Sunday 5 January 2014

Australian agri-food producers are behaving more and more like miners.

This week, when most of us sit down with a glass of Christmas cheer to reflect on the year just finishing and speculate about the one ahead, we’d be feeling much better about life than the last few Christmases.  However, unlike those in the sector who’ll be checking off the year’s wins, my reflections are likely to be laced by a sense of frustration and lost opportunity, despite all the hype about the rosy future of agrifood. 

For a start, the Gillard government tried its hardest to kill us all off. The National Food Plan and Asian Century papers were big on philosophy but totally lacking in pragmatic policy direction. The mishandling of the live cattle trade did serious long-term damage and offended a strategically important customer. The carbon tax and the pro-union attitude of that government put the nail in the coffin of our few surviving food manufacturers, most of who were already in the intensive care ward.  At risk of sounding like the Christmas Grinch, I don’t feel that confident that the Abbott Government will do much better. It seems that the agrarian socialists are running the show.

Any thinking person looking at the Australian agrifood sector from afar must be totally confused by the Graincorp/ADM debacle and the hysteria around the Warrnambool Butter and Cheese takeover. It shows that the most vociferous defenders of the farming sector are either extremely xenophobic or extremely naïve. Effectively they are willfully destroying the sector that they claim to be so passionate about protecting.

The reality is that most industries within the Australian agrifood sector are in a critical situation. Many food processors have moved off shore or closed down and others are seriously questioning their future in this country.   SPC is contemplating closing its Goulburn Valley facilities with a loss of 2000 direct jobs. The impacts of such closures are not just economic; the social consequences for regional communities are more devastating.

There is no doubt about the growth prospects for agrifood in the Asian region. The demographic data forecasting the rising Asian middle class is conclusive.  But the tired old proposition that Australia will become the “food bowl to Asia” or leaders in a “dining boom” as advocated by the many agrifood think tanks, is still a bit hard to swallow, even in the current environment.

The reason it is unrealistic is that much of the growing global demand for food is at the highly contested and competitive, low end of the market.   Australia sells undifferentiated commodities at world parity prices, with all the volatility that comes from being a global commodity trader. If Australia is to truly cash in on the Asian opportunity, it needs to target the high-end, premium food segments by developing differentiated products built around the brand values of provenance and safety.

But the reality is that in this space, Australia is hopelessly uncompetitive and poorly skilled. With a weighted average labour cost of $55 per hour for a factory worker compared with $18 in New Zealand and $4 in China, we are not in the game, even when the $AUD is around $US 80 cents. Our factories are old and inefficient, our energy and water costs have risen sharply and the cost of compliance with complex, government-imposed red tape is crippling. The road, rail and port infrastructure greatly adds to cost; the majority of secondary roads don’t have legal B Double access.  Furthermore, our capabilities in marketing, supply chain development and export market development are poor.

If Australia is to be a global player in food we need a massive investment in infrastructure, new plant and equipment and technology. This capital must come from overseas investors because the industry doesn’t have the money and Australian retail investors are gun-shy about agrifood, seeing it as too volatile and risky (no wonder when it is so poorly managed and government policy is so unstable).

We need active investors who can bring more than capital alone. We need their global supply chain and cultural connections and market knowledge. Passive superannuation fund and short-term equity players are not the answer.

Politicians need to let global agrifood world know that we are open for business. The starting point is some sensible, coherent policy that should include:
·         A pro-foreign investment policy (with adequate safe guards).
·         A flexible work force policy that recognizes the 24/7 and seasonal nature of perishable agrifood products.
·         Accelerated depreciation and incentives to invest in automation and technology.
·         Government investment in infrastructure, roads, rail, ports, electricity, gas, water and waste water recycling, bio-digester technology and co-generation.
·         Cutting government red tape
·         Taxation incentives for mum and dad investors (although it was poorly managed the much maligned MIS did create world class, globally competitive and sustainable businesses).
·         Promoting agrifood as an up and coming career opportunity for young talented people.
·         Fewer expensive trade missions and more export capability building.

The alternative is for Australian agrifood to go the same way as Australian mining i.e. large, listed companies ripping huge volumes of low value commodities out of the ground for short term gain, letting other countries extract the value from the supply chain.  It seems that the miners and agriculturalists have more in common than they think.

About the author

Dr David McKinna is Principal and Director of global strategy consultancy McKINNA et al in Melbourne.  David’s commercial ‘street smarts’ belies his academic background.  Over 30 years of global consulting has given him deep insight into how markets work.  In particular, David has been the quiet achiever behind some of Australia’s most successful strategy break-throughs in the food sector.  His experience and expertise in agrifood spans paddock to plate.  David’s ‘tell-it-like-it-is’ style makes him a sought after speaker, writer and social commentator.  David was also a founder of the David Syme Business School at Monash University.

M: 0418 332 488

T: 03 9696 1966


3 comments:

Unknown said...

Peter Wylie of Agripath has similar thoughts:


Spending more time on management is crucial for Australian farmers and agribusiness. Fifty years ago, in 1964, Donald Horne wrote a book called The Lucky Country. The luck he described was that Australia continued to prosper, despite second-rate management.

Fifty years later, there is evidence the party is over. Farms are in trouble, mining and manufacturing in Australia are in trouble and so are the finances of the nation.

Globalization of trade means there is nowhere to hide from the relentless march of competition, fuelled not only by lower wages in almost every other country, but by firms that are better managed than those in Australia. I recently spent several years working for a large Australian firm and was was appalled at the everyday examples of management which resulted in a high cost of doing anything in Australia.

Farmers are in the same boat as industry. A lower $A, due to a stronger US economy may help in 2014, but will not stop the effects of competition. Productivity gains on farms in Australia have all but stalled, while farmers in Russia, Eastern Europe and the Americas improve grain yields resulting in additional tonnages each year, in excess of the total grain production in Australia.
It was once thought Australia would be the ‘food bowl of Asia’, but increasing food imports (now around $3 billion p.a.) suggest we are the food export bowl for Asian farmers, at least for products which require any significant amount of labour or processing – such as prawns, pineapple and potato chips.

The lot of the ordinary farmer is not good, with income stalled around break-even and farm costs rising each year. On well-managed farms however, profits are around $500,000 a year (a 7% return on $7 million of assets managed) and in a good year up around 14%.

Each year there needs to be innovation and change. Top managers work at fine-tuning, not just the agronomy, but the business. They believe the most important job of the farmer is not out in the paddock, but in the office.

The next big innovation in farming is to manage the farm as a system and consistently adjust a myriad of choices and details which, when put together well, can double profit on a reasonably prosperous farm.

But there is much more to a good farming business than better crop yields. Other decisions include crop selection, rotations, crop frequency and farm cost choices. Teamwork, labour, safety and machinery decisions are also important.

The so called ‘debt crisis’ in agriculture could be said to be a ‘management crisis’. Spending more time on fine-tuning their business could be the next big innovation in farming.

Jeremy Lomman said...

Thanks Peter.
Some very insightful observations about our industry.
You've succinctly hit-the-mark on a range of ongoing issues.
Moving forward, what concerns me most about 2014 is the continuing disparity between policy makers and decision makers and their understanding of what's happening, and the understanding of those that are head down bum up in the industry trying to make it work.

david said...

Anyone who see the MIS taxation system as a winner does not understand agriculture. Billions of investors dollars were lost and 1000 of hectares of once productive farming country is now of no economics value.