HORTICULTURE Australia Council failed because it did not listen growers, but now the industry must move forward, writes IAN McALISTER
In the article, "Horticulture loses its voice" (WT, March 10), the drought was blamed for the demise of Horticulture Australia Council.
Currently any failure by any organisation is explained away by "climate change and global economic downturn has taken its toll".
What absolute rubbish. Any organisation fails for myriad reasons, but one common denominator is usually that they haven't delivered on the expectations of their constituents.
We first need to dispel some of the myths that appear about this organisation.
On their website, HAC claim to represent 98 per cent of horticulture.
Industries that pulled out of HAC (before the drought) include mangoes, table grapes and summerfruit. There are others who also pulled out and combined we represent much more than 2 per cent.
Summerfruit Australia pulled out six years ago for two reasons. At the time we were technically insolvent, but more importantly we were unsure of HAC's direction and unhappy with their consultation process.
The funding of HAC by peak industry bodies is almost impossible as Apple and Pear Australia general manager Tony Russell explained last week. Most growers from any horticultural commodity expect representation from both a research and development perspective and also expect representation on important government decisions that directly affects their livelihoods.
The DAFF system has no mechanism within their process that allows levy funds to be used for agri-politics.
Most peak industry bodies struggle to derive outside income to fund important organisations such as Plant Health Australia and Pollination Australia.
To maintain a lobby organisation such as HAC places any peak industry body in an untenable position.
Mr Russell stated that a percentage of levy funds should be able to be put aside for agri-politics and not one horticultural peak industry body would disagree.
It is imperative that horticulture is at the table whenever there is Government debate on issues that directly affect us.
Peak industry bodies must have this mechanism at their disposal to represent their levy-paying growers in the professional manner they deserve.
The major problem that has caused industries to withdraw funds from HAC, I believe, was their ability to push policy that was totally opposite to what industry had directed.
Three critical examples of this are the mandatory code of conduct, the 40 per cent AQIS charges subsidy and the award modernisation laws.
When HAC's chief executive went to the extraordinary length of emailing all senators in the senate inquiry stating that horticulture fully endorsed the AQIS changes, it was clear to everybody that HAC had totally lost direction. However, horticulture can't dwell on past history. We can only learn from it.
We need to maintain a professional voice in Canberra however it is funded.
We need to take a leaf from the unions' book and have total solidarity, combined as one voice. Any peak industry body that thinks they can do it alone is dreaming.
It is not easy to work collectively as we are a very competitive bunch. But the benefits of one unified voice would far outweigh the negatives.
As the WT editorial stated, just a few of the problems we need to confront are a guaranteed water supply for food production, a competitive labour source , the right to farm, quarantine, market access for our commodities overseas, labelling laws. Consumers have a basic right to know the origin of the fresh and manufactured food they buy.
These are just a few of the problems that need to be addressed immediately. The new body that represents horticulture (if we have one) will have to have vision and a very strong and rigid consultation process.
But the most important factor is complete backing from the peak industry bodies and their growers.
This will lead to growers eventually reaping the rewards of first-class representation.
- Ian McAlister is chairman of Summerfruit Australia
