Biosecurity had some big challenges that needed to be addressed collectively, he told farmers at the Federated Farmers arable industry conference.
“To put it bluntly, our system is creaking.
“Biosecurity is working but the model that is there is not sustainable for five years’ time.
“Leave it to the Crown solely and it ain’t going to work. We have got to do it together,” Gwyn said.
And while tourism was great for the country it created greater risk.
“Passengers are increasing 5% year on year. We have to get smarter with how we do business.
“We have all got to come to the table with knowledge, skill and the tools to manage – have the debate up front to do the pre-battle work and control the liabilities.
“For me it’s about transparency.
“If we both don’t understand the problem we are just coming at it in loggerheads and we get no solution.”
The Government Industry Agreement (GIA) was the space for frank and honest discussion to get better outcomes.
The Government had $80 million under investment in terms of biosecurity research and the future biosecurity model needed collaboration with effective leadership and governance, Gwyn said.
Biosecurity readiness and response was a complex beast for the arable industry and all stakeholders must collaborate to find a way to engage with GIA, Foundation for Arable Research chief executive Nick Pyke told farmers.
A GIA around biosecurity would work across the industry, he said.
While work had started on the arable GIA three years ago, several serious pest incursions had struck the industry, putting GIA on the back burner for the past 18 months.
“But we are back on track and we have a plan to have an incorporated society up and running by September this year, if not sooner.
“Once we get a GIA in place I have a lot of confidence we will be better than where we are now.”
An industry body was being formed to deal with the issue and sign a GIA Deed. It should be finalised next year.
Pyke said while the industry had an informal chance to influence decision making, in theory that meant response decisions could be made for the industry rather than in collaboration with the industry.
The GIA would deliver an interactive approach to prepare for and respond to biosecurity with the industry signatories and Government sharing the decision-making and the costs.
“But we are complex – we have a heap of parties playing in our pond and all will be affected in some way and all will be beneficiaries in a response so we need to be all working together.”
These stakeholders included Federated Farmers, flour millers, the grain and seed trade and feed manufacturers.
Cost was the big sticking point to get all the parties over the line.
“But if we don’t get involved in GIA the decisions will be made for us and the costs imposed on us.
“We need to get the support from all parties – consult and gain mandate from those we represent and develop a business case with MPI,” Pyke said.
The industry had set a June 2018 deadline to have everything up and running.
