HAL Submission

 Horticulture Australia Limited (HAL) is a national research, development and marketing organisation that works in conjunction with the horticulture industry and Government in achieving benefits for the industry.

In 2006/07 HAL invested $74.6 million in projects using compulsory levy funds, voluntary contributions and matching Federal Government funds. HAL’s basis of operation is that it oversees the delivery of projects on behalf of its members and other industry stakeholders.

The allocation of funds collected by HAL and how HAL uses its name in promoting the outcomes of projects undertaken is largely up to HAL and its members.

The fact is however, that matching Government funding or indeed an organisation which is partially sustained through the turnover achieved by compulsory and mandatory grower levies should not be used for agri-political purposes.

It was somewhat surprising therefore to read HAL’s submission to the ACCC in relation to the ACCC review into the retail grocery industry. Clearly the submission maintained an existing political push seeking to maintain the existence of the Mandatory Horticulture Code of Conduct and clearly this push was seen as a priority ahead of ….

It would be interesting to see what supporting evidence HAL has used to make the various claims which they have and which support the conclusions they have made.

While the submission makes an array of claims and negative statements regarding the wholesalers, no such focus is given to retailers.

In fact, the level of attention given to wholesalers appears more of an attempt to divert attention away from the main focus of the ACCC review, being retail grocery pricing. Ironically, the HAL submission also seeks to associate the issue of misuse of market power with wholesalers, while not even raising it as a concern in relation to other sectors of the supple chain.

When an organisation such as HAL prides itself on promoting and achieving research based outcomes, it is concerning that a submission such as this appears to base the majority of its responses on anecdotal evidence and hearsay.

This is particularly concerning given the intent to which they seek to vilify the wholesaling sector, to the exclusion of other sectors of the industry and in a manner which often contradicts other research and industry commentary.