CHAPTER 4
Conclusion
4.1
The preceding chapters have discussed the decline of agriculture and
agribusiness education in Australia and the skills shortages that have
developed as a result of an ageing workforce, competition from the mining
industry, and the increasing disconnect between the consumer and the producer.
Throughout the report, the committee has touched upon recommendations and
solutions to problems that have been discussed. This chapter develops two key
ideas that, if adopted and carried forward by industry and government, could
help to secure the future of agriculture in Australia over the coming century:
re-positing the narrative, and the development of a peak body representing agricultural
production and agribusiness as a whole.
Re-writing the agricultural narrative
4.2
Recent years have seen an extraordinary growth in the awareness of food in
our society as televisions programs such as the great popularity of MasterChef,
My Kitchen Rules, Kitchen Cabinet, and Heston's
Feasts demonstrates. Disappointingly, this renewed interest in preparation
and consumption of food has not translated into a broader understanding of the
production, processing, value adding, transporting or safe storage of
foodstuffs; for the most part interest is focused on the plate, not the long
value-chain of numerous industries stretching all the way back to the paddock.
4.3
Evidence presented to the committee was almost unanimous in advocating
the need for industry to be more proactive about promoting itself as a critical
national industry, and improving understanding of agriculture in the community.[1]
Agriculture needs to portray itself as an industry of the future rather than
one of the past – inspiring young people to make a difference to the world's challenges
through food production and agribusiness-related industries.[2]
If agriculture cannot create a positive perception of itself, warns author and
journalist Professor Julian Cribb, '[agriculture] will not get those brilliant
young Australians back into this field.'[3]
4.4
Witnesses identified that few Australians realise agriculture is one of
Australia’s few wealth producing industries and a significant export income
earner for Australia, or that our farmers are amongst the most productive in
the world on a per capita basis.[4]
4.5
To properly address the skills shortage that has developed, the industry
needs to attract and retain more and better trained people. Attracting more
people will reinvigorate education facilities, increase the research talent
pool, and spread the word to more people that agriculture and agribusiness are
exciting industries to be a part of. To do that, the industry has to make
itself attractive by dispelling negative myths around farming especially, and
create the link in the collective consciousness between food and fibre
production, science, and security, highlighting the careers on offer, and
emphasizing the multidisciplinary qualities of the entire sector. The committee
considers that there is a need for the establishment of a peak body
representing the key bodies involved in agricultural production and
agribusiness to achieve this outcome.
4.6
Throughout this inquiry, the committee heard from stakeholders who repeated
that negative images associated with agriculture need to be reversed. As was
discussed earlier in this report, the importance of agriculture has either lost
all meaning for most urban Australians, or it is associated with poorly paid,
low skilled workers. As was argued to the committee:
...why would [students] want to come into [the industry] when
every time they pick up a newspaper it is all doom and gloom: how tough it is,
the long hours and all those sort of things, and that there is no money in it?[5]
4.7
The committee heard that many prospective students and workers consider living
and working in non-metropolitan areas to involve hardship, and that those areas
are considered to offer poor amenities, physical and cultural isolation and
generally difficult conditions.[6]
Contrary to this view, regional areas and cities are often vibrant locations
with many benefits over large cities including cheaper housing, low
unemployment levels and high levels of community engagement. The committee
heard that governments have a role in improving perceptions of rural
lifestyles, and highlighting that the availability of many high quality
services in most rural and regional areas.[7]
4.8
One means of repositioning the sector which received wide support was
the suggestion to rename, or at least move away from historically loaded terms,
specifically 'agriculture' in its presentation in urban communities. Agriculture,
it was reported to the committee, is almost exclusively equated with negative
aspects of farming and overlooks the bulk of the agribusiness sector.[8]
Tentative steps have already been taken on this journey, for example, the
committee heard that ACDA had avoided the use of the term 'agriculture' in
their agricultural careers website.[9]
Among those supporting the rebranding of agriculture include the President of
the Muresk Old Collegians' Association[10],
Longerenong College[11],
and the former-Food Industry Association of Western Australia (FIAWA). [12]
4.9
The committee can see merit in a rebranding exercise, which it considers
would not only offer the opportunity to overcome some entrenched misconceptions,
but would also provide an opportunity to reframe the debate through the
concerted use of new and relevant terminology. One term put to the committee
that has obvious advantages is the general term 'food sector'. As argued by
Professor Julian Cribb: 'food relates to everybody. Everybody consumes it, it
touches the lives of every individual.'[13]
The more specific 'food and fibre' was queried by Professor Cribb as too long,
and Professor Roush noted that it might be beyond the current understanding of
some students.[14]
In contrast, 'food' is a term that everyone understands, relates to, and
encounters every day. It establishes a clear connection between the needs of
each and every person and the sector which makes shows such as MasterChef possible.
4.10
Though obviously difficult, overcoming entrenched negative views and
creating a new image for an industry is not an impossible task. The example of
the mining industry was repeatedly cited as having been successful in
portraying itself as both desirable and exciting, and having as a consequence
overcome many of its recruiting difficulties.[15]
The University of Melbourne's Professor Richard Roush noted:
[T]he advertising around for the mining industry as a career
path is quite striking. You do not see any reference in those to isolation,
poor housing in the bush or anything like that. These are problems, that by any
stretch of the imagination, would be far greater than we are faced with for
agriculture.[16]
4.11
La Trobe University similarly credited the ability of the mining industry
to portray itself in a positive light as one of the keys to its ongoing success
and support:
The mining council has those beautiful ads; there is one
where a woman is sitting at a computer running trains all around Western
Australia. It is a really high-tech job; she is doing all this dazzling stuff.[17]
4.12
The committee is mindful that, to a large extent, the success of such
exercises relies heavily on the way they are conducted. For example, winemaking
in Australia has been seen as interesting, respectable, challenging and profitable,
resulting in indications of an oversupply of winemakers in Australia.[18]
4.13
Change cannot be expected to happen overnight as cultural shifts
naturally take time, and negative perceptions of agriculture are seemingly
rusted on to the Australian national psyche. At least one witness expressed the
sentiment that if their grandchildren's views are different the initiative will
have been successful.[19]
4.14
At the same time as agriculture creates a new narrative, it needs to
reach out to students and existing workers. Students who are not aware of
opportunities are in no position to pursue them. An increase in the marketing
of agriculture and agribusiness opportunities to students was put to the
committee of a way to attract additional students and workers to the sector.[20]
Young people also choose careers with an eye towards future personal growth,
not just the initial salary on offer.[21]
Therefore, it is necessary to articulate to prospective students the
challenging and ever changing nature of agriculture if it is to be portrayed as
an attractive career choice. As an initial suggestion, this might be achieved
through enhanced career advice material, industry outreach, or greater
prominence in the curriculum.
4.15
As noted in the previous chapter, many school students have little
understanding of the career opportunities and paths available to them. Similarly,
there is precious little information for those considering career changes or
students from other disciplines. The committee has already made recommendations
that will go some way to addressing this shortcoming, but it must be reinforced
that industry needs to articulate pathways and career opportunities to
prospective students and even existing workers if it hopes to overcome the
present skills shortage.
4.16
The agriculture and agribusiness labour force, like all others, responds
to incentives. Industry can improve its competitiveness through the provision
and marketing of salary packages that include housing and other benefits.[22]
Often perks already exist, they are just poorly marketed to potential
applicants. For example, the committee heard of farmers offering employees
limited share farming arrangements as an incentive to remain with them in the
industry.[23]
It was suggested to the committee that a stronger emphasis on lifestyle
benefits would help farming compete with industries with higher headline
salaries.[24]
A new peak body for agriculture
4.17
The committee received evidence that the voice of the agriculture and agribusiness
sectors is currently fragmented. Evidence from Western Australia provides a
taste of this fragmentation:
It is an extremely fractured industry. Even if you took the
entire supply chain and just looked at food processing sector, it is extremely
fragmented. In Western Australia we have two broad farmers' bodies: the PGA and
the Western Australian Farmers Federation. Then we have industry bodies for
every industry sector, WAPPA for the pork producers and another for the grains
industry. I do not know how many there are. There may be 30 or 40 industry
associations representing production and then there are the processing
associations. It is extremely difficult to coordinate all of those.[25]
4.18
Although there are a number of very large advocacy organisations such as
the National Farmers' Federation, even these do not represent all groups within
agriculture when considered as a whole.[26]
It was argued to the committee that only through a united voice can the new
narrative be advanced.[27]
4.19
The committee was given some clue as to why this duplication has
occurred, and also the consequence of it:
The strength that makes regional and rural people so good is
also the fundamental weakness of what we have seen today. When they see a
problem in the country, they get together rally, around, fix the problem and
move on. That is a strength, but it is also a weakness. What happens is they
form a group. A hundred kilometres down the road, if they also have the same
problem, they form the same group. They keep wasting those resources. I see a
peak body as the one that coordinates and shares what everyone is doing so that
everybody does not waste their time, energy and effort anymore. They can share
what is already going on. By coordinating those energies, the industry itself
will move ahead and we will not have this fragmentation that we currently have.
There is nothing wrong with the fragmentation except for the fact that it is
wasting limited resources.[28]
4.20
Among stakeholders, there was widespread support for the development of
a new peak body to address the issues facing the industry. Representatives from
the VET sector commented that it would be 'a good idea...a peak body that would
look after agribusiness, agricultural education and those sorts of industries
would be very good.'[29]
This view was echoing by representatives of the higher education sector[30],
as well as past and present representative bodies and industry.[31]
4.21
Although there was widespread support for the creation of a new peak
body, the committee heard several visions regarding its potential structure and
membership. La Trobe University recommended the establishment of the
university-led Agriculture Tertiary Education Council (ATEC),
following the model of the Minerals Tertiary Education Council,
to spearhead efforts to increase agricultural education.[32]
Industry members would fund ATEC through subscriptions or levies on production.[33]
The University of Melbourne argued that the formation of ATEC to increase
funding for agricultural and agribusiness education was a promising idea.[34]
4.22
Another peak-body model put to the committee is the Agribusiness Council of Australia
(ACA) that was established in 2011 with the key goal of presenting a united
voice for industry and addressing the skills shortage through encouraging more people
into the profession and ensuring they have the appropriate training.[35]
As the explained by ACA:
We are trying to make sure we coordinate the 4000-odd
fragmented industry bodies, all doing very good work but none sharing best
practice or their learnings. We find that we duplicate a lot of the work. So
what we are going to do is achieve economies of scale...Fundamentally, the
industry has to ask for one body and one voice so that governments know where
to come and industry know where to go when they need something done with regard
to change [what] has to happen within Australia.[36]
4.23
The absence of a peak body that can pull together the food sector supply
chain from paddock to plate has meant that each sector is advocating in
isolation for its own interests. As well as duplicating efforts in important
areas such as the creation of networks with universities and attracting
workers, the duplication also minimises the ability of the industry to
communicate with governments.
4.24
In contrast to the situation in the food sector, the minerals sector is
represented – almost unanimously – by the Minerals Council of Australia (MCA).
This has provided the minerals sector with the ability to persuasively express positions
on public policy, and has provided governments with a central point of contact
when consulting with industry regarding new policies. A strong peak body has
also helped the minerals sector to partially address its need for labour. In
1999 the MCA established Minerals Tertiary Education Council (MTEC)
to support the education of professionals for the minerals industry. Funded
through subscriptions of MCA members, MTEC has provided over $20 million of
industry funds for the development and delivery of undergraduate and
post-graduate programs in earth sciences, mining engineering and metallurgy
across a network of university partners.[37]
4.25
The positive role that can be played by a peak body in assisting with
(and having influence over) the formation of public policy can be clearly
demonstrated through the example of the development of the Australian
Government's proposed National Food Plan. At present, the government
will be required to consult with dozens of peak bodies representing individual
sectors with their own requirements, solutions, and expectations. Providing
governments with one peak body with the authority to speak for the farmer, the
banker, the researcher, the truck driver, the exporter and the farm hand would
facilitate public policy that is timely, grounded in real world experience, and
supported by industry.
4.26
A successful peak body for agriculture and agribusiness must be able to
represent the entire sector including finance, educators, primary producers,
and associated agribusinesses. The concerns of agricultural finance might be
different from primary producers, and the needs of primary producers might be
different to those of food processors. By including all the relevant sectors –
and providing each with effective representation – the peak body would provide
a means of formulating solutions to benefit the entire sector.
4.27
In order to be representative of the wishes of key stakeholders, the
committee does not seek to be overly proscriptive in nominating a governance structure
for the peak body. However, the committee considers it important that a new
peak body's board of directors include representation from 10–12 key sectors
including finance, primary production, and education and the chair to be
elected from within the group.
4.28
The example of the MCA has shown the efficacy of a strong peak body that
is recognised by government and industry as the peak body. The committee
is of the hope that following this report a body of similar strength,
resilience and impact will be formed in order to represent all elements of
agriculture and agribusiness in order to address the many challenges
highlighted throughout the preceding pages.
Recommendation 9
4.29
The committee recommends that the government facilitates the development
of a national peak industry representative body for the agricultural production
and agribusiness sectors.
Recommendation 10
4.30
The committee recommends that the government commits to regular
consultation with the new peak body established in recommendation 9 regarding
policy changes that impact upon agriculture and agribusiness.
Recommendation 11
4.31
The committee recommends that the new industry peak body develops and
presents to government a national strategy for addressing the skills shortage,
industry productivity, and food security.
Senator Chris Back
Chair |
Senator
Rachel Siewert |
| |
|
| Senator Bridget McKenzie |
Senator
Sue Boyce |
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page