chapter 1 – introduction library/images/daff/__dat… · web viewnrac. national rural advisory...
TRANSCRIPT
NRACNational Rural Advisory Council
Report on the workforce planning capabilities of agricultural employers
May 2013
Report on the workforce planning capabilities of agricultural employers
Contents
Abbreviations v
Terms of Reference vi
National Rural Advisory Council vii
Executive summary 1
1. Introduction 3
2. Agricultural employers and the agricultural workforce in Australia 5
2.1 Agriculture in Australia 5
2.1.1 The agricultural workforce in Australia..........................................................................7
2.1.2 Ageing of the workforce in Australia..............................................................................7
2.1.3 Education in agriculture...............................................................................................10
2.2 Characteristics of agricultural employers 11
3. Understanding workforce planning 14
3.1 Why workforce planning? 14
3.2 What is workforce planning? 14
3.3 The language of workforce planning 15
3.4 The workforce management and planning continuum 16
3.5 Benefits of workforce planning for agricultural employers 18
3.6 Engagement of agricultural employers in workforce planning and human resource activities 19
3.7 Approaches of agricultural employers with five or less employees to workforce planning and human resource management 21
3.8 Approaches of larger agricultural businesses to workforce planning and human resource management 22
3.9 Sectoral approaches to employment 22
4. Use of workforce planning in the Australian agricultural sector 24
4.1 Workforce challenges facing agricultural employers 24
4.2 Workforce planning approaches and practices 31
4.3 Access to information about workforce planning 33
5. Innovative approaches to workforce planning 35
5.1 Sectoral approaches 35
ii
5.1.1 Dairy farming sector.....................................................................................................35
5.2 Regional approaches 38
5.2.1 Make It Work Initiative................................................................................................38
5.2.2 Review of regional approaches....................................................................................40
5.3 Population approaches 40
5.4 Collaborative approaches 42
6. Skills and training for workforce planning 46
6.1 Employer skills and capabilities in workforce planning 46
6.1.1 Employer self-analysis..................................................................................................46
6.1.2 Existing pathways to skills in workforce management and planning...........................47
6.2 Evidence of the benefit of workforce planning and human resource activities 48
6.3 Pathways to improving the workforce planning and people management capabilities of agricultural employers 49
6.4 Trusted advisors 51
6.5 Role of women in workforce planning and human resource activities 52
6.6 Regulatory requirements and obligations 52
6.7 Delivery of skills and training 53
7. Summary, the way forward and next steps 55
Appendices 57
Appendix 1. Stakeholder consultations 57
References 60
Boxes
Box 1: Businesses with five or less employees – a definition.....................................................13
Box 2: The positive spin offs of workforce planning at Petali Merinos – a case study................17
Box 3: Business transitions – a definition...................................................................................22
Box 4: Happy campers keep coming back to Reid Fruits – a case study.....................................25
Box 5: Workforce planning on a remote horticulture farm – a case study.................................26
Box 6: Australian Government Visa Programs............................................................................27
Box 7: Dairy Australia’s workforce management and planning programs.................................37
Box 8: Workforce planning at a corporate family farm – a case study.......................................43
Box 9: Sharing a farming trainee – a case study.........................................................................44
Box 10: Triggers for improving workforce management and planning capabilities – a case study...
.........................................................................................................................................50
iii
Box 11: Short courses helping young women on farms – a case study.........................................51
Figures
Figure 2.1: Employment level in agriculture, fisheries and forestry—25 years to August 2012......5
Figure 2.2: Employment by age and industry (percentage share)—February 2012........................8
Figure 2.3: Median age of workers by industry—2011...................................................................9
Figure 2.4: Education level of operator and spouse on dairy and broadacre farms......................10
Tables
Table 2.1: Employment types of farmers and farm managers in agricultural sub-sectors...............12
iv
Abbreviations
ABARES Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences
ABS Australian Bureau of Statistics
AWI Australian Wool Innovation
CRDC Cotton Research and Development Corporation
DAFF Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
DEEWR Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations
HR Human Resources
MLA Meat & Livestock Australia
NRAC National Rural Advisory Council
OHS Occupational Health and Safety
R&D Research and Development
RDC Research and Development Corporation
WHS Work Health and Safety
v
Terms of Reference
Scope of the assessment
Labour and skills shortages in agriculture are complex and multifaceted issues. Various bodies and forums continue to explore the overarching challenges faced by the industry. Whilst a significant focus has been placed on the attraction of new employees to the workforce, less focus has been placed on the workforce planning and human resource capacity of agricultural employers. This plays a significant role in the skilling and retention of employees already in the industry.
The National Rural Advisory Council (NRAC) will conduct an assessment of agricultural employers’ workforce planning capabilities to ensure they are meeting the training and development needs of their workforce.
In conducting the assessment, NRAC will:
Identify the role and benefits that workforce planning and human resource capacity play in the retention and skilling of agricultural employees.
Identify and assess the extent to which agricultural employers currently engage in workforce planning and human resource activities.
Identify the pathways agricultural employers use to access information on training, development, and recruitment for their workforce.
Assess agricultural employers’ experience and ability to access existing skills, training and development programs.
Investigate what qualifications and skills agricultural employers may need to acquire in order to improve their approach to the training and development needs of their workforce.
Identify and assess whether agricultural employers’ needs and approach to workforce planning differs between sectors and between geographic regions.
Identify options for improving any shortcomings in agricultural employers’ use of training and development.
Canvas the views of key stakeholders.
Timeframe and reporting
Assessment preparation to occur from August 2012 to September 2012. Assessment to be conducted from October 2012 to May 2013. Assessment completed and written report submitted to the Minister for Agriculture,
Fisheries and Forestry by 31 May 2013.
Supporting structures
Supporting research, data and secretariat functions will be provided by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.
vi
National Rural Advisory Council
NRAC was established under the Australian Government’s Rural Adjustment Act 1992 (Cwlth) to provide independent expert advice and information as requested to the Australian Government Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry on matters that include:
rural adjustment regional issues training issues Exceptional Circumstances declarations any other matter the minister requests advice or information about.
NRAC comprises eight members—a chairperson, a state representative, an Australian Government representative, a National Farmers’ Federation representative and four others appointed to provide expertise in areas relevant to NRAC operations, such as banking, economics, farm management or training, financial administration, regional adjustment, regional development or sustainable agriculture.
vii
Executive summary
In July 2012, Senator the Hon. Joe Ludwig, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry asked NRAC to assess the workforce planning capabilities of agricultural employers, and whether improving these could enable their businesses to make more effective use of the available workforce.
From December 2012 to April 2013, NRAC consulted widely on this topic with peak industry bodies, skills councils in Australia and overseas, Research and Development Corporations (RDCs), workforce planning consultants, workforce researchers, relevant Australian Government and state government agencies, education and training providers, local council representatives and a range of agricultural businesses—contractors, farm business advisors and consultants, service providers, farmers from different sectors and regions across Australia, and others.
The idea that the workforce planning capabilities of employers can influence business outcomes is gaining momentum across industries, including agriculture. NRAC’s consultations identified a continuum of workforce management and planning practices across the industry. These practices ranged from informal approaches to managing people, primarily focussed on the day-to-day aspects of attracting and retaining employees, through to formal and longer term approaches to addressing workforce needs, including through the development of workforce plans. Generally, larger businesses were able to dedicate more resources to formal workforce planning and were therefore more likely to have structured and documented procedures in place, particularly around performance management, development and job roles.
The majority of agricultural businesses are farms with workforces made up of small numbers of family and non-family employees. During consultations with farmers, NRAC heard that improving competence and confidence in the everyday aspects of people management, such as fulfilling work health and safety (WHS) requirements, is key to building long-term workforce planning capability in businesses with few employees. NRAC recommends that industry identify the circumstances that trigger employers to engage in workforce planning and how employers best receive information about workforce planning to tailor workforce planning initiatives across sectors and regions more effectively.
NRAC heard that today’s agricultural employers and employees require more sophisticated people management and planning capabilities than in the past. Although recognition that workforce planning and management capabilities positively influence business productivity is increasing, the benefits are difficult to quantify. Being able to demonstrate the value of more structured approaches to workforce planning was identified by NRAC as a significant factor in engaging agricultural employers in workforce planning activities. To improve engagement in workforce planning, NRAC recommends that industry and RDCs collect and consolidate success stories, case studies and innovative ways that agricultural businesses are managing workforce issues, and share these within and across sectors. Greater priority needs to be given to investment and research and development (R&D) in workforce planning and people management so industry can measure and benchmark the benefits to members and define their involvement in this area.
1
While NRAC heard from consultants, industry groups and employers about the need for workforce planning and human resource management skills across agriculture this need did not necessarily translate to a high demand for workforce planning and human resource management training. Industry and employers suggested to NRAC this was partly because employers did not prioritise people management relative to other training and business improvement needs, primarily because they did not see a clear connection to business profitability, but also because they did not consider the current training system responsive enough to meet the needs of farm businesses. Employers from across the agricultural industry expressed a preference for training throughout the system to be delivered through skill sets or short courses rather than through higher-level qualifications and NRAC recommends that the delivery of information about workforce planning take these preferences into account.
NRAC also recommends support be provided to equip trusted advisors—people such as farm business consultants and accountants who agricultural employers go to for advice—with skills and knowledge of workforce planning so that they are better able to advise agricultural employers on people issues. This should include efforts by industry to expand the pool of trusted advisors with knowledge of workforce planning through providing resources and appropriate training courses. Many employers and consultants NRAC spoke to stated that trusted advisors were often the first point of call for employers with workforce management issues and were central to improving further engagement in workforce planning.
Overall NRAC found that workforce planning has an important role to play in the future of Australian agriculture. Further development of the workforce planning capabilities of agricultural employers has the potential to increase the productivity of agricultural businesses and should be encouraged. Given the diversity in both size and capacity of agricultural businesses, NRAC acknowledges there is no one-size-fits-all approach to workforce planning but recommends that industry and government work together to further develop and promote workforce planning capabilities across agriculture.
2
1. Introduction
Labour and skills shortages are a persistent concern across the agricultural industry. In recent years industry and government have worked on attracting more people into agriculture through efforts to improve the industry’s image and promote agricultural education. Less focus has been placed on the role of agricultural employers in managing people and the influence this may have on attracting and retaining an agricultural workforce.
Consequently, in July 2012 the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator the Hon. Joe Ludwig, asked NRAC to assess agricultural employers’ workforce planning capabilities and report on this by 31 May 2013. The assessment responds to the need to better understand how employers across the industry approach people management and human resource development. It also explores any scope for addressing some of the labour and skills challenges facing the industry by improving employers’ workforce planning capabilities—the capacity to manage people and plan for workforce needs.
This assessment report considers the role of workforce planning and human resource capacity in skilling and retaining employees as well as the broader implications of agricultural employers’ workforce planning capabilities on business productivity. It considers workforce planning as a continuum of informal workforce management and planning practices, as well as how workforce planning occurs at business, sector, industry and regional level.
In conducting its assessment, NRAC examined the attitudes of agricultural employers to workforce planning and the approaches agricultural businesses are taking to identify and address their workforce needs.
NRAC sought views from a broad range of agricultural employers and those with knowledge of agricultural employers’ practices across sectors and from every state and territory. From December 2012 to April 2013, NRAC consulted with peak industry bodies, skills councils in Australia and overseas, RDCs, workforce planning consultants, workforce researchers, relevant Australian Government and state government agencies, education and training providers, local council representatives and a range of agricultural businesses— including contractors, farm business advisors and consultants, service providers, farmers from different sectors and regions across Australia, and others. Consultations were through face-to-face meetings in regional areas and teleconferences. Some written submissions to consultation questions were also received. A list of those consulted is in Appendix 1.
In addition to canvassing the views of individual businesses, NRAC conducted a literature review and considered approaches to workforce management and planning across industries, and from regional and sectoral perspectives. NRAC also canvassed the views of agricultural employers and sectors with differing workforce needs on issues such as seasonal labour requirements, ageing of the workforce and managing family and non-family employees. Findings from the consultations, written submissions and literature review inform this report, which is structured as follows:
3
Chapter 2 provides an overview of agriculture in Australia and the demographics of the agricultural workforce, including the age profile of the workforce and education levels in the agricultural industry.
Chapter 3 explores the concept of workforce planning and how it applies to the agriculture industry. It examines the benefits of workforce planning and extent to which agricultural employers engage in workforce planning and human resource management, and considers factors that may increase engagement.
Chapter 4 identifies the challenges facing agricultural employers in managing their workforces and highlights the features and activities of agricultural employers who routinely undertake workforce planning.
Chapter 5 assesses the basis for alternative approaches to workforce planning, including sectoral and regional ones. It provides examples from Dairy Australia’s The People in Dairy program, the Narrabri Make It Work initiative and collaborative farming approaches.
Chapter 6 examines the skills employers need to plan for their workforce and identifies possible pathways to improving the workforce planning and people management capabilities of agricultural employers.
Chapter 7 concludes with the report recommendations and outlines options for enhancing agricultural employers’ workforce planning capabilities.
4
2. Agricultural employers and the agricultural workforce in Australia
This chapter provides an overview of agriculture in Australia and the agricultural workforce, including the age profile of the workforce and education levels in the industry.
2.1 Agriculture in Australia
The Australian agricultural sector is highly competitive and profitable with a strong economic outlook. Australia produces twice as much food as it consumes, exports around 60 per cent of agricultural production1 and in 2010–11 contributed 2.4 per cent to the country’s gross domestic product.2 Agriculture’s contribution to gross domestic product has hovered around 2.3 per cent since 2003–04, with a dip to approximately two per cent from 2006 to 2008. Internationally the industry is recognised as a competitive and reliable supplier of high-quality produce. With global demand for food expected to rise as the world’s population increases, the industry is well placed to take advantage of opportunities for growth, especially in the Asian region.
Figure 2.1: Employment level in agriculture, fisheries and forestry—25 years to August 20123
300
320
340
360
380
400
420
440
460
480
500
Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Labour Force Survey (trend data), cat. no. 6291.0.55.003 adapted from Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR) 2012, Industry Employment Outlook Report: Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing, Canberra.
These opportunities do not come without challenges. Growing demands for food and fibre exist against a backdrop of variable climatic and economic conditions, increasingly complex production systems and competition for natural resources. Demographic changes also present significant challenges for the agriculture industry as the farming population ages and people continue to move
1 Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) 2012, Australia’s agriculture, fisheries and forestry at a glance 2012, Canberra, May. CC BY 3.0.2 Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2012, Australian System of National Accounts 2012-11, Canberra, November. cat. no. 5204.0.3 Vertical axis represents thousands of people employed.
5
to metropolitan areas for employment and education. Fewer people are selecting agriculture as a career, and competition for skilled workers from other industries, especially mining, is constricting the supply of labour available to agricultural employers.
Despite variation from year to year, the number of people employed in agriculture, forestry and fishing has been in general decline over the past 25 years, decreasing from 410 300 inNovember 1987 to 338 100 in August 2012 (Figure 2.1). A significant downturn in employment occurred between 2003 and 2009, coinciding with Australia’s drought and the uplift in the mining sector, which drew people away from agriculture. Anecdotally, the drought and subsequent global financial crisis changed the nature of employment in agriculture as operators let go of permanent employees in favour of casual and contract labour. They did so to help cope with variable environmental and market conditions and intensified competition for skills common to agriculture and mining.
Longer-term factors are also contributing to the downward trend in agricultural employment. Larger farm sizes, smaller household sizes, access to off-farm income, adoption of mechanisation and other technologies that reduce reliance on labour, and an ageing demographic are all affecting the size and make-up of the agricultural workforce. Since most employment in on-farm agriculture is in non-metropolitan areas, external factors associated with attracting people into rural and regional communities are also influencing agricultural workforce trends.
Historically, family-owned farming businesses tended to operate year-round largely without relying on non-family employees or using contractors for shearing and harvesting. More recently the shift towards larger farm sizes4, as businesses capitalise on economies of scale, together with smaller household sizes5 and family members obtaining off-farm employment, makes it increasingly unlikely that a single family can operate a farm without outside assistance, especially in peak periods. Adopting new technologies has abated the need for labour across some sectors, but it has also shifted the types of skills needed on-farm. The computer skills needed to operate a global positioning system-guided tractor, for example, differ significantly from the traditional skill set of a farm hand which predominantly centred on manual labour. While the education level of the agricultural workforce is increasing, so too is demand for the higher-level skills needed to implement on-farm innovations. Overall, the industry’s skills and experience have become concentrated into a smaller population of ageing workers, as less new entrants are coming into the industry.
As the pool of experienced people that agriculture has to draw on has gradually decreased, the need for agricultural businesses to employ and manage employees has grown. No longer able to rely on an existing job-ready workforce, the industry recognises the need for proactive approaches to attracting, retaining and developing people. Improving the workforce planning and human resource capabilities of agricultural employers is one response. This report reviews the measures some employers are taking so their workforces can meet their business needs. It considers how employers are identifying and addressing their workforce needs as well as their capabilities in managing people productively. An overview of the agricultural workforce follows.
4 ABARES 2013, Agricultural commodities: March quarter 2013, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, Canberra, March. CC BY 3.0.5 ABS 2010, Year Book Australia 2009-10, Canberra, Number 91, cat. no. 1301.0.
6
2.1.1 The agricultural workforce in Australia
In 2011–12, around 335 000 people were employed in agriculture, forestry and fishing6, making up 2.9 per cent of Australia’s workforce.7 At the same time, 121 000 businesses reported agriculture as their main activity across the country and 135 447 businesses reported some agricultural activity.8 Nearly 90 per cent of people employed in agriculture, forestry and fishing in August 2012 were employed in regional Australia.9 Over the five years to August 2012 employment in agriculture, forestry and fishing decreased by 26 400 (or 7.6 per cent), and is projected to decrease by another 13 500 (or 4.2 per cent) over the five years to November 2017.10
Agriculture makes up the largest proportion of employment across the agriculture, forestry and fishing industries. In 2011 it accounted for 152 564 full time and 53 526 part time employees.11 Most of the workforce is in New South Wales (28.2 per cent), Victoria (23.6 per cent) and Queensland (22.3 per cent)12 but the distribution of people fluctuates significantly between regions and across seasons. Victoria—specifically the Goulburn-Oven-Murray region—experienced the largest increase in employment over the five years to August 2012 while Queensland experienced the largest decline.13 By comparison, the vast bulk (87.2 per cent) of employment in mining, an industry with the second highest proportion of its employment in regional areas (61 per cent), was in Western Australia (41.7 per cent), Queensland (26.9 per cent) and New South Wales (18.6 per cent). Together these states accounted for 93.8 per cent of the growth in mining employment growth over the five years to May 2012.14 Employment in industries with the largest numbers of jobs in regional Australia—health care and social assistance, retail and trade and construction—are projected to make the largest contribution to employment growth nationally in the five years to November 2017.15
2.1.2 Ageing of the workforce in Australia
Australia’s population has steadily aged over recent decades as life expectancy has increased and the birth rate has declined. In the 20 years to 2010, the median age of the population increased 4.8 years to 36.9 years16 and in the 30 years to 2012 the proportion of people aged 55 years and over (mature aged) increased from 25.3 per cent to 31.3 per cent.17 The proportion of the Australian workforce that is mature aged also increased significantly over the past 30 years, up 5.6 per cent to
6 ABARES 2012, Agricultural commodity statistics 2012, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, December, Canberra.7 ABS 2011, Labour Force Survey, Canberra, cat. no. 6291.0.55.003 as cited in Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR) 2012, Industry Employment Outlook Report: Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing, Canberra.8 ABS 2012, Agricultural Commodities Australia 2010-11, Canberra, June. cat. no. 7121.0.9 DEEWR 2012, op. cit. 10 DEEWR 2012, Industry Employment Projections 2013 report, Canberra.11 ABS 2011, tables generated 26 February 2013 using ABS Tablebuilder Labour force status, Industry of employment (Agriculture; Agriculture, fisheries and forestry) 2011, Australia. According to the 2011 Census of Population and Housing there were 219 269 workers employed in agriculture however 13 179 of these employed people were either ‘away’ at the time of the Census or did not state the number of hours they worked, and were therefore neither classified as full nor part time.12 ABS 2012, Agricultural Commodities Australia 2010-11.13 ABS 2011, op.cit. as cited in DEEWR 2012, op. cit.14 ABS 2011, op.cit. as cited in DEEWR 2012, Industry Employment Outlook Report: Mining, Canberra.15 DEEWR 2012, Industry Employment Projections 2013 report.16 ABS 2010, Population by Age and Sex, Australian States and Territories, Canberra, June. cat. no. 3201.0 as cited in DEEWR 2012, Workforce Aging Report, Canberra, June.17 DEEWR 2012, Workforce Aging Report.
7
16.9 per cent in 2012.18 As the population continues to age in the coming decades, the share of mature-aged people in the workforce is expected to increase. In industries like agriculture, where exiting workers are not being replaced, the ageing workforce will have implications for labour supply.
Figure 2.2: Employment by age and industry (percentage share)—February 2012
91.1
88.2
88.1
87.7
87.2
86.0
85.6
84.1
84.0
83.7
83.1
82.8
82.6
82.1
81.0
79.8
79.6
77.9
77.1
66.0
8.9
11.8
11.9
12.3
12.8
14.0
14.4
15.9
16.0
16.3
16.9
17.2
17.4
17.9
19.0
20.2
20.4
22.1
22.9
34.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Accommodation and Food Services
Financial and Insurance Services
Mining
Information Media and Telecommunications
Retail Trade
Construction
Arts and Recreation Services
Other Services
Electricity, Gas, Water and Waste Services
Professional, Scientific and Technical Services
All Industries
Manufacturing
Public Administration and Safety
Wholesale Trade
Administrative and Support Services
Rental, Hiring and Real Estate Services
Health Care and Social Assistance
Education and Training
Transport, Postal and Warehousing
Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing
15 to 54 55 and over
Source: ABS Labour Force Survey, four quarter averages to February 2012 adapted from DEEWR 2012, Workforce Aging Report, Canberra, June.
At present, the agriculture, forestry and fishing workforce has the oldest age profile of any industry in Australia (Figure 2.2). In 2012, the median age of workers in the agricultural industry was 47 years, compared to 39 years for all industries (Figure 2.3).19 The median age of farmers or farm managers is even higher at 53 years, compared to 40 years for all other occupations, and 23 per cent of this cohort was aged 65 years and over, well above the three per cent of other workers.20 In addition to the largest proportion of mature-aged workers of any industry, the agricultural workforce as a whole has the lowest proportion of people aged 35 years and below, at 22.3 per cent compared to the industry average of 39.3 per cent.21 Only 13 per cent of farmers and farm managers are aged less than 35 years.22
The ageing of the agricultural workforce reflects the low levels of young people entering the industry and a cultural trend for mature-aged workers to remain in the workforce, or define themselves as part of the workforce, beyond retirement age. It also reflects that, as farms consolidate and become
18 Ibid.19 Ibid.20 ABS 2012, Australian Social Trends: Australian farming and farmers, Canberra, December. cat. no. 4102.0.21 ABS 2011, tables generated 26 February 2013 using ABS Tablebuilder Labour force status, Industry of employment (Agriculture; Agriculture, fisheries and forestry) 2011, Australia.22ABS 2012, Australian Social Trends: Australian farming and farmers.
8
bigger, a greater capital investment is required to acquire property and assets. This makes it hard for younger people to enter farming via farm ownership as capital is not accessible. Based on current trends, the Australian Farm Institute predicts that by 2018, 38 per cent of the agricultural workforce will be over 65 years of age, and 56 per cent over 55 years of age.23 Agriculture is also finding it difficult to attract mature-aged people from outside the industry. In the 10 years to 2012, mature-aged employment growth in agriculture, forestry and fishing decreased by 5.6 per cent while all other industries increased more than nine per cent.24
Figure 2.3: Median age of workers by industry—2011
26
32
36
37
37
38
38
39
39
39
40
41
41
41
41
43
43
44
44
47
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Accommodation and Food Services
Retail Trade
Arts and Recreation Services
Construction
Information Media and Telecommunications
Financial and Insurance Services
Other Services
All Industries
Mining
Professional, Scientific, Technical Services
Rental, Hiring and Real Estate Services
Administrative and Support Services
Electricity, Gas, Water, Waste Services
Manufacturing
Wholesale Trade
Health Care and Social Assistance
Public Administration and Safety
Education and Training
Transport, Postal and Warehousing
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing
Source: ABS Labour Force Survey–special order (four quarter average) adapted from DEEWR 2012, Workforce Aging Report, Canberra, June.
The continuing trend for mature-aged people to make up a larger proportion of the agricultural workforce reinforces the need for the industry to consider how to make employment in agriculture more attractive, both to recruit and retain new workers. Attracting employees is complex and can be managed in different ways. This may include improving the perception of agriculture as a career destination, taking steps to increase the number of people studying agricultural courses at the tertiary and vocational level and finding new and smarter ways to draw skilled people from other industries and underutilised segments of the population to agriculture, such as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Appropriate succession planning and new models of asset and business ownership are another way of attracting a workforce to farm businesses. Attracting or retaining family members as employees or partners provides a very important supply of motivated and loyal labour.
23 ACEgroup 2010, Towards a Better Understanding of Current and Future Human Resource Needs of Australian Agriculture, Research Report, Australian Farm Institute, Surry Hills, Australia.24 ABS Labour Force Survey, four quarter average to February 2002 and 2012 cited in DEEWR 2012, Workforce Aging Report.
9
2.1.3 Education in agriculture
The level of formal educational qualifications among people working in agriculture is relatively low but has been increasing over recent decades in response to the growing complexity of agricultural operations. In 2011, 36 per cent in the agricultural workforce held a post-school (vocational or higher-education) qualification including bachelor degrees, postgraduate qualifications, diplomas and certificates, up from 31.2 per cent in 2006.25 In 2012, by comparison, 59 per cent of the Australian population aged 15 to 64 years held post-school qualifications, up from 47 per cent over the previous decade.26
As shown in Figure 2.4, farm operators in the broadacre and dairy sectors are more likely to have completed four to six years of high school as their highest level of formal education (30 and 35 per cent respectively) than a trade or technical course (15 and 13 per cent respectively) or tertiary studies (18 and 10 per cent respectively). In contrast, spouses of farm operators in the broadacre and dairy sectors have higher levels of tertiary study attainment (27 and 16 per cent respectively) and lower rates of completion of trade/technical courses (6 and 7 per cent respectively).27
Figure 2.4: Education level of operator and spouse on dairy and broadacre farms
2
1
1
1
34
21
39
29
30
25
35
36
15
6
13
7
18
27
10
16
2
21
1
12
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
broadacre: operator
broadacre: spouse
dairy: operator
dairy: spouseNo formal education
Attended primary school
Completed 1-4 years high school
Completed 5-6 years high school
Completed trade/technical course
Completed tertiary studies
Managed farms-no information
People with qualifications in agricultural disciplines do not necessarily go on to work in the industry and those employed in the industry may have attained qualifications in other disciplines. This means that the proportion of the workforce with post-school qualifications in agriculture does not necessarily reflect the proportion working in agriculture with post-school qualifications. In 2011, 12.3 per cent in the agriculture workforce held a non-school qualification in agriculture, environmental and related studies, an increase from 10.8 per cent in 2006. This compares with 25 ABS 2011, tables generated 28 February 2013 using ABS Tablebuilder Industry of employment (Agriculture), Non-School Qualification: Level of Education 2006, 2011, Australia.26 ABS 2012, Education and Work, Australia, Canberra, May. cat. no. 6227.0.27 ABARES 2010-11, Australian Agricultural and Grazing Industries Survey 2010-11 (unpublished data); ABARES 2011-12, Australia Dairy Industry Survey (unpublished data).
10
6.5 per cent of those employed in agriculture that attained qualifications in engineering and related technologies and 4.6 per cent in management and commerce in 2006.28
One feature of the vocational education and training sector in agriculture is the difference between completion rates for units of competency and full qualifications. Agriculture has high completion rates for single units of competency and skill sets compared to other industries, and low completion rates for full qualifications. The low progression to full qualifications in agriculture has been attributed to a culture of incremental learning prevalent in rural Australia.29 This insight into how the agricultural workforce learns may have implications for workforce planning and development and is discussed in more detail in Chapter 6.
2.2 Characteristics of agricultural employers
In 2010–11, 121 000 businesses reported agriculture as their main activity in Australia and 135 447 reported some agricultural activity.30 Most farms had an estimated value of operations below $100 000 a year (52 per cent), while relatively few had an annual turnover in excess of $1 million (six per cent).31
According to the 2011 Census of Population and Housing, 157 144 people identified as farmers and farm managers with 142 537 of these identified as being primarily involved in agriculture32, which means farmers and farm managers account for more than half the agricultural workforce. Of these, 85 per cent were owners or family members contributing to the farm.33 Employment types of farmers and farm managers across sectors are shown in Table 2.1. The largest proportion of employment was found in the sheep, beef cattle and grain sector.
28 ABS 2011, tables generated 28 February 2013 using ABS Tablebuilder Industry of employment (Agriculture), Non-School Qualification: Field of Study 2006, 2011, Australia. 29 Agrifood Skills Australia 2012, Environmental Scan of the Agrifood Industry 2012, Canberra.30 ABS 2012, Agricultural Commodities Australia 2010-11.31 Ibid.32 The total number of people who identified their occupation as ‘farmers and farm managers’ in agriculture was 142 537, while across all industries 157 144 people identified their occupation as ‘farmers and farm managers’. The difference (14 607) are farmers and farm managers who do not identify themselves as being primarily in the agriculture industry.33 ABS 2011, tables generated 4 March 2013 using ABS Tablebuilder Employment type, Occupation (Farmers and Farm Managers) 2011, Australia.
11
Table 2.1: Employment types of farmers and farm managers in agricultural sub-sectors34
Employee not owning business
Owner managers of incorporated
enterprises
Owner managers of unincorporated
enterprises
Contributing family workers
Not stated Not applicable
Agriculture, nfd1 692 650 2231 964 41 0Nursery and Floriculture Production 471 280 589 259 10 0Mushroom and Vegetable Growing 1963 1286 2986 1039 56 0Fruit and Tree Nut Growing 2964 1744 3921 3195 63 0Sheep, Beef Cattle and Grain Farming 9750 11287 42050 28384 623 0Other Crop Growing 844 1054 2449 1384 41 0Dairy Cattle Farming 2636 1745 7202 1702 114 0Poultry Farming 755 449 571 189 12 0Deer Farming 6 0 14 18 0 0Other Livestock Farming 1167 443 1324 890 30 0TOTAL 21248 18938 63337 38024 990 0Data Source: 2011 Census of Population and Housing1 not further defined
Farmers and Farm Managers
Although it is not possible to definitively determine whether a farm is family owned from the data in Table 2.1, the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES) estimates that about 95 per cent of broadacre and dairy farms in Australia are family operated and at least partly family-owned, which probably reflects the proportion of family farms across sectors. Farm surveys conducted by ABARES indicate that in the broadacre35 and dairy36 sectors a majority of farms (78 and 86 per cent respectively) are partnerships, less than one-fifth are run by sole traders and two per cent are proprietary companies.
A breakdown of farmers and farm managers by the number of employees in the businesses they work in indicates that owner-managers of unincorporated farms with no employees (44 723 people) account for approximately 20 per cent of the agricultural workforce and approximately 48 per cent of all owner-managers. Together, owner-managers of unincorporated farms (22 798) and incorporated (21 377) farms with one to 19 employees account for approximately 20 per cent of the agricultural workforce and approximately 48 per cent of all owner-managers. The ABS defines small businesses as those with one to 19 employees. This means that most (96 per cent) of farms have less than 20 employees, of which half have no employees.37 In reality, most farms that employ people are likely to have five or less employees, based on research across different industries, although the ABS does not classify businesses into smaller categories based on employee number (Box 1).
Available statistics for the pastoral beef, sheepmeat and wool industries, for example, indicate that 58 per cent of businesses employ five people or less38 and this is likely to be similar across other agricultural industries. Similarly, a survey conducted by the Queensland Government found that family members comprise the majority of the workforce of horticulture and beef enterprises in the
34 Table 2–1 shows the employment types that farmers and farm managers can be classified into, distributed across agricultural sub-sectors. The ABS uses the term ‘owner managers’, which seems similar to ‘owner operators’. Note that an incorporated business is defined by the ABS as a business entity registered as a separate legal entity to its members or owners (i.e. it is a limited liability company).35 ABARES 2010-11, op. cit.36 ABARES 2011-12, op. cit.37 ABS 2011, tables generated 4 March 2013 using ABS Tablebuilder Employment type, Number of employees, Industry of employment (Agriculture) 2011, Australia.38 Meat & Livestock Australia Limited (MLA) 2008, Attracting and retaining staff in Australia’s beef, sheep and pastoral wool industries, Sydney, December. Co-funded by MLA and Australian Wool Innovation Limited.
12
state.39 It is important to note that these figures probably do not include seasonal or contract workers and that some businesses may not have included family members as employees. The picture is nevertheless clear: most agricultural businesses are farms with few permanent employees. In assessing the workforce planning and human resource management capabilities of agricultural employers NRAC focused on this cohort, especially when considering potential changes that may assist the industry to meet its labour needs.
Box 1: Businesses with five or less employees – a definition
Throughout this report, business size is based on the number of permanent employees. NRAC defines ‘small’ agricultural businesses as those with five or less permanent employees, including family members. Although definitive statistics on the number of agricultural businesses of this size are not available, this cohort likely represents most agricultural employers.
FINDING
Internal and external factors, such as the ageing population and increasing mechanisation in some sectors, are changing the agricultural workforce and the ability of the industry to meet current and future workforce needs.
An increased focus on the workforce management and planning capabilities of agricultural employers may be one way to address the labour and skills challenges facing the industry.
39 Queensland Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (QDAFF) 2012, Industry Skills and Workforce Development Report, Queensland, June. CC. BY 3.0.
13
3. Understanding workforce planning
This chapter examines the potential for enhancing workforce planning and people management capabilities to address the workforce needs of agricultural businesses. It discusses labour as a productivity lever and describes the process of workforce planning and how it might be applied across agricultural businesses.
3.1 Why workforce planning?
Increasing resource-use efficiency is a basis for improving productivity. While there has been significant focus in the agricultural industry on the more efficient use of natural resources and capital—predominantly by adopting new production technologies and practices—there has been less focus on the productivity gains of improving labour-use efficiency and effectiveness. As described in Chapter 2, this may be because agriculture has historically had access to a sufficient, replenishing, pool of skilled people and has not necessarily had to consider ways to manage people for effectiveness and productivity. However, as the pool of skilled labour shrinks and businesses potentially look to employ people outside the family unit, the workforce planning and human resource management capabilities of agricultural employers become more important.
3.2 What is workforce planning?
Workforce planning means having the right people with the right skills in the right place at the right time. It is a broad concept describing the people management and planning processes a business undertakes to achieve this.
NRAC sees workforce planning as a continuum of informal and formal activities occurring across a range of time frames (short to long term), and levels (business, industry, sector or region). These activities aim to maximise the efficiencies, and minimise the risks, of employing people. It involves identifying ways to address the gaps between current and future labour and skills needs.
Workforce development is related to, but different from, workforce planning. Development is the actions or activities bridging the gaps identified by the planning40—including investment in skills training and development for employees—although the distinction is often blurred and the two terms are used interchangeably.
Steps usually involved in workforce planning, whether conducted informally or formally, include:
identifying purpose and aims understanding supply (current workforce profile) understanding demand (future workforce profile) analysing the gaps between supply and demand
40 Workforce planning consultant, Canberra consultation forum, 3 December 2012.
14
developing strategies to bridge those gaps.At industry, sectoral and regional scale, workforce planning involves conducting an environmental scan through, for example, surveys and research and analysis, which can inform development of helpful tools, training programs and resources. While conducting such a scan is likely beyond the scope of individual businesses, the outcomes of industry and regional workforce planning can be used to feed into workforce planning at the individual business level.
Workforce planning is part of broader business planning and a process that evolves over time.41 It can include activities for managing people in the short term and for developing and implementing strategic planning activities in the long term. Workforce planning can be a formal process culminating in a workforce plan and documented procedures, as is often the case for businesses with large workforces and designated human resource capacity. It can also be a less formal and undocumented process that a business uses to manage and attract, retain and develop its workforce. These more informal practices can range from short-term solutions for retaining employees to long-term plans for attracting and developing employees.
3.3 The language of workforce planning
Language used to describe workforce planning usually targets larger, more formally structured businesses. Businesses that employ hundreds or thousands of people are more likely to be aware of the impact that workforce issues, such as employee turnover, have on overall productivity and therefore undertake more formal workforce planning processes. They are also able to dedicate more resources to workforce planning, including through a management team, human resource personnel and access to employee and industry data.
For most agricultural businesses—owner-operated farms that do not employ many permanent employees—the link between people and the bottom line is often not clearly defined. Workforce planning for agricultural businesses employing five or less people is therefore not likely to be articulated as ‘human resources (HR)’, ‘capabilities’ or even ‘workforce’ but instead as the way employers interpret their role in managing employees and how this contributes to business success. Rather than setting out to conduct workforce planning, a change in circumstances may cause businesses with five or less employees to reassess their labour and skills needs and think differently about their employees. Examples of changed circumstances might include succession, business growth resulting in the workforce no longer being sufficient, sudden injury or illness, or changes in on-farm technology that require new and different skills. It may also be the case that agricultural employers are undertaking workforce planning activities—such as developing employees in anticipation of skills needs—without realising they are doing so.
For this assessment NRAC interpreted workforce planning to be all activities associated with managing and developing people in an agricultural business, including managing family members, in the short and long term. NRAC wanted to determine how employers managed and developed employees and aligned this with running a productive business, whether through formal or informal activities. NRAC therefore sought to determine the extent to which agricultural employers think
41 Australian Public Service Commission 2011, Workforce Planning Guide, www.apsc.gov.au/publications-and-media/current-publications/workforce-planning-guide [accessed on 6 May 2013].
15
about managing people, how they adapt to changes in labour and skills needs and what retention practices they use in running their businesses.
3.4 The workforce management and planning continuum
NRAC identified a large degree of informal and formal workforce management in the agricultural industry, which sometimes formed the basis for long-term workforce planning capability. Most agricultural businesses have engaged in some form of workforce planning by virtue of employing and retaining an employee, be that a family member, permanent employee or casual worker.
Workforce planning is likely ongoing and integrated with other aspects of running the farm business. For instance, it may be undertaken informally when a farmer plans for a coming harvest—by identifying tasks, considering the skills and capacity needed to complete these tasks, determining whether the skills and capacity are available and, if not, devising strategies to acquire them.
Workforce planning over the longer term may involve a farmer assessing whether the skills needed on the farm will change, and adapting employment practices and training to ensure access to these skills for the future. In this sense, workforce planning can be simple changes to the way the business engages with employees, such as providing a job description and emphasising career progression, or reorganising work schedules so employees can meet child care obligations and remain employed.
NRAC found less evidence of engagement in forward planning and development associated with longer-term workforce planning. Although businesses with five or less employees may recognise that people are an important resource, they often needed to develop confidence in the short-term management of employing people—for example, fulfilling WHS requirements and developing an employment agreement—before considering elements of longer-term workforce planning.
NRAC heard from farm management consultants and advisors that there is a tendency for employers to only assess their role in managing people after a crisis, such as an injury or industrial relations dispute. People management is often seen as risk management and in some cases it was avoided because of the perceived costs associated with labour in a business. As businesses became more confident in employing people, and their capacity to deal with the practical aspects of employment improved, confidence in thinking about people management for the long-term tended to improve.
Although larger employers generally have more capacity to plan for their workforce in the long term, agricultural employers across the industry display various degrees of awareness, involvement and success in workforce management and planning. NRAC heard that the transition from reactive to proactive approaches to people management usually corresponded to: implementing more formal employment practices; occurred once businesses employed between three and five employees; and when businesses first found it necessary to employ non-family workers to carry out farm work.
16
Box 2 presents an example of workforce planning in an agricultural business of five or less employees.
Box 2: The positive spin offs of workforce planning at Petali Merinos – a case study
Martin and Cheryl Oppenheimer run Petali Merinos, a wool and meat enterprise in Walcha, New South Wales. Martin is farm manager and the couple breed Poll Merinos and White Suffolks. The Oppenheimers employ one full-time assistant farm manager and other casual and part-time employees as needed throughout the year. For some casual work, such as shearing, fencing and wool harvesting, they use contractors.
The farm has not had problems with retention which Martin attributes to ongoing workforce planning. ‘I’m always looking ahead, not only for people with the skills we need now, but for the people and skills we’ll need in six months or again this time next year,’ says Martin. ‘Managing people is one of the most difficult and the most costly parts of our business, but I think we get it right most of the time.’
The Oppenheimers understand that keeping employees happy and motivated is good for business and part of the reason they have access to a capable and motivated workforce. Martin says having the right people, with the right skills, and the right attitude is important, and it is essential to have a good relationship with those working in the business:
People need to be happy with their job and have a sense of ownership about it. If you respect people and their work they will respect the business in return. I make sure that the farm is an attractive place to work, including for contractors—modern facilities, safe and clean as possible and stock in good condition. I also make sure to keep in regular contact with the contractors and to deliver the work they are expecting. They take care of the animals and do a good job. For our permanent employee, I also think about whether he is happy in other aspects of his life—that his house is kept well maintained, that the hours are not a problem.
Although the Oppenheimers acknowledge that their permanent assistant farm manager might only stay for a limited time they still see benefit in investing in his development. Developing the skills and capabilities of employees is part of Martin and Cheryl’s approach to maximising business efficiency. Last year, for example, they provided the farm manager with the opportunity to attend a leadership course, even though it was during crutching and put some strain on the business. The reward for the Oppenheimers was a more highly motivated and engaged employee who strives to improve their business. Says Martin:
You have to understand their life and goals. There’s no one-size fits all, it depends on the type of person and what stage they are in their career. It’s a partnership—satisfying their needs as well as ours. They enjoy their work more and are more invested in the success of the business. They bring back that enthusiasm and share new information and ideas. I like that. You get all round better results for the employee and the business.
The Oppenheimers also have regular performance discussions with their employees, to ensure issues, from either side, are raised and resolved.
Martin and Cheryl are also interested in learning from other employers in the region. ‘I’m aware of the best operators in the region and I compare notes with them,’ says Martin. ‘Top operators understand the value of good people and do whatever they have to do to keep them. They’re willing to pay top dollar, but it’s not only about money, I’m convinced of that.’
17
3.5 Benefits of workforce planning for agricultural employers
Workforce management and planning relate to managing the ups and downs of employing people—maximising efficiency and minimising the risks of labour. The main benefits of workforce management and planning are increased employee retention and decreased costs associated with sourcing and engaging new employees and training them. This improves business productivity by maximising the efficiency of labour resources and minimising the risks in employing people.
One issue NRAC identified is that the benefits of workforce management and planning are less tangible than the benefits of managing other resources in a business and generally difficult to express in dollar terms. Benefits extend from recognising that the right people and the right skills contribute to business success and that this involves meeting workforce needs. Businesses acting on this basis experience benefits such as high retention and better overall productivity through a more engaged workforce, as well as decreased recruitment costs. These benefits are closely linked with employee satisfaction and workplace culture, which flow back to productivity improvements and also make it easier for businesses to attract employees. Ultimately a business that is effectively meeting its skills needs and keeping its workforce happy is a more satisfying and productive place to work.
Efficiencies associated with decreased employee turnover or improved retention, as a result of workforce planning, are significant. NRAC recognised the potential to achieve better returns on labour resources by approaching workforce management and planning more formally or by making more effective use of labour. The replacement costs for each employee leaving a business are estimated to be around 150 per cent of their salary on average.42 Employers often underestimate the costs associated with employee turnover, only taking into account the direct costs of hiring a new employee, such as the cost of advertising the position and the time spent recruiting. Yet indirect costs also make a substantial contribution to overall replacement expenses.43 These include factors such as decreased productivity for other employees as they take on extra work, the cost of orientation and development activities involved in replacing lost knowledge and skills, and the impact of employee turnover on workforce morale and business reputation. When these indirect costs are factored in, the argument for increasing time and effort spent on improving retention becomes more convincing.
A 2008 study commissioned by Australian Wool Innovation (AWI) and Meat & Livestock Australia (MLA) highlighted the hidden costs of employee turnover in pastoral livestock industries and emphasised the vital role managers play in attracting and retaining staff.44 The study reported that employee turnover cost the industry between $336 and $364 million a year and on average around $33 500 per employee per farm. Based on a national workforce survey, the AWI – MLA study also indicated that pay alone did not attract or retain employees but that managers influenced workforce
42 S Hewlett, C Luce, P Shiller and S Southwell 2005, The hidden brain drain: Off-ramps and on-ramps in women’s careers, Harvard Business Review research report, Centre for Work–life Policy, New York as cited in Hudson Highland Group Inc. 2005, The Case for Work/Life Balance: Closing the Gap between Policy and Practice, Adelaide, May. 20:20 Series.43 S Rochester 2009, What you should know about employee turnover, Balance at Work, special report www.balanceatwork.com.au [accessed on 6 May 2013].44MLA 2008, op cit.
18
engagement and retention. These findings reinforce that processes helping employers improve retention benefit business productivity and profitability.
By understanding and responding to workforce needs, employers can better gauge the drivers of job satisfaction and improve their ability to retain employees. Multiple studies show a strong relationship between employee engagement, employee retention and an organisation’s financial performance and productivity.45 For example, in 2004 the Corporate Leadership Council conducted a survey of over 50 000 employees from 59 organisations, 30 countries and 14 industries to identify drivers of employee engagement and provide its members—predominantly large, global businesses—with employee engagement tools and strategies. The study estimated that more committed employees perform better and that moving from strong disengagement to strong engagement decreased the probability of employee departure by 87 per cent.46 Similarly, the AWI – MLA study found, in an agricultural context, that employers who strove to meet employee expectations were more engaged in their work. The number one expectation listed by employees of pastoral livestock businesses with five or less employees was ‘feeling trusted and valued as a person.’ Around 70 per cent of managers and employees from the smaller businesses who responded to the workforce survey indicated they were highly engaged. The survey indicated this meant they were ‘... satisfied with their job, committed, loyal, proud of working for their enterprise, had good morale, felt trusted and valued, go the extra mile and believe they have a long term future with their employer.’47
Data on the benefits of workforce management and planning for small and agricultural businesses are difficult to find, however literature on large businesses indicates that the benefits of good workforce planning are strongly linked with the benefits of good business management and positively influence productivity and other measures of business success.48 A study of management practices in Australian manufacturing businesses found that flexible people management is ‘a key element of successful management, and well managed firms also tend to exhibit superior innovation capabilities.’49
3.6 Engagement of agricultural employers in workforce planning and human resource activities
NRAC consulted across the agricultural industry to assess the extent to which agricultural employers were engaged in workforce planning and human resource activities. NRAC consulted peak industry bodies, skills councils in Australia and overseas, RDCs, workforce planning consultants, workforce researchers, relevant Australian Government and state government agencies, education and training providers, local council representatives and a range of agricultural businesses—including
45 Watson Wyatt Worldwide 2008, Driving Business Results Through Continuous Engagement: WorkUSA survey report 2008/2009, United States 2008-US-0232.46 Corporate Leadership Council 2004, Driving Performance and Retention through Employee Engagement, Corporate Executive Board, Washington.47 AWI 2013, AWI R&D Update: Attracting and retaining staff in small pastoral enterprises.48 N Bloom and J Van Reenen 2006, Measuring and Explaining Management Practices Across Firms and Countries, London, March. Centre for Economic Performance Discussion Paper No 716.49 University of Technology Sydney, Macquarie Graduate School of Management and the Society of Knowledge Economics 2009, Management Matters in Australia: Just how productive are we? Findings from the Australian Management Practices and Productivity global benchmarking project, Canberra, November. Research report commissioned by the then Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research.
19
contractors, farm business advisors and consultants, service providers, farmers from different sectors and regions across Australia, and others.
NRAC heard from the Canadian Agricultural Human Resource Council about formal workforce planning and human resource management processes across their industry. In 2009, the Council performed a study of labour market information which included a survey of more than 500 agricultural employers about their formal recruitment and retention practices.50 The study found that only one-quarter of farm employers surveyed across Canada had a formal human resource plan and one-third were not undertaking specific activities to recruit or retain workers. This was the case even though close to 60 per cent of employers who completed the survey reported having difficulty hiring new employees and 80 per cent of respondents reported a vacancy in one or more positions.
To ensure a broad range of perspectives from Australian agricultural employers, NRAC sought the views of consultants, advisors and small and large agricultural businesses about the workforce-related practices of clients and colleagues. The general view across industry was that most agricultural employers, regardless of scale, were not engaged in formal practices of workforce planning or human resource management. This was particularly apparent for businesses with five or less employees which had a relatively low level of understanding of the formal processes associated with workforce planning. Reasons for this were that agricultural employers generally had not been introduced to, or trained in, workforce planning and did not understand the language describing the formal practices associated with it. Some employers were not aware of the value of workforce planning and/or did not know how to access information about ways to better conduct workforce planning.
Most work undertaken in Australian agricultural businesses is by family members or is outsourced to contractors and labour hire companies. Many farming businesses do not recognise themselves as employers or do not consider family members as employees. It is subsequently much harder to engage these businesses in workforce planning or human resource management. NRAC heard this was the case in general for small businesses, rather than for agricultural employers specifically. Consultants and advisors with knowledge of workforce-related practices, as well as individual employers of various sizes, informed NRAC that workforce and human resource issues in the agricultural industry are better approached by focusing on people, culture, training and retention.
Employers with five or less employees almost always commented that profitability was their first priority but generally they did not perceive workforce management and planning practices as having a major impact on business profitability. NRAC heard anecdotal evidence that these employers did not consider workforce planning to be a high priority and they did not see the benefit of investing scarce time and financial resources into it. Considering these factors NRAC recognised that the cohort of agricultural employers who participated in consultations were likely to be the ones most aware of and engaged in workforce planning.3.7 Approaches of agricultural employers with five or less employees to
workforce planning and human resource management
50 Canadian Agricultural Human Resource Council 2009, Labour market information on recruitment and retention in primary agriculture, Ottawa.
20
NRAC found that agricultural employers with five or less employees are unlikely to formalise workforce planning processes even if they recognise the importance of workforce planning or human resource activities. Most employers with five or less employees do not have the structure, resources or skills to support formal workforce planning.
Bill Hamill, Chief Executive Officer of Rural Industries Skill Training, one of Australia’s largest independent agricultural training providers, says there is ‘very little engagement in workforce planning across agriculture.’ His view is that:
Larger producers, with more than three to five staff, tend to be more switched on and understand workforce planning, although they won’t necessarily have a workforce plan. Operations with one to two staff are not doing workforce planning, just operating day-to-day. They are not looking ahead at what they’ll need in two years. Employing more than two to three staff is usually a trigger for becoming involved in workforce planning as at this size conflict is more difficult to ignore.
As most agricultural businesses are family businesses, most workforce issues centre on managing family members. NRAC heard that farming businesses did not always consider family members as employees requiring formal processes (salary and position descriptions) and therefore did not perceive the need to engage in workforce planning. Employers with five or less employees were more familiar with people management through succession planning. NRAC often heard businesses distinguish between the way family and non-family employees are managed, with less formal, and higher risk processes—particularly around WHS issues—applied to family employees. Businesses that employed more than three to five people tended not to differentiate between family and non-family employees.
NRAC observed that businesses employing permanent, non-family employees were more engaged in human resource activities or thinking about their workforce needs. Businesses employing non-family employees were more likely to provide a formal structure to their relationships in the form of employment agreements, position descriptions and compliance documentation. Some employers noted that these requirements ‘created discipline’ and were easier to implement than providing structure to family employment relationships. In some cases the experience of employing a non-family member informed subsequent employment practices with family members. Similarly, employers with five or less employees implementing succession plans were more adept at, or used to, considering their business and workforce needs over the long term. Many understood that meeting employee needs was part of attracting and retaining people even if there were no formal processes in place to manage their relationship with employees.
While acknowledging that succession planning is a complex and unresolved issue for many farm businesses, businesses reported there may be scope to approach workforce planning through broader discussions about succession planning and tailoring language towards people rather than workforce. The corollary to this is that many businesses with five or less employees will continue to draw a distinction between family and non-family employees and the skills and involvement necessary for succession planning versus workforce planning. An alternative, according to consultants and advisors working in this area, is to change the discussion to issues around business transitions and away from differences between the roles of people in business success.
21
Box 3: Business transitions – a definition
Rather than talking about succession planning or asset planning, Dairy Australia’s The People in Dairy program focuses on business transitions. This term encourages thinking about assets and models of ownership for overall business success rather than succession planning and the family and non-family divide.
3.8 Approaches of larger agricultural businesses to workforce planning and human resource management
While most agricultural businesses employ five or less employees, a significant number, especially in the pastoral and service sectors, employ hundreds. In general NRAC observed that larger businesses had more structured approaches to workforce management—this is not unique to the agricultural industry. Larger businesses tended to employ dedicated human resource personnel and focus on mitigating compliance risk through documented induction and WHS procedures. Some pastoral companies, for example, told NRAC they send their new jackeroos and jillaroos on a two-week induction course off-site before they are allowed to work on the company’s properties.
Large businesses acknowledged the financial benefit of workforce management and planning although being large and handling matters formally did not necessarily solve all of a business’s labour and skills needs. Large pastoral businesses and grain handling companies told NRAC they experienced challenges attracting young people to remote areas and experimented with retention strategies to motivate employees to stay. NRAC heard that these businesses are changing their approaches to employment and people management. For example, one pastoral company was trialling cash incentives for returning employees. Similarly, service providers expressed difficulty in sourcing skilled employees who were also in demand in the resources sector. For example, an agricultural service provider told NRAC it was especially difficult to find diesel engineers and boiler makers due to competition with mining. One solution to the lack of local labour was to source skilled migrants from overseas through regional labour agreements and the Australian Government’s 457 visa program.
3.9 Sectoral approaches to employment
NRAC observed differences in approaches to employment across agricultural sectors. In some sectors such as dairy even small-scale businesses needed to employ people, for example relief milkers, and the owners of dairy businesses therefore had more experience with employment processes. This might explain why the dairy sector has prioritised people issues, allocating explicit resources to researching and addressing people related challenges and opportunities.
Farm management consultants and advisors consulted by NRAC also identified that farm owners who had a better idea of enterprise and industry-wide profit margins, and financial inputs and outputs, were better able to determine the financial and productivity impacts of their management actions, including the management of their employees.
22
NRAC also heard that businesses, particularly in the broadacre sector, were progressively replacing their reliance on labour by investing in mechanisation or labour-saving technologies, or through outsourcing to contractors. Employers viewed this as improving efficiency by decreasing labour costs and mitigating the risk associated with making the financial and time commitment to a permanent employee. While investing in technology decreased the need for labour, it changed the skills needs of businesses. For example, the cotton industry’s recent move to round bale pickers has decreased the need for labour during harvest but increased the need for skills in machine operation. In another example, the inability to find semi-skilled employees, or afford equipment, led employers to outsource labour to contractors or use labour hire companies and improve their skills in managing relationships with contractors. This was the case in the cropping and pastoral industry for discrete tasks such as harvest.
NRAC also noted that sectoral approaches to employment may be changing as the industry emerges from a prolonged drought and people return to agriculture from the mining sector. Many agricultural employers expressed desire for permanent employees, especially those in semi-skilled or assistant manager roles who could work across the business. It was apparent that fluctuations in the fortunes of the agricultural sector resulted in fluctuations in workforce needs and that these trends varied across sectors.
FINDINGS
The description of workforce planning as a formal process, using terminology targeted at large businesses, can prevent agricultural employers from understanding its relevance, especially the majority, who employ five or less employees.
Approaches to workforce planning differ depending on business size, with larger businesses generally implementing more formal human resource management processes. Overlaid on this are differences around sectors and regions, which also influence workforce planning approaches.
Workforce planning refers to a continuum of informal and formal activities, including the practical aspects of people management and employment, as well as longer-term, forward-thinking planning processes aimed at maximising labour efficiency. Informal processes may refer to approaches to employment decided through discussions with employees rather than formal documents and can involve flexible working arrangements in less busy times or providing the opportunity to attend training and development days. Formalised processes can include developing and documenting position descriptions and performance reviews, and documenting development plans for employees.
Informal or unstructured workforce planning occurs across the industry although it is often not identified as workforce planning. A minority of agricultural employers are engaged in formal workforce planning practices.
23
4. Use of workforce planning in the Australian agricultural sector
This chapter outlines the workforce challenges facing many Australian agricultural businesses and how they are being addressed.
4.1 Workforce challenges facing agricultural employers
NRAC heard that many businesses, regardless of sector and size, faced similar challenges around meeting their workforce needs. Some of these issues are described below.
Keeping employees satisfied
This was the biggest single issue employers identified, as it directly influenced retention and had an impact on the employer’s reputation and ability to recruit people. NRAC heard that in businesses with five or less employees, there were limited opportunities for offering large salaries and varied work experiences. This could make it challenging to keep employees satisfied, especially those who had been there long term or those who were young with career aspirations. NRAC heard that often it was the little things that made a difference.
We work for wonderful people who appreciate my husband and myself. They are very keen to help us reach our goals and they support all our ideas and dreams ... I don’t think we will be leaving anytime soon.
MLA factsheet51
We’ve got a consistent, long-term, local workforce. They seem to enjoy being around. They like the variety of the work, not knowing what they are going to be doing each day, that’s seen as an attraction. Our employees must be happy—we’ve got no problems with retention.
Jane Dent, co-owner, TasGlobal Seeds
51 MLA 2011, Fact sheet: Medium employers – attracting and retaining staff in the pastoral livestock industry, September.
24
Box 4: Happy campers keep coming back to Reid Fruits – a case study
Based in the Derwent Valley, Tasmania, Debra and Tim Reid, own and manage a cherry and apple exporting business—Reid Fruits. The Reid family have had a continuous involvement in the Tasmanian fruit industry since 1856. They have 100 hectares of cherry trees and 20 hectares of apple trees. They employ 12 permanent staff but this expands to 400 to 600 workers throughout the harvest season.
Debra says the company does not have difficulty sourcing workers in any given year:
We received well over 2000 applications for casual positions last year through our website—too many for us to employ. Locals are given first preference and we try to make sure they are the first on and the last to leave over the harvest season. Some of them come back each year so they know the crop and the work, which is great.
In conjunction with employing their own workers the company has also employed Independent Contractors for the harvesting of fruit. Many seasonal workers from overseas return to Reid Fruits for more than one season (taking advantage of the second year visa conditions):
We get lots of returning employees, especially French Canadians for the picking work, and Asian students and backpackers in the Export Centre, coming back with their friends in the second year. Over the years we’ve also developed a core group of a hundred or so local people for work who return annually, including migrant groups such as the Sudanese, Bhutanese and Afghans.
Debra’s approach is to treat people well so they, in turn, treat Reid Fruits well. She and her husband consider their workers as part of a team, an approach that works well. Debra does not expect workers to perform tasks that a manager would not do if required. She also tries to make employees comfortable and as content as possible:
It can be hard, monotonous work as every cherry has to be picked and packed individually. But the fruit won’t wait—we need people who are prepared to work long hours at a constant rate, so we believe they need to be remunerated accordingly. It’s the little things that make a difference. Making sure there’s cold water and icy poles in the fridge, celebrating Australia Day with lamingtons at their afternoon tea break, and putting on a BBQ at the end of harvest to show our appreciation. These things don’t cost much money, but are appreciated by the staff.
Debra is the company’s work health and safety (WHS) officer, the HACCP (food safety) practitioner and is responsible for managing five other Quality Assurance programs, export documentation and registration and overseeing the daily operations of the office administration. She has a full time Office Assistant throughout the year and two casual office assistants during the harvest period. She describes how inducting workers is a major process:
Inducting the workers each season is a big task, although it’s easier with returning workers. There’s a lot of work involved in putting together the employment document and every employee has to sign the document before they can commence work. It is a requirement for overseas workers to show their passport and also their work permit. We won’t let anyone start work unless all their documents are in order—it can be very costly to the company if these processes are not followed.
Debra believes a skills passport would be beneficial, so employers know what experience and skills base the seasonal workers are starting from.
25
Meeting seasonal and harvest labour requirements
This was a recurring theme across a number of industries during NRAC’s consultations. Employers needing a large group of seasonal employees generally agreed there is a local shortage of these types of workers, attributed to people moving away from rural areas and competition for labour with the mining sector. The situation varied between regions and sectors but most employers NRAC consulted met their seasonal labour needs by employing backpackers or immigrant workers, directly or through labour hire companies. The biggest issue employers identified with this was the cost of hiring and training seasonal workers every season, which placed significant strain on businesses of all sizes.
Box 5: Workforce planning on a remote horticulture farm – a case study
Melanie and Matthew Gray purchased Ceres Farm, a horticulture operation on the Ord River in Kununurra, two years ago. They grow around 350ha of fruit, vegetables, chia and chickpeas. The Grays are the business’s only permanent employees although they also employ a tractor driver on a casual basis throughout the year. Their workforce increases up to about 15 employees during the peak season. ‘Most of our seasonal workers, employed to pick fruit, are overseas backpackers, about 80 per cent, as well as some Australians,’ says Melanie. ‘We’ll get most of them from the job shop in town; others will ring me directly looking for work.’
Melanie’s experience is that most of her casual employees are travelling on the Australian Government’s Working Holiday Maker visa:
The requirement to work in agriculture to be eligible for a second year working holiday maker visa is the only thing bringing backpackers to Kununurra. Without this requirement no-one would come to pick fruit on our farm, it’s just too remote and the work is too hard and physical for most ordinary Australians. We’ve considered the Seasonal Workers Program for sourcing seasonal labour but the upfront costs are inhibitory, especially as we can’t be sure we’ll be able to provide work for more than one season.
The Grays find that on-farm induction and training seasonal employees takes up a lot of time and resources, and they are considering using contractors to source seasonal workers, to take the strain off of them associated with training and re-training workers throughout the season.
Melanie is responsible for human resource management. She usually accesses new information about ways in which she can improve the farm, including how to manage her relationship with employees, on the internet or through word-of-mouth from other farmers. She has also participated in rural business leadership courses.
I perform exit surveys on an employee’s last day in order to see where things can be improved. I’ve received some positive information this way, for example about how I should change our advertisement for the tractor driver position. I have also received feedback about the amenities on-farm—things that employees might not mention otherwise. This allows my husband and I to consider other people’s views to better improve our business.
Melanie believes that resources designed to help with workforce procedures, such as an exit survey or employment template, would be helpful.
While employers preferred to use local workers where possible, they noted there were not enough of them to meet needs. Using backpackers enabled employers to get the job done without
26
negatively impacting on productivity. NRAC heard that the use of grey nomads to fill seasonal labour needs was limited. Some employers considered that backpackers only sought agricultural work in remote areas because, in doing so, they are eligible for a working holiday maker visa for a second year.
The agricultural industry has historically been unable to fill seasonal shortages with local Australian workers52, which has in part led to the development of a number of migration and seasonal worker programs. These programs have generally been well accepted and used by the agricultural industry and have largely alleviated the shortage of low skilled and seasonal workers.
Some employers, with smaller workforce requirements, used a part-time workforce comprised of local people, including semi-retired farmers, to meet needs. The industry recognised that as the workforce continues to age some of these workers will no longer be available.
Box 6: Australian Government Visa Programs
The Australian Government has developed a number of migration and seasonal worker programs and visas to alleviate the shortage of seasonal and highly skilled workers. Some are described here.
Seasonal Worker Program
Employers who can prove they cannot fill vacancies locally can access seasonal labour from eight participating Pacific Island nations and East Timor. The Seasonal Worker Program, administered by the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, is available to employers in the horticulture sector and being trialled in the cotton, cane and fisheries sectors, with 12 000 visas available. Employers who use the program gain access to a seasonal workforce that remains throughout the season and has the ability to return for future seasons. An independent evaluation of the program pilot found that employers had reduced business costs associated with reduced employee turnover and training costs and productivity increased due to the skills obtained during the workers’ stay, particularly for repeat workers. There are associated administrative and other costs for employers using the Seasonal Worker Program.
Working Holiday Maker Visa (417) Program
The Working Holiday Maker Visa (417) Program encourages cultural exchange and closer ties between arrangement countries by allowing young people to have an extended holiday in Australia, supplemented by short-term employment. Administered by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, visas are available to passport holders from 19 counties. Backpackers can use this program to obtain short-term work while holidaying throughout Australia and at the same time help meet employers’ seasonal needs for low-skilled labour. Visa holders are eligible for a second year visa if they work in a designated industry, including agriculture, in a rural location.
Temporary Skilled Visa (457)
For highly skilled positions that cannot be filled by Australian workers, a range of temporary skilled worker visas are available through the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. These can be applied for independently, or individuals can be nominated by a business or government body, or sponsored by a relative. The Skilled Occupation List, informed by input about skills shortages from
52 Senate Standing Committee on Employment, Workplace Relations and Education 2006, Perspectives on the future of the harvestlabour force, Canberra, October.
27
Australian industry and government bodies, is used to determine which occupations are eligible for skilled migration visas.
The government recently also announced the introduction of Regional Migration Agreements (RMAs)—a new temporary skilled migration initiative to help address labour shortages in regional Australia. The program is designed to help regions impacted by resource projects or in remote areas. It will also help local employers, including agricultural employers, to sponsor workers from outside Australia where they have a genuine need for labour assistance, while ensuring Australian workers remain the first choice. All occupations allowed under the standard 457 program will be available under the RMA program, which will also provide access to specialised semi-skilled occupations where a need can be established.
Attracting and retaining managers
This was another challenge identified across industries by medium to larger sized agricultural employers. While most businesses consulted were able to fill unskilled labour needs (although not locally), many reported that managers were the hardest to attract and retain. This group needs technical and operational expertise, as well as sound people management skills. They are generally responsible for complex technology, managing employees and contractors. Their decisions have a large impact on business costs. They are relied upon to run the business day-to-day, or to take charge when the owner is off-site, and must therefore have an understanding of multiple aspects of the business.
This area is quite an intensive agricultural production area with a technical type of farming. There are a whole range of skills needed these days that we didn’t need 30 years ago. Manual labour is now a minimal part of the job, we need a different sort of staff. The skills base has changed, employees no longer need to just drive a tractor they also need skills to set it up and to get the most efficiency out of production.
John Hamparsum, cotton grower, Breeza region, NSW
NRAC heard that this group is in high demand and even if businesses attract managers, it can be challenging to retain them. Employers recognised the need to develop the people skills of this group and provide career pathways to retain them. This was challenging in businesses with five or less employees, where the next step up may be the owner’s position.
During consultations, NRAC was told that technically skilled and/or trained managers were more likely to be ‘lured away by the attraction of nearby cities, with more job opportunities and universities’, or ‘poached by mining companies or other farming businesses’. NRAC heard that overtraining employees was regarded by employers as problematic since there was no scope for them to use their new skills, which encouraged them to move to another job, often in a competitor’s business. Part of the high demand for this cohort can be attributed to an industry-wide shift toward specialised skills as agriculture becomes a more technological industry. Specialist roles are more difficult to fill than are generalist roles such as farmhands. Some employers have identified that skilled employees may be sourced from other industries, where skills exist.
28
What I found was that skilled people already exist in the region. For example, managers at McDonalds and Woolworths have all the people management skills required to manage gin production in my business. You just have to show them that their skills are transferrable to agriculture.
Scott Davies, owner and manager, Carroll Cotton Gin
Attracting a workforce to rural and remote communities
This issue involves challenges around the lack, real and perceived, of local community infrastructure, facilities and modern technologies. NRAC heard from employers on northern pastoral properties that the lack of mobile phone coverage and access to internet and communication technology constituted a significant culture shock and attrition factor for young employees. For casual employees, a region’s remoteness and lack of tourist opportunities could make it hard to attract the backpacker workforce. In other regions, lack of family support or availability of child care facilities and jobs for employees’ partners was a barrier to employers filling vacancies.
Over the last 20 years I’ve seen a big drop in the number of school leavers applying to work on-farm at the end of the year. We used to have a long list of names, now there’s only a handful. Local young people don’t want to work on farms any more, they think it’s too hard. And with Brisbane so close by, they all want to move to the city and find professional careers.
Robert Hinrichsen, co-owner and manager, Kalfresh Vegetables
Reluctance to engage employees due to administration and salary requirements
Some employers told NRAC they were deterred from engaging permanent employees because they were not sure they would have the income to support them over an extended period of time. They saw permanent employment as a financial risk. Although it was not clear that employing on a casual basis was cheaper over the long term, these employers felt more confident in providing short-term employment for a predetermined season. Conversely, employers recognised that providing job security was a big factor influencing retention and were often frustrated with their inability to offer this security.
Some employers were reluctant to employ full-time employees because of perceived administrative costs. Once an employer had been through a recruitment process with the assistance of an advisor they were more likely to develop confidence in repeating the process themselves.
The approach to work is no longer so ad hoc when someone is coming in. You do things more efficiently. This frees you up to manage the operation better and make better decisions.
Barry Batters, farmer, St Arnaud district, Victoria
29
Compliance with WHS and other regulations and dealing with related litigation
This issue was raised by employers as a significant strain on management resources and an unquantified but potentially major financial risk to their business. Businesses with five or less employees, in particular, felt that regulations were overwhelming and they were less likely to engage permanent employees as a result. Many employers did not recognise that compliance with WHS regulations applied to both family members and contractor labour. During consultations a possible gap was identified for tools on how to be a good employer. Designed to help employers navigate WHS obligations, these tools may serve to get businesses to think about people issues and workforce planning. They may also assist by focusing more attention on WHS in the industry, with agriculture, forestry and fishing recording the highest fatality rate (16.47 deaths per 100 000 workers) of all Australian industries for 2010–11.53
Competition for agricultural employees
NRAC heard from some agricultural employers who had lost skilled employees to the mining sector; however this tended to be a localised and decreasing trend. There was general belief that agriculture offered a better lifestyle and this was becoming increasingly evident to employees. Lifestyle was seen as the major advantage of working in agriculture and was used to attract and retain employees in the industry, more so than financial remuneration. Employees drawn to mining from agriculture were perceived by employers to be more likely to return to agriculture, because of their experience with the industry’s lifestyle benefits. Many employers had witnessed employees returning to agriculture after burning out in mining, and one agricultural employer stated that in his experience mining careers had a two-year lifespan. NRAC heard that competition for labour from the mining sector was most acute for jobs requiring directly transferrable skills, such as diesel mechanics and boiler makers.
NRAC heard that young people without experience of agriculture were more easily drawn to mining by the higher wages because they did not compare lifestyle or living expenses. People were drawn to job opportunities in urban centres even more so than mining. Businesses NRAC spoke to in regional areas that were close to a large urban centre experienced particular difficulty in retaining young people. Employers who had managed to retain employees under these circumstances identified a need to articulate the benefits of their business and the package they offer, emphasising lifestyle, to offset competition.
Managing career pathways within family-run businesses
Another issue common to family-run businesses was how employers managed career progression and expectations of non-family employees while waiting for their children to return to the business. Often there was a holding phase when children were gaining additional education or employment experience. Managing the expectations for progression of non-family middle managers during this time could be a challenge. Some farms offered a stake in the business, such as share farming options, but those with five or less employees were often forthright with the lack of career opportunities within their business while supporting people in their progression through the industry.53 Safe Work Australia 2013, Key Work Health and Safety Statistics, Australia, Canberra.
30
4.2 Workforce planning approaches and practices
NRAC heard about various workforce planning practices in the agricultural industry, ranging from informal actions around attracting and retaining employees, to formalised performance management frameworks and workplace policies and processes.
At one end of the spectrum, industry, consultants, advisors and farmers related to NRAC examples in which farmers perceived a lack of available labour, despite their peers having no problems finding people. NRAC heard anecdotally that many employers struggling to attract employees did not perceive a connection between business productivity, retention and good employee management.
At the other end of the spectrum NRAC heard that some employers recognised the importance of workforce management and planning to their business. Some of the features of their activity in this arena are outlined below.
See a connection between their actions and retention and productivity
These employers valued employees as a business asset. They recognised the link between people management and employee retention and understood the high financial and productivity cost of turnover. Employers who treated employees well developed a reputation as ‘employers of choice’ and experienced less difficulty filling vacancies. They also had higher retention rates and higher productivity levels, even though some issues outside of their control affected their ability to attract employees, such as remote location and key competitive skill sets.
Recognise the need for workforce planning activities
These employers clearly described job roles and expectations, managed employee performance and anticipated the skills their workforce needed, recognising that these practices increase individual employee satisfaction and build overall business success. NRAC heard from employers who conducted reviews and planning processes at set times of the year (for example following harvest) to determine if recruitment activities were effective or if employee levels needed to be revised. This aimed to ensure employers were adequately prepared for the next season.
Workforce planning is my full-time job. I’m now working on who I’ll be employing at this time next year. If I don’t plan, I won’t have people to put on seats. There’s never a period when I’m not thinking about people to employ.
Corey Spencer, co-owner and manager, C & J Spencer Agricultural Trust
Develop a culture of mutual respect between employer and employee with a focus on meeting employee needs
31
These employers placed great emphasis on their relationship with employees, communicated with them regularly about their personal needs and goals and involved them in business decisions to cultivate a sense of ownership and pride in their work. For some employers this meant offering employees short-term opportunities in other parts of the business, to ensure they experienced higher job satisfaction. For others it meant establishing long-term training goals and a plan to meet these.
I believe that employees need to feel included and we have developed an inclusive culture in the business. Together the employees celebrate successes and share failures. We conduct culture surveys to see what we can do better.
We commenced a three year training register that staff can put their training requests on. People might not be able to immediately undertake that training but it serves as a carrot for happy staff and retention. Depending on the nature of the training request the company may fully fund. If the employee is committed and passes, we may fund the cost of training. If not, the employee may be required to pay for the training and the time is taken out of their recreational leave. Multi skilling across the business for employees is also an advantage during the quieter seasons we have experienced in the agricultural industry. During drought years we were very focused on maintaining our permanent staff but not necessarily doing their usual tasks.
Peter Graham, managing director, Cotton Seed Distributors
These employers were willing to pay higher wages to retain valuable employees but also recognised that pay is not necessarily the main factor influencing attraction and retention. They recognised that workplace culture and environment play a large role in employee satisfaction. Employees who felt valued and identified a future in the business or industry were more engaged in their work and committed to driving business success. Knowing this, employers aimed to satisfy a range of employee needs including the desire for flexible work arrangements and work – life balance, quality living conditions and opportunities for skills improvement and career progression.
Provide access to training and development opportunities for employers and employees
These employers understood the skills gaps in their business and employees and responded by providing employees with training and development opportunities. They recognised the positive impact training and development had on business success even when employees were not retained in the long term.
Many young people use this industry as a stepping stone into their working life. We need to accept this and promote the benefits and personal growth they get by having spent a year or two on a station.
AWI R&D update54
Treat family and non-family employees equally
These employers considered family members as employees and developed salary packages, job descriptions and performance frameworks for everyone regardless of relationship. This ensured that 54 AWI 2013, AWI R&D Update: Attracting and retaining staff in large pastoral enterprises.
32
no one felt disadvantaged and that everyone was clear on roles and responsibilities. This was reassuring, particularly to younger employees, who were increasingly more concerned about progression opportunities and career planning.
4.3 Access to information about workforce planning
NRAC found that although many individual employers were facing similar problems they were not sharing information or solutions with each other. NRAC was told this might be due to farmers being more technically or practically focused and preferring to talk about other aspects of their business than people management.
Conversely many employers told NRAC they were interested in knowing what their peers were doing to retain employees and manage workforces. NRAC learned that some RDCs and industry groups were starting to become more active in this area, which presented an opportunity to identify local workforce planning champions, share successful approaches to people issues and other success stories.
NRAC approached the RDCs to determine their current level of investment in workforce management and planning initiatives. Some felt this was an issue for industry peak bodies. Some had conducted programs dedicated to workforce planning but were not currently funding programs in this area. Others had prioritised people issues in their industry. Dairy Australia, for example, told NRAC that it committed around 15 per cent of its operating budget in 2011–12 to improving industry performance in this area. An overview of the approach Dairy Australia is taking is provided in Chapter 5.
Growcom, the peak body for the horticulture industry in Queensland, is an example of an industry body conducting research into its workforce, working with the state government to develop an industry-wide workforce plan.
NRAC learned that case studies and personal experiences were one way of increasing awareness about workforce planning practices among employers, as farmers generally expressed a preference for learning through mentoring or networking.55
Australian consultants raised Farm Management Canada as an example of an organisation providing useful case studies and examples of best practice business planning and strategic management for farming businesses. It also hosts regular webinars and provides scholarship opportunities around farm management. According to Farm Management Canada’s website56, this approach is very popular with member farmers.
FINDINGS
55 E Jenke 2012, Farm Business Management Skills 2012, confidential report for Primary Industries and Regions South Australia – Rural Business Support, Government of South Australia. Strathalbyn, October. 56 Farm Management Canada: www.farmcentre.com [accessed on 6 May 2013].
33
Agricultural businesses face many similar issues. Some are responding successfully to workforce challenges but for various reasons success stories are not being communicated—despite employers expressing an interest in knowing what their peers are doing.
34
5. Innovative approaches to workforce planning
This chapter examines workforce planning from sectoral and regional perspectives. It provides an overview of several sectoral and regional approaches being undertaken across the agricultural industry in Australia, discusses the drivers for these approaches and highlights other approaches to engaging different segments of the workforce.
NRAC recognises that a single approach to workforce planning will not suit all businesses, sectors, industries or regions. It believes that articulating a cross-section of innovative and best-practice approaches to workforce planning could be a valuable resource for businesses and industries when deciding on workforce planning approaches.
5.1 Sectoral approaches
Workforce planning initiatives are in place across Australian industries, for example in tourism and mining. The development of workforce plans by employers in many industries is a response to changing skills and labour demands. For example, the mining boom has heightened demand for construction skills and labour which has created competition for workers between the highly paid resource sector and many other industries, including agriculture.
Agriculture shares common elements with a number of other industries. For example, tourism and agriculture both use seasonal labour, require high numbers of low skilled workers and have large numbers of small operators. Agriculture also has similarities with mining in being regional based and in its requirement for mechanical skills. However, workforce planning in agriculture is arguably more complex because the industry is made up of many diverse sectors (for example, dairy, cotton, horticulture and viticulture) with different business environments (including many family farms), and varying requirements for labour and skills.
One argument for sectoral workforce planning is it can be tailored to address the needs of each sector. The dairy farming sector is used as an example here.
5.1.1 Dairy farming sector
The dairy farming sector has one of the most advanced approaches to workforce planning across agriculture, primarily because Dairy Australia has prioritised, and allocated resources to, people issues. The reason for the sector’s strong emphasis on people, which is different from other sectors, is not entirely clear, but it is probably driven by a number of factors—the labour intensive nature of the work, increasing herd size and the large scale of the workforce, with 40 000 people employed in the sector.57
Dairy is the third largest agricultural sector in Australia, with output valued at around $3.9 billion in 2010–11.58 It employs people on-farm as well as in manufacturing and processing. While the number
57Dairy Australia: www.dairyaustralia.com.au/Industry-overview/About-the-industry.aspx [accessed on 6 May 2013].58 DAFF 2012, op. cit.
35
of dairy farms fell by two-thirds over the last three decades, to around 7000 in mid-2011, average herd size increased from 85 cows per farm to around 230 cows per farm.59 This has increased the complexity of managing a dairy farm, with new technologies needed to maximise production and farmers required to employ and manage employees in addition to family members. NRAC heard 70 per cent of dairy farm operators now have employees, compared with only 30 per cent in 1996.60 Dairy Australia is the R&D and marketing body for Australia’s dairy industry. The organisation works with farmers and other dairy groups towards a profitable and sustainable industry. During consultations with NRAC, Dairy Australia highlighted the importance of workforce planning to dairy farm business success. With the industry having experienced significant restructure following deregulation of the farming and processing sector, and with readjustment still occurring and national herd sizes increasing, Dairy Australia has chosen to make investment in developing human capital a strategic priority so that labour and skills shortages do not constrain economic development. Dairy Australia has committed 15 per cent of its annual expenditure to people capacity building, making it one of its four key strategies.
In 2006 the first stage of Dairy Australia’s People Capability for the Farm Sector project was published.61 Report recommendations outlined the opportunities for developing workforce planning and action, and provided a process for regions to better understand workforce development locally. Dairy Australia has since initiated related projects under its The People in Dairy program to develop the industry’s workforce. These include projects to harness key data about employment (attraction, retention and skilling) in the industry, and programs targeting young farmers and encouraging them to become more involved in the industry and develop leadership skills. An overview of Dairy Australia’s workforce planning strategies and programs is provided in Box 7.
Dairy Australia also identified that human resource capacity issues have a direct impact on farm expansion, as farmers unable to manage increased numbers of employees (associated with increased numbers of cows) have had to slow or reduce business growth. As a result, Dairy Australia—in conjunction with the National Centre for Dairy Education—developed a Diploma of Human Resource Management (Dairy) designed to help farm advisors increase their capacity to support farmers on people issues. NRAC was advised that an estimated 100 farm advisors, out of a pool of 500, have completed this diploma.
59 Ibid.60 Workforce researcher, Canberra consultation forum, 4 December 2012.61 R Nettle and D Oliver 2009, Workforce planning and action for the Australian dairy industry, Rural Innovation Research Group, Melbourne, February.
36
Box 7: Dairy Australia’s workforce management and planning programs
The People in Dairy program
The overarching objectives of The People in Dairy program are that:
1. Farm owners and managers have the motivation, skills and confidence to manage the people in their farm businesses.
a. Farmers have clear, consistent, relevant information and resources available. The primary method of delivery is through the People in Dairy website where downloadable resources and information are maintained. In 2011, the site had
66 000 downloads.
b. Advisors have increased capacity to support farmers on people issues. Training in the Diploma of Human Resource Management enables advisors to provide clear and specific advice to farmers on people management.
2. Dairy industry programs focus on people when designing ways of operationalising technology.
3. Farm owners have options and plans for transition of management roles or farm assets when they no longer want to run or own their farms.
4. There is better workforce planning and more coordinated action in the regions and nationally.
Budget for 2011–12 was $877 500
Workforce Planning and Action Initiative
The key objectives of this initiative are to ensure that the dairy sector has sufficient numbers of people with the right mix of skills to maintain and grow the sector. This requires real-time capacity to identify, understand and respond to changing conditions in the market and workforce.
The initiative:
1. Tests the initiative’s Workforce Planning and Action Strategy through application to pilot projects across three sectors of the industry—farming, manufacturing and service providers
2. Enables closer liaison and collaboration between Dairy Australia and regions and/or sectors on workforce planning and action
3. Establishes process measures and key performance indicators that reflect the effectiveness of workforce development initiatives
4. Refines, through the review of implementation and outcomes, the Workforce Planning and Action Strategy to reflect lessons learned
5. Develops a methodology to more widely apply lessons learned from the pilot projects conducted in the initiative, to ensure workforce planning and action are approached and executed in a systemic, effective manner and reflected in annual planning processes.
Budget for 2011–12 was $60,000 (NB: This project commenced in March 2012. The budget for 2012–13 is $393,500)
37
Dairy Australia’s commitment to skilling people has raised the profile of workforce management and planning within the sector. Other investors have also focused on people management in dairy farming. For example, since 2005 the Gardiner Foundation has offered funding of $250 000 to applicants under its Community and People Development Program. The key drivers of this program are: an imperative for the dairy industry to compete with other sectors to attract, retain and develop talented people; recognising health, wellbeing and safety as an important issue for farmers and a need to develop and support the communities from which the dairy sector draws its workforce. As evident from this example, the continued leadership and support of an industry body that recognises the importance of building human capacity is a prerequisite to successful sectoral approaches. During consultations with NRAC, some spoke of the need to define roles for industry bodies, RDCs and government in this area and the need for research on workforce issues to be given greater importance and funding. Sectoral approaches also take time to produce outcomes, requiring industry bodies to allocate time for collecting and disseminating information before its take-up throughout the sector.
Regional variation also needs to be taken into account in sectoral workforce planning approaches as different regions face different challenges, climatic conditions, competing industries and access to markets. Dairy Australia noted this during consultations with NRAC and indicated they were developing approaches tailored to regions, for example those with a lower concentration of dairy farms and shortages of machinery specialists. Cotton Australia and Cotton Research and Development Corporation (CRDC) are undertaking similar research into the workforce planning approaches most likely to succeed in different cotton growing regions.
5.2 Regional approaches
While sectoral approaches focus on a single industry across multiple regions, regional approaches focus on cross-industry workforce needs in an area. This centres on the workforce as a part of a community and the factors affecting workforce attraction and retention to that community. The approach suits agriculture because it is predominantly located in rural and regional areas where many workforce issues are influenced by local factors.
Although separately defined in this report, many sectoral approaches to workforce planning take into account regional differences and can have overlapping elements. The distinguishing feature of regional approaches is that they are community-led, meaning the local community plays a significant role in driving the process.
An advantage of a regional approach, as explained below, is that it can create a pool of labour for a region, thereby using skills across industries rather than creating competition between industries.
5.2.1 Make It Work Initiative
Make it Work evolved when the community of Narrabri, a town in north-western New South Wales, partnered with Agrifood Skills Australia (Agrifood Skills) to attract and retain skilled labour in the region. The Narrabri community realised that while the region’s strong agricultural industry and growing resource sector brings in skilled workers, the lack of work in seasonal downtimes and a
38
growing use of machinery in agriculture reduced the availability of consistent and reliable employment for skilled employees. Subsequently the North West Advisory Group formed under the auspices of AgriFood Skills.
The North West Advisory Group developed Make It Work to encourage cross-industry collaboration. This linked the skills of the regional workforce with the skills demand of multiple local industries to reduce the migration of skilled employees from the area and increase workforce productivity. The initiative’s regional, rather than sectoral, focus ensures employment opportunities are provided while supporting education, training and lifestyle infrastructure in the region.
NRAC consulted with Agrifood Skills about its role in regional workforce development for the industry, including through Make It Work. As one of 11 industry skills councils, Agrifood Skills receives around $4.5 million a year in funding from the Australian Government’s Department of Industry, Innovation, Climate Change, Science, Research and Tertiary Education, to drive the skills and workforce development agenda across five sectors—food beverage and pharmaceutical processing, meat, racing, rural and related industries (including agriculture) and seafood.According to Agrifood Skills, cross-industry, regional approaches provide the best use of time and resources when it comes to workforce planning. During consultations, Agrifood Skills said to NRAC that the agriculture industry is facing workforce challenges and that successfully addressing these is central to business sustainability and resilience. Challenges include the need to embrace workforce planning and the need for employers to accept that such planning provides a worthwhile return on investment.
Make It Work is well supported by the Narrabri Shire Council, which employs people who are, in turn, hired out to local businesses that require a common set of operational skills. The Council manages recruitment, training and payroll to reduce the administrative burden for businesses. The Council also administers a local training program to develop and strengthen cross-industry skills through on and off-the-job training, which allows participants to take-up employment across a range of industries in the region. In doing so, participants complete a Certificate III in Rural Operations.
A review of Make It Work by ACIL Tasman showed that the region’s collaborative approach to addressing labour fluctuations was effective. The review included an independent economic analysis which identified quantifiable changes in the Narrabri workforce environment and attributed these to the program. The review found that labour productivity improved by up to 3.2 per cent a year and net migration of workers in the target labour market reduced by 33 per cent.62 The review also found that businesses, workers, local authorities and the regional community worked together on finding an approach that worked across industries and contributed to the region’s overall productivity.
Another aspect of Make it Work is the ‘Employer of Choice’ survey. Employer of Choice is an established concept in workforce development that employers who develop a reputation for placing value on, and meeting the needs of, their workforce are better at attracting and retaining employees. As part of Make it Work, an Employer of Choice survey method was developed to gather candid information for businesses about their performance. The anonymous survey enabled employees to identify how they feel about their work environment and the link between their
62 ACIL Tasman 2010, Developing the Narrabri Workforce – an assessment of the potential impact of the Workforce Development Strategy in Narrabri, New South Wales. Independent economic analysis commissioned by AgriFood Skills Australia.
39
employer’s human resource activities and strategic business goals. This information was used by employers to direct development opportunities and refine or improve human resources practices, skills use, job design and recruitment strategies for permanent and seasonal workers.
The Employer of Choice concept is broadly supported within the industry. In its submission to NRAC, the National Farmers’ Federation stated that:
... driving widespread adoption of better practices will be required for all agriculture sectors if they are to secure workers in a highly competitive labour maker and ... reposition the industry as one of choice for employees.
5.2.2 Review of regional approaches
While Make It Work has been a success, it is not a one-size-fits-all approach because it relies on a local network and an appropriately sized population. Critical to success is participation from local employers of choice, key influencers and support from local government. Agrifood Skills has funding to roll out the model to four other regions under what is now called the Agrifood National Regional Initiative. Regions were selected based on detailed discussions with state government and industry representatives, for their fit with the initiative’s intended demographic. Each state government nominated an appropriate location for the initiative to ensure a substantial local agrifood industry, a second major industry presence, an enthusiastic local government, and sustainability for outcomes.
An important feature of all workforce planning approaches in agriculture is the fact they are occurring in rural, regional or remote locations. There are inherent challenges in attracting, retaining and developing workforces in these communities and this is part of a wider need to strengthen and support Australia’s communities. This is recognised by governments and industry and work is occurring outside of the scope of this assessment.
5.3 Population approaches
NRAC also looked at approaches to engaging existing but underused sources of labour and skills for the agriculture industry. Indigenous people as well as humanitarian entrants and migrants are the population groups looked at here.
Indigenous groups
NRAC heard that employers in some regions, particularly northern New South Wales and Northern Australia, wanted to increase the number of local Indigenous employees in their business but experienced difficulties achieving this.
One group trying to address this need is the Aboriginal Employment Strategy Ltd which started in 1997 in Moree by Gwydir Valley Cotton Growers, in recognition of the large pool of untapped labour in the local Indigenous community. The company expanded to have a national footprint, with offices in multiple locations in New South Wales and in Queensland, Northern Territory, Western Australian and Victoria.
40
The Aboriginal Employment Strategy runs programs relating to workforce planning and development, including for recruitment services, career preparation, cadetships and graduates. It was successful in early intervention strategies, such as school-based traineeships for Year 11 and 12 students in a number of big banks. Initially it was just the cotton industry that used the program, but it is now more successful in corporate businesses, with less uptake in agriculture.
Agriculture can be a more challenging industry to engage jobseekers in, with expectation perception of hard physical work, often 7 days a week, and a higher proportion of unskilled positions than professional roles.
Dick Estens, cotton producer and Chairman of the Aboriginal Employment Strategy
While this industry-based initiative is an example of how growers in a region responded to an opportunity to engage an Indigenous workforce, it has faced challenges as more young people are drawn to urban areas and corporate careers.
Humanitarian entrants and migrants
Although this group often comes from rural backgrounds they are not exposed to the opportunities available in rural Australia. There is scope to introduce humanitarian entrants and migrants to agriculture through improved support networks post-training.
The Wimmera Development Association, representing five council areas in Victoria, is an example of a community association supporting the local migrant community. The Association’s staff, dedicated full time to this project, are responsible for settling migrants into the region and helping with employment. Although half of the workforce at Luv-A-Duck, a large duck meat producer and processor in the region, is made up of migrant employees, the pool available is not fully allocated and the Association advised NRAC that most skilled migrants in the region are not employed in traditional on-farm agriculture.
In Tasmania, NRAC heard from the Tasmanian Grazier and Farmer’s Association and how it supported migrant workers. Members indicated that workers required additional support on-farm due to language and cultural differences, especially to ensure that communication is clear around workplace safety. This level of support requires funding not currently available, but the agricultural community expressed interest in using this labour source if it becomes an option. Members also indicated that there are many benefits of using these workers, given that they are motivated, skilled and interested in building a future within the community.
Supporting these workers is costly but so is the current situation. There are two problems running in parallel: a potential workforce not getting employed and employers are not getting access to a potential workforce.
Melinda King, Tasmanian Grazier and Farmer’s Association
5.4 Collaborative approaches
41
NRAC also heard about examples of collaborative approaches to securing labour and skills, such as sharing workers and infrastructure across farms and industries. Advisors and consultants in particular identified the need for some farming businesses to move from a lifestyle model to a business model and to consider sharing labour and forming machinery syndicates to ensure best value from their resources. For regionally based industries with different seasonal labour requirements, such as viticulture and broadacre, sharing a workforce can be a way to retain employees year-to-year, thus reducing costs of re-employment and retraining. Collaborative approaches are also credited with keeping the workforce within a region.
Collaborative farming can extend to farmers forming ‘mini corporations’ with neighbouring farms. This may have economic, skills and social benefits, allowing farms to pool resources and share risk, and have employees who are knowledgeable about a wider range of farming and business management. NRAC heard that farmers are somewhat reluctant to move towards these collaborative approaches but that this is likely a change management issue. For farmers to embrace this way of thinking there needs to be sound evidence of the benefits and for industry bodies and farm management consultants to promote these options.
42
Box 8: Workforce planning at a corporate family farm – a case study
Bulla Burra is an example of how corporate collaborative family farming can produce benefits.
John Gladigau is business manager of Bulla Burra, a collaborative farm in the Northern Mallee region of South Australia. He is also managing director of Collaborative Farming Australia, a consultancy company providing advice on collaborative farming approaches. John and his neighbour, Robin Schaefer, formed Bulla Burra in 2009. They sold their farm equipment, leased both of their properties to Bulla Burra and then, as a company, also shared farmed and leased extra land. Bulla Burra purchased appropriate farming equipment for the total 8000 hectares and both John and Robin were appointed to the company board and given management roles in the company.
John thinks the corporate structure of Bulla Burra provides greater financial and workforce security than a single family farm. Bringing together several individual farming businesses under a single corporate structure creates business efficiencies, including labour efficiencies,’ says John. ‘We are able to pool resources, including employees and machinery. This means that people are able to work in their area of expertise, where they are more likely to contribute to improving the efficiency of the business.’
John points out that he and Robin have complementary skills, which really works for their business:
I have a strategic viewpoint while Robin is more practical and has agronomy skills.
John believes that as a corporate farm Bulla Burra can provide career pathways for employees, including family members. The partners seek out people with skills they anticipate the business is going to need rather than just those with experience in broadacre farming. Bulla Bulla has no problem attracting and retaining employees with the partners believing the corporate structure provides more security and opportunities for progression. ‘We sourced our employees from the horticulture industry despite being a broadacre farm, because we found that people coming in fresh to an industry, with no preconceived ideas about how things should work, are more willing to accept and apply innovative solutions than those who have been in the industry for some time,’ says John.
43
Box 9: Sharing a farming trainee – a case study
Monaro Farming Systems (MFS) is a not-for-profit group comprising approximately 50 farm businesses based on the Monaro, New South Wales, and assisted by Mike Stephens and Associates (a HR and farm management consultancy business).
In 2012, in response to increasing labour shortages and an ageing population, local producers instigated the MFS traineeships program.
Nancy Spolijaric, MFS Project Officer, explained that:
... the idea was for MFS members to offer traineeships for a year across a number of properties, resulting in local school leavers developing skills in agriculture, a desire to pursue a career in the industry, and ideally remain local.
Approximately 25 per cent of MFS members have volunteered to take on a trainee, with most being larger producers who have previous experience in employing people. MFS offered two traineeships in 2012 and another two in 2013 after receiving up to 40 applications. In 2012, both trainees completed a Certificate IV in Agriculture and worked across eight or nine farms in the region during the year.
MFS is trialling ways of approaching the program. In the first year, the program used a recruitment company (AusWide) to handle recruitment and induction. In the second year, individual businesses employed trainees as casual employees, meaning less overhead costs and a higher wage available for the trainees.
While there are advantages and disadvantages to the different approaches, Nancy believes that having individual businesses employ trainees may be a disincentive for some members to be involved: ‘... some of the smaller producers have not employed staff before and are likely to find these processes a barrier to them engaging. In future years we may go back to using a recruitment company for ease and consistency,’ she says.
The businesses that have participated in the traineeship are all still involved. Both the 2012 trainees were offered permanent, full-time positions on local Monaro properties with one of the trainees taking up this position. Oliver Cay, a producer involved in the program, feels farmers have now seen the bigger-picture benefits of training and skilling young people in agriculture. ‘They (the producers) feel that they’re benefitting the industry by providing training to these young people and giving them a good start,’ he says.
44
FINDINGS
No one-size-fits-all approach exists for workforce planning in agriculture. As recognition of the need for farm businesses to focus on people management grows, innovative approaches are emerging in the area of workforce planning.
Some industry bodies have invested in workforce planning, recognising people as a key resource which can be leveraged to enhance the productivity of their industry—others have not yet determined a case for doing this.
Workforce management and planning by agricultural employers occurs in the broader context of regions and communities. There is scope for fostering collaborative approaches to workforce planning across sectors, industry and regions and forming partnerships with key influencers to promote innovative approaches at farm-scale.
45
6. Skills and training for workforce planning
This chapter examines employer skills and capabilities in workforce planning and existing pathways to gaining skills in workforce planning.
6.1 Employer skills and capabilities in workforce planning
Agricultural employers, advisors and training providers told NRAC that employers would generally benefit from greater human resource management skills to enhance business productivity. Many advisors and training providers indicated that employers with five or less employees were unlikely to invest in improving their own human resource management skills without clear evidence that this would contribute to business efficiency and profitability. Instead there was a preference to improve skills in other ‘more practical’ areas.
There is a gap in managerial skills, including HR management, across all small business operators but employers are generally not accessing workforce planning and management skills for themselves. The farm management and supervisory skills that are most in need are not the skills in demand by the people that need them. I doubt you would get a turnout for a course for farmers on the management of staff. You need to target the younger generation or different groups, such as those coming back from other industries.
Bill Hamill, CEO, Rural Industries Skill Training
6.1.1 Employer self-analysis
NRAC identified that one of the steps employers can take to improve the workforce planning capabilities is to self-assess their people management skills, because employee job satisfaction and retention is closely linked to employer culture, skills and capabilities. As the AWI – MLA pastoral workforce study noted, employees are more likely to leave an employer than they are the industry.63
This indicates that management practices can influence the choice of employer by an existing or prospective employee. Connecting employer practices, staff retention and business productivity is a major hurdle to engaging people in workforce planning and human resource activities. The turning point in overcoming this hurdle was summarised by one person NRAC spoke to as the capacity to ‘look in the mirror first’ to identify the source of employee-employer solutions. Without this capacity, employers were more likely to attribute retention problems to ‘labour shortages’ or other factors out of their control and disengage from improving their workforce planning practices and skills.
Consultants told NRAC that for employers who ‘don’t know what they don’t know’ examples of the benefits of workforce planning and return on investment were likely to influence interest in developing workforce management capabilities. Many employers told NRAC that the cost of training employees and the loss of time spent on operational activities were reasons for not engaging in developing workforce planning capabilities. The underlying assumption was that other activities had
63 MLA 2008, op. cit.
46
clear productivity benefits—for example, improved sales or yield—whereas investing in people did not.
It is difficult to generate interest on workforce and human resource issues. Even if a course is free I think you would battle getting uptake from farm managers. Although there’s no problem getting uptake if a farmer can see the dollar return, for example for training in animal husbandry.
Keith Rice, managing director, Primary Employers Tasmania
6.1.2 Existing pathways to skills in workforce management and planning
NRAC found that most agricultural employers undertaking workforce planning had developed their workforce management and planning capabilities through broader business management training rather than through designated human resource management training. Many employers identified courses in leadership and business management as an important source of information on how to strategically approach management, including people management. They saw value in these courses even though they were often not accredited or delivered by a registered training organisation.
Agricultural employers, from farmers to consultants, told NRAC that these types of courses emphasised the importance of meeting peoples’ needs and how to better deal with people in a business setting. They were also valuable because they introduced employers to tools which helped them understand their own management style and the personality type of employees, such as Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Leadership courses mentioned by employers usually included participants from across the agriculture industry—two examples were the Rabobank Executive Management Program and the Australian Rural Leadership Program. The ability to establish networks and exchange information with colleagues across sectors was highlighted as one of the most valued elements of these types of courses. Employers often paid for the courses themselves or were sponsored by industry organisations to attend. Several employers had subsequently provided their staff with opportunities to attend the same or similar courses to complement their management skills.
Employers also developed capabilities in workforce management and planning through the experience gained in employing people and noted the benefits of exposure to different working environments. The experience of employees who had worked in larger businesses or businesses in other industries provided exposure to new processes and ideas around employment, including through position descriptions, performance reviews and the important role of communication. Bearing this in mind, many farmers encouraged family members to work in different jobs across the industry and outside the industry before returning to the family farm, knowing they would be able to share vital experience and bring new skills and approaches into the business.
Literacy in ‘people issues’ is expected to increase as a new generation undertakes formal education in farm management, including in human resource management, and brings this knowledge base back to farming businesses. Some farmers spoke of the changes they expected in the skills and approaches of the next generation, including better people management skills and a different mindset about workforce management and planning.
47
In 15 years we will be having a different conversation. The next generation will come home with OHS understanding and a training mentality.
Peter Taylor, farmer, Wimmera region, Victoria
Comments from some younger farmers NRAC heard from verified these expectations.
We did lots of OHS and HR training in my degree and subsequent courses, and I’ve used knowledge of those processes in the business.
David Jochinke, farmer, Wimmera region, Victoria
6.2 Evidence of the benefit of workforce planning and human resource activities
Industry representatives suggested that employers would only respond to workforce planning initiatives if the benefits were clearly shown to improve business profitability, thereby justifying a shift in resources from other tasks. This was true of employers across the industry. In consultations with NRAC many businesses, especially those new to employing non-family employees, identified they lacked the skills needed to employ and manage people. At the same time, they did not necessarily associate these activities with improving business efficiency and were therefore reluctant to invest time and resources into them. Some employers and advisors said illustrating the benefits of HR activities in terms of business outcomes was a way of motivating employers to adopt more formalised approaches to managing their workforces.
I don’t think about HR training saving the business thousands in the same way as electronics training would.
Andrew Weidemann, farmer, Wimmera region, Victoria
The conversation needs to change from compliance to efficiency.
David Matthews, co-owner and manager, The Wimmera Grain Company
NRAC spoke to a number of employers who linked workforce planning and business growth and/or profitability. Some larger employers had correlated investing in workforce planning activities and human resource practices with business outcomes. The Australian arm of Viterra, a Canadian-owned grain handling and processing agribusiness, had quantified their staff turnover rate and found it had reduced from 32 per cent to 13 per cent per year following culture change—a process including introducing compulsory training linked to defined job descriptions. While this culture change decreased the costs associated with staff turnover at Viterra, and evidence of the value of implementing workforce practices served to support future strategies, direct links to business profit were not reported. NRAC noted that the benefits of workforce management and planning need to be considered through the flow-on effects that increased staff retention and satisfaction have on business profitability.
48
NRAC also found that the approach taken by large agribusinesses to human resource management had the potential to influence the practices of other agricultural businesses in a region. Farmers in the Wimmera district in Western Victoria, for example, noted that following the introduction of Viterra’s safety card scheme—making it compulsory for all growers and carriers accessing a Viterra site to have undergone safety induction and hold a valid safety card—they started to consider and adapt the approach to their own properties.
Some employers felt the induction of casual staff could be carried out more effectively through the development of a skills-passport system for recording employee training and skills. Similar to the white card in the construction industry, a skills passport would recognise and record completed WHS and basic on-farm training, such as the use of a chainsaw, and help employers to identify and address gaps in employee skills. It would also give employees an easy way to document their skills and enable them to build on their skills base while progressing through multiple employers in the agriculture industry.
A similar system has been successfully implemented by the poultry industry in the United Kingdom. The British Poultry Training Scheme is a partnership between Lantra, the land-based sector skills council, Poultec Training and industry bodies, which provides consistency in the content and quality of training delivery. The scheme sets minimum standards for job roles across the poultry industry and provides a web portal for recording and updating employee training. The online Poultry Passport lists competencies against which an employee has been assessed. It also confirms that these competencies have been confirmed by a manager and verified by administrators at Poultec Training.
FINDINGS
Agricultural employers who value and recognise people as a business asset experience better staff retention and understand the advantages of having a reputation as a good employer. These employers operate on the basis that happy employees are more productive, successful and able to contribute to business productivity even though they were not able to necessarily quantify the positive effects on profitability. Employers who identify the connection between developing their workforce and gaining profit or productivity growth are more likely to engage in workforce management and planning.
Measuring the direct benefits of workforce management and planning to business outcomes in dollar terms is difficult, especially for businesses employing five people or less. An equally valid approach would be to demonstrate how indirect benefits, such as improved staff engagement retention, are good for business.
6.3 Pathways to improving the workforce planning and people management capabilities of agricultural employers
During consultations, NRAC heard from advisors and consultants that employers with few permanent employees were more likely to engage in human resource activities when triggered to do so by a change in circumstances. Events such as business expansion or an incident with an employee were a catalyst for employers to think about their role in managing the workforce. Businesses with
49
few employees usually prioritised operational tasks over employee administration until circumstances changed. Changed circumstances could include employing non-family employees for the first time, needing to provide WHS training for casual employees, or dealing with an employee (including a family member) injured under their supervision. NRAC noted that when unprepared for managing employees or when unaware of resources for navigating the process, employers tended to associate HR and people management with costs, red tape and stress.
Box 10: Triggers for improving workforce management and planning capabilities – a case study
Primary Employers Tasmania (PET) is an organisation providing human resource management and workplace relations advice to primary industries employers in Tasmania. Keith Rice, Chief Executive Officer, shared his experiences with NRAC of how agricultural employers across the industry approached workforce management and planning, including insight into factors that may have triggered employers to change their people management practices.
Keith noted that most employers do not prioritise workforce concerns until forced to do so by a crisis. ‘Most employers who contact PET do so after an event, rather when intending to act,’ says Keith. ‘We provide our members with a handbook that outlines awards and WHS requirements but many feel that’s all they need, rather than sitting down and discussing things with their employees.’
Keith also noted that businesses with five or less employees were more likely to seek PET’s advice about human resource management issues than were larger businesses. ‘The majority of employers who need PET’s help have one to five employees,’ says Keith. ‘Most larger enterprises tend to have paperwork in place, although perhaps not for workforce development practices. For the family farm, formal procedures are the exception rather than the rule.’
PET encourages employers to adopt more structured approaches to people management, although Keith recognised the difficulty in engaging with employers on people issues:
After contacting PET we encourage employers to develop job descriptions and employment agreements. Usually workforce issues are more of a priority for the partner or wife than for the male operator.
There are generally three types of employers. There are those who are engaged—they are good business people and run good farms, it’s part of their personality. Then there’s the second tier who do put in place policies after they have a problem—they are generally on the right track, not fully engaged but trying to improve. The third type of employers do not acknowledge or understand the value of good relations with their employees and are unlikely to engage in workforce planning even after an incident.
NRAC heard that employers who recognised gaps in their own ability to manage their workforce were eager to use resources and tools but not necessarily aware of where to easily source them. One primary producer recounted that, upon employing a non-family employee for the first time, he tried unsuccessfully to navigate information about employment agreements and employment relationships on the internet, before seeking help from his neighbour. This indicates that even motivated employers can struggle to find appropriate human resource management advice.
Some employers are unaware of how improving their skills in workforce management might benefit their business and are unable to identify the skills or resources they might need. NRAC identified that recognising the ‘hooks’ that prompt employers to access information about workforce planning may be a way to increase their engagement in training and development programs. These hooks
50
may range from an employee leaving a business, children returning to a business, an owner retiring or a WHS issue requiring engagement with an advisor.
6.4 Trusted advisors
Farm business consultants and accountants are often the first choice for farmers for advice on issues related to business management and succession planning, and can be an avenue for providing information about workforce planning. Farmers generally prefer to receive information from local and trusted sources in small groups, and they respond better to information directed at practical outcomes. 64, 65 Advice from these ‘trusted advisors’ is in high demand and some sectors recognise that there is a shortage of advisors with suitable workforce planning skills. As described in Chapter 5, the dairy farming sector has responded to this by increasing the pool of workforce planning advisors through the Human Resource Management Diploma (Dairy), which has had a good uptake across the industry. NRAC identified there may be scope for industry bodies and RDCs to learn from this experience and improve access to workforce planning expertise across other sectors.
It may be possible for the Australian Government to improve agricultural employers’ access to trusted advisors through the National Workforce Development Fund (NWDF). The NWDF helps businesses identify and address workforce development needs by supporting training of new and existing workers in identified areas. The Department of Industry, Innovation, Climate Change, Science, Research and Tertiary Education administers the NWDF in which government funding is supplemented by a co-contribution from industry. Industry skills councils assist employers to develop and implement successful proposals. There may be scope to utilise the fund to improve access to workforce planning advisors as a way of introducing agricultural employers with few employees to workforce planning and structured employment practices.
Box 11: Short courses helping young women on farms – a case study
Jeanette Long runs a consultancy company with her husband Bill in South Australia, Ag Consulting Co. The business focuses on consultancy work with farmers, including agronomy, business management and succession planning. Bill and Jeanette also manage projects, undertake research and facilitate workshops.
Jeanette provides short courses based on HR and people management, succession and business management, which are popular with young women on farms. These women are often already performing this work and would like a defined role for themselves within the business. As Jeanette describes it:
Women on farms are not always completely happy about the way they are included in the farm business and decision making. These messages are often unconsciously passed onto the next generation which may be influencing choices about agriculture as a career. I think we can work towards changing this by embracing the skills women bring to the business and providing opportunities for them to future develop their skills.
Jeanette has received feedback from farmers indicating a strong preference for short courses as they can be tailored around their work on-farm and provide practical skills in a short period. She also
64 E Jenke 2012, op. cit.65 Ipsos-Eureka Social Research Institute 2010, GRDC Organisational Performance Research: 2010 Grower Survey – Final Report, Grains Research Development Corporation, Canberra, December.
51
believes the ‘trusted advisors’ on farms play a significant role in farm decision making. She recommends training for the consulting sector including mentoring some of the newer advisors.
‘Whole of business planning includes dealing with the emotional issues which arise in any family business, this is particularly important when dealing with succession planning and workforce planning. Consultants and advisors working with family farms need to be equipped with the skills to manage the emotions and not just the facts,’ says Jeanette.
6.5 Role of women in workforce planning and human resource activities
NRAC heard that women on farms were usually responsible for people management, tended to have better interpersonal skills and were often more willing than men to engage with training and development in what is commonly termed ‘soft skills’. On some family owned and operated farms, where men have traditionally been responsible for operational tasks and women for administration and book keeping, NRAC was informed that women wanted to become more involved in business management, including of people. Training women in people management could bring new approaches and culture change to farm businesses in a planned way. It could also provide women with the skills and qualifications that would underpin greater involvement in farm business management.
NRAC also heard from women who felt burdened with people management responsibilities, suggesting scope for improving the distribution of workforce planning activities across other members of the farm business. Approaches targeting women need to ensure they do not reinforce stereotypes about women preferring work related to people and consider that many women have jobs off-farm that they need to coordinate with their on-farm roles.
6.6 Regulatory requirements and obligations
Employers must meet legal and regulatory requirements when employing people, including family members. This includes providing proper remuneration based on award rates, preparing employment contracts stipulating working conditions, and fulfilling WHS requirements (such as performing safety inductions). Employers must also ensure that employees carrying out specific tasks on-farm, such as chemical spraying or driving a tractor, are trained to do so and hold the required licences or permits. They must also meet a range of other regulatory requirements and obligations related to employment, such as ensuring overseas employees have valid work visas.
As discussed earlier in this report, NRAC heard that navigating these requirements and obligations, particularly regarding WHS, could be overwhelming for new employers and employers with five or less employees and that sector-specific, step-by-step guidance would be helpful. Some employers indicated they bought employment guides from private consultants or employers’ organisations, such as Primary Employers Tasmania or Rural Directions (South Australia).
However, as mentioned previously, NRAC heard from these advisors that many employers only accessed guidance reactively after an incident rather than proactively, in business planning phases. Often employers did not know where to access the information and ‘did not have time to search for
52
it.’ NRAC identified that integrating information about employment procedures, rules and regulations and workforce planning into a suite of 'how to be a better employer’ resources would help expose more agricultural employers to people management concepts earlier.
The CRDC has started to incorporate human resource management components into myBMP, an online version of Best Management Practices (BMP) for the cotton industry. The human resource module of myBMP aims to upskill employers and managers to help with staff productivity, retention and increasing awareness of human resource issues. Human resource information is being distributed, and early indications are that growers are receptive to material, such as induction sheets, although adoption rates are not yet known. The CRDC also has a memorandum of understanding with a farm health unit at Moree which growers can contact for advice on safety issues. The CRDC is updating its WHS resources and expects to sharpen its focus on this area.
FINDINGS
Trusted advisors are a valued source of information for agricultural employers on a range of issues and can help link businesses to existing information and resources.
There is a shortage of trusted advisors, including accountants, with skills in workforce management and planning relevant to agricultural employers, especially employers with five or less people.
Enlarging the pool of trusted advisors with workforce planning knowledge could provide scope for improving the workforce management and planning capabilities of agricultural employers.
Many agricultural employers’ first experience with workforce management is in the context of fulfilling compliance and WHS requirements. Experiences in these areas have the potential to shape agricultural employer willingness to undertake broader workforce planning practices.
6.7 Delivery of skills and training
During consultations with NRAC, agricultural employers discussed how best to deliver information about workforce planning. These employers were explicit about their need for flexible and adaptable delivery of skills and training. There was consensus on their preference for informal training and skill sets over accredited courses and full qualifications. Skill sets are units of competency combined into an interrelated set below the level of a full qualification.66 Employers favoured locally delivered, on-the-job training and skills acquisition because this did not require extensive time commitment away from the business and was tailored to employer needs and on-farm practices.
Industry and individual employers suggested that the current national training system, delivered by states and territories, is not flexible enough to accommodate skill sets preferences and allow for adequate access to the system—in terms of course length and recognition of prior learning. Although Agrifood Skills defines skill sets as part of its training packages, government funding is allocated to training providers based on enrolment and completion of qualifications. Employers who want to access skill sets have to self-fund their training in some instances, or enrol in subsidised
66 J Mills, D Crean, D Ranshaw and K Bowman 2012, Workforce skills development and engagement in training through skills sets, National Vocational Education Program and Training Research Program, Adelaide. CC. By 3.0.
53
qualifications they have no intention of completing, to obtain the skills they need. This skews completion rate figures for qualifications in the agriculture industry, which are low.67 NRAC also heard that some employers wanted to assemble skill sets from a more diverse range of competencies than is currently allowed, such as a mixture of agriculture, administration and health.
The Australian, state and territory governments have recognised the valuable option skill sets provide for delivering education and training to farmers. As part of National Drought Program Reform, representatives from each jurisdiction are working with Agrifood Skills to develop a skill set focused on farm business management skills. The aim is to equip farmers with the preparedness and risk management skills needed to face and emerge from drought and other challenges. Government and industry input to the development of the skill set is being sought and NRAC encourages continued cooperation on this initiative.
As mentioned earlier in this report, employers want to learn from local and trusted advisors. Informal mentoring is a popular and effective way of providing advice about workforce planning and engaging people. Linking or piggy-backing information about workforce planning onto other courses or events, such as field days and forums, was seen as a way to spark employer interest in skills acquisition. Industry bodies also noted, however, that attendance of employers at programs did not always correlate with their apparent interest in information. For example, despite identifying labour and skills as important issues in surveys, industry bodies found it difficult to get employers to attend workshops covering these issues.68
FINDINGS
People working in agricultural businesses preferred to undertake training and education through short courses and in the form of skill sets rather than through formal qualifications.
Farmers were interested in workforce planning and skill development if they knew where and who to go to for information.
Individual businesses and industry representatives generally agreed that the current training system is not flexible enough to meet agricultural employer needs.
67 Agrifood Skills Australia 2012, op. cit.68 Industry body representative, Canberra consultation forum, 4 December 2012.
54
7. Summary, the way forward and next steps
In response to the industry’s generally held view that there are skills and labour shortages in agriculture, NRAC considered whether improving the workforce management and planning skills of agricultural employers could enable their businesses to make more effective use of the available workforce.
NRAC concludes that further development of workforce planning in the agricultural sector will result in positive outcomes for farm business productivity, and should be encouraged. Workforce planning has an important role to play in the future of Australian agriculture, although NRAC acknowledges that the diversity in size and capacity of agricultural businesses means there is no one-size-fits-all approach. NRAC recommends that industry and government work together to further develop and promote workforce planning capabilities across the industry.
NRAC determined it would be beneficial for industry and all levels of government to adopt a three-pronged approach to workforce planning:
1. Recognise that businesses need a reason to engage; and promote the benefits of workforce planning to employers across agricultural industries using examples from peers, case studies and appropriate delivery methods.
2. Make it easy and accessible to conduct workforce planning activities; and provide access to tools, training courses, resources and templates.
3. Focus on increasing people management skills and capabilities in the industry; advocate for a responsive training system; and support a trusted advisor pool to increase knowledge and application.
NRAC recommends:
1. Efforts to engage agricultural employers in workforce planning and human resource management need to take into account the differing capacities and approaches to employment of businesses of all sizes across the agriculture industry. Industry bodies need to determine how the employers they represent best respond to information about workforce planning and human resource management and tailor approaches using appropriate language and themes.
2. Industry bodies and RDCs should collect and consolidate success stories, case studies and innovative ways that agricultural businesses are managing workforce issues, and share these within and across sectors to raise the profile, and improve uptake, of workforce planning approaches. This should include providing access to relevant workforce planning tools and templates.
3. Industry and government should partner with regional communities to investigate and promote proactive approaches to meeting workforce requirements. Greater priority needs to be given to investment and R&D in workforce planning and people management so industry can measure and benchmark the benefits to members and define their involvement in this area.
4. Peak industry bodies and RDCs need to play a role in making their members aware of the value of workforce planning and communicating this to employers—particularly through
55
evidence of the connection between people management and profitability and productivity. To achieve this they may need to articulate both the qualitative and quantitative benefits for businesses of increased employee retention and satisfaction.
5. The Australian Government should consider assessing the benefits to productivity and regional development of seasonal or casual labour schemes, including the Seasonal Worker Program.
6. Industry needs to identify and enlarge the pool of trusted advisors across sectors, and to improve their workforce management and planning knowledge and skills so they can better support agricultural employers on these matters.
7. If industry bodies collectively agree that agricultural education and training is best provided through skill sets, or the training system could be more flexible, they should put forward a case outlining strategies to achieve this to the Australian Government.
56
Appendices
Appendix 1. Stakeholder consultations
Stakeholders Located*
Meeting details
Date Location
Face-to-face (F), teleconference (T) or written
submission (W)
Canadian Agricultural Human Resource Council
Ottawa, Canada 30 November 2012 Australia/Canada T
Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency
Canberra, ACT 3 December 2012 Canberra F
AgriFood Skills Australia Canberra, ACT 3 December 2012 Canberra FDairy Australia Melbourne, VIC 3 December 2012 Canberra FAgForce Queensland Brisbane, QLD 3 December 2012 Canberra FGrowcom Brisbane, QLD 3 December 2012 Canberra TWorkforce Blueprint Adelaide, SA 3 December 2012 Canberra FUniversity of Melbourne, Rural Innovation Research Group
Melbourne, VIC 4 December 2012 Canberra F
MADEC Mildura, VIC 4 December 2012 Canberra TCotton Australia
Sydney, NSW4 December 2012 &
19 February 2013Canberra &
Narrabri T
National Farmers’ Federation Canberra, ACT 4 December 2012 Canberra FIrritek Moree, NSW 18 February 2013 Moree FNorland Pastoral Pty Ltd, Weebollabolla
Moree, NSW 18 February 2013 Moree F
University of Sydney, Faculty of Agriculture and Environment
Sydney, NSW 19 February 2013 Narrabri F
Cotton Research and Development Corporation
Narrabri, NSW 19 February 2013 Narrabri F
Carroll Cotton Gin Carroll, NSW 19 February 2013 Narrabri FCotton Seed Distributors Wee Waa, NSW 19 February 2013 Narrabri FMAKE IT WORK group New England
and North West region, NSW
19 February 2013 Narrabri F
Group discussion with several farmers including:John Hamparsum
Breeza and North West region, NSW
19 February 2013 Breeza F
Kalfresh Vegetables Fassifern Valley, QLD
22 February Canberra T
Ceres Farm Kununurra, WA 28 February 2013 Canberra T
57
Stakeholders Located*
Meeting details
Date Location
Face-to-face (F), teleconference (T) or written
submission (W)
Contract harvester SA 28 February 2013 Murray Bridge FRegional Development Australia — Murraylands and Riverland South Australia
Murray Bridge, SA
28 February 2013 Murray Bridge F
Department of Primary Industries and Regions
Adelaide, SA 28 February 2013 Murray Bridge F
Rural Business Support Adelaide, SA 1 March 2013 Adelaide FEldredge & Associates Adelaide, SA 1 March 2013 Adelaide FAg Consulting Co Ardrossan, SA 1 March 2013 Adelaide FAdvanced Viticulture & Management
Nuriootpa, SA 1 March 2013 Adelaide F
Viterra Adelaide, SA 1 March 2013 Adelaide FRural Directions Clare, SA 1 March 2013 Adelaide FMacquarie Franklin Devonport, TAS 7 March 2013 Devonport FDairy Australia’s Workforce Planning and Action Steering Group
TAS 7 March 2013 Devonport F
Tasmanian Farmers & Graziers Association
Launceston, TAS 7 March 2013 Launceston F
TasGlobal Seeds Launceston, TAS 7 March 2013 Launceston FC & J Spencer Agricultural Trust Launceston, TAS 7 March 2013 Launceston FLocal farmer and owner of contract harvesting business
TAS 7 March 2013 Launceston F
Agricultural Contractors of Tasmania
Whitemore, TAS 7 March 2013 Launceston F
Wine Tasmania Hobart, TAS 8 March 2013 Hobart FReid Fruits Plenty, TAS 8 March 2013 Hobart FHouston’s Farm Cambridge, TAS 8 March 2013 Hobart FS. Kidman & Co Adelaide, SA 21 March 2013 Canberra TConsolidated Pastoral Company Brisbane, QLD 21 March 2013 Canberra TQueensland Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
Brisbane, QLD 21 March 2013 Canberra T
Peppin Planners Deniliquin, NSW 26 March 2013 Canberra TPetali Merinos Walcha, NSW 2 April 2013 Canberra TAboriginal Employment Strategy Moree, NSW 4 April 2013 Canberra TPrimary Employers Tasmania Launceston, TAS 5 April 2013 Canberra TMonaro Farming Systems Monaro, NSW 9 April 2013 Canberra TBulla Burra Northern
Mallee, SA9 April 2013 Canberra T
58
Stakeholders Located*
Meeting details
Date Location
Face-to-face (F), teleconference (T) or written
submission (W)
Wimmera Development Association
Horsham, VIC 12 April 2013 Horsham F
Rural Industries Skill Training Hamilton, VIC 12 April 2013 Horsham FGroup discussion with several farmers including:Barry BattersAndrew WeidemannPeter TaylorDavid JochinkeDavid Matthews
Wimmera region, VIC
12 April 2013 Horsham F
Dairy South Australia Lucindale, SA 25 February 2013 ---- WDamian Murphy, Nuffield Scholar 2012
---- 27 February 2013 ---- W
Innovate Care Cheltenham, VIC
28 February 2013 ---- W
National Farmers’ Federation Canberra, ACT 26 April 2013 ---- WNewton Orchards of Manjimup Manjimup, WA 7 March 2013 ---- W
* Refers to head office location and/or office(s) where stakeholder representatives who consulted with NRAC are located.
59
References
ABARES 2013, Agricultural commodities: March quarter 2013, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, Canberra, March. CC BY 3.0.
ABARES 2012, Agricultural commodity statistics 2012, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, December, Canberra.
ABARES 2011-12, Australia Dairy Industry Survey (unpublished data).
ABARES 2010-11, Australian Agricultural and Grazing Industries Survey 2010-11 (unpublished data).
ACEgroup 2010, Towards a Better Understanding of Current and Future Human Resource Needs of Australian Agriculture, Research Report, Australian Farm Institute, Surry Hills, Australia.
ACIL Tasman 2010, Developing the Narrabri Workforce – an assessment of the potential impact of the Workforce Development Strategy in Narrabri, New South Wales. Independent economic analysis commissioned by AgriFood Skills Australia.
Agrifood Skills Australia 2012, Environmental Scan of the Agrifood Industry 2012, Canberra.
Australian Bureau of Statistics 2012, Agricultural Commodities Australia 2010-11, Canberra, June. cat. no. 7121.0.
Australian Bureau of Statistics 2012, Australian Social Trends: Australian farming and farmers, Canberra, December. cat. no. 4102.0.
Australian Bureau of Statistics 2012, Australian System of National Accounts 2012-11, Canberra, November. cat. no. 5204.0.
Australian Bureau of Statistics 2012, Education and Work, Australia, Canberra, May. cat. no. 6227.0.
Australian Bureau of Statistics 2011, Employment type, Number of employees, Industry of employment (Agriculture) 2011, Australia. Tables generated 4 March 2013 using ABS Tablebuilder.
Australian Bureau of Statistics 2011, Employment type, Occupation (Farmers and Farm Managers) 2011, Australia. Tables generated 4 March 2013 using ABS Tablebuilder.
Australian Bureau of Statistics 2011, Industry of employment (Agriculture), Non-School Qualification: Level of Education 2006, 2011, Australia. Tables generated 28 February 2013 using ABS Tablebuilder.
Australian Bureau of Statistics 2011, Labour force status, Industry of employment (Agriculture; Agriculture, fisheries and forestry) 2011, Australia. Tables generated 26 February 2013 using ABS Tablebuilder.
60
Australian Bureau of Statistics 2010, Year Book Australia 2009-10, Canberra, Number 91, cat. no. 1301.0.
Australian Public Service Commission 2011, Workforce Planning Guide, www.apsc.gov.au/publications-and-media/current-publications/workforce-planning-guide, viewed May 2013.
Australian Wool Innovation 2013, AWI R&D Update: Attracting and retaining staff in large pastoral enterprises.
Australian Wool Innovation 2013, AWI R&D Update: Attracting and retaining staff in small pastoral enterprises.
Bloom, N. and Van Reenen, J. 2006, Measuring and Explaining Management Practices Across Firms and Countries, London, March. Centre for Economic Performance Discussion Paper No 716.
Canadian Agricultural Human Resource Council 2009, Labour market information on recruitment and retention in primary agriculture, Ottawa.
Corporate Leadership Council 2004, Driving Performance and Retention through Employee Engagement, Corporate Executive Board, Washington.
Dairy Australia, www.dairyaustralia.com.au/Industry-overview/About-the-industry.aspx, viewed May 2013.
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 2012, Australia’s agriculture, fisheries and forestry at a glance 2012, Canberra, May. CC BY 3.0.
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations 2012, Industry Employment Outlook Report: Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing, Canberra.
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations 2012, Industry Employment Outlook Report: Mining, Canberra.
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations 2012, Industry Employment Projections 2013 report, Canberra.
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations 2012, Workforce Aging Report, Canberra, June.
Farm Management Canada, www.farmcentre.com, viewed May 2013.
Hudson Highland Group Inc. 2005, The Case for Work/Life Balance: Closing the Gap between Policy and Practice, Adelaide, May. 20:20 Series.
61
Ipsos-Eureka Social Research Institute 2010, GRDC Organisational Performance Research: 2010 Grower Survey – Final Report, Grains Research Development Corporation, Canberra, December.
Jenke, E. 2012, Farm Business Management Skills 2012, confidential report for Primary Industries and Regions South Australia – Rural Business Support, Government of South Australia. Strathalbyn, October.
Meat and Livestock Australia 2011, Fact sheet: Medium employers – attracting and retaining staff in the pastoral livestock industry, September.
Meat & Livestock Australia Limited (MLA) 2008, Attracting and retaining staff in Australia’s beef, sheep and pastoral wool industries, Sydney, December.
Mills, J., Crean, D., Ranshaw, D. and Bowman, K. 2012, Workforce skills development and engagement in training through skills sets, National Vocational Education Program and Training Research Program, Adelaide. CC. BY 3.0.
Nettle, R. and Oliver, D. 2009, Workforce planning and action for the Australian dairy industry, Rural Innovation Research Group, Melbourne, February.
Queensland Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (QDAFF) 2012, Industry Skills and Workforce Development Report, Queensland, June. CC. BY 3.0.
Rochester, S. 2009, What you should know about employee turnover, Balance at Work, special report www.balanceatwork.com.au, viewed in May 2013.
Safe Work Australia 2013, Key Work Health and Safety Statistics, Australia, Canberra.
Senate Standing Committee on Employment, Workplace Relations and Education 2006, Perspectives on the future of the harvest labour force, Canberra, October.
University of Technology Sydney, Macquarie Graduate School of Management and the Society of Knowledge Economics 2009, Management Matters in Australia: Just how productive are we? Findings from the Australian Management Practices and Productivity global benchmarking project, Canberra, November.
Watson Wyatt Worldwide 2008, Driving Business Results Through Continuous Engagement: WorkUSA survey report 2008/2009, United States 2008-US-0232.
62