Nursery and Garden Industry Australia Limited submission to the Independent review of Horticulture Australia Limited
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Nursery and Garden Industry Australia Limited
submission to the
Independent review of Horticulture Australia Limited
Submitted by: Nursery & Garden Industry Australia Limited
Prepared by: Robert Prince, Chief Executive Officer (robert.prince@ngia.com.au)
Dr Anthony Kachenko, Research and Market Development Manager.
(anthony.kachenko@ngia.com.au)
PO Box 7129
Baulkham Hills BC NSW 2153
NGIA submission to HAL Review: 6 March 2014Executive Summary
The Nursery & Garden Industry Australia Limited (NGIA) support the review of Horticulture Australia
Limited (HAL) on the basis that since its inception in 2002 the operating environment and
Horticulture sector have changed dramatically.
Agencies that formerly assisted in research and extension to primary industry have reduced
expenditure and in the case of the nursery industry completely withdrawn from the sector. The
National Horticulture Research Network has no investment in the nursery sector.
The NGIA has identified 5 key areas that will improve the effective and efficient operation of HAL.
1. Efficiency of IT support systems to enable quality data output and project management.
2. Effective cost analysis utilising activity based costing disciplines.
3. Modification of Across Industry research to be “opt in” on basis of industry relevance and
performance measurements.
4. Core activities of HAL to be aligned to industry Strategic Investment Plans. The HAL axis of
accountability model needs to be revisited.
5. Modifications to current business model to recognise capacity and capability of industry
bodies to manage programs under contract.
As part of the review process NGIA sent an electronic survey out to payers of the Nursery Levy.
Results are attached along with comments.
Introduction
The Nursery & Garden Industry is an established intensive industry within horticulture. The industry
operates in all States and Territories of Australia. The industry GVP in 2012/13 was approximately
$1.6 billion, with the greater economic impacts documented at over $14 billion.
Production covers over 20,000 species and all stages from tissue culture to established trees.
Production systems involve covered crops, container production and in ground production.
The industry engages with all aspects of the supply chain and is different from all other sectors of
horticulture in that the industry grows, markets and distributes “living plants”.
The industry has over 1500 growers, and like the majority of horticultural industries has difficulty in
obtaining accurate statistics on production volumes.
The nursery industry has had a statutory levy for R&D and marketing in place since 1989. In 2013 the
nursery industry introduced a Biosecurity Levy and Plant Health Australia Levy as part of our
obligations as signatory to the Emergency Plant Pest Response Deed.
NGIA has been an A Class member of HAL since its inception in 2001.
NGIA is the Australian representative on the International Association of Production Horticulture
(AIPH).
NGIA has a database of industry stakeholders and by confidential agreement with the largest levy
collector has a list of levy payers.
NGIA submission to HAL Review: 6 March 2014NGIA currently operates with an Industry Strategic Plan and since 2012 a Strategic Investment Plan
for the investment of levy funds. The ACIL Allen Report of December 2013 highlights that the
Nursery and Garden Industry Australia are the fifth largest service provider to Horticulture Australia
for the period 2008-2013 (Figure 3; Page 8). This Figure requires careful interpretation as data
provided to industry based on cluster analysis and ACIL Allen show that the greatest percentage of
this investment is for industry extension ($1,647,421) as opposed to R&D ($586,677). Furthermore,
this R&D is managed by NGIA and subcontracted under HAL Approved Consultancy Agreements and
Contracts to external service providers.
The nursery industry R&D and marketing programs delivered through HAL over the past 12 years
have delivered significant benefits to levy payers and the wider community. It has assisted the
industry to implement industry best practice systems that improve product and environmental
quality as well as enabling business improvements. The industry has developed programs for staff
training and capability development.
The market for products has changed dramatically over that period and industry has had the
resilience to survive national drought that resulted in water restrictions that affected the market
opportunities, a Global Financial Crisis that affected major building developments and infrastructure
projects which utilise green life.
The industry has increased opportunities as a result of a major push for green life to be a key aspect
of the mitigation of impacts from heat island affects and improvements in the health and well-being
of Australia citizens through exposure to green life.
There will be new challenges in the future but the capacity developed within industry and the NGIA
will enable industry to continue to grow. This developed capacity has been as a result of the industry
(PIB) managing the investment of the levy and matched funds in a manner that focusses on industry
needs which is an efficient and effective mechanism for industry and government to invest
collectively for the common good.
Specific Response to consultation paper:
The following are NGIA’s view on each of the sections of the ACIL Allen Consultation paper and
responses to the 11 consultation questions.
Section 2: HAL Governance (who gets a say)
1. What do you see as the primary purpose of HAL?
• To receive levies, Voluntary Contributions and matching funds relative to the construct
known as “Horticulture”.
• To oversee the efficient and effective investment of funds to deliver tangible benefits to levy
payers and the broader industry.
• To ADD VALUE where a collective opportunity exists. That is, to deliver R&D and Marketing
services those industries cannot achieve in isolation. To lead on agreed and identified issues
that are common to the “horticulture industries” e.g. water; biosecurity and staff capacity.
• Survey results from a survey of nursery levy payers undertaken by NGIA indicated that 79 %
of levy payers thought that NGIA was better placed to understand the nature of risks and
opportunities within the nursery industry.
NGIA submission to HAL Review: 6 March 20142. What do you think about the existing governance arrangements?
• When consistently and effectively applied, the current governance arrangements are
satisfactory.
• There has been significant effort by HAL to increase governance procedures. At times these
have dominated the process for delivering good outcomes.
• The discussion about the current model having an inherent conflict of interest, due to the
PIB involvement as owners of HAL, as service providers and in providing advice on program
investment, needs further explanation. There will always be conflicts of interest where
parties with the appropriate knowledge and skills are involved. In some cases, conflicts of
interest of individuals could be considered a greater risk than the not-for-profit PIBs.
• In the current model PIB’s have the capacity to hold HAL to account. Should the future
structure move to levy payers being the “owners” and members of HAL, there would be
representative bodies who would via “proxies” be engaged with HAL just as happens in the
business environment with shareholders etc.
3. What changes, if any, would you like to see to the way HAL consults with levy payers?
• HAL already does and should continue to consult with levy payers through the relevant PIBs
who have the infrastructure and networks in place to do this efficiently and effectively.
• NGIA has an extensive and targeted communications program that covers all aspects of the
investment program and is available to all industry stakeholders.
• HAL and/or government may have a role to play in helping PIBs expand the databases of levy
payers through the support of Mandatory Registration of ALL horticultural producers and
properties. This is consistent with the findings of the Citrus Industry Senate Inquiry.
Section 3: HAL’s operations and performance (what has HAL done?)
If a retrospective view is taken of what the Horticulture capacity and Industry structure is in 2013
compared to 2001, it could be argued that the lift in professionalism and capacity development
within industry sectors has been a result of HAL’s investment and guidance.
4. What is your view about the number of peak industry bodies (currently 43) that make up HAL’s
membership?
• HAL is the recipient of levies from any primary industry that meets the Government
established levy requirements. The controls need to be applied at the beginning of the
process to ensure that a levy is generating funds sufficient to meet the industry
expectations.
• Had there been a minimum levy level of $1 million set, it could be expected that some
horticultural industry sectors would “merge” to enable access to matched funding.
• It is not the role of NGIA to comment on other industries requirements for R&D and
Marketing.
5. What is your opinion of how well HAL communicates with levy payers, industry bodies and other
stakeholders?
NGIA submission to HAL Review: 6 March 2014• HAL’s direct communication with levy payers is limited due to the structure of HAL and the
responsibility given to HAL members to provide the communication with levy payers. Survey
results from a survey of nursery levy payers undertaken by NGIA show a majority of levy
payers find out information about nursery levy funded research, development and
marketing programs by NGIA communications.
• HAL does not know who the levy payers are. LRS does not know who the levy payers are,
only the levy collectors. Survey results from a survey of nursery levy payers undertaken by
NGIA show a majority of levy payers are comfortable if the collector of nursery levies
disclosed their contact details to NGIA.
• Direct communication from HAL is through PIB organised Annual Levy Payer Meetings
(ALPM) and PIB distribution of Annual Reports. Currently HAL is communicating with
industry via the PIBs reasonably well and this should continue and improve where possible.
• Survey results from a survey of nursery levy payers undertaken by NGIA show there is
minimal awareness of HAL and HAL communications, its role and outcomes from programs it
manages. This is due to the last 12 years, communications being directed through the PIBs.
• The HAL 2013 Stakeholder Survey undertaken by Currie Communications suggested
improvements through increased, improved communications and interactions. Outcomes
from the Currie Communications report should be considered as part of the Independent
review of Horticulture Australia Limited.
6. What does HAL do well? How efficient is it? What changes to HAL and the HAL model could be
made to assist it to perform better in the future to meet its challenges?
• NGIA believes that generally the current model is working well. It can be improved and we
identified key areas which we believe would improve the quality of operational outputs and
delivery of programs in an efficient and effective manner.
• The IT systems within HAL are a major hindrance to program management and quality data
analysis. The HALO system for managing projects is antiquated and requires onerous manual
intervention which is inefficient and bureaucratic. For example, HALO does not provide
automated reminders (e.g. approvals, milestone reminders etc.) to project leaders and are
manually circulated. Furthermore HALO does not allow for online lodgement of
milestone/final reports.
• This system shortfall has resulted in HAL focussing on “bandaid” governance measures that
are designed to overcome risks in non-compliance with project delivery etc. These measures
have added to staff numbers checking boxes rather than adding value.
• NGIA believes that HAL should focus more on delivering better quality outcomes rather than
processes that don’t add value, and may in fact diminish the effectiveness of the investment
program.
• The HAL model in its current form is more efficient than every industry operating
independently. There is however some inherent inefficiency in the HAL model due to the
diverse nature of horticulture. This diversity needs to be understood and accepted by all
stakeholders and investors.
NGIA submission to HAL Review: 6 March 2014• In cases where HAL directly manage projects on behalf of industries, the expectations for
‘sound governance’ should be the same as for those required by external providers. This
includes disclosure of milestone and final reporting and project monitoring and evaluation.
7. Are there ways in which HAL can deliver better value for money from its R&D and marketing
projects? If so, what are they?
• The focus should be on outcomes and effectiveness and less on process and box-ticking that
doesn’t deliver better outcomes. HAL should work closely with industry to ensure that the
R&D investments deliver real outcomes and not simply a published report.
• There should be a risk management approach to the management of industry programs. This
includes HAL having a recognised understanding of historical investment in industry
programs and delivery/achievements.
• Given the diversity of horticulture, there is a strong case for flexibility in service provision.
Smaller industries are more dependent on others to provide the support for industry
development. However, larger industries often have greater capacity, willingness and
industry support to provide valuable R&D and Marketing program management services for
their sectors.
• Cross subsidization between industries is not supported so industries need to establish a
levy that will meet grower expectations.
• HAL could provide better value for money by tapping into relevant knowledge and expertise
globally and across industries, and bringing that in a usable form to the planning processes
of individual industries.
8. What – if anything – is needed to encourage more investment by HAL in projects that cross over
between different industries within horticulture?
• There is an underlying assumption that across industry projects will deliver better outcomes
or returns for industry. The current across industry program (AIC) and suit of multi industry
projects (MI) add up to a significant proportion of HALs R&D investment already. While
some across industry projects are very worthwhile and an essential component of the
investment mix, they should only be pursued where there is a clear benefit to the investors.
• Funding for programs that are of benefit to the complete supply chain should involve the
beneficiaries, not just the growers. Funding should be secured from the beneficiaries.
• For across industry research, the current HALO system for project management does not
allow users to search historical projects in order to review research and minimise possible
duplication. See comments under Section 6.
Section4: Horticulture levies (who pays?)
9. What are your views about the present system for collecting horticulture levies and ability for
members to make voluntary contributions?
• NGIA believes that the current system of levy collection works efficiently and effectively for
the nursery industry. However, Figure 5 (Page 13) in the ACIL Allen paper highlights a
number of industries where the collection cost is a relatively high proportion of levies
NGIA submission to HAL Review: 6 March 2014collected. The Nursery Levy system relies on levy collectors and these are compensated 2.5%
so this distorts the figure compared to other industries.
• As the Nursery levy is on an input it is also difficult for LRS to identify potential levy payers
and industry has to investigate potential areas of leakage and pass these onto LRS.
• It would be ideal if LRS communicated the outcomes of any investigations.
• There are no hindrances to industry stakeholders making voluntary contributions other than
awareness of the system.
• NGIA believes the VC mechanism should continue, as recommended in Productivity
Commission Review of Rural RDCs.
• There is also a need to change the process for establishing, raising and changing levies. The
Productivity Commission Review of Rural RDCs recommended a streamlined application of
the Levy Principles and recommended that levy ratios should be more easily amended.
NGIA supports these recommendations.
10. Are the levy arrangements efficient? What changes could be made to horticulture levies to
improve efficiency of the arrangements?
• There has been discussion in other submissions and by ACIL Allen that the Australian
industry should move to a single levy based on ‘ad valorem’. NGIA has undertaken a review
of this for the Nursery Levy and Access economic identified that such a system would have
collection costs of over 60% and a considerable amount of work would be required in
establishing such a system.
11. Are there too many industry bodies making too many decisions about levies?
• The key question here is ‘would less industry bodies lead to better decisions about levies?’
The number of industry bodies and the number of levies is a reflection of the diversity of
horticulture, a reality that needs to be understood and accepted.
Where one or more industries have a high level of similarity or commonality, a case for
rationalisation can be made. It is understood that less industry bodies may simplify management by
HAL and DoA. However, there are very few examples of where further rationalisation would provide
better outcomes for industry or greater efficiency.
Section 5: Options for the future
As requested the following are comments on a future model for HAL.
Option 1: Streamlined HAL.
As stated in the Consultation paper this option is based on the approach that a consolidation or
grouping of the number of members so that there are fewer IACs.
How reducing the advice given to the HAL Board will result in a streamlined HAL is not explained. As
mentioned previously Horticulture is a construct and not a single entity.
NGIA submission to HAL Review: 6 March 2014This option ignores the significant differences between industry sectors in terms of their specific needs. Without adequate consultation and reporting to individual industry sectors, the relevance and effectiveness of the investment programs would be significantly diminished. Businesses pay the levy expecting benefit to their sector. There should be benefits and added value from a combined administration etc. but not at the expense of levy payer’s outcomes. This model, as proposed, is likely to reduce accountability to, and engagement by, levy payers. While NGIA supports streamlining of the existing HAL model, more work and detail needs to be provided. Option 2: PIB autonomy. The major concern with this model is that it would appear that HAL would have little or no accountability to industry. It is recognised that some PIB’s have the capacity to undertake all aspects of their program and this is a result of capability development over recent years. HAL should develop guidelines and have PIB’s engaged under standard business contracts. Smaller industries would not have the capacity to operate under this model and there is no suggested solution for this. NGIA sees some merit in greater PIB autonomy but details of other sectors will need to be clarified. Option 3: The new horticulture fund. The basis for this model is a single horticulture levy, invested by a statutory corporation or levy payer owned company. This model, like Option 1, ignores the significant differences between industry sectors in terms of their specific needs. It fails to demonstrate what benefits to levy payers would be achieved. It may provide a mechanism for larger, whole of horticulture investments, but there is no evidence that this would deliver better outcomes for levy payers than more targeted industry specific investments. It is highly unlikely that this model would be supported by levy payers as it would struggle to demonstrate specific benefits to levy payers. There needs to be more detail on how a levy would be enacted and the investment controls. The Nursery Industry does not support this option. Option 4: A hybrid model. Levy payers are strongly supportive of industry specific investments where they can see a tangible benefit from their contribution. It is not clear what the rational is for separating the matching funding from levies, or the benefits from this, but there is unlikely to be levy payer support for a model that potentially removes matching funds for such projects. Significant spill over benefit comes from the matching commonwealth contribution to horticulture R&D. NGIA submission to HAL Review: 6 March 2014
The nursery industry gains little benefit from investing in issues that are relevant to other sectors.
There would not be support for funds to be utilised in areas that are not relevant to the sector.
Option 5: No HAL.
The ACIL Allen paper states that ‘A thorough and independent review has to look at the benefits that
might be realised by closing HAL and allowing levy payers and tax payers to keep their money and to
not invest it in horticultural RD&E and marketing.’ The elimination of HAL is not synonymous with No
levies for R&D and Marketing. HAL is the current appointed service provider for the receipt of levy
funds and matched government funds. There are other bodies that could manage the funds.
The Productivity Commission Review of Rural RDCs states that the RDC model ‘has important
strengths, including: helping to ensure that public money is not spent on research of little practical
value; and facilitating greater and faster uptake of research outputs.’
The nursery industry supports an effective and efficient body to manage the levy funds paid by
members of the industry.
Considerations for alternatives
The most efficient model is not necessarily the best model. Those who understand Australian
horticulture well, recognise that a one-size-fits-all approach is not effective. Any option needs to
consider the diverse needs of the various sectors and therefore, there is a strong case for a flexible
model. It needs to accommodate industries of different size, geographical spread, challenges and
opportunities, willingness to invest in R&D and/or marketing, willingness to manage their own future
and so on.
The model for collective investment in R&D and marketing relies on the willingness of growers to
pay a levy. When they pay this, they expect a return. Maybe not this year or next, but they will not
be willing to pay levies if they do not see a benefit. There is always room for improvement and HAL
can certainly be improved. Any option must demonstrate how it will deliver a benefit to the
individuals that pay the first dollar – the levy payer - not the researchers, or the consultants, or the
corporations, or the government bureaucrats. Better outcomes for levy payers (growers) will lead to
better outcomes for all stakeholders.
Robert Prince Dr Anthony Kachenko
6 March 2014 6 March 2014
Appendix:
• Survey results from Nursery Industry. The survey was conducted “in confidence” and NGIA
does have the names and contact details for those who participated.
NGIA submission to HAL Review: 6 March 2014Nursery Levy Payers Views on Independent
Performance Review of HAL
1. Do you pay the nursery products levy, often known as the ‘pot levy’? i.e. directly
purchase plant container (plastic bags, root control bags, degradable pots, punnets and
any other container used for pots grown for resale) on which the levy is collected?
Response Response
Percent Count
Yes 98.5% 65
No 1.5% 1
answered question 66
skipped question 0
2. Are you a member of NGIA or affiliated State/Territory Association ?
Response Response
Percent Count
Yes 83.3% 55
No 16.7% 11
answered question 66
skipped question 0
3. Would you be comfortable if the collector of nursery levies disclosed your contact
details to the following agencies?
Rating Rating
Yes No
Average Count
NGIA 80.3% (53) 19.7% (13) 1.20 66
HAL 76.9% (50) 23.1% (15) 1.23 65
Australian Government 60.9% (39) 39.1% (25) 1.39 64
answered question 66
skipped question 0
1 of 364. How do you find out information about nursery levy funded research, development and
marketing programs? (Please select all that apply - multiple answers accepted)
Response Response
Percent Count
State/Territory NGI Association
45.2% 28
Communications
NGIA Communications 75.8% 47
Annual Nursery Industry Advisory
17.7% 11
Committee Annual Report
Levy Payers Meeting 24.2% 15
NGI Social Media 4.8% 3
NGIA Website 12.9% 8
Nursery Papers 58.1% 36
HAL Website 6.5% 4
Horticultural Media (e.g. Hort
45.2% 28
Journal or Greenworld)
Industry Development Officers 32.3% 20
NGIA National Conference 22.6% 14
State/Territory NGI Association
14.5% 9
Conference
Special Interest Group Meetings 6.5% 4
Other (please specify)
3
answered question 62
skipped question 4
2 of 365. Do you feel enough information is readily available to you regarding nursery levy
funded research, development and marketing projects, budgets and outcomes? If not,
what improvements would you like to see?
Response Response
Percent Count
Yes 54.8% 34
No 45.2% 28
Comment
20
answered question 62
skipped question 4
6. Please rate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following statements.
Rating Rating
Disagree Agree Abstain
Average Count
HAL should not engage in, or
31.3% (20) 48.4% (31) 20.3% (13) 1.89 64
assist/fund, agri-political activities
NGIA sufficiently represent
individual nursery levy payers and 32.3% (21) 46.2% (30) 21.5% (14) 1.89 65
growers as members of HAL
Nursery levy payers should
35.9% (23) 35.9% (23) 28.1% (18) 1.92 64
become direct members of HAL
Nursery levy payers should have
the ability to participate in the 15.4% (10) 66.2% (43) 18.5% (12) 2.03 65
governance processes of HAL
Nursery levy payers should be
involved in the direct election of 15.4% (10) 61.5% (40) 23.1% (15) 2.08 65
the HAL board
answered question 65
skipped question 1
3 of 367. NGIA manages research, development and extension programs in partnership with
State and Territory NGIs on behalf of nursery levy payers. An example includes access
to Minor Use Permits (new or renewals) to provide growers with access to safer, low
risk agrichemicals. Do you consider this a core interest in terms of NGIA activities as a
peak industry body?
Response Response
Percent Count
Yes 60.6% 40
No 18.2% 12
Unsure 21.2% 14
Comment
4
answered question 66
skipped question 0
8. NGIA manages the Industry Development Officer extension program on behalf of
nursery levy payers which sub contracts the state and territory nursery industry
associations to delivery the program to levy payers at a state/territory level. Is this an
effective way to manage and deliver the Industry Development Officer extension
program?
Response Response
Percent Count
Yes 54.5% 36
No 18.2% 12
Unsure 27.3% 18
Comment
12
answered question 66
skipped question 0
4 of 369. HAL represents 43 separate member bodies (e.g. mushrooms, nursery, flowers,
avocados etc). Do you think HAL struggles to meet the needs of its 43 separate member
bodies (e.g. in terms of communications/contact with levy payers etc.)?
Response Response
Percent Count
Yes 53.8% 35
No 7.7% 5
Unsure 38.5% 25
Comment
12
answered question 65
skipped question 1
10. Who is better placed to understand the nature of risks and opportunities within the
nursery industry?
Response Response
Percent Count
NGIs (state and national
79.4% 50
associations)
HAL 1.6% 1
Unsure 20.6% 13
Comment
9
answered question 63
skipped question 3
5 of 3611. Which of the following activities would you see as benefiting you from an alignment
with other stakeholders within the green industries (e.g Turf Landscape and Irrigation)?
Rating Rating
Yes No
Average Count
Research and Development 74.2% (46) 25.8% (16) 1.26 62
Extension (Transfer of Research
and Development e.g. Industry 61.0% (36) 39.0% (23) 1.39 59
Development Officers)
Communication 76.7% (46) 23.3% (14) 1.23 60
Advocacy 75.9% (41) 24.1% (13) 1.24 54
Marketing 69.5% (41) 30.5% (18) 1.31 59
Certification Programs 68.4% (39) 31.6% (18) 1.32 57
Comment
7
answered question 64
skipped question 2
12. Do you think HAL communication outputs (e.g. website, phone contact, email contact
etc) are adequate?
Response Response
Percent Count
Yes 24.6% 16
No 36.9% 24
Unsure 38.5% 25
Comment
11
answered question 65
skipped question 1
6 of 3613. Do you think the current levy structure will deliver best value from all of the industry
levy funds in the future?
Response Response
Percent Count
Yes 25.0% 16
No 45.3% 29
Unsure 29.7% 19
Comment
13
answered question 64
skipped question 2
14. Should the responsibilities of HAL be limited to an administrator of funds focusing on
the allocation of funds and the adherence of compliance to industry and government
requirements?
Response Response
Percent Count
Yes 46.9% 30
No 17.2% 11
Unsure 35.9% 23
Comment
9
answered question 64
skipped question 2
15. Do you have any additional queries or comments?
Response
Count
16
answered question 16
skipped question 50
7 of 3616. Thank you for participating in this survey. The survey is confidential, however, please
provide your contact details if you wish to receive a copy of NGIA's submission to the
independent review of HAL.
Response Response
Percent Count
Name
100.0% 44
Organisation
90.9% 40
Address
95.5% 42
Postcode
95.5% 42
State
95.5% 42
Phone
81.8% 36
Mobile
61.4% 27
E-mail
90.9% 40
answered question 44
skipped question 22
8 of 36Q4. How do you find out information about nursery levy funded research, development and marketing
programs? (Please select all that apply - multiple answers accepted)
1 State Presidents Meetings Feb 12, 2014 6:50 PM
2 dont seem to get any info sent to me Feb 12, 2014 1:02 PM
3 none of the above. Feb 12, 2014 10:23 AM
9 of 36Q5. Do you feel enough information is readily available to you regarding nursery levy funded research,
development and marketing projects, budgets and outcomes? If not, what improvements would you like to
see?
1 Feel that it goes on in the background of the industry. Without the direct Feb 24, 2014 10:22 AM
involvement of the main financial contributors to the levy, that being the
larger wholesale nurseries. The R&D they do has little relevance to my
business which is one of the main financial providers.
2 Never get time to go looking. Too busy trying to make some money in our Feb 22, 2014 9:22 AM
business.
3 Past papers would need to be purchased! We have already paid for these so Feb 22, 2014 7:55 AM
if we are pot levy payers why can't these be free?
4 The information is available, however a lot of it is not directly relevant to us. Feb 22, 2014 12:07 AM
5 Have answered, however with many of us I simply do not have time to look Feb 19, 2014 3:41 PM
at information. Many of us operate with short staff. That is why I have to
abstain hereunder as I do not know
6 More detailed and up-to-date info on research projects. Access to raw data. Feb 17, 2014 10:41 PM
Information as project unfolds. Mechanism for industry feedback on research
and methods.
7 An annual report, such as a profit and loss statement as we don't feel as we Feb 17, 2014 11:55 AM
get value for money if we don't know were the money is going. To be honest
I have just got used to paying it as if it is another useless tax.
8 I think all business nurseries should have things emailed to them Feb 14, 2014 6:19 PM
9 focus on ideas that with improve the business environment for people paying Feb 12, 2014 9:46 PM
for the levy
10 THE NURSERY LEVY MUST BE APPLIED TO BARE ROOT ROSES SO Feb 12, 2014 7:06 PM
THAT IT IS FAIR TO ALL BUSINESS THAT SELL POTTED ROSES
11 NGIA is a closed shop and HAL are not prepared t hold the IAC to account. Feb 12, 2014 6:50 PM
Hence the PIB squanders funds on ill considered projects to placate the
vested interests of a few.
12 More information provided and more opportunities to potentially participate in Feb 12, 2014 6:19 PM
this research.
13 I feel that there is too much emphasis on retail nurseries and not enough on Feb 12, 2014 3:53 PM
horticultural issues for production nurseries eg sprays & efficacy, potting mix
developments, irrigation systems etc
14 A bit more communication before thing are done Feb 12, 2014 1:02 PM
15 To be honest, I am not entirely clear on the role of HAL. I would like to feel Feb 12, 2014 12:17 PM
that the levy's contributed by the Pot Levy are used primarily for the support
and development of this part of the Horticultural industry and not necessarily
subsidising administrative roles that are focused on other horticultural
segments.
16 Now that the commercial nursery magazines are getting sparse on the Feb 12, 2014 11:42 AM
ground there is very limited info coming out about anything. Frankly we get
more information from overseas publications than we do from Australian
based ones.
11 of 36Q5. Do you feel enough information is readily available to you regarding nursery levy funded research,
development and marketing projects, budgets and outcomes? If not, what improvements would you like to
see?
17 being a member in Tasmania ,we do not receive any information at all. Feb 12, 2014 10:23 AM
18 I would like to see all projects to be funded approved beforehand by levy Feb 12, 2014 9:49 AM
payers so we know what is being proposed and judge as to whether it is of
any benefit , there is no consultation at all with the industry and as such is
out of touch
19 I have not seen any detailed information on where the levy goes for many Feb 12, 2014 9:26 AM
years
20 Insufficient input into projects allocated for levy funding. Insufficient Feb 12, 2014 9:07 AM
information on outcomes of levy projects. Should be an annual meeting with
large levy payers to report back on existing projects and projects that might
be funded in future.
Q7. NGIA manages research, development and extension programs in partnership with State and Territory
NGIs on behalf of nursery levy payers. An example includes access to Minor Use Permits (new or renewals)
to provide growers with access to safer, low risk agrichemicals. Do you consider this a core...
1 The NGIA needs to get the R&D alligned to the needs of the growers. Feb 24, 2014 10:22 AM
Especially the larger growers who are the major funding providers.
2 It is an interest however not so sure it should be classed as a 'core' interest Feb 12, 2014 7:59 PM
as many levy payers keep up to date with this themselves.
3 If there is a need yes, however the priorities are sometimes a bit hard to Feb 12, 2014 5:03 PM
understand. NGIA needs to be far more political in its purpose and direction,
pushing the value of the industry and what they do. Move away from the
practical and even the research and move towards a value proposition of
what we do and push that hard to all political (Local, State and Federal)
spheres.
4 i have no information . what are Minor use Permits?. Feb 12, 2014 10:23 AM
12 of 36Q8. NGIA manages the Industry Development Officer extension program on behalf of nursery levy payers
which sub contracts the state and territory nursery industry associations to delivery the program to levy
payers at a state/territory level. Is this an effective way to manage and deliver the Industry...
1 Should be regionalized Feb 25, 2014 4:20 PM
2 Here in WA there always seems to be a problem with the IDO's. Perhaps Feb 23, 2014 1:33 PM
they are not being paid enough and all the good people get jobs elsewhere.
It would be great if it was also their job encourage all the non-member
nurseries to join and become accredited. There are quite a number of
nurseries in our area and only six of us are accredited members. There is
something wrong.
3 We stopped being members of NGIA some years ago. They have nothing to Feb 17, 2014 10:41 PM
offer us. We are organic propagators and growers of provenance native
plants. NGIA pushes weeds and poisons.
4 This is possibly a good method of delivery but unfortunately I am not familiar Feb 17, 2014 11:55 AM
with exactly what they do. I would be happy with the current arrangement so
long as it is accountable and the individuals are delivering the work required
of them.
5 With the funds available our IDO can not justify spending enough time on Feb 15, 2014 12:13 PM
Development activities to make it work for our nursery. In a way the Industry
awards have done more for us with bringing in outside judges that have
more up to date advice and comments.
6 this is a big country, each state ahs their own regional challenges so the IDO Feb 12, 2014 9:46 PM
need to be managed locally to get best results NGIA doesn't need to be
involved with managing them just provide the finance for states to manage it
locally
7 But they are distracted by the burdensome requirements of NGIA and their Feb 12, 2014 6:50 PM
ability to feed ideas for research from within their state is filtered by an NGIA
technical committee before it even gets to the IAC.
8 Each state has different priorities and that is fine, however I wonder at the Feb 12, 2014 5:03 PM
value and whether this would be better spent on political influence rather
than practical service style programs.
9 Unsure of the productivity of the IDO, what does he do? Feb 12, 2014 3:53 PM
10 It's a complicated mess! Feb 12, 2014 1:32 PM
11 The method is effective. The activity generated has proven to be limited Feb 12, 2014 10:31 AM
however. IDO activity seems dominated by industry accreditation scheme
monitoring and screening.
12 In my view there is a fundamental governance issue as IDO's report to Feb 12, 2014 9:07 AM
independent State NGI bodies and are reluctant to follow National policy. It
leads to the levy being used to support the lowest common denominator in
the industry. Businesses need to act professionally or leave. It also distorts
resources away from truly strategic issues into low level issues that waste
available resources.
14 of 36Q9. HAL represents 43 separate member bodies (e.g. mushrooms, nursery, flowers, avocados etc). Do you
think HAL struggles to meet the needs of its 43 separate member bodies (e.g. in terms of
communications/contact with levy payers etc.)?
1 Ask HAL! Feb 25, 2014 4:20 PM
2 also, How can we, as nursery growers, be sure that the money we pay in the Feb 25, 2014 9:04 AM
Pot levy is going back into our industry and not being used to further hort
industry, If it going in R&D of the Hydroponic industry or cut flower industry?
who do not use pots. Also how can I know that the victorian Pot levy is not
used to further the NSW nursery industry...
3 Needs one voice delivered to politicians in an effective manor. We need to Feb 24, 2014 10:22 AM
pool the money and agree on one voice and one message that makes us an
effective body. The splintered views means our splintered messages have
no traction.
4 Absolutely, plus bigger industries will have more influence in HAL again. Feb 22, 2014 12:07 AM
5 What communication with levy payers? Feb 17, 2014 10:41 PM
6 I think this is to many industries for one group to cover when it comes to the Feb 17, 2014 11:55 AM
distribution of the funds fairly. I believe a fairer system would be if each
sector mentioned applied for the funds to conduct trials or research from a
single managing body that may well be HAL.
7 I imagine that anyone would struggle to meet the needs of that many diverse Feb 15, 2014 12:13 PM
groups. We have however enough in common to keep working together and
have a strong voice.
8 it will always be hard to keep all parties happy in such a large cross section Feb 12, 2014 9:46 PM
of members
9 It is a beast, if it was rolled together so that the industry (horticulture) was Feb 12, 2014 5:03 PM
treated as a single identity with each sector contributing a percentage of
turnover or dollars per employee the money put into a single bucket with
identifiable outcomes across the hort sector particularly in research
outcomes it would be much better. The CSIRO model was much better
where research was done on a science merit basis no matter what sector it
was supporting.
10 As we are currently unaware of who or what HAL does we are not able to Feb 12, 2014 11:42 AM
comment however the simple fact that we are unaware of the organisaton
indicates that better exposure may be needed.
11 Information from HAL is readily available but there is no doubt that HAL is Feb 12, 2014 10:31 AM
distantly removed from the average levy payer.
12 Tell me more about Hal . Feb 12, 2014 10:23 AM
15 of 36Q10. Who is better placed to understand the nature of risks and opportunities within the nursery industry?
1 Should be a licensing system for propagators, growers etc - administered by Feb 17, 2014 10:41 PM
govt authority - used to keep a current list to be used for disemination of
important and urgent information. Such a system would have been useful to
deal with the Myrtle rust outbreak. This disease could have been contained
had there been effective communiation with ALL pot levy payers immediately
it was found. Neither NGIs nor HAL has any expertise here.
2 I believe that the NGIs do a good job with most things thus making them my Feb 17, 2014 11:55 AM
choice to represent my business on these maters.
3 state bodies understand local issues much more NGIA needs to be there to Feb 12, 2014 9:46 PM
support states not other way around, HAL plays a role too but it is the states
who have their finger on the pulse as they are amongst the growers who
face the issues
4 An independently elected IAC from the levy payers is better than either of the Feb 12, 2014 6:50 PM
above options
5 I don't think the hort industry has a body that represents it properly unlike the Feb 12, 2014 5:03 PM
Ag sector. We need a single body to represent us, politically and from a
research basis.
6 Please see the comment for question 9 above. Feb 12, 2014 11:42 AM
7 I get the impression this survey is weighted towards NGI's getting greater Feb 12, 2014 10:31 AM
access to the pot levy cash pool. My experiences with the local NGI suggest
the funding would go from one top heavy beaurocracy to another without a
great deal of grower or industry benefit. The lack of lobbying and activity
seen from the QNGI during severe drought four years ago saw unreasonable
harm occur to the industry.
8 The growers and the resellers of plants and allied products. Feb 12, 2014 10:23 AM
9 Nurserymen only Feb 12, 2014 9:49 AM
16 of 36Q11. Which of the following activities would you see as benefiting you from an alignment with other
stakeholders within the green industries (e.g Turf Landscape and Irrigation)?
1 An accreditation certification for landscapers would be good. Presently any Feb 23, 2014 1:33 PM
'dummy' can set themselves up as a landscaper.
2 I just don't know Feb 19, 2014 3:41 PM
3 I have never seen or heard about any extension officers from NGIs or HAL Feb 17, 2014 10:41 PM
4 I believe that the nursery growers in particular would get the benefits of Feb 17, 2014 11:55 AM
research conducted by these other green industries, as most techniques
cross over or can be addapted to help with different cropps.
5 Advocacy should be the total focus over the next few years the rest can Feb 12, 2014 5:03 PM
follow. The value of what we do needs to be known.
6 On the proviso that our interests are not diluted. Feb 12, 2014 10:31 AM
7 I cannot comment on the last three . Feb 12, 2014 10:23 AM
17 of 36Q12. Do you think HAL communication outputs (e.g. website, phone contact, email contact etc) are adequate?
1 we never hear a word from HAL, the only time we hear of what they are Feb 25, 2014 9:04 AM
doing is via the NGIV
2 we can always do more and improve what is communicated Feb 24, 2014 12:31 PM
3 had very little contact with them ever Feb 24, 2014 10:22 AM
4 Never get time to read it all anyway. If I sat there reading everything they Feb 22, 2014 9:22 AM
sent me nothing would be done in the nursery so we wouldn't have a
business to worry about.
5 I don't pay allot of attention to it to be honest, perhaps if I did my contribution Feb 17, 2014 11:55 AM
to this survey would be more helpfull.
6 Web site is a disgrace Feb 12, 2014 6:50 PM
7 I think that HAL while being non political / no advocacy are of limited use at Feb 12, 2014 5:03 PM
the moment. If we can increase the value of the industry both real and
perceived the rest will come.
8 Please see comment at question 9. Feb 12, 2014 11:42 AM
9 I really only see the Nursery Papers included in the Hort magazine. Simply Feb 12, 2014 10:31 AM
being available or having a website does not constitute communication! I
means people only act when they have a problem and encourage reactive
activity not proactive.
10 never looked up or googled Hal. Feb 12, 2014 10:23 AM
11 I really have no idea what HAL does. It seems to add a level of bureaucarcy Feb 12, 2014 9:07 AM
that doesn't add value.
18 of 36Q13. Do you think the current levy structure will deliver best value from all of the industry levy funds in the
future?
1 not sure what this question is getting at - equity, program quality, industry Feb 25, 2014 4:20 PM
structure
2 I think that a greater percentage of the pot levy should go to the relevent Feb 25, 2014 9:04 AM
state association of the relevent industry body so members can maximise
the return on the money they pay in the pot levy. As a victorian nursery
grower, I would like to see the money used to further the nursery industry
within Victoria
3 I am not sure that we capture all participants with the current pot levy, but Feb 24, 2014 4:24 PM
unsure what would be more effective.
4 Because the bigger wholesale nurserys like us (SAP) pay more of the levy Feb 24, 2014 10:22 AM
than most others. Yet the levy is aimed at improving the smaller players to
become better to compete with me. The little guys pay the least and get the
most benefit.
5 I think an increase should be considered. I voted yes last time and got out Feb 23, 2014 1:33 PM
voted.
6 Unless businesses can get around paying the pot levy Feb 22, 2014 12:07 AM
7 As a community led nursery not for profit both do not represent us in this Feb 14, 2014 6:19 PM
field. At some point I believe not for profit nurseries should be exempt
8 poor levy system, not collecting enough Feb 12, 2014 9:46 PM
9 not sure what other options are out there so hard to answer this question Feb 12, 2014 7:59 PM
10 ROI not really factored into investment decision making BUT HAL's clumsy Feb 12, 2014 6:50 PM
attempts at asking the PIB's or State associations to do this makes the whole
process dysfunctional because the PIB's are more interested in meeting the
nuances of the levy program than their core business - member services and
advocacy.
11 There is not enough money to achieve what we want. We must increase the Feb 12, 2014 5:03 PM
value of the industry therefor increasing the funds available and then we can
develop R&D programs again.
12 This of course depends on the ongoing stability of the nursery industry. Feb 12, 2014 11:42 AM
13 Yes ,but do not increase it. Feb 12, 2014 10:23 AM
19 of 36Q14. Should the responsibilities of HAL be limited to an administrator of funds focusing on the allocation of
funds and the adherence of compliance to industry and government requirements?
1 much broader role in supporting horticulture is an opportunity that if realized Feb 25, 2014 4:20 PM
could benefit our industry. A funds administrator adds little value and issues
affecting us are much bigger than NGIA eg R&D capacity, generational
change, training, rural IR issues, biosecurity
2 Political lobbying and a centre for a unity one voice message Feb 24, 2014 10:22 AM
3 Think the pot levy should be kept for nursery we r the ones that pay it Feb 22, 2014 9:22 AM
4 The thing I have noticed in other funded organisations that I work with is that Feb 17, 2014 11:55 AM
you need someone to handle the funds and make sure that it gets to the
ground and not consumed by internal bureaucracy.
5 again not sure what other responsibilities they could be doing Feb 12, 2014 7:59 PM
6 HAL just needs to do its job via independent IAC's and independently elected Feb 12, 2014 6:50 PM
Board from levy payers with a minimum 50% Board representation
independent skills based.
7 Hal should be representating the Hort industry, it should be an educator that Feb 12, 2014 5:03 PM
advocates for our industry appropriately and promotes the value of
Horticulture in Australia.
8 Once again we are not aware of this group and are not able to comment Feb 12, 2014 11:42 AM
adequately
9 without detailed knowledge of the breakdown of levy funds, the makeup of Feb 12, 2014 10:31 AM
the HAL and how they allocate and use funds this is hard to comment on. I
get the impression that like a number of charities, administration takes up
much of the funding without benefit to the industry.
20 of 3621 of 36
Q15. Do you have any additional queries or comments?
1 NGIA is not an appropriate organization in its present form to determine levy Feb 25, 2014 4:20 PM
allocation
2 We pay a great deal in pot levy because we have a high value pot and we Feb 25, 2014 9:04 AM
use hundreds of thousands of them, I would like to be confident that this
money will be invested within the industry so that we can see some reward
for that
3 states are to political take out the states the money gets to watered down Feb 24, 2014 10:01 AM
with all the governance
4 As an established business, the best use of the research has come from the Feb 24, 2014 9:12 AM
water wise program, research and marketing are always difficult to gain
directly in any one business, but the general thrust is beneficial to a industry
as a whole. It is not easy to always to be able to justify some of the topics of
research, when we are dealing with a very diverse industry, which often
overlaps with other industries Though no system is perfect I think that overall
we are achieving a fairly positive result
5 Are all users of pots paying the pot levy or just us more honest members? Feb 23, 2014 1:33 PM
6 Where is the advertising for people to get in the garden. How about council Feb 22, 2014 9:22 AM
comps for best gardens? How about reality tv get fit in the garden and have
best garden in street?
7 I feel that there are some members on IAC who do not know enough about Feb 22, 2014 7:55 AM
our industry yet are making decisions about how our levy is spent. I question
the relevance of media personalities on this committee as an example. The
people who should represent us are those who are payers & end users of
the R&D and marketing. The others only 'think' they know about our industry
but the reality is, they simply don't understand our issues, problems and
complexities of our business. We are no longer simple nursery people
striking a cutting and potting up. Our industry is at another cross road as we
now are battling the chains stores and we need to develop strategies to
assist us to grow and survive over and above growing a few plants.
Personally I no long see our business as a nursery, we are a manufacturer
and face the same issues as those who are currently closing there doors and
moving off shore. We need productivity gains, skilled staff and introduce new
technology in our business or we will not survive. Our current pricing in this
industry is ridiculous & margins are so slim if a situation occurs in your
business such as the long drought, we have no buffer left in the bank. We
have invested heavily into our business but need to do more to ensure we
are here in years to come.
8 None other than to say that I am all for R&D, but it needs to be for the good Feb 17, 2014 11:55 AM
of all mebers or parties, it should be noted that we pay a pot levy but there
seems to be no protection for the growers thsat pay it, I get frustrated that
anyone can grow and sell plants without paying a levy or be certified, thus
making our qualifications worthless. I cant wire my house or put the roof on it
but I was a owner builder, we desperatly need a system that limits what can
and can't be sold without a qual. This would be a good thing to spend some
of the levy money on and it would then be a career for future horticulturists
not a short term career.
9 Again seeing that both these organisations are more concerned with profit Feb 14, 2014 6:19 PM
nurseries I believe there should be more emphasis on not for profit or the
Levy should not apply to us
22 of 36Q15. Do you have any additional queries or comments?
10 THE NURSERY LEVY MUST BE APPLIED TO BARE ROOT ROSES SO Feb 12, 2014 7:06 PM
THAT IT IS FAIR TO ALL BUSINESS THAT SELL POTTED ROSES
11 Dear collector i have been paying the levy since it was introduced i signed a Feb 12, 2014 6:29 PM
petition against its introduction i am not aware of one thing that has come out
of this levy that has helped my nursery grow. I feel that the funds would be
much better in my hands as i could do a lot more with it than the bodies that
control it now. My expectation is that this levy goes to create jobs that do
nothing or little to grow an industry that seems to be doing its best to self
destruct. If on the other hand if there has been some good things come out
of it please let me know. Kind regards Robert
12 I would like to see more value to the nursery industry from the levy funded Feb 12, 2014 5:15 PM
research programes.
13 If HAL is going to survive, horticulture needs to survive, it should be Feb 12, 2014 5:03 PM
promoting, educating and advocating Australia Horticultural Industries, not
ignoring the decline in this essential industry. We must have the capability to
produce our own food, we must have clean air to breath and we must have a
healthy mind, bodies and communities in which to live, without horticulture
we won't have any of that.
14 No at this time except to say that we would appreciate some information on Feb 12, 2014 11:42 AM
HAL.
15 the ngit funding for Tasmania is a disgrace to its membership. Feb 12, 2014 10:23 AM
16 I am a large payer of the levy, with a disproportionately low voice in how levy Feb 12, 2014 9:07 AM
funds are utilised. Needs to be more proportional representation based on
the size of levy payers.
23 of 36You can also read
