Do you want to contribute to this Challenge?

How the Red Meat Industry is Governed

The Challenge

*** OUR ONLINE CONSULTATION HAS BEEN EXTENDED ***

As part of the Red Meat Advisory Council's (RMAC) ongoing consultation process around the Red Meat MOU and the future of the industry, we would like to invite you take part in an online discussion group with other industry specialists to explore your thoughts on the current state of the industry. 

Most importantly, we would like to get your input into possible future reforms that will be incorporated into a White Paper (or decision paper) about the Red Meat MOU review Taskforce’s advice on the future of the Red Meat MOU.

The discussion will be open from 9.00 am 10 March to midnight 17 March 2019.

During this time, you can contribute whenever it suits you. 

The discussion will cover four main topics:

  • What you see as the main current strengths and weaknesses of the Red Meat MOU and governance of the industry more generally;
  • Areas where you think reform is needed and the nature of that reform;
  • Your thoughts on possible future models for the governance of the industry;
  • How fit for purpose these models would be for future challenges for the red meat industry.

You will be asked your thoughts on each and then have the opportunity to respond to others comments, like in a social media platform such as Facebook.

*** FEEL FREE TO POST YOUR COMMENTS ANONYMOUSLY ***

A number of participants have direct messaged their responses to the secretariat, rather than post online.  While we welcome these contributions, we encourage participants to think about ways to contribute on the public forum.  From this afternoon, we will be posting on the Solutions tab, which more easily allow anonymous contributions.  We look forward to your ongoing support and participation in this online forum.

We envisage it shouldn’t take more than 30 minutes each day, but feel free to contribute as much and for as long as you like.

A copy of the Green Paper is available here.

 https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DzU3GwrUwAASWdL.jpg

 

Challenge Opened: 11:09 PM, Wednesday 13 March 2019
Challenge Closes: 02:00 PM, Sunday 14 April 2019
Time to go: 22 days \ 2 hours \ 18 minutes

 

Do you want to contribute to this Challenge?

The context

The fundamental challenge of the Red Meat MOU Review Taskforce is to understand whether the current arrangements are fit-for-purpose, or whether change is needed.  Furthermore, if change is needed, what form should it take?

The Red Meat MoU outlines the sector roles, responsibilities and funding relating to:

  • Defining a role for RMAC to give policy advice to the Commonwealth in respect of the whole of the industry sector it represents, and to respond to the Minister on issues the Minister raises with it
  • RMAC and its relationship with RMAC Members and Associate Members, and its custodianship of the MoU and the Meat Industry Strategic Plan (MISP)
  • RMAC Members and their relationship with Service Providers
  • The role and operation of AUS-MEAT and SAFEMEAT
  • The funding of AMPC, MLA, LiveCorp and their relevant relationships
  • Commonwealth co-investment in industry development activities; and
  • Outlines the industry planning and service delivery arrangements relating to the role of RMAC in coordinating the MISP, and the role of RMAC Members and Service Providers in delivering against the MISP. 

Twenty years on, the role of the Taskforce is to ascertain whether these arrangements still meet the MoU’s initial objectives, and whether the MoU and its associated architecture are fit-for-purpose to guide the red meat industry (beef, sheepmeat and goatmeat) through the challenges of the coming 20-30 years.

The answer to that question will be significantly influenced by your strategic view of the industry in the next two decades and what industry arrangements would best assist in driving a sustainable growth agenda.

The Red Meat MoU emerged in the late 1990s from the need to deliver “a structure which could deliver more flexible and focused commercial programs and operations” and build a sense of industry ownership and deeper involvement by levy-paying stakeholders.

A critical issue for industry is to examine whether or not the existing MoU can be refined and developed to contribute to a more prosperous red meat industry and assist in developing more effective responses to a range of critical issues, such as animal welfare, climate change, natural disasters and competition from other proteins. 

The creation of the Taskforce follows a series of high level inquiries and reviews, looking into the governance arrangements and performance of the red meat industry over the last 20 years. 

Each of these reviews has fuelled further questions about the appropriateness of the existing industry arrangements and their ability to provide the necessary architecture for now and in the future.

While Red Meat MoU has been amended four times since its inception, our consultations suggest a broader series of reforms are being contemplated.

Across industry there are a series of discussion underway about industry arrangements, including reviews on innovation in agriculture, the operation and number of Rural Research and Development Corporations (RDCs), the operation of peak industry councils, and the future of the levy-paying system.

Should the red meat industry seek to "back-in" the current MoU, or seek a new structure?

A number of stakeholder views about a revised approach to industry governance arrangements for the red meat industry were shared with this Taskforce.  Based on our consultations, the Taskforce believes a spectrum of options for reform are available.

Option 1 Improvements to existing MoU: This option would involve contemporary redrafting, specific and piecemeal changes to the MOU but largely leave existing provisions in place. This option builds on the achievements of the past 20 years. Piecemeal reforms can be undertaken almost immediately and evolve over time.

Option 2 Law of the jungle/market based approach: The MOU is no longer required, and RMAC, as custodian of the MoU, is consigned to history. The remaining organisations compete for existing funding. The removal of the current arrangements would happen as soon as practicable and the industry would evolve over time, establishing new relationships and arrangements.

Option 3 Hybrid model: Merging of the functions of service providers and peak industry councils with access to levy funds and representation, shared between organisations. It would demand agreement that changes would need to be made to institutional arrangements but may have to be done over a five-year time-frame or more to ensure that consensus emerges.

Option 4 Revitalised red meat industry led by a new organisation: Stakeholders recognise that intense competition, disruption, innovation and rapid change demands a unified red meat industry able to promote the safe and ethical production, processing, export and consumption of red meat in Australia and the world. Several stakeholders supported a view that a future-focused organisation could transcend the existing barriers within the red meat industry value chain. This organisation was depicted as attracting thought leadership, skill-based governance and the use of new technology to stay connected to all members of the value chain. The removal of the current arrangements would happen as soon as practicable and the industry would immediately commence building a new architecture to guide the red meat industry.

Is there an option 5? The Taskforce also recognises that there may be other priorities or arrangements that would help build a better red meat future.  But for us to know, you will need to have your say.

More detail on each of these options is available in the Green Paper. 

We will also discuss each of these options as challenge questions during the online discussion.

Challenge Opened: 11:09 PM, Wednesday 13 March 2019
Challenge Closes: 02:00 PM, Sunday 14 April 2019
Time to go: 22 days \ 2 hours \ 18 minutes

Do you want to contribute to this Challenge?

Thought Leader

Michael Morgan
View profile
Lewe Atkinson Global Partner
View profile
Richard Frawley Executive Consultant
View profile
Lloyd Taylor Consulting Partner
View profile
Nikki Eden Senior Advisor
View profile
Timothy Flor Policy Analyst
View profile
Bill Wyatte Integrated Criminal Justice Governance and Program Manager
View profile
David Bartlett Criminologist | Researcher | Educator
View profile
Annette Gough Emeritus Professor
View profile
Morrie Goodz Principal
View profile
Kevin Gomis CFO
View profile
Cathaye Robertson
View profile
Alison Bailey Senior Adviser
View profile
Simon Reid Associate Professor, Global Disease Control
View profile
Chloe Mortimer Accreditation and Curriculum Officer
View profile
Peter Grimbeek Statistics & Methods Counsellor
View profile
Robyn Donovan
View profile
Mike Metcalfe Consultant
View profile
Peter Griffin
View profile
Gordon Dunbar
View profile
Martin Carroll
View profile
Mel Geltch
View profile
Dion McCurdy Director
View profile
Rob Silva Owner/Director
View profile
James McDougall
View profile
Tim Thornley Retired
View profile
Ben McNally Evaluation Officer
View profile
Neil Williamson Community Development & Engagement
View profile
Cheryl-lee Kefford
View profile
Lesley Brown
View profile
Stewart Marshall Emeritus Professor
View profile
Jonathan Hill Professor
View profile
Lisa Beach Change Manager
View profile
David Wrigley Solutions Manager
View profile
Romain Mirosa Surveys Manager
View profile
David Kearns
View profile
Andrew Downing Senior Principal Engineer, Software R&D
View profile
Lyndal Scobell
View profile
Kyle Rapson
View profile
Julia Khalyavko CEO
View profile
Michael Morgan Secretary, RMAC MOU Taskforce
View profile
Jacob Hampson Growth and Business Development
View profile
Pierre Hanell Owner and project manager
View profile

There are currently no documents available

 

Are you sure you want to do this?