A plan for food

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.