❓ The Minister details the tripartisan funding model for agricultural research in WA, involving industry levies, Commonwealth matching, and State contributions, highlighting its strengths and areas for improvement, particularly collaboration and drought resilience.
AnsweredQoN 936Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH
Given that world food production security is at its lowest since records were first kept and that agricultural policy can affect defence policy, and given the importance of science to modern agricultural systems, what commitment is this government making to fund agricultural research in universities and other science agencies? Hon KIM CHANCE
Given that world food production security is at its lowest since records were first kept and that agricultural policy can affect defence policy, and given the importance of science to modern agricultural systems, what commitment is this government making to fund agricultural research in universities and other science agencies? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
I thank Hon Anthony Fels for the question. The funding of agricultural scientific research is a complex matter. It is basically a tripartisan issue in which the commonwealth government, state governments and industry make a contribution. The industry makes its funding available through levy arrangements, which are epitomised by organisations such as the Grains Research and Development Corporation and Australian Wool Innovation in those two major Australian industries, but the minor industries have similar arrangements. The commonwealth government matches the farmers’ payments on a pro rata basis, which is variable. I will not give that rate now because it does vary across the sectors. To complete the tripartite circle, the state government makes direct contributions to match the money or, in reverse, sometimes the GRDC money, for example, comes in and matches a program operating in the state. It is a good system and one that I think defines the difference between agriculture in Australia and agriculture in other industrialised nations where that level of development is not seen. Because farmers make their own contribution, they have some control over the research programs that are carried out as the result of the use of what is partly their money. That is the fundamental difference between Australia and South American countries, and even North American countries, which do not have that kind of development. However, the system can certainly be improved. One of the areas in which I think we can do better is in trying to cease the competition between universities competing as too small a unit when there is a big bid, such as the recent bid for the plant genome program and the human genome program, when Western Australia lost the first of those two to a better organised bid from multiple universities led by the University of Adelaide. That is not something I want to see in the future. That is what led to the construction of Agricultural Research Western Australia, which is a combination of the Department of Agriculture and Food, Curtin University of Technology, Murdoch University, the University of Western Australia, and, more recently, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. That means that Agricultural Research Western Australia is now a five-party body. I think that is the way of the future. It has not been all easy going. However, models have been developed overseas by University of Guelph in Canada and Wageningen University in the Netherlands. I think we have models to follow that will allow cooperative research to occur on a much wider field. I must say, however, the weakness in that process is that the initiating point is the farmers’ levies, and those farmers’ levies are ad valorem on their production. When they do not produce, such as in a national drought, of course a great hole is created in the levy funding arrangements. What I most welcome - it has not been widely recognised - from the commonwealth’s recent announcement on exceptional circumstances is that the commonwealth government will top up the farmers’ contributions to research and development corporations. That is a very significant benefit to Australian agriculture. I think the system is probably the best in the world, but there is certainly room for improvement.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Anthony Fels for the question. The funding of agricultural scientific research is a complex matter. It is basically a tripartisan issue in which the commonwealth government, state governments and industry make a contribution. The industry makes its funding available through levy arrangements, which are epitomised by organisations such as the Grains Research and Development Corporation and Australian Wool Innovation in those two major Australian industries, but the minor industries have similar arrangements. The commonwealth government matches the farmers’ payments on a pro rata basis, which is variable. I will not give that rate now because it does vary across the sectors. To complete the tripartite circle, the state government makes direct contributions to match the money or, in reverse, sometimes the GRDC money, for example, comes in and matches a program operating in the state. It is a good system and one that I think defines the difference between agriculture in Australia and agriculture in other industrialised nations where that level of development is not seen. Because farmers make their own contribution, they have some control over the research programs that are carried out as the result of the use of what is partly their money. That is the fundamental difference between Australia and South American countries, and even North American countries, which do not have that kind of development. However, the system can certainly be improved. One of the areas in which I think we can do better is in trying to cease the competition between universities competing as too small a unit when there is a big bid, such as the recent bid for the plant genome program and the human genome program, when Western Australia lost the first of those two to a better organised bid from multiple universities led by the University of Adelaide. That is not something I want to see in the future. That is what led to the construction of Agricultural Research Western Australia, which is a combination of the Department of Agriculture and Food, Curtin University of Technology, Murdoch University, the University of Western Australia, and, more recently, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. That means that Agricultural Research Western Australia is now a five-party body. I think that is the way of the future. It has not been all easy going. However, models have been developed overseas by University of Guelph in Canada and Wageningen University in the Netherlands. I think we have models to follow that will allow cooperative research to occur on a much wider field. I must say, however, the weakness in that process is that the initiating point is the farmers’ levies, and those farmers’ levies are ad valorem on their production. When they do not produce, such as in a national drought, of course a great hole is created in the levy funding arrangements. What I most welcome - it has not been widely recognised - from the commonwealth’s recent announcement on exceptional circumstances is that the commonwealth government will top up the farmers’ contributions to research and development corporations. That is a very significant benefit to Australian agriculture. I think the system is probably the best in the world, but there is certainly room for improvement.
I thank Hon Anthony Fels for the question. The funding of agricultural scientific research is a complex matter. It is basically a tripartisan issue in which the commonwealth government, state governments and industry make a contribution. The industry makes its funding available through levy arrangements, which are epitomised by organisations such as the Grains Research and Development Corporation and Australian Wool Innovation in those two major Australian industries, but the minor industries have similar arrangements. The commonwealth government matches the farmers’ payments on a pro rata basis, which is variable. I will not give that rate now because it does vary across the sectors. To complete the tripartite circle, the state government makes direct contributions to match the money or, in reverse, sometimes the GRDC money, for example, comes in and matches a program operating in the state. It is a good system and one that I think defines the difference between agriculture in Australia and agriculture in other industrialised nations where that level of development is not seen. Because farmers make their own contribution, they have some control over the research programs that are carried out as the result of the use of what is partly their money. That is the fundamental difference between Australia and South American countries, and even North American countries, which do not have that kind of development. However, the system can certainly be improved. One of the areas in which I think we can do better is in trying to cease the competition between universities competing as too small a unit when there is a big bid, such as the recent bid for the plant genome program and the human genome program, when Western Australia lost the first of those two to a better organised bid from multiple universities led by the University of Adelaide. That is not something I want to see in the future. That is what led to the construction of Agricultural Research Western Australia, which is a combination of the Department of Agriculture and Food, Curtin University of Technology, Murdoch University, the University of Western Australia, and, more recently, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. That means that Agricultural Research Western Australia is now a five-party body. I think that is the way of the future. It has not been all easy going. However, models have been developed overseas by University of Guelph in Canada and Wageningen University in the Netherlands. I think we have models to follow that will allow cooperative research to occur on a much wider field. I must say, however, the weakness in that process is that the initiating point is the farmers’ levies, and those farmers’ levies are ad valorem on their production. When they do not produce, such as in a national drought, of course a great hole is created in the levy funding arrangements. What I most welcome - it has not been widely recognised - from the commonwealth’s recent announcement on exceptional circumstances is that the commonwealth government will top up the farmers’ contributions to research and development corporations. That is a very significant benefit to Australian agriculture. I think the system is probably the best in the world, but there is certainly room for improvement.
However, the system can certainly be improved. One of the areas in which I think we can do better is in trying to cease the competition between universities competing as too small a unit when there is a big bid, such as the recent bid for the plant genome program and the human genome program, when Western Australia lost the first of those two to a better organised bid from multiple universities led by the University of Adelaide. That is not something I want to see in the future. That is what led to the construction of Agricultural Research Western Australia, which is a combination of the Department of Agriculture and Food, Curtin University of Technology, Murdoch University, the University of Western Australia, and, more recently, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. That means that Agricultural Research Western Australia is now a five-party body. I think that is the way of the future. It has not been all easy going. However, models have been developed overseas by University of Guelph in Canada and Wageningen University in the Netherlands. I think we have models to follow that will allow cooperative research to occur on a much wider field. I must say, however, the weakness in that process is that the initiating point is the farmers’ levies, and those farmers’ levies are ad valorem on their production. When they do not produce, such as in a national drought, of course a great hole is created in the levy funding arrangements. What I most welcome - it has not been widely recognised - from the commonwealth’s recent announcement on exceptional circumstances is that the commonwealth government will top up the farmers’ contributions to research and development corporations. That is a very significant benefit to Australian agriculture. I think the system is probably the best in the world, but there is certainly room for improvement.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Anthony Fels for the question. The funding of agricultural scientific research is a complex matter. It is basically a tripartisan issue in which the commonwealth government, state governments and industry make a contribution. The industry makes its funding available through levy arrangements, which are epitomised by organisations such as the Grains Research and Development Corporation and Australian Wool Innovation in those two major Australian industries, but the minor industries have similar arrangements. The commonwealth government matches the farmers’ payments on a pro rata basis, which is variable. I will not give that rate now because it does vary across the sectors. To complete the tripartite circle, the state government makes direct contributions to match the money or, in reverse, sometimes the GRDC money, for example, comes in and matches a program operating in the state. It is a good system and one that I think defines the difference between agriculture in Australia and agriculture in other industrialised nations where that level of development is not seen. Because farmers make their own contribution, they have some control over the research programs that are carried out as the result of the use of what is partly their money. That is the fundamental difference between Australia and South American countries, and even North American countries, which do not have that kind of development. However, the system can certainly be improved. One of the areas in which I think we can do better is in trying to cease the competition between universities competing as too small a unit when there is a big bid, such as the recent bid for the plant genome program and the human genome program, when Western Australia lost the first of those two to a better organised bid from multiple universities led by the University of Adelaide. That is not something I want to see in the future. That is what led to the construction of Agricultural Research Western Australia, which is a combination of the Department of Agriculture and Food, Curtin University of Technology, Murdoch University, the University of Western Australia, and, more recently, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. That means that Agricultural Research Western Australia is now a five-party body. I think that is the way of the future. It has not been all easy going. However, models have been developed overseas by University of Guelph in Canada and Wageningen University in the Netherlands. I think we have models to follow that will allow cooperative research to occur on a much wider field. I must say, however, the weakness in that process is that the initiating point is the farmers’ levies, and those farmers’ levies are ad valorem on their production. When they do not produce, such as in a national drought, of course a great hole is created in the levy funding arrangements. What I most welcome - it has not been widely recognised - from the commonwealth’s recent announcement on exceptional circumstances is that the commonwealth government will top up the farmers’ contributions to research and development corporations. That is a very significant benefit to Australian agriculture. I think the system is probably the best in the world, but there is certainly room for improvement.
I thank Hon Anthony Fels for the question. The funding of agricultural scientific research is a complex matter. It is basically a tripartisan issue in which the commonwealth government, state governments and industry make a contribution. The industry makes its funding available through levy arrangements, which are epitomised by organisations such as the Grains Research and Development Corporation and Australian Wool Innovation in those two major Australian industries, but the minor industries have similar arrangements. The commonwealth government matches the farmers’ payments on a pro rata basis, which is variable. I will not give that rate now because it does vary across the sectors. To complete the tripartite circle, the state government makes direct contributions to match the money or, in reverse, sometimes the GRDC money, for example, comes in and matches a program operating in the state. It is a good system and one that I think defines the difference between agriculture in Australia and agriculture in other industrialised nations where that level of development is not seen. Because farmers make their own contribution, they have some control over the research programs that are carried out as the result of the use of what is partly their money. That is the fundamental difference between Australia and South American countries, and even North American countries, which do not have that kind of development. However, the system can certainly be improved. One of the areas in which I think we can do better is in trying to cease the competition between universities competing as too small a unit when there is a big bid, such as the recent bid for the plant genome program and the human genome program, when Western Australia lost the first of those two to a better organised bid from multiple universities led by the University of Adelaide. That is not something I want to see in the future. That is what led to the construction of Agricultural Research Western Australia, which is a combination of the Department of Agriculture and Food, Curtin University of Technology, Murdoch University, the University of Western Australia, and, more recently, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. That means that Agricultural Research Western Australia is now a five-party body. I think that is the way of the future. It has not been all easy going. However, models have been developed overseas by University of Guelph in Canada and Wageningen University in the Netherlands. I think we have models to follow that will allow cooperative research to occur on a much wider field. I must say, however, the weakness in that process is that the initiating point is the farmers’ levies, and those farmers’ levies are ad valorem on their production. When they do not produce, such as in a national drought, of course a great hole is created in the levy funding arrangements. What I most welcome - it has not been widely recognised - from the commonwealth’s recent announcement on exceptional circumstances is that the commonwealth government will top up the farmers’ contributions to research and development corporations. That is a very significant benefit to Australian agriculture. I think the system is probably the best in the world, but there is certainly room for improvement.
However, the system can certainly be improved. One of the areas in which I think we can do better is in trying to cease the competition between universities competing as too small a unit when there is a big bid, such as the recent bid for the plant genome program and the human genome program, when Western Australia lost the first of those two to a better organised bid from multiple universities led by the University of Adelaide. That is not something I want to see in the future. That is what led to the construction of Agricultural Research Western Australia, which is a combination of the Department of Agriculture and Food, Curtin University of Technology, Murdoch University, the University of Western Australia, and, more recently, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. That means that Agricultural Research Western Australia is now a five-party body. I think that is the way of the future. It has not been all easy going. However, models have been developed overseas by University of Guelph in Canada and Wageningen University in the Netherlands. I think we have models to follow that will allow cooperative research to occur on a much wider field. I must say, however, the weakness in that process is that the initiating point is the farmers’ levies, and those farmers’ levies are ad valorem on their production. When they do not produce, such as in a national drought, of course a great hole is created in the levy funding arrangements. What I most welcome - it has not been widely recognised - from the commonwealth’s recent announcement on exceptional circumstances is that the commonwealth government will top up the farmers’ contributions to research and development corporations. That is a very significant benefit to Australian agriculture. I think the system is probably the best in the world, but there is certainly room for improvement.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.