Australian food exports—opportunities
the inquiry the committee received much evidence that suggests that the
regulatory environment applying to food processing sector exports inhibits the
ability of industry participants to access export opportunities. This chapter explores
the role that export can play in ensuring the long term viability of the food
and imports in the food processing sector
its inquiry the committee heard of the importance of international trade to
Australia's food processing sector. The Department of Industry, Innovation,
Science, Research and Tertiary Education (DIISRTE) explained that in recent
years the value of Australia food exports had increased:
value of Australian food exports increased to $27 billion in 2010-11, including
nearly $17 billion worth of processed foods, which represents approximately 63
per cent of total food exports. Japan remains the largest destination for
Australian food exports, with the ASEAN group of countries also growing in
importance as a destination for Australian food exports.
The value of
food exports does tend to fluctuate and is influenced by a range of factors
including seasonal production issues.
food exports and imports fall into three main categories: 'minimally
transformed' products, such as grains, oilseeds and live animals,
'substantially transformed' products, such as meat, dairy products, sugar,
beverages and malt, and 'elaborately transformed' products, such as biscuits
also noted that imports of food to Australia have increased in the past few
years. Imports now comprise approximately 30 per cent of processed and 4 per
cent of fresh fruit and vegetable consumption in Australia.
In real terms, the value of Australia's food imports has risen by approximately
5.3 per cent per year over the past two decades. Areas in which the value of
imports is increasing include processed seafood, processed fruit and
vegetables, bakery products, confectionary, beer and wine.
exports having risen in 2010–11, Australia's food processing sector is
currently operating in difficult circumstances. Throughout the inquiry, the
impact of the high Australia dollar was consistently identified as a cause of
concern to processors. Not only did industry stakeholders cite the strong
Australian dollar as impacting on their margins but argued that, as a strong
dollar makes imports cheaper, it has dampened their ability to compete both
domestically and in international markets. Webster Ltd, Australia's fourth
oldest business, operating since 1831, identified the challenges facing
future of Australia's export industry faces many challenges – a strong
Australian dollar, increasing compliance costs, a decline in funding for the
Agricultural industry, widespread skill shortages, high labour costs, rapidly
increasing costs of services and inputs and taxes, all of which are out of the
control of the industry.
that tough circumstances currently confront the industry:
industry is currently suffering from poor margins, higher imports, higher value
of the Australian dollar—which helps to inhibit opportunities for export but
also increases competition from imports—difficult retail trading conditions and
the availability of skilled and unskilled labour.
noting these challenges the department explained that the government, through
its Food Processing Industry Strategy Group, is looking to assist the sector and
will do this by promoting the natural benefits of the Australian industry:
strategy group has not yet delivered its report but is likely to focus on
Australia's key strengths in the area, including its reputation for product
safety and high quality, including disease-free status; the large, high-quality
public research institutes that we have, such as CSIRO, which has a considerable
food focus; available energy, raw materials and land that crosses multiple
latitudes for large-scale food production; and opportunities for the Australia
processed food industry to exploit the soaring regional need for food.
recognising these issues, industry conceded the need to find opportunities
amidst the challenges:
perspective, what our industries have to do is up the ante on their ability to
export product as a way of allowing the level of production to be maintained at
a critical mass, or even increased, as well as support a strong domestic market
the challenges of rising labour costs, rising input costs and the strong
Australian dollar, the Coles Group Limited also suggested that these characteristics
provide opportunities to the sector:
processing companies have the opportunity to be proactive in the face of these
challenges by investing in export capacity, in improved quality of existing
products and in innovation of new products.
its inquiry the committee heard that the rising middle class in Asia presents
many opportunities to Australia's food processing sector. The Australian Food
and Grocery Council (AFGC), which represents many of the food processing sector
growing middle class in India, China and South-East Asia is real and it is
actually happening for some small companies—and not so small companies as well.
We think there is a huge opportunity to increase that flow-on.
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) informed the committee that as a
result of the growth in the world population, and with a substantial amount of that
growth being in Asia, 70 per cent more food will be required by 2050:
for Australian food exporters is broadly positive, despite the current
challenges. With the world population projected to be over nine billion by
2050, there is an estimate that 70 per cent more food will be required. Much of
the population increase will be in Asia, which already receives 55 per cent to
60 per cent of our agrifood exports. The rapid growth of the middle class in
Asia will see greater demand for higher quality, safe and protein-rich food,
including more meat and dairy products. Australia remains well placed to help
supply this food to Asia. Asian consumers are becoming more sophisticated and
although both industry and government acknowledge the opportunities that exist,
the AFGC suggested that more needs to be done to harness market opportunities.
The AFGC recommended a 'brand Australia' approach to take advantage of
Australia's clean, green image:
not have a Brand Australia in the food and grocery space, so in terms of how we
are selling Australia as a great source of safe, high-quality food, to some
extent has no brand. There is no work we have done. Australia Unlimited, the
branding approach, does not fit very well in the food space; whereas, say, for
New Zealand, who have worked really hard on their Pure brand, have done
extraordinarily well in selling New Zealand as a great source of safe,
high-quality food. We think there needs to be more work done on Brand
While it is
acknowledged that Australia has a comparative advantage in the agri-food sector
as a 'clean, safe and high-quality' food producer, other sectors of the food
industry do require some assistance.
horticultural sector of the industry was identified as an area, that despite
having potential for significant growth, requires assistance:
stands out as being a significant growth industry in Australia. Horticulture as
a whole is the quickest-growing agricultural sector. It is the third-most
important industry to Australia behind beef and grains. Yet our history and
experience with exports of horticulture are pretty poor. In a way, that comes
back to two issues: (1) the ability of the industry to want to take on exports
and find new markets; and (2) the work that Dr Grant is doing on trying to
facilitate and open export markets through SPS considerations and arrangements...We
can help them through trade facilitation. We can help them with SPS issues and
negotiations. We work closely with the industry on, for example, identifying
what they think are the most important priorities for their export markets and
we use that information to ensure our resources meet their priorities. We are
doing a lot, but I accept that progress has been slow.
weaknesses of the horticultural industry were acknowledged by Mr Trevor Ranford
of Summerfruit Australia Ltd and South Australian Horticultural Services:
able to process food, you have to have the raw product in the first place. So
we need to go back to the grassroots of production. One of my early mentors
told me that in horticulture there were three components—one was export, one was
domestic and one was processing—and if any one of those were weak then the
industry was potentially weak. I would suggest to you at the present moment in
horticulture in Australia all three of those are weak and therefore we have a
weak production sector and that leads to a weakening processing sector. The
issues that have been raised within the submissions highlight some of the areas
of concern for industry.
opportunities that rising wealth and changing tastes in Asia represent for
Australian food processors, the committee sought to identify how effective
government assistance is to food processing sector participants.
When asked to
explain their role in helping businesses access growing international markets,
and therefore take advantage of the opportunities, DFAT explained:
supports exports by working to negotiate improved access to overseas markets
for Australian goods and services, including processed foods. Our trade policy
complements the government's focus on productivity, enhancing domestic reform,
and that will improve export competitiveness. DFAT also facilitates
opportunities in overseas markets for Australian exporters by helping them to
gain access to decision makers, by supporting promotional activities and by
assisting with market access issues. The personal attention of ministers,
including by leading trade delegations, and our ambassadors can make a real
difference for Australian companies overseas.
department also explained the role of Austrade, which is a part of DFAT, in
facilitating business leads:
works closely with companies to provide specific business leads. Following
comprehensive reforms unveiled by the trade minister last year, Austrade is increasing
its efforts to identify opportunities in emerging and growth markets, including
processors were questioned about the assistance that these agencies provide to
them, few gave evidence that they accessed the services on offer. Luv-A-Duck
told the committee that Austrade has been of little relevance to its
have not been particularly relevant to us...given the size of our operation.
Austrade deal more with the bigger companies and they do a good job. Smaller
ones like ours seem to slip through the net. AQIS is a different thing. We have
to deal with them on every issue...We have been trying to get into New Zealand
for five years. We used to trade there. There were some issues with fire blight
and so on at a certain stage, maybe five or six years ago. Some difficulties
were established that arose out of that between AQIS here in Australia and its
equivalent in New Zealand. It has been tit for tat and...an artificial trade
barrier has been created during that time.
spent tens of thousands of dollars trying to overcome all of the issues that
have arisen regarding New Zealand.
Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) were similarly critical of
government and suggested that although it is 'absolutely imperative' that AQIS
protect Australian industry from disease, there is no longer the right balance
between protection and market access:
EDWARDS: ...We have Austrade out there—a different agency—and we have AQIS. If
you could give them a score out of 10, what would you give them at the moment?
Dowell: Probably about four—and that is on a good day.
EDWARDS: If you were the chief executive of AQIS and were looking after
quarantine and also market access, what priority would you give to the market
Dowell: That is a difficult question, isn’t it? You cannot take the focus off
quarantine. It is absolutely imperative that we make sure that our industries
in Australia are protected and looked after. But I think market access is
equally important. You need to make sure that we do have access, that we do
know what is coming into the country, and that we do have some sort of
levelling-up of the requirements globally. One of the issues for AQIS—to give
them some credit—is that they simply do not have the number of people they need
to be able to do their jobs adequately...My four out of 10 comes from the fact
that, notwithstanding that a lot of it has to do with the numbers of people, it
also has to do with decisions about the testing regime and, in particular, what
is appropriate for the testing of manufactured food products that come into
Australia. I think there is a great deal of room to improve the performance of
AQIS legislatively—in areas of skills, in the way they apply testing regimes
and how they enforce those testing regimes. We increasingly see things coming
to this country in the food processing industry that, in my view, should not be
allowed in; but they continue to arrive here.
Farmers and Graziers Association (TFGA) suggested that the requirement that
users pay for the services of Austrade can act as an impediment to producers
looking to access export market opportunities. TFGA told the committee that:
intending exporter seeks to obtain help in developing the market through
Austrade or with EMDG assistance, he/she will be told that there is a large
element of “user pays”. This means that market research information that could
assist in initial assessment decision making is only available on very
restricted terms. In fact, it is not too out of place to suggest that visiting
a potential market and canvassing opportunities personally can often be a
better approach. While this may eventually be necessary to meet possible
customers, early stage evaluation is generally when the most help is needed.
Similarly with the hurdles that have to be met and charges paid to satisfy
export inspection requirements – an intending exporter needs to be very sure
that they want to make the jump from domestic to export.
all producers consider that the government agencies responsible for assisting
industry to access export market opportunities are not doing enough. In fact,
Mr John Berry, Director and Manager of Corporate and Regulatory at JBS
Australia, indicated that the industry, due to its fragmented nature, was in
part responsible for not having capitalised on export market opportunities:
that the industry itself has not done the right thing. We are a fragmented
industry. We have producer groups, we have processing groups and we have a
whole range of people who are looking to put positions to government—whether
they be on trade issues or whether they be on industry policy issues—and that
has got to stop.
this observation JBS Australia informed the committee that there is, however,
'momentum for change in this industry to have a more solid, consolidated voice
for the industry from the producer sector through to the processor' which would
'give the opportunity to get that one voice consistent with the government.'
Mr Berry went
on to inform the committee that:
regard to market access trade issues, unfortunately the fact is, because we are
seen as part of agriculture, that for a lot of our trading partners—in terms of
the people we are looking to do bilateral deals with—agriculture seems to be a
no-fly zone. I have come back from a recent trip to Indonesia with the trade
minister and the agriculture minister. That gave me a very good insight into
the policies and politics of Indonesia both from live cattle and boxed beef
perspectives. We see great opportunities in the Indonesian market but until we
start seeing traction and the ability to be able to work with the Indonesians
to be a major supplier of animal protein to that market there are still going
to be problems.
Mr Berry argued
that, given policies of self-sufficiency are common in emerging markets, a
bipartisan approach is required to ensure the opportunities can be accessed:
We need a
bipartisan approach to it by both sides of politics. We need to be making sure
that we know what is on the table in terms of negotiations and that we are not
giving unrealistic expectations to industry sectors because there is a lot of
time and money wasted which does not end up resulting in any commercial
results. More importantly, I believe that we need to be working, as an industry
collectively, with not just Minister Ludwig's agriculture portfolio because
that is just one part of it. We have got Minister Emerson and a whole host of
departments that we need to be across. Unfortunately, to date we have not had
that. We have not had that grunt in terms of a whole-of-government approach.
The challenges to
many opportunities for export and government programs that provide assistance,
throughout its inquiry the committee heard of certain challenges to export that
confront the industry. These include the strength of the Australian dollar, cheap
imports and regulatory costs associated with export certification.
strong Aussie dollar
of the Australian dollar in recent years has placed considerable pressure on
Australian based export businesses and industries more broadly.
explained that although the high dollar is clearly putting 'significant
competitive pressure' on some industries as it makes Australian products more
expensive, they do not view the strong dollar as 'all negative or all
complicated, though, in the sense that it is not all negative or all positive.
Just to give you an example, of course it means that it is more expensive for
consumers overseas to buy our products, from one perspective. But, on the other
hand, certain inputs are clearly less expensive to buy for Australian producers.
however heard that the strength of the dollar had in fact caused some export
focused food processing businesses to close. For example, Mr Stuart
Clarke, Director of Food Industry Development in the Western Australian
Department of Agriculture and Food explained that since 2006, several of the
larger food processors in Western Australia have gone to the wall for various
reasons. He explained that those that have been exposed and are reliant upon
the export market have had some real difficulties—Challenge Dairy is one
Ltd also explained that while some commodity exporters have weathered the
currency volatility better than others, they have some concerns for the beef
industry if it loses capacity as a result of the current circumstances. Elders
Group Ltd explained that rash decisions in these circumstances will be
counterproductive when conditions become more favourable:
is that people will make decisions based upon what is happening right now
without looking at the long-term impact. The high Aussie dollar is clearly
making it difficult for exporters at the moment, particularly soft commodity
exporters, and we see that in all shapes and forms. In areas such as grain, we
have seen very large crops over the last two years after the drought of the
early 2000s and that to a degree has offset the high Aussie dollar. With yields
up and quality reasonably good as a rule, broad acre croppers have been okay.
You do not see the same, for example, around beef where the herd is reasonably
ability for Australia to export boxed beef, particularly high-end boxed beef,
into the northern and north-eastern Asian markets like Japan and Korea is
really impacted on at the moment. We need to be careful that we do not see
decisions being made because of the lack of viability that would further impact
that industry. For example, only last week JBS Swift closed down a very large
feedlot in New South Wales. Our board put significant pressure on myself and
the management team to justify why we should continue to run two large
feedlots, which are 20,000 head each, which at full capacity would have $50
million worth of work and capital tied up in them. What is the return to
shareholders there? The issue is that once you close a feedlot, everybody is
going to struggle to reopen one with all the EPA controls that go on. Next time
drought hits and we do not have the abundance of pasture that we have got
across the east coast at the moment, all of a sudden we are going to be back
into this mentality of how are we going to get enough beef?
the impact of the high value of the dollar is widespread throughout the food
processing sector. Mr John Millington, Company Spokesman for Luv-a-Duck, stated:
Australia dollar at a $1.05 or $1.07, it is difficult for us. While we have
very good quality product, certainly value added, and we have a good market
share, nevertheless, to export our prime duck meat is very difficult.
strength of the Australian dollar has put pressure on exports, competition from
imports has intensified. Submitters to the inquiry suggested that not only are
imports increasing as a result of the strength of the dollar but they are also
originating from markets where government heavily subsidises the domestic food
Spencer, Chief Executive Officer, Australian Pork Limited (APL) explained to
the committee that the high level of imported pork being processed in Australia
was the result of both the high Australia dollar and the level of subsidies on
meat from North America and Europe.
APL explained to the committee that although the exact level of subsidisation
is difficult to calculate and there is little cooperation from the local
authorities to undertake that calculation, APL estimates the level of subsidy is
likely to be in the vicinity of 30 per cent:
biggest challenge facing Australian pork production is increasing competition
from large volumes of highly subsidised, cheap pork imports from the United
States, Canada and the European Union. It arrives frozen and is processed into
ham, bacon and smallgoods in Australia. Around $9.4 million worth of pork
imports arrive in Australia each week which translates into half a billion
dollars going offshore each year. Up to 80 per cent of the processed pork sold
in Australia is made from imported pig meat which makes it difficult for local
smallgoods manufacturers to compete in the domestic processed pork market.
spoke of a study undertaken by an agricultural economist to try to quantify the
scale of subsidies. They found that in the 2009-10 year the value of
agricultural policy support across the whole of the EU was $150 billion, in the
US $100 billion, Canada $6 billion and in Australia around $1 billion made up
of rural research and development, matching funding and fuel excise subsidy.
emphasised that to combat the challenge of imported product APL will focus on differentiating
their product from import subsidised competition:
We as an
industry have to do the best we can to make our product as attractive as
possible. One of the things that we now recognise in the community that they
are looking for is these intangible aspects such as higher standards of animal
welfare, higher standards of environmental protection, and we as an industry
want to move in this direction.
The need for
local food producers to innovate and differentiate their products in order to
remain competitive in the challenging domestic market environment was explained
to the committee by other food processors; their experiences and the need to
invest in research and development to innovate is covered in detail in Chapter
to the uncontrollable external factors of a high dollar and cheap imports, the
committee received evidence that domestically, government red tape and
regulation is a further impediment to export.
again submitters to the inquiry and witnesses at public hearings expressed
concern with the current export certification processes run through the
Australian Quarantine Inspection Service (AQIS). Their concerns particularly
related to the cost increases that have resulted from recent Export
Certification reforms. Stakeholder concerns in relation to the impediments to
trade that AQIS present for food processing sector participants are covered in
detail in Chapter 6 of the report.
Free trade agreements
to the committee that in negotiating free trade agreements (FTAs) their
priority is to improve access to overseas markets for Australian exporters.
submitters to the inquiry, however, consider that Australia's approach to FTAs
often leaves domestic producers and businesses at a disadvantage. The AFGC told
the committee that:
always a difficult one in free trade because there are a lot of local
requirements for the companies that we have free trade agreements...So Australia
tends to be a little bit holier than thou in this space, and we are heavily
into being into free trade, so we let stuff in pretty easily but often the
countries that we are dealing with do not do quite as well...Until now we have
ended up with some dumb approaches where, for example, Thailand can sell sugar
to Australia but Australia cannot sell sugar to Thailand until 2020.
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) acknowledged that
although protectionist policies do provide challenges, as a small player there
are longer term benefits to be gained by Australia taking a more open approach
through its history has adopted a policy of having minimal trade barriers,
tariffs and quotas, and we have tried to work very hard through the global
trade negotiations and the WTO to convince other countries that they should be
reducing those barriers...Australia is a very small player in the global market.
While we have a very strong export focus in our own country, our exports are a
very small proportion of the food that rotates through the world. I think the
judgment for a number of decades has been that Australia, being an
export-focused nation, can benefit more by adopting freer trade status than by
trying to impose barriers on all goods or selected goods. I think that there
have been a number of economic studies that have shown that clearly it is to
our advantage to adopt free trade or low tariffs, low restrictions and low
barriers and to try to encourage others to do the same...
AFGC conceded that FTAs can be valuable, they suggested that they can also
'potentially disadvantage trade from countries which are not signatories to the
“shutting out” phenomenon is poorly documented with respect to effects on the
food and beverage industry in Australia. Nevertheless, when countries which
imposed tariffs of up to 40% on food product imports sign bi-lateral free trade
agreements with other select countries, industry in non-signatory countries
face greater challenges in exporting to them.
complexity of the FTAs makes exporting for food companies relatively complex,
particularly when exploring the potential of new markets in which to export.
This may be particularly challenging for small companies with limited resources
to review and understand the implications of each of the FTAs.
suggested that this situation could be improved by the government being more
proactive in promoting FTAs, by providing guidance that assists smaller
companies access new export opportunities.
explained that it is currently working on a number of new FTAs, including with Australia's
key Asian markets. For some industry participants, this process is not occurring
fast enough. The Winemakers' Federation of Australia, which views China as the
'one significant bright spot in the industry's future', is particularly
concerned that Australia has not yet concluded an FTA with China:
currently does not have a FTA with China, which means Australia’s ability to
effectively compete in this market against other wine producing nations that
have successfully negotiated an FTA, such as New Zealand and Chile, is
significantly reduced. Considering the expanding Chinese market and potential
for sustainable long-term growth, it is important that Australia’s
competitiveness is maintained and a successful conclusion to a China FTA is
anti-dumping and countervailing system exists to ensure that any 'material
injurious effects' of ‘dumped’ or subsidised imports on Australian industries
Productivity Commission, in its recent review of Australia's
anti-dumping and countervailing system, identified that dumping occurs when:
overseas supplier exports a good to Australia at a price below its ‘normal
value’ in the supplier’s home market. If dumping causes, or threatens to cause,
‘material injury’ to local producers of ‘like goods’, then remedial action —
mainly the imposition of special customs duties — can be taken against the imported
goods concerned. Similarly, countervailing duties can be imposed on imports
which benefit from any of a specified group of government subsidies and which
cause or threaten material injury to a local industry producing like goods.
are based on internationally agreed rules and procedures under the auspices of
the World Trade Organization (WTO). Anti-dumping regimes are common among many
developed and developing countries.
did not receive any specific evidence commenting on the effectiveness of
Australia's anti-dumping and countervailing system. Some stakeholders did,
however, suggest that dumping is occurring in the food processing sector.
Amatil was of the view that 'despite antidumping measures already in place,
food dumping remains an issue.' However they did not cite specific examples of
occurrences where they consider dumping has occurred.
the committee that in 2006 it investigated undertaking
anti-dumping action to establish whether dumped or subsidised pork imports were
causing, or were threatening to cause, material injury to the Australian pork
industry producing 'like goods'. However, the complexity and cost of proving
which producers formed the Australian pork industry producing these 'like
goods' resulted in no action being taken.
that reversing the onus of proof in dumping cases would make it easier for
Australian pork producers to defend their position from unfair competition from
reversing the onus of proof would make a huge difference in being able to
technically determine whether dumping was taking place. One of the biggest
problems we have had is getting the cooperation of the processing companies in
Australia in giving us the costs of the various parts of their value-adding
because they are also major importers as well as domestic users of pig meat.
APL also advised
that it now sits on the Close Processed Agricultural Goods Working Group and is
working with government and industry to help improve access to anti-dumping
measures for the pork industry.
submission to the inquiry, the AFGC discussed recent recommendations they had
made to government based on their concern that Australia's anti-dumping rules
have not been effective. The recommendations included a number of guiding
principles which the AFGC considers anti-dumping policy and legislation should
industry and particularly the manufacturing sector must have ready and easy
access to measures that have the clear objective of preventing products from
being dumped in Australia to the detriment of the domestic sector;
business should be able to compete equitably on the global market and anti
dumping measures should provide for transparent and equitable remedies but not
allow or encourage vexatious or frivolous claims;
- the measures
should be administered and processed in a timely way that minimises costs and
uncertainty for the business and provides a swift remedy to any activity that
is injuring, or will injure, the domestic sector;
- the anti
dumping legislation should provide clear, unambiguous and transparent
definitions of what constitutes dumping and be able to report on the magnitude
of imports and the proposed impact of the imported products on the domestic
industry including final cost to consumer; and the arrangements should provide
for a transparent and equitable process for appeal from parties associated with
The AFGC also
raised concerns around parallel imports:
important, and related issue, is parallel importing — that is the importing of
branded products manufactured overseas, often to different commercial and
regulatory requirements. Like anti dumping, this is an issue of concern to the
food and grocery sector and one which contributes to the challenge of
maintaining a safe and sustainable sector in Australia. Parallel importing
could raise serious concerns with respect to food standards and health of
Australian consumers specifically in relation to correct and accurate labelling
requirements and quality standards.
advised the committee, however, that they 'welcomed' the government's
announcement of the establishment of an International Trade and Remedies Forum,
which occurred in June 2011.
takes the view that, despite the obstacles, export represents a valuable opportunity
for the food processing sector and government policies, regulations and
agencies should support food processors trying to export.
considers that information and awareness of the support and assistance that
government can provide to potential exporters needs to be more effectively
communicated to food processors.
also considers that FTAs and the removal of tariff and non-tariff barriers
present opportunities for government to provide further support and assistance
to this important sector.
recommends the government place a stronger focus on development of markets and
assistance for market access in a much more costs effective way for developing
recommends that the government prioritise completion of trade agreements,
noting those currently being negotiated particularly in the Asia–Pacific
recommends that the government continue to lobby for the reduction of tariff,
non-tariff barriers and subsidies in export destinations through the World
Trade Organisation. Pending the passing of the US Farm Bill this year, the
government should consider the immediate and ongoing level and impact of these
recommends that a Brand Australia program be considered to assess its
effectiveness in promoting the food and grocery sector. In addition, the
committee recommends that a campaign be developed promoting Australian food and
grocery products overseas based on their unique provenance, premium quality,
assured safety and environmental sustainability.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page