Value-adding in Agricultural Production

Chapter 3.1

Role of the Commonwealth Government in supporting value-adding activities

3.19 The following section of the report set outs, in general terms, what various bodies, including State Governments, believe the role of the Commonwealth Government should be in supporting value-adding activities. Specific suggestion and strategies put forward by these bodies and others for Commonwealth authorities to undertake in support of value-adding are dealt with elsewhere in the chapter.

3.20 The Commonwealth Department of Primary Industries and Energy stated that the Commonwealth:

Government's role has been to establish an environment conducive to value adding, primarily through policies that encourage efficiency in input and output markets and the various segments of the production/processing/marketing chain. [16]

3.21 The Department went on to comment that the government had the responsibility to create a climate supportive of investment in value-adding activities and that this environment could be achieved through the Government's macro-economic policies. The Commonwealth Government was also seen as having to address specific impediment to value-adding activities such as infrastructure inefficiencies, inefficient marketing arrangements and trade barriers in the form of tariff and non tariff protection. [17]

3.22 However, DPIE qualified the role that the Commonwealth Government can play when it stated:

Decisions on value adding activities are commercial ones and are the responsibility of industry. Government's role in enhancing value adding activities in the rural sector has been largely catalytic and facilitative but also interventionist where the aggregate national benefits have been judged to outweigh the aggregate national costs of intervening.” [18]

3.23 The then Agri-Food Council also saw a limited role for the Commonwealth Government. When it was established the Council commented that:

It was clear that the problems facing the industry could not be solved by Government along and that in many cases industry had to drive the process of reform, with the Government acting as a facilitator. [19]

3.24 The South Australian Government expressed the belief that the Commonwealth Government has a significant role to play in providing a “climate that is inductive to a competitive internationally oriented food processing sector.” [20] The Commonwealth Government was seen as having a significant role in removing the following constraints to Australia's export of value-adding products:

• lack of an export orientation in Australia;
• availability of sufficient investment capital; and
• restricted access to certain overseas markets for Australian food products. [21]

3.25 In evidence to the inquiry the South Australian Government in May 1995 acknowledged the positive role the Commonwealth Government had played in encouraging value-adding through the then Agri-Food Council and Agribusiness programs of DPIE. According to the South Australian Government “these programs are central to encouraging more value adding in Australia.” [22]

3.26 Dr Alistair Watson has argued that there are several areas in which the Commonwealth Government involvement in supporting value-adding in agricultural production is appropriate, including:

• the pursuit of trade policies and commercial diplomacy targeted at improving market access for Australia's value-added products;
• reform of domestic agricultural policies that increase prices processors pay for commodities; and
• supporting increased research related to value-adding activities. [23]

3.27 The Committee received several submissions that commented on the role of the Commonwealth Government in supporting value-adding activities in Australia. For example, the Country Women's Association of Australia stated that the “Federal Government must show greater interest in our national pride and create a climate in which value-adding industries can operate”. [24] The Association went on to state “governments should remove the unnecessary bureaucratic restrictions being placed on the establishment of value adding small businesses.” [25]

3.28 The Queensland Pork Producers' State Council called on the Commonwealth Government to produce a “mission statement which would identify its commitment to encourage the “implementation of value-adding throughout the economy.” [26]

Support in the marketing and export of value-added agricultural products

3.29 The Commonwealth Government has implemented a large number of initiatives and programs designed to support value-adding activities. The publication Rural Business and Marketing Guide produced by the Commonwealth Department of Primary Industries and Energy in 1994 set out a listing of Commonwealth and State Government business assistance and marketing programs that supported value-adding activities in Australia. The Commonwealth schemes, described below, some of which are still operating, are or were, relevant to the marketing and export of value-added products:

• Innovative Agricultural Marketing Program (IAMP);
• International Trade Enhancement Scheme (ITES);
• Export Market Development Grants Scheme (EMDG);
• Rural Business Development Unit (BDU);
• the Export Access Program;
• the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation (EFIC);
• Food Industry Networking for Asia (FINA);
• the National Industry Extension Service (NIES);
• Business Advice for Rural Areas (BARA); and
• Statutory Marketing Authorities (SMA).

Innovative Agricultural Marketing Program

3.30 The Innovative Agricultural Marketing Program that was jointly administered by Austrade and the Department of Primary Industries provides “development finance to commercialise and market innovative products, processes and marketing systems that have the capability of generating exports and/or import replacement sales.” [27]

3.31 This program provided repayable grants of up to $300 000 per year for up to three years. The applicant had to fund at least 50 per cent of the venture capital, excluding direct production costs.

International Trade Enhancement Scheme

3.32 The International Trade Enhancement Scheme, administered by Austrade, offered low cost repayable finance to support export marketing activities. The scheme was directed towards “applicants with a demonstrated track record in exporting who require assistance to undertake and accelerate the expansion of their international business activities”. [28]

3.33 The recipient under this scheme had to demonstrate that a minimum cumulative foreign exchange earnings of $10 million could be generated over the first five year period. Financing was available up to $5.0 million over three years with the funds being repayable as a loan or in the form of royalties. [29]

Export Market Development Grants Scheme

3.34 Austrade administers EMDG. The scheme provides “taxable cash grants to Australian exporters who have already incurred expenditure in seeking and developing overseas markets for goods, specified services, industrial property rights and know how.” [30]

3.35 EMDG's grants are retrospective and are paid when claimants have incurred a minimum expenditure of $30 000. The maximum grant available is $250 000. [31]

Rural Business Development Unit

3.36 Austrade's Rural Business Development Unit was in part responsible for providing assistance to exporters of value-added agricultural products. According to Austrade the BDU operated in a flexible manner centred on the interests and needs of its clients. In some situations Austrade would facilitate the formation of a Joint Action Group to “bring an integrated industry sector together to access a project or a market opportunity in a coordinated, strategic and value-added manner”. [32]

3.37 Austrade supported the export of value-added agricultural production through additional services such as:

• Export Update that provided initial information concerning the export process and the latest market information;
• The Market Opportunity Program that identified, tracked and facilitated “the capture of market opportunities for Australian exporters”; and
• In-Market Support Program which aimed to directly support the efforts of exporters in overseas markets. [33]

Export Access Program

3.38 The Export Access Program is funded by Austrade to assist small to medium sized enterprises from any industry sector to export by providing eligible enterprises with assistance to “develop an export plan and strategy and to undertake an overseas business mission.” [34]

3.39 Successful applicants under the scheme are selected on the criteria of export potential, financial viability, management commitment to exporting, capacity to support an export effort and ability and commitment to complete the Export Access Program. [35]

3.40 The Export Access Program provides assistance with:

• identifying opportunities for exports;
• counselling on financial and management requirements;
• training;
• preparation for an overseas market visit;
• supporting the overseas visit while it is taking place; and
• providing a post visit evaluation. [36]

Export Finance and Insurance Corporation

3.41 The EFIC is Australia's official export credit agency. The Corporation encourages value-added exports by:

• insuring Australian suppliers of goods and services against non-payment by overseas purchasers;
• guaranteeing trade finance for the purchase of Australian goods and services; and
• insuring Australian firms investing in enterprises overseas against political risk associated with such investments. [37]

Food Industry Networking for Asia

3.42 FINA, administered by the then Agri-Food Council, was aimed at successful processed food companies wanting to establish export markets in Asia but hampered by their comparatively small size and limited resources. Funds were made available under the program to assist such companies and marketeers to develop networks aiming to export to Asia. [38]

National Industry Extension Service

3.43 The then Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce in conjunction with State Government agencies administered NIES.

3.44 The Service provided “advice, services and support to help manufacturing and service industries/firms identify and implement strategies to become internationally competitive”. [39] The National Industry Extension Service did not provide direct financial assistance in the form of loans or loan guarantees but provided a proportion of the cost of consultancy services used to improve business practices and processes. To receive assistance under this service a company had to have a turnover of $1 million per year. [40]

3.45 There were a series of sub-programs under NIES that also provided assistance to companies involved in value adding. These sub-programs included:

• the Enterprise Network Program;
• the NIES Export Diagnostic Program; and
• the Innovation Centres Program. [41]

Business Advice for Rural Areas

3.46 Under the BARA scheme, administered by DPIE, the Commonwealth Government provided grants to rural community groups to meet part of the costs of employing a business facilitator. The facilitator assisted rural communities to “diversity, stabilise and expand income opportunities by assisting local entrepreneurial capacity, fostering business talent and ideas and improving industrial and rural economic diversification”. [42]

Statutory Marketing Authorities

3.47 According to the then Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, Simon Crean, writing in 1992:

Commonwealth primary industry statutory marketing authorities are well placed to act as catalysts in the development of value-added industries. [43]

The Minister went on to note that SMAs were becoming more competitive as they were granted an increased level of managerial autonomy and were becoming more accountable for their actions to their primary producers. [44]

3.48 Not everyone views SMAs in a positive light. It has been suggested in the past that the activities of SMAs had the potential to limit the extent to which primary producers could be integrated with “off farm functions of input supply, processing and distribution”. [45]The West Australian Government told the inquiry that SMAs “have been citied in some national studies as impeding the development of further agricultural processing in Australia because of their pricing policies or supply control activities.” [46]The WA Government has carried out reviews and implemented changes in some of the their SMAs designed to “promote further processing”. [47]

Austrade's performance in supporting value-adding exports

3.49 Comments made to the inquiry concerning the performance of Austrade in supporting value-adding activities were generally positive. The Australian Horticultural Corporation paid tribute to the help provided by Austrade, particularly its local marketing officers, in assisting the Corporation in Singapore. [48]The Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation (AMLC) advised the Committee that it worked very closely with Austrade and the relationship between the two bodies was “a very good one”. [49]The West Australian Government told the inquiry that:

Our relationship with Austrade here has been very fruitful. We take the view that they can open doors and do things in overseas markets that would be too costly for us to do. [50]

3.50 The South Australian Government expressed the view that “Austrade is generally serving the Australian exporting community quite well.” [51] However, the Government went on to complain that Austrade's partial cost recovery program was having a detrimental impact on small to medium firms involved in value-adding activities. The South Australian Government was of the view that Austrade was overcharging for such services as the provision of routine market intelligence and the names of importers. The Government told the inquiry:

We do not believe that some of the charges being made by Austrade for some of its services are necessarily at market rates, and are probably above market rates. As Austrade is an instrument of government, we believe that Austrade has a national interest role to facilitate and to encourage particularly newer and smaller exporters into markets. [52]

3.51 Austrade received less than enthusiastic support from Mr David Gray, Executive Director of Australian Natural Ingredients Limited, when he told the inquiry that in respect to Austrade “I am sort of in principle supportive, but in practice sceptical about Austrade.” [53]

3.52 Mr Patrick Curran of UMT told the inquiry that UMT did not depend on Austrade:

They are there so we use them. We could operate quite well without them. [54]

Conclusions

3.53 Despite some negative comments concerning the performance of Austrade in supporting value-adding enterprises in overseas markets the organisation, in the view of the Committee, appears to be performing reasonably well. However, insufficient evidence was presented during the inquiry to allow the Committee to express a more detailed view on Austrade's performance.

Commonwealth Department of Primary Industries and Energy

3.54 The Department of Primary Industries and Energy advised in October 1995 that it was intent on “improving communication and cooperation throughout the production-marketing chain, with a view to increasing our value added exports.” [55]

3.55 Many of DPIE's policies and programs supported value-adding in agricultural production. Among the stated objectives of these various programs were to:

• improve marketing and business practices of rural industries;
• strengthen linkages between producers, processors and consumers;
• build Australia's image as a producer of clean food; and
• develop a productive and sustainable agricultural sector in Australia. [56]

3.56 Two major vehicles available to the Department to support value-adding in agricultural production were its agribusiness programs and the activities of the then Agri-Food Council supporting the Agri-Food Strategy. [57]

Agribusiness Programs

3.57 The Department of Primary Industries and Energy's agribusiness programs encouraged the development of improved marketing and business practices within rural industries. According to the Department “strengthening an agricultural firm's capabilities and enhancing its international competitiveness are key factors enabling businesses to take up value adding opportunities.” [58] Funding through these programs were used to assist a wide range of activities, such as:

Identifying impediments, generating networks, developing plans to attract new investment, developing marketing skills, analyses of industry performance and developing strategies to adopt best practice. [59]

3.58 The aim of these DPIE administered programs was to:

Enhance the international competitiveness of Australia's agricultural and related industries by providing practical assistance to agribusiness firms, business, networks or industry/grower groups. Assistance is provided through access to professional services to foster the adoption or development of modern business and marketing skills. [60]

3.59 Assistance under the programs that are overseen by the Agribusiness Programs Board were generally calculated on a 50/50 cost share basis between the applicant and the individual agribusiness program. [61]

The Agri-Food Council

3.60 The Minister for Industry Technology and Commerce and the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy jointly chaired the then Agri-Food Council which was responsible for the implementation of the Agri-Food Strategy. The prime objective of the Council was to “increase the exports of high value added food from Australia”. [62] According to the Agri-Food Council “it was created out of a conviction that success could only flow from a cooperative, consultative approach between industry, unions and government.” [63]

3.61 The functions of the Council were to:

• forge a common purpose and lead change in the agri-food industry;
• focus efforts to identify and remove impediments to the agri-food industry at both government and industry level;
• encourage adoption of best practice in the agri-food industry; and
• target and coordinate programs across portfolios assisting the industry. [64]

3.62 The Commonwealth Government announced the Agri-Food Strategy in July 1992. The strategy aimed to “encourage greater efficiencies in food production, more cooperation between food producers, processors and marketeers and a sharper focus on the development of international markets for Australian fresh and processed foods.” [65]

3.63 Under the strategy specific programs focused on building Australia's image as an exporter of clean food, improving industry language and literacy skills to assist workplace reform, benchmarking and industry networking. Various initiatives taken under the strategy included the establishment of :

• a Clean Food Strategy;
• the Food Industries Networking for Asia (FINA) export program;
• the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on Workplace Reform for the Processed Food Industry;
• the Food Industry Language and Literacy Initiative Program (FILLIP); [66]
• the Packaging Working Group;
• Small and Medium Enterprises (SME) food networks; and
• the Processed Food Market Access Committee. [67]

3.64 The DPIE expressed support for a variety of other initiatives related to value-adding activities, such as:

• Development of a productive and sustainable agricultural sector;
• Fostering community development;
• Increasing human capital through education and training;
• Encouragement of market driven research and development;
• Increasing access to overseas markets; and
• Building Australia's image as a producer of clean food.

Development of a productive and sustainable agricultural sector

3.65 The Department of Primary Industries and Energy believed that the development of productive and competitive rural industries with expanded value-adding activities would not be sustainable unless supported by structural adjustment and the sustainable management of natural resources. The Rural Adjustment Scheme (RAS) and the National Landcare Program were seen as important elements in the development and maintenance of a sustainable agricultural sector able to contribute value-adding to Australia's agricultural production. The Department saw RAS as assisting farmers to improve their technical, financial and risk management skills that in turn could lead to greater value-adding flowing on from the farm sector. [68]

Fostering community development

3.66 The Department of Primary Industries and Energy stated in its submission that “access to appropriate services and skills within rural areas is essential if value adding opportunities for agricultural products is to be realised in regional Australia”. [69] The DPIE administered the Rural Community Access Program that was established in the 1994-95 Commonwealth budget to improve the coordination and delivery of a range of rural community programs. The Program comprised:

• rural counselling;
• business advice for rural areas; and
• telecentres. [70]

It was argued that the Rural Community Access Program played an important role in helping to maintain economic viability and social cohesion in rural area, [71] a situation that could lead to an environment conducive to value-adding activities.

Increasing human capital through education and training

3.68 Improved skills and training can make a significant contribution to innovative economic development which would in turn contributes to value-adding activities in the agricultural sector. The DPIE recognised the importance of skills enhancement. The Department had several programs in place that fostered “the acquisition of new skills, adoption of new technologies and management systems and provision of information for sound decision making”. [72]For example, the Rural Adjustment Scheme provided training skills grants while the National Drought Policy had a property management planning program designed to enhance the skills of farmers. In addition the agribusiness programs had important education and training elements. These programs put a focus on improved information “for better decision making”. [73]

Encouragement of market driven research and development

3.69 The Department of Primary Industries and Energy was of the view that “innovation is the key to long term industry competitiveness and a high level of value added agricultural production in Australia.” [74]

Increasing access to overseas markets

3.70 For most agricultural products, market access and return on investment are intimately linked. Tariff or non-tariff barriers can limit access to overseas markets. [75] The Department of Primary Industries and Energy has been involved in a number of negotiations with foreign authorities to improve access for Australian value-added agricultural products. According to the Department its activities included “tariff access negotiations, quarantine discussions, technical consultations, identifications of opportunities for investment, representations to relax licensing arrangements, clarification of investment regulations and negotiations on quota removals”. [76]

Building Australia's image as a producer of clean food

3.71 The then Agri-Food Council initiated the clean food export program. The program commenced in December 1993 with a pilot program based in Taiwan. The program was to be extended to Indonesia from January 1996. [77] The objective of this program was to establish a market preference for Australian fresh and processed foods based on their quality and origin from a clean environment. [78] The Secretary of the Department of Primary Industries and Energy, Mr Greg Taylor, stated in February 1996 that:

In essence, the Clean Food Program is a form of branding designed to capture consumer attention based on the clean, quality attributes of Australian food. [79]

3.72 The Department of Primary Industries and Energy claimed that:

Australia's relative isolation and pollution free environment provide an excellent opportunity to capitalise on the increasing consumer demand for clean, low residue agricultural products. [80]

3.73 According to DPIE one of the spin off benefits of the clean food image promotion was that it provided “an umbrella whereby a lot of smaller people, smaller companies, who could not on their own begin to try to promote their products in another country, have the benefit of this generic promotion.” [81]

3.74 Mr Taylor stressed that “the underpinning of clean, safe food requires a partnership between industry and government.” [82]

3.75 In evidence to the inquiry the then Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories (DEST) advised that on 15 September 1995 the Commonwealth Government, in cooperation with the States, established the National Environment Protection Council. This Council allowed the Commonwealth “to work with the states in defining national standards that may be necessary to protect the environment, to promote or facilitate value added agricultural production.” [83]

Conclusions

3.76 The Committee is in agreement with the view of the Secretary of the Department of Primary Industries and Energy that essentially the role of government in respect to building Australia's image as a producer of clean food can be divided into two roles, namely:

• providing enforcement and validation of standards in relation to the safety of food, labelling and quarantine issues; and
• the provision of leadership, technical information and funding leading to the improvement of food safety and quality. [84]

Level of Government assistance to the processed food and beverages sector

3.77 Commonwealth assistance to the manufacturing sector as a whole has undergone substantial decline between 1968-69 and 1994-95. The Australian food and beverages industry receives relatively low levels of Government assistance. [85]

3.78 The average effective rate of assistance for food and beverage manufacturing in 1994-95 was estimated at 3 per cent. This figure compares with 9 per cent for manufacturing as a whole. The most rapid reduction in assistance in the food an beverages industry over the last decade has come in beverages and malt production. For example, beer manufacturing experienced a decline in average effective assistance from 93 per cent in 1982-83 to -2 per cent by 1994-95. [86] It is expected that the level of assistance to the processed food, beverages and tobacco (FBT) will decline to 2 per cent by 2000-01. [87]

Footnotes

[16] Evidence, DPIE, p. 884.

[17] Evidence, DPIE, p. 894.

[18] Evidence, DPIE, p. 894.

[19] Taking Stock: A Mid-Term Report on the Australian Agri-Food Strategy December 1994, Agri-Food Council, December 1994, p. 2.

[20] Evidence, South Australian Government, p. 549.

[21] Evidence, South Australian Government, p. 549

[22] Evidence, South Australian Government, p. 559. During its evidence the South Australian Government paid tribute to the way DPIE administered the Agribusiness programs when it stated “I acknowledge fully the interest and support by officers of the Department of Primary Industries and Energy”, Evidence, South Australian Government, p. 586

[23] Dr Alistair Watson, Further Processing of Agricultural Productions in Australia: Some Economic Issues, Research Paper Number 5, 14 December, 1993, Parliamentary Research Service , Department of the Parliamentary Library, p. ii.

[24] Evidence, The Country Women's Association of Australia, pp. 833-834.

[25] Evidence, The Country Women's Association of Australia, p. 834.

[26] Submission, Queensland Pork Producers' State Council, p. 3.

[27] DPIE, Rural Business & Marketing Guide, Canberra, 1994, p. 4.

[28] DPIE, Rural Business & Marketing Guide, Canberra, 1994, p. 5.

[29] DPIE, Rural Business & Marketing Guide, Canberra, 1994, p. 5.

[30] DPIE, Rural Business & Marketing Guide, Canberra, 1994, p. 5. For criticism of the EMDG by the South Australian Government see Evidence, South Australian Government, p. 581.

[31] DPIE, Rural Business & Marketing Guide, Canberra, 1994, p. 6.

[32] Submission, Austrade, p. 2.

[33] DPIE, Rural Business & Marketing Guide, Canberra, 1994, pp. 9-10.

[34] DPIE, Rural Business & Marketing Guide, Canberra, 1994, p. 8.

[35] DPIE, Rural Business & Marketing Guide, Canberra, 1994, p. 8.

[36] DPIE, Rural Business & Marketing Guide, Canberra, 1994, p. 8.

[37] DPIE, Rural Business & Marketing Guide, Canberra, 1994, pp. 8-9.

[38] DPIE, Rural Business & Marketing Guide, Canberra, 1994, pp. 10.

[39] DPIE, Rural Business & Marketing Guide, Canberra, 1994, p. 24; see also Evidence, Victorian Government, p. 49.

[40] DPIE, Rural Business & Marketing Guide, Canberra, 1994, p. 25.

[41] DPIE, Rural Business & Marketing Guide, Canberra, 1994, p. 25.

[42] DPIE, Rural Business & Marketing Guide, Canberra, 1994, p. 26.

[43] Simon Crean, Value-adding in Agriculture: A Government Perspective, Agricultural Science, Vol. 5 (2), March 1992, p. 25.

[44] Simon Crean, Value-adding in Agriculture: A Government Perspective, Agricultural Science, Vol. 5 (2), March 1992, p. 25. For a discussion of the role of SMAs see I Roberts, The Future for Australian Agriculture: Important Issue to 2010, Outlook 96, Vol. 2, Agriculture: collection of papers delivered at the Outlook 96 Conference held in Canberra 6-8 February 1996, organised by ABARE, pp 70-71.

[45] DPIE, International Agribusiness Trends and Their Implications for Australia, a discussion paper prepared for the Primary and Allied Industries Council, Canberra, 1989, p. 39.

[46] Evidence, West Australian Government, p. 686.

[47] Evidence, West Australian Government, p. 686. For detailed information concerning the review of SMAs in WA see Evidence, West Australian Government, pp. 714-716.

[48] Evidence, Australian Horticultural Corporation, p. 379.

[49] Evidence, AMLC, p. 335.

[50] Evidence, South Australian Government, p. 709.

[51] Evidence, South Australian Government, p. 580.

[52] Evidence, South Australian Government, p. 580; see also Evidence, West Australian Government, p. 706.

[53] Evidence, Australian Natural Ingredients Ltd, p. 740.

[54] Evidence, UMT, p. 856.

[55] Evidence, DPIE, p. 887.

[56] Evidence, DPIE, p. 886.

[57] See Evidence, Agri-Food Council, p. 934.

[58] Evidence, DPIE, p. 886.

[59] Evidence, DPIE, p. 887. For more detailed information on agribusiness programs see Submission, DPIE, Attachment 3.

[60] DPIE, Rural Business & Marketing Guide, Canberra, 1994, p. 6.

[61] DPIE, Rural Business & Marketing Guide, Canberra, 1994, p. 7.

[62] Submission, Department of Industry, Technology and Regional Development, p. 1; see also Mr Greg Taylor, Government-industry Partnership to Underpin Clean Food Exports, Outlook 96, Vol. 2, Agriculture: collection of papers delivered at the Outlook 96 Conference held in Canberra 6-8 February 1996, organised by ABARE, p. 111.

[63] Taking Stock: A Mid-Term Report on the Australian Agri-Food Strategy December 1994, Agri-Food Council, December 1994, p. 2.

[64] Taking Stock: A Mid-Term Report on the Australian Agri-Food Strategy December 1994, Agri-Food Council, December 1994, p. 2; see also Evidence, DPIE, p. 934.

[65] Taking Stock: A Mid-Term Report on the Australian Agri-Food Strategy December 1994, Agri-Food Council, December 1994, p. 2; see also Evidence, DPIE, p. 934.

[66] Department of Industry, Technology and Regional Development, Food Australia: Processed Food and Beverages Industry - 3rd edition, prepared by the Agri-Food Council Secretariat, Canberra, ACT, December 1993, pp. 17-18.

[67] Taking Stock: A Mid-Term Report on the Australian Agri-Food Strategy December 1994, Agri-Food Council, December 1994, pp. 3-5.

[68] Evidence, DPIE, p. 890.

[69] Evidence, DPIE, p. 890.

[70] Evidence, DPIE, pp. 890-891.

[71] Evidence, DPIE, p. 891.

[72] Evidence, DPIE, p. 891.

[73] Evidence, DPIE, p. 891.

[74] Evidence, DPIE, p. 888.

[75] Evidence, DPIE, p. 891. For a discussion of the use of quarantine barriers to restrict imports see I Roberts, The Future for Australian Agriculture: Important Issue to 2010, Outlook 96, Vol. 2, Agriculture: collection of papers delivered at the Outlook 96 Conference held in Canberra 6-8 February 1996, organised by ABARE, p. 71.

[76] Evidence, DPIE, p. 892. For more details on various forums in which DPIE has carried out negotiations see Evidence, DPIE, pp. 917-921.

[77] Evidence, DPIE, p. 888 and Dr John S Keniry, Food into Asia - the Scope for Clean and Green, Outlook 96, Vol. 2, Agriculture: collection of papers delivered at the Outlook 96 Conference held in Canberra 6-8 February 1996, organised by ABARE, pp. 132-134; see also Mr Greg Taylor, Government-industry Partnership to Underpin Clean Food Exports, Outlook 96, Vol. 2, Agriculture: collection of papers delivered at the Outlook 96 Conference held in Canberra 6-8 February 1996, organised by ABARE, pp. 109-110.

[78] Taking Stock: A Mid-Term Report on the Australian Agri-Food Strategy December 1994, Agri-Food Council, December 1994, p. 3. For an understanding of what the Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories sees clean food being in relation to value-adding see Evidence, DEST, p. 1036.

[79] Mr Greg Taylor, Government-industry Partnership to Underpin Clean Food Exports, Outlook 96, Vol. 2, Agriculture: collection of papers delivered at the Outlook 96 Conference held in Canberra 6-8 February 1996, organised by ABARE, p. 111.

[80] Evidence, DPIE, pp. 888, 895.

[81] Evidence, DPIE, p. 931.

[82] Mr Greg Taylor, Government-industry Partnership to Underpin Clean Food Exports, Outlook 96, Vol. 2, Agriculture: collection of papers delivered at the Outlook 96 Conference held in Canberra 6-8 February 1996, organised by ABARE, p. 110. For additional information on quality controls and clean food production in the meat, dairy, grains and horticultural industries see Mr Greg Taylor, Government-industry Partnership to Underpin Clean Food Exports, Outlook 96, Vol. 2, Agriculture: collection of papers delivered at the Outlook 96 Conference held in Canberra 6-8 February 1996, organised by ABARE, pp. 119-124.

[83] Evidence, DEST, p. 1036; see also Evidence, DEST, p. 1043.

[84] Mr Greg Taylor, Government-industry Partnership to Underpin Clean Food Exports, Outlook 96, Vol. 2, Agriculture: collection of papers delivered at the Outlook 96 Conference held in Canberra 6-8 February 1996, organised by ABARE, p. 118.

[85] Department of Industry, Science and Technology, Food Australia: Processed Food and Beverages Industry -5th edition, prepared by the Agri-Food Industries Branch , Canberra, ACT, December 1995, p. 18.

[86] Department of Industry, Science and Technology, Food Australia: Processed Food and Beverages Industry -5th edition, prepared by the Agri-Food Industries Branch , Canberra, ACT, December 1995, p. 18; see also Department of Industry, Technology and Regional Development, Food Australia: Processed Food and Beverages Industry - 4th edition, prepared by the Agri-Food Council Secretariat, Canberra, ACT, December 1994, p. 13. For information on the level of assistance provided to agriculture in Australia see John W. Longworth and Paul C Riethmuller, Exploding Some Myths About the Rural Sector in Australia, Current Affairs Bulletin, Vol. 70, No. 1, June 1993, pp. 18-19; Evidence, Professor Nicholas Samuel, p. 600.

[87] Department of Industry, Technology and Regional Development, Food Australia: Processed Food and Beverages Industry - 4th edition, prepared by the Agri-Food Council Secretariat, Canberra, ACT, December 1994, p. 13.