There are few people more seasoned in agricultural advocacy and leadership than our Chief Executive of the Australian Rural Leadership Foundation and former head of the National Farmers Federation, Matt Linnegar and our inaugural Special Representative for Australian Agriculture, Su McCluskey.
In the latest episode of ARLF podcast, Rural Leadership Unearthed, we reflect on the recent challenges and wins for Australian agriculture and take a look at trends that will continue to impact the sector.
Sitting down with Claire Delahunty, Su shares her recent experience representing Australian agriculture at the COP29 Summit in Azerbaijan. She and Matt discuss the ways international events are creating headwinds and tailwinds for our rural industries, and the role of leadership and innovation in managing these.
From their unique vantage points on the issues impacting rural Australia, Matt and Su have a shared faith in the resilience of our agricultural sector to tackle the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead. They are optimistic about a bright future underscored by collaborative leadership and industry cooperation.
Whether you’re at your desk, on the road, in the paddock or relaxing at home you can tune in anytime and be inspired by leadership of all forms in the bush.
To listen, simple head to the Rural Leadership Unearthed podcast page, search for Rural Leadership Unearthed on all major podcast platforms or read the transcript below.
Claire Delahunty: So today’s conversation is a bit of a look back at the year that was in Australian agriculture, as well as looking ahead at the challenges and opportunities that will continue to have an impact and require our leadership efforts. But before we do that, I’d love to ask both of you to just introduce yourselves a bit further in terms of your backgrounds and the leadership roles that you currently hold.
Matt Linnegar: Yeah, thanks Claire. I’m the chief executive of the Australian Rural Leadership Foundation and have been for about 10 years, which I continue to enjoy.
And of course my association with the Foundation goes back to more than 20 years since I was a graduate of the Australian Rural Leadership Program.
In terms of how did I get to here? It’s a long and winding story Claire, but I was the CEO of the National Farmers Federation prior to this role. And prior to that, I lived in Griffith, New South Wales for 15 years and the two main roles that I had there were executive director of Rice Growers Association and one of the general managers of Murrumbidgee Irrigation. And prior to that, I worked in the red meat sector, both in live exports and red meat exports in Asia in particular. So yeah, many roles getting to this point now and most of those certainly in rural and regional Australia and mostly in agriculture.
CD: A lot of our listeners will know your pathway pretty well Matt but thank you for that. Su, likewise, your own path to where you are today. Can you give us a bit of a potted history and then we’re going to dive into the very unique role that you currently have.
Su McCluskey: Thanks Claire. Well, like Matt, it’s been a long and winding road. I’ve been the CEO of the Regional Australia Institute and the Council of Rural Research and Development Corporations. But I’ve also led the Office of Best Practice Regulation within government and I’ve worked for National Farmers Federation, I’ve worked for the Business Council and the tax office. But for the last eight years I’ve been a non-executive director of different companies, different boards and ASX listed companies, some of them in agriculture and some of them in other areas. So quite eclectic and you know, I try and draw on that breadth of experience and expertise to the role I have now.
CD: It’s the first time this appointment has existed, Special Representative for Australian Agriculture. Tell us a bit about how the role came to be created and what it is that you’re tasked with doing.
SM: Well Claire, it’s a unique role because the role of Special Representative for Australian Agriculture, it’s sort of like an ambassador role. I champion Australian agriculture both domestically, but also in global markets. I demonstrate a high support of our multilateral organisations, our support for open and free trade, I work with like-minded countries to push back on prescriptive approaches to our global rules in terms of trade and market access. But I also get to share what I’m hearing with our industry sectors back in Australia. And so I’m like a bridge between industry and government because while I’m a ministerial appointment, I’m actually an industry voice. So as a beef cattle farmer myself, I actually get to bring a practical approach and that’s quite unusual when you speak, particularly at global conferences and on panels or you engage with high level government officials, being able to bring that practical farmer approach is unique and it also means it gives you credibility.
CD: Has there been an equivalent role in the past? So or is this really new ground?
SM: No, this is completely new and we’re only one of two countries in the world that has a role. So New Zealand was the first country to have a role like this but very much engaged in trade and particularly around bilateral trade negotiations. I don’t get involved in trade negotiations directly, that’s really what either DFAT (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade) or even depending on what the type of the negotiations are might even be our climate change department. But I certainly sit there on the fringes and will stick my oar in wherever I can and also be able to provide support, particularly in country. The interesting thing is, and this is particularly coming from my most recent trip to the climate conference COP 29 in Baku, was that many other countries are actually very envious of the role and are looking to put a role in for themselves. So Canada has very much a live proposal about putting forward a role for them. And even our conversations with the US, they were saying, wow, it’d be great to have a role like this. And I said, well, why don’t you put that to the new administration?
ML: I remember when we were in part of those trade conversations and negotiations in my time at NFF, we would have loved to have this role back then. I remember us all looking in envy at that time with New Zealand and let’s not forget both of our countries are trading countries. We export most of what we produce, New Zealand is probably more dependent on its agriculture sector than Australia is. So you can understand that but let’s not forget we export up to close to 70% of what we produce here so the focus on this sort of role, the ag counsellors around the world and these sorts of things have to be, I believe part of our approach in Australia.
CD: Absolutely. I’m not surprised at all that other countries will be emulating that, it’s a fantastic bridging role. You mentioned you’ve returned from COP29 in Baku. So the 29th annual climate change conference held in Azerbaijan this year. The main agreement reached that the headlines covered was that rich countries would increase their support for poorer countries to up to $300 billion per year in terms of preparing for initiatives that will improve clean energy and address climate change. But Su, you would have had a very specific lens on things and some very interesting experiences and exchanges with foreign counterparts. What was your experience like there?
SM: So COP29 this year in Baku was actually a great experience. It was my second COP, I went to COP28 in Dubai last year. And I don’t get involved with the actual negotiations themselves. That’s part of the negotiation party and the Department of Agriculture actually has someone who is negotiating on behalf of the agriculture parts. But what goes with the COP conferences, there’s a whole lot of side events. There are numerous panels going on all day, every day in all of the different pavilions. And so it really is a huge planning exercise in terms of which panels you’ll be on. The Australian pavilion, we hosted a lot of panels and particularly on Agriculture Day, we had panels going constantly. I think I did five different panels that day, not just in the Australian pavilion but also in the Canadian pavilion and Singapore pavilion. And it was really an opportunity to talk about the great things we’re doing in Australian agriculture, but also how we can collaborate with other countries, share what we’re doing, learn from others and think about what is the pathway forward.
Great conversations, had quite a lot of side meetings as well with different countries. I was able to meet with Canada, with the US, with Vietnam, with the Latins. You know, they’re great friends of ours, the Latin Americans. Brazil is going to be hosting COP30 next year so of course lots of discussions about what the focus would be for Brazil. Australia has made a bid with the Pacific for COP31. Haven’t heard if we’re going to get it yet but if we do, that will be a huge opportunity for us to be able to really demonstrate what we’re doing here in Australia around climate smart agriculture and the sort of things we’re really doing to be able to put us on a pathway to net zero and be able to achieve that across all our different industry sectors.
CD: Let’s talk a little bit about this net zero push and what it is meaning for Australian agriculture. And I’d love to know from both of your perspectives as well, how Australia seems to be regarded specifically in preparing its ag sector in comparison with some overseas counterparts.
SM: So maybe I’ll start in terms of net zero which was of course is the Paris commitment to be net zero by 2050. What we have is the development of six sectoral plans. They include energy, transport and the agriculture and land sector. And that process is undergoing what we call in co-design at the moment. So I’ve been able to participate in that and that’s been a really great process because we’ve actually been engaging directly with stakeholders, particularly along the supply chain, to be able to say, how will this work in practice? And that’s really a good way of doing policy and regulation, to be able to actually work with those stakeholders that are going to be impacted to say, how is this going to work?
Separately across different industry sectors, and of course, as a beef cattle farmer, I know in the red meat sector, we’ve got carbon neutral by 2030 as a commitment. And a huge amount of work has been done around reducing methane emissions. There’s a lot of research that’s been undertaken, and that research includes everything from things such as genetics to be able to reduce methane, feed additives, grazing management practices, and then how you can use boluses, blocks, and putting additives into the water. Some of these additives and other measures work really great in intensive productions such as dairy and feedlots. But for open grazing, I think genetics and possibly a vaccine are going to be the ones that are going to be real game-changers.
So I think the amount of research that is being undertaken, because in Australia, agriculture and particularly livestock do make quite a significant contribution to our GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions. The number one contribution, of course, is going to come from the energy sector and electricity, but the next biggest emitter is agriculture and so it’s important we can look at what we can do to reduce those emissions. I always think it’s interesting when you get a target like net zero, realistically I think that in the red meat sector, we’re going to come pretty close. Are we going to get there? It’s always the last bit that’s really hard. Should we beat ourselves over the head if we don’t get that last 5 or 10 percent?
The other important thing around GHG emissions that I always like to talk about is there’s a huge amount that comes from waste, particularly food waste. And the reason I like to talk about this is because it brings in the consumer. And sometimes agriculture gets the finger pointed at them to say, well, you’re the cause of the climate challenges we have. Well, actually it’s a shared responsibility. And agriculture is doing a lot of the heavy lifting, but consumers, you can also do a lot in terms of reducing your food waste which will actually reduce GHG emissions.
CD: Matt, do you want to talk a bit about that industry leadership that is no new thing, this has been something that preparation and a great deal of research has been playing a part in what agriculture’s response will be for quite some time.
ML: Yeah, thanks, Claire. And of course, that leadership and that approach happens at multiple levels, doesn’t it? Su was talking about the red meat sector and where they’re heading towards. We know the NFF and where they were heading in terms of 2050 targets, for example. So leadership demonstrated there. I mean, never underestimate innovation and adaptability in the farm sector. We’ve got some of the most innovative and adaptive farmers, and I include the farm sector,that’s the supply chain either side of that. In the world, in terms of moving towards the targets that we’re talking about, Su’s also touched on another point, and that is that balance between we’re moving towards that net zero environment but also understanding where our food comes from, food and fibre, and the need to feed ourselves and the contribution we make globally as well. So will it be neat, and will we attain these certain points and be absolute around those? I imagine there’ll be some form of trade-off at that point, and that’s where leadership both from the likes of NFF and those other peak bodies in the farm sector will come to the fore. And as I said before, we see leadership being practiced right across the board. That is from individual farm business right through to those representative bodies, research and development corporations, and a whole heap of other commercial companies playing a role across the agribusiness sector.
CD: And do you mind, both as well, exploring a little bit, and this would be mainly in your NFF-hat days Matt, but when you do head overseas and you’re in this sort of rich environment where countries have different resources, different assets, different leadership approaches, what are you discovering and what have you discovered about how Australia’s regarded and how that sort of knowledge sharing goes in that space of discussing climate action?
ML: Yeah look, in my time involved in all of those trade negotiations and conversations, the World Farmers’ Organisation, which Fiona Simpson now heads up, for instance, I think Australia and New Zealand for that matter were well regarded right across the board. Firstly, I would say that some of our colleagues in other nations would look at the Australian agriculture and our production systems, our lack of any form of subsidy really, and look at us and say, how do you people survive and operate? Any farmer listening to this podcast or otherwise will know the complexity that is the modern farm business. So I can’t remember the exact number Su, but not that long ago when you and I started in this game, there was something like 160,000 bona fide farmers in Australia. I think that’s closer to 70,000 now. So you look at the changing nature, the scale of complexity, and so all of that requires investment in R&D and extension, all those sorts of things requires that sort of innovation and holding some of those discussions, particularly with counterparts in Europe and to a lesser extent North America, where in some cases, three and four different subsidies that they’re receiving from their government or from the EU, in that case, just to be able to continue to operate. So I think we’re well-regarded, seen as innovative and very efficient in terms of our production systems and the way we go about it. And from a peak body perspective, our contributions to those global discussions and negotiations were often cited as positive, insightful contributions.
CD: Su, what would you say there?
SM: So it’s interesting because I’ve been in this role three years now and when I started, the world was just starting to move back after COVID. But what I realised, of course, because Australia had been locked down, was we’d been missing in action and that, you know, people in Europe were still able to move around and attend conferences and the same in the US. We had not and so Australia was very much missing in action. And so my first year in this role was actually a lot about saying to the rest of the world, Australia’s here, we’re still here, we still want to participate but it was just trying to get a seat back at the table. Whereas the last two years have been very much about us building on that relationship, being very much engaged, being invited to be part of that conversation. What I have seen, though, is that we’ve traded on our clean green image for a long time and that was starting to be eroded a bit. And particularly when we’ve seen what other countries in the world were doing, we saw the EU introduce their Green Deal and their Farm to Fork and really promoting themselves as being, you know, the pinnacles of sustainability. And that’s when I started to really say to Australian farmers, sustainability is everyone, it’s the word, everything is about sustainability, sustainability, sustainability.
And then I started to talk to other countries. You know, New Zealand has always remained right there on the edge of things and continue to push, because as Matt said, trade is critically important to them and agriculture makes up most of their trade and dairy makes up most of their agricultural trade. Ireland has been doing fantastic things. And once again, you know, they’ve seen what they’ve been able to do to promote themselves as being clean and green and being a real competitor. So Australian agricultural sectors can’t sit on our laurels and we’ve got to continue to do the work around making sure we can demonstrate not just what we say about being sustainable, but make sure we’ve got the data and the information and the case studies and the examples to back that up. And that’s what I’m finding is critically important now because some other countries don’t have that. You know, the EU claim to be completely sustainable and when you unpack it and especially when you think about how heavily subsidised they are, I actually call it out as greenwashing a lot of the time. What I’m seeing in the UK though is they’re transitioning off their subsidies as a part of Brexit and so they are repurposing their subsidy dollars to have better environmental outcomes. So that’s a good thing. Other countries in the world, you know, India, Indonesia still are heavily subsidised but their subsidies really go towards smallholder farmers and it’s more about a subsistence thing. So I think the conversation there I have with them about subsidies is a bit different and it’s more about repurposing your subsidies for better health outcomes for your people.
And so it’s been interesting to see how these discussions have transitioned over the last three years. My role was for four years. I’ve got one more year really in the role. And I hope that the role continues because I think it’s been a great demonstration of how having that voice in global markets that can actually speak for industry but you know it can be, as I said before, that bridge between industry and government can be really powerful and influential.
CD: And what do you see as some of the main forces that are happening in international markets and different accords being reached in other parts of the world? What are some of the main things that you see flowing across to Australia to have an impact specifically on our agricultural sector?
SM: Probably three key things. And we’ll start with climate given we’ve been talking about COP. The challenge to climate, all around the world, will continue to be a key priority for us and just how we actually demonstrate meeting those climate challenges, continuing to be engaged. And that’s just not from the Australian agricultural sector, that goes across all sectors, that goes across the whole community so it’s really going to be a critical thing in terms of how we deal with that. The EU, is something I do go hard on the EU, because they are so highly influential around global rules and standards and they do take quite an ideological approach and can be quite prescriptive. So it tends to be their way or the highway and I say there is no one size fits all. And what works for one country, what works for one climatic condition, for one soil type is quite different for what works for another. And so we’ve got to be able to recognise that and have a principles and outcomes-based approach and allow the flexibility for there to be different pathways to actually achieve those outcomes. So I think really what we’re going to see in terms of the EU’s influence will still see agitation through the WTO. We’re seeing that with deforestation legislation coming from the EU. The EUDR (European Union Deforestation Regulation) is what so many countries around the world are really concerned about. There’s been a delay now for 12 months in relation to that legislation but it is still a concern. And then of course we’ve got what’s happened quite recently in the US elections. So with Trump coming in as the president-elect, what does that mean for climate policies? What does that mean in terms of tariffs? What does that mean in terms of trade and what are the implications for Australia? So I think we’re watching that very closely. And we’ve got to watch it closely because, you know, there’s a lot of scare mongering about what may happen. You’ve got to see what the reality is that plays out. And then of course we’ve had a change of government in New Zealand so there’s been a change in policies there, particularly in relation to some of their carbon measurements.
Canada is probably going to have a change in government when they go to their elections. We’ve seen a change in government in the UK. We’ve also seen it happen in states around Australia. So I think if you’ve got good, sound, evidence-based policy, then it should stand up to whatever flavour is in government at the time. But we’ve just got to be prepared to make sure that we can continue to be flexible and focused on the outcomes.
CD: There’s always a vast amount of unknown quantities there. Matt, what is your read on what has sort of been affecting us in the year past and what’s still going to have an impact on our sector going forward?
ML: Yeah, I think we’ve just pointed to some of the complexities that exist there. I think that we just talked about farm businesses being, generally speaking, larger and more complex than they’ve ever been before. So we know farmers are increasingly time poor. So it is incumbent, I think, on representative and peak groups and also research development corporations, other industry bodies, to work with the farm sector to help them navigate their way through the complexity that we’ve been looking for.
We’ve talked about some of those international pressures facing Australian agriculture. We’ve talked towards the movement towards net zero and what that might mean on farms. We know, and we certainly discussed this at the recent AFI (Australian Farm Institute) roundtable, that the Foundation was also very involved with, that in a way I think farmers and the communities in which they live, in some ways, perhaps feel like there’s things coming at them from all angles. And we’ve just mentioned a few of them.
So some of that comes to frustration that they feel as though making progress in terms of their own future, in some ways, is out of their own hands. They know what they can control, and there are a number of things sitting outside that control. I think they certainly expressed some frustration around that, and feeling like things might be being done to them in some circles rather than them playing a part in wherever that’s heading to. So we’ve certainly seen that and we certainly talked at that roundtable about some of the crunch points when it comes to that. Often farmers and rural communities are at the bleeding edge of change, and we’ve seen that, particularly in terms of climate impacts, but also some policy impacts as Su was referring to before. So we talked about that decarbonised future and the pathway to that.
And so I would say, on top of all the things that the issues that they’d be well aware of, that sense of agency, that they’re lacking a sense of agency, and the need to take greater control of their own future, would be sort of like an overarching theme, Claire, that I’m hearing and seeing. And let’s not forget that the Foundation, in our work, as well as our well-known national leadership programs like the ARLP (Australian Rural Leadership Program) in the last four years, we’ve worked in over 70 rural and regional and remote communities across the country so we’ve got a pretty reasonable bead on what’s happening out there, what leadership practice in those areas looks like, what communities are facing and what they’re trying to work on together. So that’s the sort of general sense I’m getting about it.
SM: And I might pick up on that, Matt because I think that, you know, when you talk about farmers quite often feel that things are being done to them. You know, I can talk about some of the great co-design processes with the Ag and Land Sector Plan, where we engage with the supply chain. I can talk about the agricultural sustainability framework, which to talk about in global markets, which is a great articulation about what Australian agriculture is doing around sustainability. But that doesn’t mean a lot to farmers. So if I then put my farmer hat on, and I think, you know, if I’m busy out in the paddock all day, and then you come in at night, and you’re doing paperwork, and you’ve got to do your tax, and you’ve got to, you know, do your BAS, and you’ve got to do all your other requirements for compliance with different things. And so when it comes to climate reporting and reporting around net zero, I want to know what it means for me, what the value proposition is, why it’s worth me spending my time. Am I going to get paid for it? Was this going to be more of a cost. And so I think we’ve actually got to think about how we communicate to the different groups of stakeholders. You know, just putting out a media release or an article that is just general is not necessarily getting to all those different levels. And we’ve actually got to be thinking about what does this mean for the farmer? How do we help them? What does it mean around training, education, capacity building in terms of what they need to know? But I still come back to the money. What’s the value proposition? How much is this going to cost me, whether it’s in dollars or time, and is it worth me doing this? And I think sometimes we forget that we’ve got to articulate that.
CD: On your point, both of your points there, that it is a disempowering feeling to just feel like things are coming at you, that you’re accepting different changes, different policy mandates. What is the key at all levels, community, different industry sectors, different organisations and individuals in breaking free of that sense that you have no control and no agency in the face of uncertain times? What can be done and what is being supported, perhaps through leadership programs, on the ground to make sure people aren’t just sitting back feeling trapped?
ML: I think the first thing Claire, it’s about wresting back some control of your own future. None of us can sit here and pretend we’re in total control of our own future because we’re not. Governments will make decisions, other things that are going on globally, geopolitically and otherwise will continue to impact us and we won’t have control.
But it’s about gaining a greater sense of control. And I think in our experience that starts in those different spheres that people are involved in. So in their immediate family and on their farm, in this case, or in their business, then in their community, then it might be their industry and finally at a national level as well. So one of the keys to that, of course, is some of the models and the structures that we’ve had in place for many years to help us navigate those pathways remain really important, like those institutions like the NFF remain vital.
And on top of that, we’ve got to continue to find new and different ways to be able to, one, bring different people together around some of those shared challenges that you’ve just mentioned. What are different ways of looking at that? How can we take into account and understand multiple perspectives on that challenge? And importantly, how do we work together through processes of change so that we can adapt to different futures? So that has been a large part of the work that we and many others, by the way, have been doing in regions, sometimes with sectors, in relation to that. So yes, those tried and true models, groups, remain really important in the scheme of things. And we’re going to find other ways to connect, to go beyond. We talked about this at the AFI conference. There was a distinct sense there that those of us in the ag sector come together really regularly in different forums, and people were just saying, “We’re sick of the talk fest. Let’s look at new and different ways in which we can come together”. I said at the conference, we talk about collaboration all the time in the ag sector, and we do it very rarely in fact. Sometimes cooperation is absolutely enough, but if we’re going to face these complex challenges at those multiple levels, then we have to move beyond that sometimes to a truly collaborative approach. And so investing in those approaches, being able to have trust and comfort that there are groups, the Foundation can do this, but others can do this as well, that are trusted intermediaries to hold space to face those complex challenges is really important into the future.
SM: And you would have thought collaboration should be a no-brainer but sometimes in the sector, and I’ve said this, that the sector can sometimes do itself no favours because egos get in the way, and it becomes about my organization, my peak body, my industry sector, rather than Australian agriculture as a whole. And I bang on a bit about Team Australia, and particularly globally, it’s really important that we present a collaborative collegiate approach to Australian agriculture. And look, you know, we have our differences, and we can debate those, but in the end, we’re all growing in the same boat. And so I think it’s critically important that we put aside our own vested interests and say what’s in the best interest of the collective, because we’re not doing ourselves any favours by not doing that.
ML: Yeah, and Claire, I mean, leadership is a practice, it’s not a position. And people will rightly point to, well, you know, my stakeholders, my levy payers, my whatever, are paying me to do my job and to represent my sector and my sector only. You know, I challenge that in a way to say, if you are demonstrating good leadership practice, then understanding where that sits in the broader scheme of things, to make those connections, to draw those, to try and make collaboration across the board, will also be serving the interests of your constituents, and you’ll be contributing to something larger than that in the same time. So I don’t think it’s one or the other. I think you can do both at the same time.
CD: I wanted to ask you both actually, on the positive note, for some examples of great leadership that you might have observed in the year that’s just passed. Maybe we’ll start with you, Matt, because it is your day-to-day focus. Can you give us an example of something at any level that really demonstrates to you what good collaborative inclusive leadership looks like?
ML: Yeah, well, I think we just talked about that AFI workshop, and I think you had people from right across the board, right across the spectrum of agriculture coming together and moving beyond the talk fest and trying to get to some points at which the ag sector can come together over the next year in a really purposeful way. So, you know, those people from right across the sector. So I think I was seeing that sort of leadership in that room that day. And there are examples right across the board and I see it at those national levels and through peak bodies right the way through to people in communities and at the farm level. One of our recent graduates from the ARLP, you know, Sallie Jones is doing some amazing work in her community around the Gippsland area and at the same time, you know, with her Jersey Milk product, navigating her way in terms of the major supermarkets, how to get that product on the shelf and bring benefit back to people in her community, suppliers and the community more broadly. So, yeah, I see it at all levels, Claire.
SM: I think that’s important, Claire. You know, people think about leaders as being the known names and the, you know, the people they see up on a pedestal. But in actual fact, I think we mustn’t lose sight of the true local leadership that we see all the times across agriculture in our communities. They are the very fabric of our rural and regional communities. They are the ones that actually make things happen. They don’t get called out, they just do it because they just feel it’s the right thing to do and they get up every day and they get out and they make things happen. And those of us who actually hold roles of position couldn’t do it without all of those other people that work through to help us do that job. So, you know, once again, it’s a team approach. You can’t attribute it to any one person or any one group of people. It’s truly a collective approach that needs to make things happen.
ML: And Claire, in the ag sector, and I’m sure Su knows this story well, you know, the cotton industry probably does it better than most when we’re talking about this sort of approach. So what would be some of the key factors? The levels of collaboration in that sector are high. Their openness to change, their sharing of innovation and innovative approaches, their investment in people and capability are just three examples of why that sector continues to do very well and sometimes in the face of some pretty significant headwinds in terms of past perceptions of the sector and all of that sort of thing. So that’s another example, I think, of very good leadership right across the board in that sector contributing to the approach that we’re seeing there.
SM: Anyone who says, you know, waves at you and says, “Hey, look at me”. They’re not the ones you want to be looking at.
CD: Yes. And Su you mentioned co-design quite a bit which is a bit of a buzzword at the moment, but essentially at its core, it does mean things aren’t just coming from above, things are being done with industry, with community. What have you seen that sort of is a process that’s working in terms of that co-design model?
SM: Well, I did talk about the Ag and Land Sector Plan, which is the plan towards net zero. And I’ve seen that process working very recently, you know, in the last six months and I think that’s been a really good process and that will continue. I think we’ve always got to be careful that, you know, prior processes I’ve been involved with have been consultation, they haven’t been what I would call true open transparent co-design. Co-design is where you really do sit down with different sectors, with industry, government, NGOs, other stakeholders and say, “This is what we are seeking to achieve in terms of an outcome. This is our initial thinking, but we’re open, you know, feel free to shoot this down, but how would you do it differently?” So let’s be constructive about what are different options and it’s been quite open to that.
True design is really hard to get to because it takes time and is something, I’ll be honest, government doesn’t do that well because it is far easier to come out with a regulation and actually say, “Well, we’re putting this into practice”, or “If we’re going to do a bit of consultation, this is the draft regulation and you’ve got 30 days to respond to put in your submissions”. So that for me is not true co-design. I think we’ve got to do a lot more work and we’ve got to keep insisting on the processes to make sure that we can get that. And the other thing is we’ve got to actually make sure if you do need to put something through fairly quickly without having the opportunity to undergo co-design, let’s build in a review process so we can actually say, “Has it worked? What would we do differently? How do you tweak it?” Because in the end, if you don’t get the policy and the regulation that can be implemented, which means it can work in practice, you’re not going to get compliance. So it’s really important that we continue to review and monitor as we go along.
CD: I would love to end on a bit of a positive and look to sources of optimism for us in the year ahead, where innovation and leadership are going to stand us in good stead. Matt, what do you see as some of our causes for optimism looking ahead?
ML: Oh, look, I think that in many ways, we just talked about it, despite all of those challenges, how well-placed in many ways Australian agriculture is, how well-served it is right across the board from that research and development effort through the RDCs, through the farmers, their innovative approaches, their adaptability themselves, through to other parts of the supply chain. So I think there’s plenty to be positive about there. And we certainly see, this investment in people, including capability and leadership, right across the board in agriculture and the roles they’re playing. We were just talking about the cotton industry, and I look at someone like Liz Stott, a young woman in the Riverina region in New South Wales, who has gone from going onto the farm, playing a role in that farm, undertaking leadership development work, getting involved in the cotton industry now on the Cotton Australia board and heading for greater things. So I think that investment is fantastic, and those people have been able to play the roles that they’re playing. I think if we can move towards some of these approaches at the collective level, so move beyond the talk fest, understand where collaboration is needed and actually invest in it, create space to do that, we’ll be better served. Su’s right, within industries and within organisations there’s some really strong things happening and fantastic leadership being displayed and that’s got to manifest itself at the national level and across the ag sector a bit more, and that’ll allow us to be even better placed into the future. So I see a lot of cause for optimism right across the board.
SM: And I likewise, I’m hugely optimistic for Australian agriculture. We’ve got this wonderful opportunity that we can provide healthy, safe, nutritious food and fibre, not just for Australia but for the rest of the world. And food security and climate security go hand in hand. So I’m quite confident we can do this in a way that’s going to be able to meet the challenges of the future. And Australian farmers are resilient. We understand about productivity, and I think there’s going to be opportunities for us to be able to grow Australian agriculture. Innovation and research and ag tech is going to be a huge gain for us. And also bring in young people. You know, I’ve said previously, how do you make agriculture sexy for young people? And I think agri-tech, AI, remote sensing, satellite imagery, the way that we’re looking at being able to capture data in agriculture will bring young people into this. And the reality is we do have farmers, I think it’s now in the early 60s that might be the average age of farmers. So it’ll be the next generation that will really take it forward. And we’ve seen it in some sectors like cotton, dairy, and even grains where the technology is really driving huge gains, productivity and profitability. So very optimistic, Claire. I think what we really need to be doing, and this is where, you know, Matt and the [Australian] Rural Leadership Foundation comes into play, is to be able to develop leaders that are resilient and can embrace change, because change is a reality. And we need to think about it as being exciting. And it’s really about how do we be nimble and flexible to be able to be as responsive as quickly as we can to what is the inevitable, and the inevitable is change.
To catch the full interview, head to the Rural Leadership Unearthed podcast website.
Matt and Su’s conversation is one chapter of a larger narrative of ARLF change-makers and visionaries who are helping to reshape our rural, regional and remote communities.
