tip off

Count Carl Gustav Wachmeister wants to cut your lunch

If Labor ever wants to get a clue about how to sell its policies, it could do much worse than examine how rent seekers and vested interests go about it.

The basic process of creating an effective narrative isn’t that complex: you establish there’s a significant problem, then you provide a solution, explain the solution and how you’re going to implement it and who will benefit.

Let’s take food as an example.

Food security is quite the fashion these days. The Nationals, and particularly Barnaby Joyce, have been running a nice xenophobic line on it, particularly about Chinese acquisition of farming land and Chinese food imports. The Greens have used it to enhance their appeal in regional communities, by targeting the specific but separate issue of mining in agricultural areas (the Chinese figure in that as well). Labor promised a National Food Plan during the election.

It’s easy to run a xenophobic line on food security by talking about how we’re selling out food resources to foreigners, both by importing more food and allowing foreign investment in agriculture. Exhibit A: a rant by former Land editor Paul Myers a fortnight ago for the Fairfax press about how “large segments of food processing and marketing have been sold offshore”. Myers talked of the threat posed by, variously, China,”the Sultan of Brunei, the Swire family of England… and Count Carl Gustav Wachmeister of Sweden” to our food security.

In this febrile atmosphere of sinister Swedish counts, the food production industry’s peak representative body, the Australian Food and Grocery Council last week launched its second annual State of the Industry report, ably assisted by Industry — or “Innovation” as it’s known in modern parlance — Minister Kim Carr. Hopefully Carr picked up some tips on how to manufacture a narrative, given he was happily doing just that.

The main take-out from the report was the “alarming” news that Australian had been a net importer of food in 2009-10. That’s the problem established. Then came the solution.

In the ensuing media coverage, there were plenty of calls from the food industry for the Government to do something — a 30-50 year plan, the head of Goodman Fielder demanded (none of your rubbish 5-year plans). The development of business conditions that (in the words of an AFR journalist) “enhanced rather than inhibited the competitiveness” of the food industry, according to the Council chairman and head of George Weston.

The National Irrigators’ Council, along with the Grocery Council, warned of the threat posed by the reduction in water allocations in the MDB. Above all, “we’re not asking for a government handout,” said Grocery Council head Kate Carnell, “but we are after a regulatory environment [that’s supportive].”

But let’s go back a step. What’s so alarming about Australian being a net food importer? And a net importer for reasons the Council’s own report readily identifies — drought and a high currency? What’s the problem with food imports compared to other types of imports? The subtle suggestion of the emphasis placed on our “net importer” status is that Australia isn’t able to feed itself. Otherwise, what’s there to be concerned about in importing food, unless you’re simply a protectionist?

Australia of course can feed itself comfortably. As the Productivity Commission explained in its demolition of the “food security” myth when discussing the MDB, Australia in recent years exported about 60% of its agricultural produce, even in the middle of a drought. The Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry gives more detail in its annual Foodstats series: we export more than half our wheat, more than half our barley, more than half our cheese, more than half our wine, and more than a quarter of our oranges. 97% of fresh fruit and vegetable in our shops are locally-produced.

And who is the great threat to our food producers? Which imports threaten to undermine our “food security”? We’ve all heard about the Chinese, with their crops fertilised with human excrement and the liberal use of melamine in food that’s not even fit for dogs. Well, don’t choke on your sauvignon blanc or your piece of cheese but it’s those evil Kiwis who are actually the biggest food importers into Australia.

In fact, Barnaby Joyce last year put out a press release declaring himself “baffled by the revelations that China is now the second biggest importer of food into Australia, behind New Zealand” (Joyce is perhaps easily baffled). How far behind New Zealand were the Chinese? In 2007-08 New Zealand-sourced imports were 19% by value of all our food imports, and China’s a little over 7%. And New Zealand continues to grow its imports - the Kiwis were only 14% of our imports in the 1990s.

Bit harder to conjure up a xenophobic threat when it’s the Kiwis involved, eh?

There is, in short, no “food security” issue. It’s a confection by politicians peddling xenophobia and industries looking to justify special treatment — like the irrigation industry using it to justify retaining the enormously expensive over-allocation of the Murray-Darling. Kate Carnell says the Food and Grocery Council “doesn’t want a government handout” — words that should make one automatically suspicious.

Carnell instead wants tax breaks for accelerated depreciation and more incentives for R&D — which are disguised handouts — and less regulation in areas like food labelling, which shifts costs onto the community. It was the AFGC, under former CEO Mitch Hooke, that lobbied the Howard Government to prevent Health Ministers imposing rules requiring GM labelling, which is why there’s an exemption that allows infant formula to contain GM products without parents being aware of it.

Contrarily, Barnaby Joyce reckons one solution to the problem of food security is more food labelling — the Nationals proposed last year to require country-of-origin labelling laws.

Needless to say, the breaking of the drought and a fall in the value of the Australian dollar won’t diminish calls for special treatment of the food industry. When it comes to the “strategic industry” argument, of which food security is yet another variant, there’s always a reason why local producers have to be protected from imports.

10
  • 1
    C@tmomma
    Posted Monday, 1 November 2010 at 1:46 pm | Permalink

    Keep an eye out for more of this Populist nonsense in the months and years ahead to the next election. The Coalition, and their fellow travellers, such as Carnell and Hooke, know they don’t have to govern and produce results, or stump up the money to effect their wild calls for public largesse or moderate their xenophobia. Same with Hockey’s bank bashing and Abbott’s Flat Tax call. It’s all of a piece with the Coalition’s ‘No Care and No Responsibility’ style of Opposition.

  • 2
    Harvey Tarvydas
    Posted Monday, 1 November 2010 at 2:04 pm | Permalink

    Dr Harvey M Tarvydas

    Apart from my work in Medicine I am a scientific consultant to a client (international) that owns the biggest production facility (for that food product) in the world here in Australia and in more ways than they are aware I am in minor part responsible for the extraordinary quality of the product which actually sells at well and truly the highest world price with 98% of the production going to export and orders are in excess of production. The Australian food industry has to import any or all of the competitive brands (all of which are cheaper) to get such product.

    We are quite capable of feeding our selves but feeding is more than the growing of food, it is now a global business which is quite capable of selling all the food grown for 100 million Aussies straight off your fork into the mouths of someone else.

    If we sent some of our pollies back to kindergarten it wouldn’t be too many years before they could make valuable comments and contributions to the industry.

  • 3
    D. John Hunwick
    Posted Monday, 1 November 2010 at 2:25 pm | Permalink

    Unlike BK I am horrified to find that Australia is NOT feeding itself - despite whatever food we produce is sold overseas. IN a world of growing populations and tightening trade conditions, the one thing any country needs to do is to ffed itself, especially if it wants to retain any degree of sovereignty with the coming carbon tax. The whole economic and trade system is mad if it works by sending food from one nation to another using carbon-based energy and it is still cheaper than producing food within the country and using it there. Of course, my definition of any country being overpopulated is that country which has such hugef nubers and not the resources to feed itself. It won’t be long before they will be hit hard. Also, importing food at te expense of having a country produce it itself ensures that all the necessary skills, infrastructure (formal and informal) just wither away. I support Community Assisted Agriculture to ensure our food producers get a fair and garanteed price for their goods and any attempt to push Australia away from food sufficiency for its people should be resisted with loud protests.

  • 4
    David Havyatt
    Posted Monday, 1 November 2010 at 2:44 pm | Permalink

    Geez. To think we live in a market economy and that the coalition is meant to be the champion of that against those evil centralising socialists who want to make your decisions for you. The underlying principle of “the gains from trade” is that you specialise accrding to comparative advantage. Quite frankly if it came to our real problems of self-sufficiency if it came to a shooting war it wouldn’t be Chinese ownership of land or historic reliance on food imports. It would be the complete absence of any electronics industry.

  • 5
    stephen martin
    Posted Monday, 1 November 2010 at 3:54 pm | Permalink

    I am not to sure about the validity of Australia being a net importer of food. Is this by value? and what exactly are we falling short of, out of season fruit, or luxury items that Australia doesn’t produce.
    I live in Darwin and at various times over the last year or so Woolies and Coles have offered the following to local consumers -
    Oranges from the USA
    Cherries from the USA
    Asparagus from Peru
    and of course various nut products.
    This is not a exhaustive list, just a few that come to mind.

  • 6
    Dogs breakfast
    Posted Monday, 1 November 2010 at 6:11 pm | Permalink

    we export more than half our wheat, more than half our barley, more than half our cheese, more than half our wine, and more than a quarter of our oranges. 97% of fresh fruit and vegetable in our shops are locally-produced”

    Hhmmmm, so in a worst case scenario and we couldn’t get any food from OS, we would have nearly all the fruit and vegies we need, plus all the dairy, the wine, almost certainly the beer, the breads and pastas and everything else made with flour, which is just about everything, except if we don’t make it here.

    God forbid, but we might be healthier!!!!!!!!!!!! All those numbers just don’t add up for me.

    But I have to say that destroying prime farm land for a bloody mine, which could probably be located anywhere in Australia, as it seems wherever we dig there is stuff to be found, is just so stupid to be unthinkable, even for a stupid stupid politician. Did I mention that would be stupid.

    Almost as stupid as mining under the Warragambe Dam in Sydney, using fracking as a method to get at the coal seam. God, now that would be stupid.

    Did I say stupid enough times??

  • 7
    Bob the builder
    Posted Monday, 1 November 2010 at 6:36 pm | Permalink

    I agree the food security thing at present is a myth, but that doesn’t mean the importing food isn’t insane. Food is a huge contributor to global pollution and food miles play a huge part in that. The idea of importing luxury foods like cherries or asparagus, or basic staples like onions or garlic is insane. On environmental grounds alone this should be forbidden.
    We need to live within our means which means eating seasonally and eating locally, as we have for most human existence up till the post-war period. (This will also mean, incidentally, that the unproductive and water-wasteful mega-farms will have to go too.) And in terms of sovereignty not being able to feed yourself is insane - as we all saw recently with the speculator-driven food price bubble, the economics of food can change very quickly and be out of the hands of the national legislature. We are one of the few countries in the world that could be food self-sufficient and leaving food policy in the hands of free market zealots is madness.

  • 8
    AR
    Posted Monday, 1 November 2010 at 7:18 pm | Permalink

    Oz is a mine not just for hard stuff like ore & minerals but WATER and SOIL NUTRIENTA (two things in rather short supply on this ancient arid continent), every time we export food (in the form of meat, rice and even wheat) or even wool.

  • 9
    Tom Mullin
    Posted Monday, 1 November 2010 at 8:27 pm | Permalink

    Oh dear god. I just went to ABARE and downloaded the numbers, but before I go into those, the idea ‘who cares if you have to import food’ is such nonsense that I don’t even know where to begin.

    First, you are at the mercy of the exporters who may decide not to sell to you. Russia, with its drought and fires is an example, simply stopped its wheat exports. If it is a choice between you starving and them, guess what they will do.

    Plus you have to pay for it. Now if your are an exporting superpower like Japan or China or Germany that’s ok. This is Australia we are talking about, which needs to borrow money every day to pay for its mortgages, oil, TV’s, etc, etc, etc. What happens in the inevitable day when we can’t borrow any more money? When debt to GDP is (say) 200% or 300% or … Or the inevitable US collapse takes out the debt markets and we can’t borrow at any price (as did happen in 2008).

    Then the food ships just turn round and go to somewhere else that can pay. And we starve. (Memo to self, must take Bernard out in a week long camping trip with just 3 days of food. Don’t forget to take a weapon to fend him off to stop him eating me.)

    3 days, the famous number, every society is only 3 days from collapse if the food stops.

    As per the numbers. Well we are not yet a net food importer (that will take until 2025 on current trends). But the trend is worrying. Since 2001/02 the proportion by dollar of imports to exports has risen from 20% to 37% in 2008/09.

    Apart from anything else, this is just another addition to our long term deterioration in our trade balance (oil being another one).

    Basically Australian (even allowing for the drought) food production is static, and yields are dropping as water, topsoil, cost of inputs, etc issues eat away at our production. Plus we have not done well in transformed food, if anything we are going backwards. And the population goes ever up. Trend lines all converging.

    So we sell raw stuff and import ever more transformed food. The raw stuff is basically fixed in volume and prices go up and down. The transformed food (some of it ours, which we send out as raw stuff and then buy back at a net loss as transformed stuff) steadily goes up in price. Plus the long term trend is for our yields (=production) to drop as water issues, land degredation, input costs (energy/fertilisers/etc) , etc start to dominate. Then there is global warming, the 5,000lb gorilla.

    On current linear trends we will have a net loss on dollar values of food imports/exports by 2015-2017. By 2025 (at the latest) we will be net importers by volume (as per the UK, Egypt, etc), waiting at the docks (which is history repeating itself as that is how Australia started out).

    Good cure for obesity though. Hint: the fat ones get eaten first, thighs are supposed to be the best parts, start checking out your neighbors carefully now and sort them into the correct categories (BBQ, soup, dogfood and so on) . Be thin yourself, you can run faster and you will be last, but don’t be too muscular though, lean protein is a premium product.

  • 10
    wyane
    Posted Monday, 1 November 2010 at 9:52 pm | Permalink

    Oh, FFS, it’s all ok, alright? Sure, we may be in the midst of the biggest mass-extinction of the past 65-million years, in just 200 years the Murray-Darling has been transformed from a mighty river into a downhill-lake, China is doing to commodity prices precisely what Germany was doing in the 1930s and all over the Western world years of dumbing-down the prols has us ripe for the coming of a tyrant of our own.
    But it’s all ok. Scientific innovation can resolve whatever shite we get ourselves in — geez, a great innovator just went to work for … Facebook!? Oh, shit …

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...