A plan for food

As the National Food Plan wends its way through the bureaucracy, with the first round of public consultation completed, whether it will do more than keep a lot of public servants occupied is still the main question.

The government says the plan will outline its "vision for the food industry and consumers" given there are "many government policies, programs and regulations but no overarching food policy framework."

Well maybe, but it is difficult not to be cynical. As I have previously discussed, industry plans evoke comparisons with the five year plans of centrally planned economies in which remote bureaucrats prescribe targets which have no relationship to reality. Governments are more often part of the problem than the solution.

But perhaps that is unkind. Food is high on the agenda of many countries these days, and several have attempted to peer into the crystal ball. In January this year the UK government released its report, The Future of Food and Farming: Challenges and choices for global sustainability, which concluded that nothing less than a "redesign of the whole food system" was required. Our plan sounds modest by comparison.

Submissions to the planning process are numerous and diverse, as might be expected when the guide began by asking why a plan was needed and what it is expected to achieve. Quite a few pronounced the idea, in the Sir Humphrey sense, as heroic. With 13 separate government portfolios involved just to prepare the Issues Paper, that may be an understatement.

The most revealing responses were to the question: What two or three actions by the government sector would most benefit businesses that make, distribute and sell food?

You might expect those directly involved in food production, such as the farmer organisations, to respond by promoting a grand vision of noble service, protecting the world from hunger, with the merest hint of special treatment and taxpayer handouts. But their submissions were largely vision-free, although there was certainly interest in special treatment and taxpayer funds.

The Victorian Farmers Federation nominated as its key concerns protocols for importing apples, the impact of the carbon tax on costs, and aspects of labelling. It also mentioned a lack of understanding of farming in the wider community.

South Australian farmers mentioned declining agricultural R&D, concerns about food imports, biosecurity and labelling, and called for reduced fees plus subsidies "where required". They also expressed concerns about the lack of understanding of farming.

The Queensland Farmers Federation called for increased ACCC powers to monitor situations such as Coles' milk price discounting, incentives to increase investment in agriculture, and increased R&D. Growcom, representing Queensland's horticultural producers, simply focused on import competition.

NSW Farmers was a little more visionary and submitted a long list of recommendations covering investment in alternative fuels, diesel taxes, food labelling, transport infrastructure, mining, native vegetation and water. They also thought the government should increase understanding of food production.

There is a problem here. Even if the government were to restrict imports, abolish the carbon tax, modify food labelling, increase R&D funding, boost the ACCC's powers and so on, it is impossible to believe these are the best it could do to benefit food production. And a national plan is hardly required either.

It is also hard to believe that a government campaign to educate the public about food production is so vital. Farmers may feel unappreciated, and perhaps they are, but then so are many others. An education campaign carries risks - more information typically results in better informed critics – and none of the submissions attempted to explain why it would benefit the industry. The public does not know much about the production of toilet paper, deodorants and vitamin pills either, but would it help if they did?

The submissions of the state governments also ducked the question. NSW suggested governments should develop systems that supply accurate information about our production systems, such as life-cycle assessments, and raised the perennial favourite of a single source of government contact for services, regulation and information

Tasmania supported country and region of origin labelling and lauded its productivity-reducing ban on genetically modified crops. South Australia did not mention its ban but said it already had a food plan that focuses on market information, skills development, R&D, biosecurity and regional development. It suggested more expenditure on R&D.

Victoria called for a cost benefit assessment of all regulation, which should be based on risks and outcomes. It also pointed out that the Commonwealth was currently not adhering to agreed COAG regulatory principles in its moves to restrict palm oil imports and the national labelling review. It was a gentle reminder that having a plan and sticking to it are not the same things.

In terms of an "overarching policy framework" for the food industry, specialist food and agribusiness bank Rabobank was one of the few to go beyond proposals that merely sought to remedy a few grumbles, see off competitors or seek special treatment at taxpayer expense.

In refreshing simplicity it simply said the plan's primary objective should be "maintaining and enhancing the international competitiveness of the Australian food and agribusiness sector".

It nominated productivity, market access, transport infrastructure and human resources as the key areas on which the government should focus, all being areas in which the government is a central player and where its policies can make a significant difference to the food industry.

There is no doubt that more R&D is needed to turn around declining productivity in food production, although whether it should be funded by taxpayers or those who directly benefit is a separate question.

The same goes for infrastructure. If there are to be enough roads, bridges, railways, ports and storage facilities to deliver the food from the farm to processors and customers, the government needs to create a positive regulatory environment no matter who pays for it.

Convincing other countries to remain open to our exports (without annoying them too much because our own markets are not fully open to imports) is already a government priority. And the government has a big say in whether there are enough agricultural scientists, food scientists and the various skilled and unskilled personnel needed to grow, harvest and process food.

Rabobank's suggested objective is also a reminder that a national food plan should not focus exclusively, or even predominantly, on the domestic market. Although that's all most submissions were interested in, ironically including groups claiming to speak for the disadvantaged, several at least recognised the "moral imperative" of supplying the world with food.

The food industry has done fairly well to date without a national food plan. If the government got out of the way more and regulated with a light touch, it could do better. But if there is to be a plan, it should not rely very much on the submissions. Most are not even worth keeping public servants occupied.

David Leyonhjelm is Registered Officer of the Liberal Democratic Party (www.ldp.org.au). He. works in the agribusiness and veterinary markets as principal of Baron Strategic Services and Baron Senior Placements.