Mindhive Activity

What is happening in this Category

>

Contact FutureWe is now contributing to a Challenge Experiment with Crowdsourcing in Education

>

Contact FutureWe commented on the Challenge Experiment with Crowdsourcing in Education

Biggest challenge I face training teachers is how time poor they are. So much has been crammed into the curriculum that they have little head space to reflect or trial new ideas. 

>

Jacob Hampson is now contributing to a Challenge Private

>

Lisa Beach is now contributing to a Challenge How the Red Meat Industry is Governed

>

Ed Bernacki is now contributing to a Challenge What makes a gig economy work?

>

Ed Bernacki commented on the Challenge What makes a gig economy work?

 There is an idea of harnessing the concept of gig workers that I am playing with is to shape a new type of social innovation to harness the expertise of thousands of older people. Much like the focus on SeniorPreneurs, could society benefit by shaping a way to harness the expertise of people from 60 to 80 to work on project teams, mentoring, expert advice, etc.  The research says many people need to continue to have revenue sources when they are older.  The notion of short term contracts could offer a great way to engage the vast expertise and experience of older people. 

>

Ed Bernacki commented on the Challenge Academy Workshop: Managing Innovation and Collaborative Problem Solving

Can I suggest you explore work by Dr Min Basadur from Canada? He has studied creativity and problem solving for 40 years. He started his career in product development for a big US company then decided to become an academic. His speciality is problem-solving and teaching this for innovation. He is about 80 now but his sons continue the work www.basadur.com/  He also has a great interest in collaboration and cognitive style. 

>

Lewe Atkinson commented on the Challenge How the Red Meat Industry is Governed

The DOOM scenario is a particularly sobering one for the industry.  Under this scenario, you posit that the current governance arrangements for the industry would be severely challenged by a catastrophic biosecurity outbreak....

Mick Keogh ACCC commissioner names biosecurity as Australia’s key competitive advantage in the global market posits that without this our livestock industries are not competitive....

The related challenge questions are:

1. Would the current MoU help or detract industry’s response to this scenario?

The conundrum for industry leaders & decision-makers is that the cost of effective biosecurity risk management and preventative research into the necessary industry preparedness is significant.  The irony is that this sort of investment is a classic "market failure" investment because benefits are not constrained to one person and no one wants to derive benefit from the dividend anyway because a "pay-off" would mean that it has to be calculated in terms of mitigating the scale of losses.

The existing MOU is not addressing the challenge posed by this scenario because many reports are telling us that the livestock biosecurity system seems to have been weakened by a decline in financial and staff resourcing. While this is consistent with a wider government initiative to achieve greater resourcing and operational efficiency, in effect it has reduced on-ground capacity to detect an exotic livestock disease outbreak before it spreads and becomes established.

The reality is that ultimately these trends place the future of Australia's substantial livestock industries and their economic potential at greater risk. Even in the absence of a significant disease outbreak, shortfalls in frontline biosecurity resources can limit Australia's ability to claim competitive advantage in the global market and to demonstrate its livestock health status. 

2. Who took leadership to respond to this breakdown and collapse? Was it the government, RMAC, MLA or Animal Health Australia?

It is too late - Australia’s key competitive advantage in the global market will already be lost.....

3. Would a different looking MoU assist in achieving a different outcome, and what would be its key characteristics?

Because food safety & biosecurity is Australia’s key competitive advantage in the global market ...it is is the single super-ordinate all of industry systems level outcome that everyone will benefit from, so it is the right focus for RMAC.  We need to work out a better way to value "preventive investments" within the context of a portfolio of industry investment.  This is important to ensure that sufficient industry resources are invested to maintain biosecurity status and consequent preferential access to high value markets.

Intimate collaboration between industry (RMAC) & Government (Commonwealth & State) in an atmosphere of TRUST and mutual shared-interest is necessary under the future MOU.  Such that, biosecurity agencies are able to perform core functions aimed at preventing and preparing for disease outbreaks. There should also be extensive participation in livestock biosecurity prevention and preparedness activities by both the private veterinary sector and livestock industries. 

I am reminded of a wonderful quote from a book Australia Reconstructed (1987) which was the policy framing for "the accord" back in the 1980's 'the creation of wealth is a prerequisite of its distribution'.   The analogy here is quite obvious; "the creation of biosecuity capacity & resilience is prerequisite for the survival of the livestock industries"

>

David Wrigley commented on the Challenge How the Red Meat Industry is Governed

Firstly I must confess that I’d never heard of RMAC until this challenge, perhaps that is a ‘challenge’ in itself. I agree with Bill’s thoughts on a mix of Option 1 and 3 as well as avoiding a single oversight body. Having worked with a couple of breed specific associations, as well as on the edges of a couple of cropping associations, it seems to me the primary producer often feels like they are carrying the weight of questionable bureaucracy on their shoulders for not a lot of joy. A generalisation certainly and not to diminish the effort and good work associations do, however in the wash up the old saying, “When all is said and done, more is said than done…” is often the aftertaste. Having a positive/healthy relationship with the members of the association is critical for that association to be able to speak as the voice of it’s members. Ok nothing new there, however the current external factors bearing down on the red meat industry mean a unified base is more important than ever.

There is no doubt agriculture in general is under a barrage of new and challenging external pressures/factors. These are not all totally unique to the meat producing sector, however there are some. The reaction of the public to cattle lying dead in tress and all other manner of locations due to the extreme rain events in northern Queensland is the most recent highlight on this. The massive loss of crops did not evoke the same sort of reaction and yet it was just as devastating and heart breaking for those farmers. Public opinion is fickle and especially so in urban areas.

Farmers/Primary Producers, in general, are an amazingly resourceful, innovative and resilient group of people and there is no doubt in my mind solutions can and will be found to the current and future challenges which face them. Top marks to RMAC for producing this Green Paper and for opening it up for comment in Mindhive where you’ll find a wide range of points of view.

Diversification within the industry isn’t a bad thing, having a point of differentiation has always been key in marketing your products and services. The thought of a generalised Food Protein umbrella seems to me to be more about trying to hide amongst the bushes to avoid the vocal activists, I could be wrong but that’s the impression I read between the lines. While everyone is entitled to their own opinion it is, at the end of the day, just their opinion - albeit an increasingly louder one.

>

Michael Morgan commented on the Solution HOW IMPORTANT IS SOCIAL LICENCE TO OPERATE FOR THE RED MEAT INDUSTRY?

Industry members have emailed the secretariat direct on these matters.  A key point is that these issues are clearly recognised as impacting on the sector, but we need to determine what governance arrangements will facilitate the best outcome for industry.  Are issues like social licence to operate serious enough to drive a thorough overhaul of the way industry collaborates across the supply chain; or are the current arrangements enough?

>

Kyle Rapson is now contributing to a Challenge How the Red Meat Industry is Governed

>

Jacob Hampson is now contributing to a Challenge How the Red Meat Industry is Governed

>

Peter Grimbeek is now contributing to a Challenge What makes a gig economy work?

>

Peter Grimbeek commented on the Challenge What makes a gig economy work?

Reading the above comments might lead one to think that the gig economy is the best thing since sliced bread. Indeed it is a money saver for organisations that no longer need to consider overheads related to sick leave, holiday pay, etc. It also leads to giggers who work casually five days a week for years at a stretch but can be removed from their positions at a moment's notice. I've heard of this definition being applied to staff working in senior positions in universities. If such folk dare to criticise upwards, their jobs can disappear at an moment's notice. Suffice to say, I'm not impressed.

>

Peter Grimbeek commented on the Challenge How the Red Meat Industry is Governed

The green paper for the red meat MoU repeatedly outlines four options for reform (Improve existing MoU, Law of jungle, Hybrid model and leadership offered by a new organisation). It also repeatedly outlines four framing scenarios (Doom, optimism, cautious optimism & MoU as now). The combination of these options and framing scenarios might lead one to conclude that a new unified organisation would best facilitate the scenarios of optimism or cautious optimism.

This is all and well but the summary of stakeholders' views provided separately might lead one to conclude that the need for reform suggested above might be a cover for rebranding the industry as part of a food protein supply chain that operates as a big business, implicitly prioritises shareholders, and is freer than at present from government interventions and constraints.

Beyond all of this, it is probably fair to say that the red meat industry in Australia, as is the case with a range of other farm sectors, has seen a small number of larger operators that operate as vertically integrated businesses rather than as farms, etc. With this evolution comes an increasingly impersonal approach to the business of producing and selling red meat. It would also be the case that this smaller group of red meat suppliers paradoxically faces increased pressure on costs (and labour). I wonder then if the existing MoU is not necessarily faulty but rather no longer reflective of the changing nature of the industry.

I'm also curious about the notion that the red meat market in Australia can be increased in the face of health and environmentally related scepticism about red meat vs. other food stuffs. I would have thought that the primary market will continue to lie overseas rather than at home. I'm not sure that rebranding red meat as natural and green or as something more neutral (a food protein that might also come in the form of vat grown meats) is going to cut through.

>

Morrie Goodz commented on the Challenge How the Red Meat Industry is Governed

I believe that there needs to be a migration from Option 1 to Option 4, and this might involve a Hybrid Option 3 for an interim period. I believe all the animal based protein industries need to look at an Option 4 governing body that maintains the interests of all animal based farming and products industries because they are all in the targeted sites of extremist groups who are anti-meat and anti-primary production.

This is no different to the conflict which the mining and coal generated power industries find themselves. Social licence to operate can only be maintained through a consolidated effort by all types of agricultural producers and their manufacturing/value adding industries downstream. Today these extremists are targeting red meat, tomorrow it is white meat, then fisheries. For those in the know, these attacks on all primary industries already are ongoing.

I believe Option 4 with a focus on a collective of all protein producers (Food Protein Australia) would provide a strong and united voice for all primary producers and their downstream customers.

This collective would be able to become a Trusted Voice for these industries. To establish such a collective might take 5 years, so the existing MOU (Option 1) needs to build on its strengths and develop a hybrid (Option 3) which would seamlessly fold into the new group being Option 4.

For this to be successful and timely the other protein players need to follow a similar transition process. In time the new organisation would have representatives from all of the protein industries (would include animal and plant protein) as we are all aware that a future healthy diet and industry will come from a mix of all the protein choices.

In summary build on the good, but take a proactive approach to ensuring a new approach to the future to ensure the industry maintains a social licence to operate because whether we like it or not, there are extremists out there spending a lot of money trying to tear down what we have and we will not maintain our primary industries if we don't band together.

My thoughts anyway.

>

Stewart Marshall is now contributing to a Challenge How the Red Meat Industry is Governed

>

Michael Morgan is now contributing to a Challenge How the Red Meat Industry is Governed

>

A new Solution was published OPTIONS FOR REFORM

>

Pierre Hanell is now contributing to a Challenge How the Red Meat Industry is Governed

>

Andrew Downing is now contributing to a Challenge How the Red Meat Industry is Governed

>

David Wrigley is now contributing to a Challenge How the Red Meat Industry is Governed

>

David Kearns is now contributing to a Challenge How the Red Meat Industry is Governed

>

Julia Khalyavko is now contributing to a Challenge How the Red Meat Industry is Governed

>

Lyndal Scobell is now contributing to a Challenge How the Red Meat Industry is Governed

>

Jonathan Hill is now contributing to a Challenge How the Red Meat Industry is Governed

>

Romain Mirosa is now contributing to a Challenge How the Red Meat Industry is Governed

>

Lesley Brown is now contributing to a Challenge How the Red Meat Industry is Governed

>

Cheryl-lee Kefford is now contributing to a Challenge How the Red Meat Industry is Governed

>

Neil Williamson is now contributing to a Challenge How the Red Meat Industry is Governed

 
Show More Category Activity ▼

Business and economy are vehicles of growth for a nation. Shared intelligence will be the driver of growth in times to come and business processes will be designed by an empowered population that will re-invent the future in a way that will positively impact our society.

Using the MindHive platform, companies can develop real linkages between the products, and services, they offer with the needs of their existing, and potential, customers. MindHive is a platform of diverse possibilities; allowing the crowd to be the driver of change. Policymakers harness the power of the MindHive crowd to develop business and economic policy that embodies a true community perspective.

The major Challenges

Are you sure you want to do this?