HAL should be grower-owned: report

09 May, 2014 02:30 PM
Comments
4
 
Greater efficiency and transparency in the management of industry levies is also recommended

AN independent review into the performance of Horticulture Australia Limited (HAL) has recommended it move to become a grower-owned research and development corporation (RDC).

It’s one of nine key recommendations in a final report released today from a review into HAL and the horticulture levy system, conducted by consultants ACIL Allen.

The review is required under the statutory funding agreement between the Australian government and HAL.

HAL is the research, development and marketing body owned by horticulture peak bodies.

It invests around $107 million of grower levies and taxpayer funds annually in horticulture programs designed to boost profitability and productivity, in-line with the government’s Rural Research and Development priorities.

Among the report’s other key recommendations is removing industry advisory committees (IAC) from decisions about research and development (R&D) investment.

The report’s summary describes IACs as “costly, unwieldy and conflicted” and that external advice was essential.

It also recommends HAL, or a future RDC, improve its direct communication with growers.

Greater efficiency and transparency in the management of industry levies is also recommended, with the report stating the number of different levy types needed to be reduced.

In a statement, HAL CEO John Lloyd said the review involved thorough consultation with the industry over several months.

“A comprehensive process - conducted at arm’s length from HAL and the government - has produced a set of strategic and operational findings that warrant due consideration by our members and levy payers,” Mr Lloyd said.

He said the HAL board would respond to the final report and recommendations within the next three months, following consultation with members during a series of member workshops on May 27-28.

“HAL looks forward to continuing to play a key role in maintaining the competitiveness of Australian horticulture for the benefit of members, growers and the wider community,” he said.

In a statement, Federal Agriculture Minister Barnaby Joyce said the report makes a strong and persuasive case for grower levy-payers to be the owners of the organisation and to have a direct say in how investments are made in the future.

“Having dealt extensively with horticulture industry groups I am not surprised that the report recommends significant change to the research and development, and marketing services delivery model for Australian horticulture,” Minister Joyce said.

“Horticulture Australia Limited was established in 2001 to serve 43 separate peak industry bodies and the Australian industry and the markets that it supplies have matured a lot since then.

“The shape of international markets is changing rapidly and our producers need to respond with agility and make wise investments to take advantage of the opportunities.

“Research and development will play a crucial role in positioning the Australian horticulture industry to take advantage of the emerging demand from the Asian region for high quality, safe food.

“Given the importance of this issue to the horticulture sector, I hope that the Horticulture Australia Limited Board will respond to the final report in a timely manner after consulting with their members.”

Page:
1
FarmOnline
Date: Newest first | Oldest first

READER COMMENTS

Peter5044
11/05/2014 9:39:16 PM

The HAL Review report recommendations are on the money. Now watch as conflicted peak industry bodies opt for denial! It is to be hoped that Minister Joyce can withstand the inevitable lobbying by well connected Supporters of the status quo and accept the independent review recommendations.
Big Farm
12/05/2014 8:36:39 PM

Ultimately the growers who pay the tax, I mean levy, should have a say in where its spent. They currently dont. Unfortunatley HAL and the peak bodies have had their snouts in the trough and will fight hard for minimal changes. Surely a look at the funding recomended to PIB sponsors and PIBs themselves should be questioned. If there has been conflict of interest in the funding provided why take time to act on the report, shouldnt it happen immediatley?
Simon
19/05/2014 9:59:05 AM

Only one submission to Agricultural Competitiveness White Paper deals with this and proposes a significant change for the benefit of all levy payers. NFF supports the status quo! What the...? Oh, that's right NFF enjoys the same setup as HAL!!
Rob Moore
19/05/2014 11:25:54 AM

Simon- that would be my submission. The Primary Production Pricing Bill (PPP) is a Trade Practise measure that will see Transparency, equal access to supply listed offers and the "jack boot " control of all these unhealthy alliances. marriages and private treaties. True competition will result and real increases at the farmgate will closely follow. Will work equally well in Hort, Livestock ,Dairy, Grains. The Primary Producer is a "soft" touch and this bill will give us the equal bargaining power that we don't have now.

POST A COMMENT


Screen name *
Email address *
Remember me?
Comment *
 

COMMENTS

light grey arrow
I'm one of the people who want marijuana to be legalized, some city have been approved it but
light grey arrow
#blueysmegacarshowandcruise2019 10 years on Daniels Ute will be apart of another massive cause.
light grey arrow
Australia's live animal trade is nothing but a blood stained industry that suits those who