
- Livestock management, health and welfare.
- Market access and development.
- Supply chain improvements.
- Communication and stakeholder relationships.
- Research, development and extension.
- The program has in-market managers based in Indonesia and Vietnam.
- A key focus of the LEP is providing training and sharing expertise with managers and workers in feedlots and abattoirs ‘to build their understanding and capability on animal welfare practices and supply chain performance opportunities’. LiveCorp observed that:
The LEP team has trained thousands of people in overseas markets in animal handling, husbandry and slaughter practices in the last decade (for example, 12,000 people between 2011 and 2018) and more recently has focused on ‘train the trainer’ activities to provide greater reach more efficiently. In the past couple of years, support for training and capacity building has expanded to include biosecurity – particularly in Indonesia.
3.20Coming out of these training programs are local initiatives in Indonesia focused on improving animal welfare and a Vietnamese Government initiative on developing animal welfare standards. Mr Wayne Collier, CEO of LiveCorp, highlighted this as an example of relationships going beyond trade. He noted that the Vietnamese Government was:
… able to partner with the LEP in market as well as the agriculture counsellor over there and, with some Australian government funding support, provide that animal welfare expertise in terms of their development of a national animal welfare standard, which includes promoting stunning as best practice. The impacts go well beyond just the supply chains that we're in to really being able to support a partnership outside pure trade.
3.21LiveCorp highlighted the need for collaboration on biosecurity. It noted that ‘the importance of building capability in biosecurity throughout supply chains has become highly apparent in Southeast Asia, to protect both food security and trade’. It emphasised, however, that Australia’s support should focus on building the capability of the importing country.
3.22Grains Australia made a similar point, observing that because Australia tended to ‘respond and react when an issue arises, we have not necessarily championed ourselves with our regional partners, but rather … we react when it is in Australia’s benefit’. It asserted that ‘developing and delivering long-term joint programs focused on identifying and treating biosecurity threats and outbreaks within the region can have significant benefits for all’, stating:
A focus on programs that partner with our regional neighbours and are ongoing, not just reactionary, will help to showcase a partnership approach and build trust. They will assist in providing further mechanisms to improve understanding of Australia’s approach to biosecurity risks which can assist in supporting faster and effective clearance of commodities at all borders.
3.23The Red Meat Advisory Council (RMAC) emphasised the importance of regional partnerships to the live export trade. The partnership approach was fundamental to the live export industry’s success in assisting Indonesia in managing outbreaks of Foot-and-Mouth Disease (FMD) and Lumpy Skin Disease (LSD). This was the outcome of ‘the close relationship between Australian exporters and Indonesian importers’. A similar partnership approach is being taken in another critical live export market, Vietnam. RMAC highlighted the success of the Indonesia–Australia Partnership on Food Security in the Red Meat and Cattle Sector and urged its continuation. It concluded that:
Strong bilateral and plurilateral government and regulatory relationships with Southeast Asia provide the groundwork to increase commercial partnership and relationship development, which directly places Australia as a key food partner.
3.24AUSVEG saw scope for collaboration and strategic partnerships between Australia and its neighbours to enhance the agricultural value chain. Investments in cold chain infrastructure, logistics, and biotechnology could improve the quality and safety of food products across the region, while collaborative efforts in agricultural research and policy-making could ‘address shared challenges such as climate change, water scarcity, and farm sustainability, fostering a resilient agricultural sector’. AUSVEG is of the view that:
The integration of Australian agriculture into Southeast Asian food security strategies not only serves the economic and geopolitical interests of Australia but also supports a sustainable, stable, and prosperous Southeast Asia, underscoring the profound interconnectedness of regional food systems and the importance of collaborative solutions to global challenges.
3.25The Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries (DAF) also observed that:
Greater collaboration between Australia and Southeast Asian nations around priority infrastructure investments that benefit the modernisation of agricultural industries will support those countries still struggling with food security and develop our multilateral trade relationships.
3.26At the conclusion of its submission, GrainGrowers stated:
The Moore Report underscores the vital importance of Australia's engagement with Southeast Asia for its future prosperity and security. As we celebrate the 50th anniversary of our partnership with ASEAN, it is imperative to reiterate our dedication to fostering a cooperative and sustainable relationship.
3.27Collaboration and engagement is a key theme for some of Australia’s trading partners in the region. Both Indonesia and Thailand emphasised the need for, and opportunities for, collaboration between Australia and those nations, and more broadly within the region and beyond. The Thai Ambassador, Her Excellency Ms Arjaree Sriratanaban, observed that the food and agriculture sectors in Thailand and Australia complemented each other, providing opportunities for collaboration between major food exporting countries sharing ‘a robust trade relationship’.
3.28Opportunities are available for increasing two-way trade in agricultural products, enhancing investment in each other’s food and agriculture sectors, enhancing cooperation ‘through exchanges of knowledge, technology, innovation and best practices as well as research collaboration’. Ambassador Sriratanaban observed that investment in new food trends such as ‘healthy foods and beverages, plant-based foods and alternative proteins as well as future foods, present huge potentials for both sides’. She also emphasised synergies with Thai Government efforts to develop ‘an ecosystem to support industry, especially agritech and food tech’, which included:
… establishing what we call Food Innopolis as a global food innovation hub and working with the private sector on a global food tech start-ups incubator and accelerator program to support agritech and food tech entrepreneurs to establish strong and sustainable businesses.
3.29Ambassador Sriratanaban also urged ‘Australia to look at Thailand beyond bilateral partnerships and beyond our borders’. She suggested that Australia and Thailand could ‘work together to strengthen food security, particularly in the Mekong subregion, ASEAN and beyond’, in both trilateral and multilateral partnerships:
Agriculture, including fisheries and aquaculture, has been part of Thailand's development and technical cooperation with our neighbouring countries, Pacific island countries and others. Australia is doing significant work there as well, so both sides can also explore working more closely together in this area in the form of trilateral cooperation as well as through frameworks such as the Mekong-Australia Partnership.
3.30The Mekong subregion is seen as particularly fertile ground for regional collaboration, as both Australia and Thailand are already engaged in the area. Ambassador Sriratanaban saw opportunities ‘because Thailand already has some programs related to agricultural cooperation with our neighbouring countries to share our practices and knowledge in terms of agriculture’, with projects aimed at lifting the livelihoods of the farmers and ‘training programs related to fisheries, livestock and farming, and programs to increase productivity in terms of fisheries’. Thailand hoped to see Australia work with it and its neighbours ‘to enhance these kinds of projects in order for these activities to have a greater positive impact in the region’. Ambassador Sriratanaban thought it would be good to combine forces and strengths to expand these kinds of projects. Nonetheless, Ambassador Sriratanaban advised that other countries interest in the region was growing faster than Australia’s and urged closer Australian engagement with the region.
3.31Similarly, Indonesia’s Ambassador, His Excellency Dr Siswo Pramono, highlighted the opportunities for collaboration between Australia and the region, including in trade, food security and biosecurity. He acknowledged the importance of the relationship between the two countries, and supported the implementation of the Indonesia–Australia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement.
Face-to-face contact
3.32The importance of face-to-face contact in developing and maintaining relationships with Southeast Asia was emphasised by a number of stakeholders. Ms Leatrice Treharne, Head of Business Development at Port of Melbourne, noted that with Asian cultures, face-to-face engagement and cultural understanding and awareness is critical. Highlighting the work of Agriculture Counsellors, Grains Australia stated that ‘face-to-face interactions are vital for building relationships and gaining real-time information’. DAFF noted the importance of having senior officials able to fly into the region to support the work of people in-country. Mr Tom Black, First Assistant Secretary, Exports and Veterinary Services, told the Committee:
You might have done a lot of the legwork through the counsellor, but, particularly in Southeast Asia, the senior person flying into the market and having the face-to-face discussion with the boss at the other side is a really good thing. It can be the final bit in unlocking the puzzle. It's a multipronged approach, but, absolutely, the on-the-ground presence is really important.
3.33Ambassador Sriratanaban stressed the need ‘to see and experience firsthand opportunities for Australia's agriculture sector in Thailand’, inviting government, parliamentary and business delegations from Australia to visit Thailand. She reaffirmed Thailand's readiness to grow its strategic partnership with Australia. Likewise, Indonesia’s Ambassador Pramono emphasised the importance of getting to know one another:
So I believe that people-to-people contact is very, very important—it cannot be replaced by technology—so you understand our nightmare and our dream, and we can understand your nightmares and dreams. Working together, we can have solutions for our nightmares and then we can have realisation of our common dreams. It's only people-to-people contact that can do that.
Trade missions
3.34Trade missions were seen as a vital part of providing face-to-face contact and building relationships. Port of Melbourne took part in the inaugural Australia Southeast Asia Business Exchange mission to Singapore and Malaysia in April 2024. It noted the mission offered a valuable forum to engage with key stakeholders in a vital trade region as well as advance Australia’s position as a leader in both trade and decarbonisation initiatives. Port of Melbourne described the mission as ‘highly successful in building relationships, fostering further collaboration, and advocating for Australian industry’, establishing a model that can be replicated to promote and support ‘agriculture, animal and plant biosecurity, climate resilience and agricultural sustainability and innovation’. It regarded an active industry presence in Southeast Asia as essential, ‘as increased interaction leads to more opportunities and higher trust’. Port of Melbourne recommended that the government ‘continue to expand Australia’s Southeast Asia Business Exchange Missions and engage thoroughly with industry bodies across regions’.
3.35Port operator DP World also advocated for organising trade missions to Australian production areas as a way of showcasing Australian agricultural practices and fostering collaboration. Outbound trade missions could ‘build networks, explore opportunities, and foster relationships with local businesses and government officials’. DP World also indicated that hosting forums and conferences to ‘bring together stakeholders from government and industry can help address key priorities’.
3.36AUSVEG also suggested organising and supporting trade missions, exhibitions and fairs to establish contacts and develop new markets. AUSVEG noted that it participated in ‘key trade shows’, but that ‘trade activities are limited by resources’. Austrade highlighted the work it does in organising trade missions and other events to promote trade with the region.
Joint ventures
3.37Greater two-way investment and joint ventures were identified as key ingredients in deepening regional relationships. The Moore report encouraged the formation of ‘strategic commercial relationships, joint venture partnerships, and two-way investments in supply chains’. It recommended establishing ‘an Australian Agriculture Partnership to bring together public and private sector expertise to support agricultural trade cooperation and development in Southeast Asia’. In a similar vein, port operator DP World observed that ‘public-private partnerships can facilitate joint ventures between Australian and Southeast Asian companies, enhancing market penetration and sharing expertise’. DP World highlighted its own experience as an operator of ports across the region. It noted that:
These ports and integrated logistics solutions offer Australian exporters a competitive edge through efficient port operations, end-to-end supply chain solutions, and advanced technologies such as blockchain and AI. DP World’s strategic partnerships and market intelligence capabilities further enhance our ability to support Australian exporters by providing valuable insights and facilitating smoother export processes and compliance with regional regulations.
3.38Joint ventures are a major feature of the relationship between the Australian dairy industry and Southeast Asia, commencing with Indomilk in Indonesia in 1962 and extending to collaborations in Thailand, the Philippines and Malaysia. The Australian Dairy Industry Council (ADIC) observed that ‘the Australian dairy industry actively invests in Southeast Asia to build awareness and capability of its dairy products’. A number of Australian companies ‘have established a robust market presence and enhanced the overall demand for Australian dairy products in Southeast Asia’. This investment is two-way, with a number of companies, particularly from Thailand, investing in the Australian dairy industry. Since 2015, Dairy Australia has been running a scholarship program with Southeast Asia. The program ‘facilitates relationships between Australia’s dairy industry and international partners’. Mr John Williams, President of the Australian Dairy Products Federation, observed that, with its ‘significant investments and longstanding relationships’, Australia’s dairy industry has ‘a competitive edge in the Southeast Asian market’.
3.39Other industries with a strong joint-venture presence in the region include grains and beef. Grains Australia highlighted the joint venture between CBH Group and Indofood into the regionally significant flour milling business, Interflour Group; and the investment by Manildra into starch and gluten processing in Indonesia.
3.40The Consolidated Pastoral Company (CPC) formed a joint venture partnership in Indonesia in 2000, operating feed lots in Sumatra which complemented its operations in Australia. This joint venture has grown over time to encompass a breeding program for Brahman cross cattle, a breeding centre, and corporate social responsibility programs focussed on clean water, infrastructure, education and animal welfare. Mr Troy Setter, CPC’s CEO, explained:
In 2006, in partnership with local partners, we developed a breeding program for local cattle. Since 2006, we've successfully put 6,000 pregnant Brahman cattle and breeding cows through the Indonesian beef cattle herd population. This has delivered significant ESG value, but certainly delivered significant political value and goodwill between Australia and Indonesia.
In 2010, we opened a breeding centre facility at our Lampung feedlot and we're now in the process of revamping our Indonesian dairy operations to showcase and teach local farmers and Indonesian government officials about milk production to align to the Indonesian government's commitment to eliminate childhood stunting and malnutrition. As part of our corporate responsibility towards the surrounding villages, we have a number of routine and non-routine CSR programs, including providing clean water for villages; building infrastructure, roads and bridges; scholarship programs to ensure that every employee of ours has an opportunity for their children to finish high school; numerous university scholarships; and also ensuring that there is adequate food and disaster relief equipment when required.
3.41Mr Setter concluded by summarising the key elements of CPC’s success in Indonesia, stating:
CPC's Indonesian partnership success has been built on its contribution to the local economy, local jobs and the local community. The strength of partnership is also enhanced by the company's relationship with the Indonesian government, the Indonesian bureaucracy and our embassy officials from Australia.
3.42Both the Thai and Indonesian Governments emphasised the importance of increased investment to the relationship with Australia. The Royal Thai Embassy noted that Thailand was being proactive in promoting investment in the agriculture and food sectors—including through tax exemptions and non-tax benefits—with San Remo, ‘a very successful Australian food company’, enjoying these incentives for its investment in Thailand. Thai companies have also invested in Australia, with Mitr Phol, a sugar conglomerate in Thailand, operating the MSF sugar company in Queensland, producing both sugar and energy from biomass. The Royal Thai Embassy advised that:
With its strategic location and connectivity to other countries in the region, as well as its bilateral and multilateral trade agreements with many countries, Thailand offers opportunity for Australian businesses, which have complementary strengths to link agricultural and food supply chain with Thailand and work together in contributing to sustain global food security as well as to engage with future food trends, including wellness food, plant-based food, and functional food.
3.43Indonesia’s Ambassador Pramono urged Australia to pay greater attention to the region, observing that Australian investment in the region had been decreasing while investment in Europe was increasing:
In terms of investment, which is very important to us, in the last four or five years after the pandemic, we've seen an increase in the Australian level of investment in Europe mostly. Investment into the UK, the European Union and also the United States has increased tremendously … But, in the last five years as well, the level of investment by Australia into Southeast Asia has been decreasing. In the statistic that I saw today, you have a decline in the last four or five years with Malaysia, Indonesia and Vietnam as well. So the announcement of the new strategy for Southeast Asia came at the right moment, and now we understand that Australia has set up deal teams in Jakarta and elsewhere. We hope this can help to increase the level of investment from Australia to Indonesia, including in the agriculture business. Vice versa, Indonesian investment in Australia increased 88 per cent. So now our investment in Australia is almost double Australian investment in Indonesia, including in agriculture.
3.44There are opportunities for two-way investment in the dairy industry—linked to plans for providing schools meals for children. Ambassador Pramono saw opportunities for Indonesia to invest in dairy in Australia, to learn by investing in good practices while increasing the security of supply of milk to Indonesia. At the same time, Australian investment in dairy in Indonesia would ‘create a good ecosystem for dairy. That means always being vigilant about improving the standard of production, the standard of ESG and the standard of biosecurity.’ Ambassador Pramono concluded by stating:
We invest in Australia in cattle and in dairy, and you invest in Indonesia in the same things, and we can improve the production together not only for domestic demand in Indonesia but also for the global demand for dairy that is increasing.
3.45Ambassador Promono highlighted other potential synergies in the relationship, including using the byproducts of palm oil production—palm oil kernels—for cattle feed; and palm oil as biofuel. He stated:
The point is that we can have more cooperation on the scientific aspect, on the ESG aspect and on the development of palm oil in Indonesia. We have done it with the Netherlands. We have done it with Germany for a long time. But why not with Australia? You are the best agricultural producer in the world, as well as with a lot of experience—for the last 200 years.
Southeast Asia literacy
3.46The need to go beyond personal contact and achieve a level of cultural literacy was highlighted by several stakeholders. Dr John Ackerman, General Manager, Trade and Market Access, at Grains Australia Limited, told the Committee:
Despite my time in Southeast Asia, over a 17-year period, it still fascinates me how little we know or understand. Lots of people travel in, have three-day meetings, come out again and think that it will happen at that point. It takes personal relationships, understanding and trust being built first. Getting that awareness is an important point.
3.47Dr Ackerman suggested that priority be given to improve Southeast Asian business acumen for the agriculture sector in Australia.
3.48The need to build cultural literacy was the first recommendation of the Moore report, which urged development of ‘a whole-of-nation plan to strengthen Southeast Asia literacy in Australian business, government, the education and training system, and the community’. The Moore report highlighted the decline in the teaching of Southeast Asian languages and cultural awareness in schools and universities, arguing that:
Australia needs to lift investment in Southeast Asia literacy at all levels, from stimulating demand and teaching languages and cultural awareness to school and university students, to training government officials and senior executives and board directors on Southeast Asian commerce and business practices.
3.49The findings of the Moore report were endorsed by Ms Annabel Mactier, Policy Manager, Trade and Supply Chains, with GrainGrowers Limited. Ms Mactier stated:
One of the stats I found was that, despite it having historically been a priority, in 2022 only 560 Australian students studied a Southeast Asian language as part of a university degree. We've really got a lack. There are very limited places where you can now study that. Despite having a really significant diaspora, it's incredibly hard to get formal training in some of those subjects. That really needs to be a priority. It has been identified, but I haven't seen that being acted on. That's vital.
3.50Ms Mactier also highlighted other recommendations of the Moore report, including developing a strategy to ‘engage with Australia’s Southeast Asian diaspora to inform efforts to deepen SME business links with the region’; and coordinating ‘a whole-of-nation initiative to better engage alumni, including a scheme for connecting alumni with Australian and Southeast Asian businesses’. Ms Mactier stated:
The second point that was identified as part of the Moore report that I thought was vital is how we better engage with the existing diaspora and how we formalise that. Another one is how we engage with the incredible education links that we have between the regions. We have a lot of alumni who have studied at Australian institutions and have then moved back to Southeast Asia. I met a number of people who were involved in small organisations in Vietnam who had studied at Australian universities. They are really keen to champion Australia at a local level. How do we harness that in a more effective way? It would be really powerful.
3.51Australian Grape & Wine also saw opportunities ‘to expand cultural ties which supports trade and economic relations’ through Southeast Asian diaspora communities in Australia.
Agriculture Counsellors
3.52The work of the Agriculture Counsellor network was highlighted as being vital to the development of trade and relationships within the Southeast Asian region. These specialised agriculture trade and policy experts are based in Australian missions overseas and are responsible for:
- Exploring and developing new market openings for Australian farmers and exporters.
- Maintaining existing market access.
- Improving technical market access.
- Providing market intelligence.
- Managing sensitive policy issues.
- Representing Australia at meetings and negotiations.
- Resolving issues when Australian agricultural goods arrive at their foreign destination.
- Agriculture Counsellors are based in DFAT missions in Indonesia (two positions), Malaysia (currently vacant), Thailand and Vietnam.
- The importance of Agriculture Counsellors, and their locally engaged staff, was highlighted by ADIC. It gave an example of work done in Indonesia to clarify the impact of Indonesia’s halal product assurance law, stating:
The Indonesian based Agriculture Counsellor has provided clarity around the halal certification and has been integral to negotiating an agreement between respective governments to ensure greater transparency. This example clearly highlights the value the agriculture counsellor network provides for Australian agriculture industries.
3.55ADIC explained that the dairy industry valued the ‘Agriculture Counsellor Network and the Canberra-based staff involved in facilitating market access negotiations, given the importance of international trade to the Australian dairy sector’. It urged ‘continued or increased funding for counsellors within important and complex markets, such as Malaysia and other Southeast Asian countries’, stating that ‘a reduction in footprint and/or available resources would be detrimental to the Australian dairy industry’s export performance’.
3.56Similarly, Grains Australia recommended increased government support, with adequate resources, for DAFF and overseas posts to maintain and increase the Agriculture Counsellor network and its effectiveness. Grains Australia highlighted the support the Agriculture Counsellor network received from Canberra-based officials, stating:
Ensuring the appropriate staffing support in Canberra will also strengthen priority setting and responsiveness to opportunities, principally around market access. Consequently, there is a need for continued support within the Canberra DAFF offices to enable the Counsellor network to remain informed and effective.
3.57Mr Patrick Hutchinson, CEO of the Australian Meat Industry Council, emphasised that however much industry was involved in promoting exports, government-to-government engagement remained critical to trade. Mr Hutchinson stated that the Australian Government’s role needs to be ‘current, effective and well resourced’. He did not consider DAFF to be adequately and sustainably funded to play its role in maintaining and enhancing trade with Southeast Asia.
3.58DAFF emphasised the importance of the Agriculture Counsellor network to increasing trade and promoting relationships. It indicated that ‘increased capacity for the Counsellor network, for both short-term and long-term postings, could deliver economic opportunities and technical market access outcomes in Southeast Asia through increased in-country and engagement’. DAFF stated:
Ongoing, and growing funding (commensurate with inflation), to maintain our existing footprint of 22 Counsellors in key markets that includes five committed positions in Southeast Asia (2 Indonesia, 1 Vietnam, 1 Malaysia and 1 Thailand) is required. In addition, further funding would allow us to increase our presence in Southeast Asia which will help strengthen our advocacy, deepen networks with key government decision makers and help maintain our strong market presence in the region—consistent with the Government’s Southeast Asia Economic Strategy 2040 (Moore Report).
3.59DAFF explained that funding to support time-limited short term counsellor deployments would allow for greater flexibility and agility to respond to changing market conditions and market access priorities. It noted that:
The funding of temporary short-term missions in the past has allowed for more targeted advocacy, closer engagement with industry and can be particularly useful to support a Counsellor or Minister Counsellor already in market to manage competing priorities and progress market access opportunities.
3.60DAFF also highlighted the role of its Canberra-based technical staff in supporting the Agriculture Counsellor network. It noted that while Agriculture Counsellors are essential, ‘without sufficient capacity for technical negotiation and trade cooperation activities in the department, the opportunities they generate and relationships they develop are not able to be prosecuted’. DAFF observed that it played:
… a central and unique role in addressing these regulatory and restrictive measures with counterpart regulatory agencies through a range of consultative mechanisms such as committees established under FTAs. These negotiations are often technically complex, require specific capabilities within DAFF, such as food safety specialists, plant and animal scientists, veterinarians, and the like to conduct assessments of science and risk.
3.61DAFF emphasised that sustainable funding for the counsellor network to ensure adequate and ongoing coverage in key Southeast Asian markets, along with a suitable expansion of DAFF technical officials to support the existing network, is critical to capitalise on the growth opportunities in a highly contested region.
Programs
3.62Government programs, particularly grant programs, are important for developing relationships with the region. These programs not only assist industry with promoting trade, they also add depth to the relationship, enabling connections that would not otherwise be possible. Mr Collier, CEO of LiveCorp, highlighted the value of grant programs using the example of the Australia–Vietnam Enhanced Economic Engagement Grant (AVEG):
That was the grant that enabled the work with Vietnam on the animal welfare standards. It also facilitated a live meat and cattle symposium in Vietnam, which was attended by a large number of Vietnamese importers, businesses and government. Part of that was bringing over Australian expertise in genetics, nutrition, sustainability and all sorts of different aspects to present and network. Concurrently, a number of the participants there came out as well to Beef Week, and they did a tour around Australia. Things like that really do build connections with key businesses at that commercial level, at the industry level and at the government level because the agriculture counsellors, the LEP and we were involved and then the export and import businesses. Things like that are great opportunities to do it.
3.63There were numerous programs identified by stakeholders as contributing to the building of relationships between Australia and Southeast Asia, not all of which were exclusive to regional relationships. Several were highlighted as being particularly significant, including:
- The Agri-Business Expansion Initiative (ABEI).
- Agriculture Trade and Market Access Cooperation (ATMAC).
- The Cairns Group.
- The Indonesia–Australia Partnership on Food Security in the Red Meat and Cattle Sector (RMCP).
- Special Representative for Australian Agriculture (SRAA).
ABEI
3.64The Agri-Business Expansion Initiative is regarded as a highly successful example of government-industry collaboration. According to DAFF:
The approach combined technical and trade cooperation capability alongside additional overseas deployments in the form of short term Agriculture Counsellors and delivered $824 million in new and improved commercial outcomes and export opportunities. This proved particularly effective as it not only produced more market access for Australian industry but allowed DAFF to progress the interests of trading partners.
3.65The ABEI, which included the ATMAC program, ‘delivered on boosting in-country engagement activities, accelerating work on technical market access and delivering market intelligence to exporters’. DAFF indicated that achieving similar results, ‘in line with the recommendations of the Moore report, will require a comparable approach of long-term investment to increase DAFF’s organisational flexibility to respond to changing market conditions and market access priorities’.
3.66The Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries described the ABEI and ATMAC as ‘a significant catalyst supporting state governments and industry organisations to work collaboratively with producers, growers, exporters, and their wider value chains to diversify international export markets’. The Consolidated Pastoral Company (CPC) observed that the ABEI had ‘supported Australian agribusiness by providing resources, grants, and market insights to foster growth and diversification in export markets’. Austrade, DAFF and industry efforts under ABEI ‘drove tangible benefits in the agriculture sector’. CPC proposed increasing ‘departmental resources to Australian businesses to establish and grow markets in Southeast Asia’ based on the effectiveness of the ABEI.
3.67Australian Grape & Wine also lauded the success of the ABEI. Mr Lee McLean, Australian Grape & Wine’s CEO, told the Committee:
In recent years, we've had the Agribusiness Expansion Initiative, which provided something like $76 million for market diversification. We felt that was a very good thing. A lot of that money went toward Austrade to help with agribusiness diversification, including in Southeast Asia. That work was very good in terms of trying to link up businesses here in Australia with potential business opportunities in the market.
3.68Mr McLean urged a continuation of the ABEI, stating that his members ‘would love to see that sort of investment’ because it ‘is a great demonstration of how industry and government can work together for a common goal’.
ATMAC
3.69There was strong support for the resumption of the now closed ATMAC program. According to DAFF, ‘the ATMAC program was established to break down technical barriers to trade for Australian agricultural exports and support industry resilience through diversification of key commodities to secure new and improved access to premium markets’. It ‘provided thirty-eight grants totalling $26.5 million for projects to support diversification and expansion of export markets across Australia’s agriculture and food exports, including in Southeast Asia’. These grants ‘allowed industries the opportunity to establish a greater presence in the region and to explore commercial opportunities that would have otherwise not been possible’. DAFF suggested that ‘similar programs in the future would help achieve sustainable growth and resilience for our agricultural export industries’.
3.70The National Farmers’ Federation described ATMAC as ‘hugely successful’, an ‘incredibly important program’, and supported its resumption. It highlighted successful projects by Dairy Australia focused on reducing technical barriers to trade in Southeast Asia and Australian Exporters Company’s (AEXCO) diversification of fodder exports into new markets. DAFF also listed successful engagements with Southeast Asia under ATMAC.
3.71The Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries (DAF) observed that ATMAC had ‘enabled state governments to further leverage and support industry collaborations funded under their own programs’. It noted the $8.3 million Serviced Supply Chains II project, funded under ATMAC, which supported avocado and persimmon growers and exporters ‘to manage supply chain risks and deliver more consistent high-quality horticulture produce to Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand’. In addition, according to DAF, ATMAC funding had allowed industry organisations ‘to undertake and profile market intelligence that specifically focused on their commodity exports to target markets’, while providing ‘a mechanism for government to develop strategic partnerships with industry, and expand trade diversification and sector growth’.
The Cairns Group
3.72Formed in 1986, the Cairns Group is a coalition of twenty agricultural trading countries focused on the liberalisation of global trade in agricultural goods. The Cairns Group includes five Southeast Asian countries—Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam. Australia is the permanent chair of the Cairns Group, while Thailand is the current vice-chair. According to DFAT:
The Cairns Group connection with these five countries presents a useful axis of engagement on multilateral agriculture trade reform and amplifies the Group’s advocacy for freer market access globally in agriculture. Our cooperation with these countries within the Cairns Group also plays an important role in reflecting our region’s context in the Group’s work. Furthermore, a coordinated and consolidated approach with Southeast Asia is a helpful counterweight to the major agricultural subsidising and protectionist countries.
3.73The Cairns Group of Farm Leaders (CGFL) is a group of farm organisations from Cairns Group countries representing the farmers of those countries. Australia’s National Farmers’ Federation is the permanent chair of the CGFL. Recommendation 28 of the Moore report urges the Australian Government to ‘deepen engagement with Cairns Group Farm Leaders in the region (Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, Thailand and the Philippines)’. The NFF indicated that:
Government assistance to drive engagement with Southeast Asian CGFL members and increase the presence in key markets and regional forums will allow this industry-led initiative to continue strategic cooperation in multilateral forums such as the WTO and strengthen the rules-based trading system that we desperately rely on.
RMCP
3.74The Indonesia–Australia Partnership on Food Security in the Red Meat and Cattle Sector (RMCP) was a 10-year, $60 million partnership between the Indonesian Government, Australian Government and industry ‘focused on supporting food security in the red meat and cattle trade between the two countries’. It delivered over 30 projects before concluding in June 2024. According to DAFF the ‘flexibility to adapt projects and funding as needed was one of the key achievements of the RMCP’. This included, most recently, the pivot to biosecurity-focused projects to support responses to outbreaks of exotic animal diseases in Indonesia.
3.75RMAC described the RMCP as ‘highly successful’, allowing ‘the Indonesian and Australian governments to combine their strengths to improve the red meat and cattle sector supply chain in Indonesia and to promote a stable trade and investment environment between Indonesia and Australia’. RMAC recommended that the Australian Government commit to supporting the RMCP beyond June 2024 and ‘investigate expanding the model to other Southeast Asian markets’. LiveCorp identified the RMCP as one of several programs which established ‘opportunities to connect, develop relationships and commercial supply chains, foster good will and deliver meaningful outcomes in-market’. The CPC considered the end of the RMCP ‘unfortunate’.
3.76Dr Chris Parker, CEO of Cattle Australia, regarded the failure to extend the RMCP as a missed opportunity, suggesting that the program could be extended in scope as well as duration. Dr Parker told the Committee:
The point I'm coming to is that we really need to be encouraging the government to contribute towards the revamping of that red meat partnership within Indonesia. It is an important program that could have the opportunity to be broadened out a little bit to maybe even some technical assistance to Indonesia in regard to some of their lab capacity, particularly given the very important challenges they're facing with lumpy skin disease and foot-and-mouth disease. I'm keen that we meet our obligations as a good partner in the region, but also there's clearly a bit of self-interest in that for Australia if we're able to assist Indonesia and continue to assist Indonesia in the manner in which it deals with some of these biosecurity challenges.
The red meat partnership has been and is a really good vehicle for that. We really do need to be thinking about how we can work with government and clearly use government funds with industry funds to be able to revamp that particular program.
SRAA
3.77The NFF also stressed the role of the Special Representative for Australian Agriculture (SRAA), a position established in 2021 under the Global Agriculture Leadership Initiative and currently held by Su McCluskey. The NFF described the SRAA as ‘an important tool in agriculture’s soft diplomacy toolkit’. It stated that it was important to ensure that the SRAA ‘is actively involved in growing Australia’s influence and cooperation across Southeast Asia’ by extending the program ‘beyond its current funding period, and further resourced to the level where adequate policy and technical support is provided to the SRAA’. The NFF argued that the role was ‘relatively cheap’ and encouraged the Australian Government to continue funding it.
Committee comment
3.78Long-term investment in regional relationships is vital to progressing both trade and regional collaboration. Australian stakeholders and the Ambassadors of Thailand and Indonesia all emphasised the importance of developing relationships over the long-term and promoting collaboration in sustained ways.
3.79One important objective is close collaboration between government and industry in Australia. Collaboration between government and industry is seen as the cornerstone of achieving optimum outcomes in trade, with each complementing the work of the other. Successful collaborations were highlighted by both government and industry. A whole-of-Australia, or ‘Team Australia’, approach is recommended. The Committee agrees that government and industry should continue to closely collaborate on trade and relations with Southeast Asia for the benefit of both.
3.80Another key objective is closer collaboration with Australia’s trading partners in the region. The importance of this was highlighted by both Australian and Southeast Asian stakeholders. Examples of successful collaboration were highlighted, such as the LEP and RMCP. It was acknowledged universally that face-to-face contact between governments, between industries, and between government and industry, was critical to the success of collaboration. This is a view that the Committee endorses.
3.81An important element of closer contact are trade missions. Port of Melbourne highlighted the success of the first trade mission under the Southeast Asia Business Exchange, with DFAT noting that this was an expanding program. Other stakeholders highlighted the success of industry initiatives—both incoming and outgoing missions—along the same lines. Trade missions are and will remain critical to ongoing collaboration with regional partners on trade.
3.82Joint ventures have real potential to deepen the trade relationship between Australia and Southeast Asia, providing a basis for closer connections and deeper understanding of each other’s markets and requirements. CPC highlighted the success of its joint venture—not only as a way of promoting trade but as an exercise in collaboration on environmental and social goals. Other industries illustrated the success of joint ventures in promoting two-way trade.
3.83Another aspect of relationship building with the region is building Southeast Asian literacy. It was seen as essential that government and business be able to operate within the region in ways that accommodated cultural expectations as well as economic considerations. The decline in Southeast Asia literacy within Australia was highlighted; as was the need to better engage with the growing resource of diaspora communities. The Committee agrees that greater efforts should be made to grow Southeast Asian literacy within the business community and the population more broadly, and that better use should be made of diaspora communities in engaging with the region.
3.84The critical issue of how to promote greater engagement with Southeast Asia through government was addressed at length in the evidence received by the Committee. The importance of Agriculture Counsellors was a frequent refrain—as was the need to ensure adequate funding for those roles and the necessary technical support that sits behind them. The Committee is strongly of the view that funding should continue for the existing Agriculture Counsellor network; that additional funding be allocated to provide for short-term missions for more targeted advocacy; that commensurate additional funding be provided to ensure that the technical support for DAFFs trade operations is in place and available as required; and that this funding not be drawn from other programs.
3.85The success of programs such as ABEI, ATMAC and RMCP, as well as the important role of the Cairns Group and the associated Cairns Group of Farm Leaders, was highlighted. The Committee would welcome the reinstatement of the afore listed programs and additional support for the important work of the Cairns Group. In addition, the Committee agrees that the work of the Special Representative for Australian Agriculture should continue to be resourced by government.
3.86The Committee recommends that the Australian Government make a long-term commitment to the Southeast Asia Business Exchange program to strengthen engagement and collaboration with Australia’s partners in Southeast Asia, with a particular emphasis on agriculture.
3.87The Committee recommends that the Australian Government invest in the development of Southeast Asian literacy within the business community and the education system to strengthen the relationship between Australia and its partners in Southeast Asia.
3.88The Committee recommends that the Australian Government provide more funding to maintain and enhance the Agriculture Counsellor network in Southeast Asia; and provide additional resources for the technical staff required to undertake technical negotiation and trade cooperation activities.
3.89The Committee recommends that the Australian Government reinstate and resource the:
- Agri-Business Expansion Initiative.
- Agriculture Trade and Market Access Cooperation (ATMAC) program.
- Indonesia–Australia Partnership on Food Security in the Red Meat and Cattle Sector (RMCP).
3.90The Committee recommends that the Australian Government continue to fund and resource the work of the Cairns Group and the Cairns Group of Farm Leaders, and the Special Representative for Australian Agriculture.