WHEN AG POLICY IS NOT KEEPING UP WITH MODERN FARMING

One of the realities of modern agriculture is that the risks, expectations and responsibilities placed on growers are constantly evolving.

That is particularly true across the grains industry, where producers are not only managing seasonal variability and global market pressures, but are also operating in an environment increasingly shaped by biosecurity risks, changing sustainability expectations, technology transitions and more complex regulatory systems.

In many respects, agriculture has shown it can evolve quickly when needed.

The Emergency Plant Pest Response Deed (EPPRD) is a good example. Since its establishment more than 20 years ago, it has continued to evolve alongside changing biosecurity threats, industry expectations and response capability. HERE

The agreement has been updated over time because governments and industry recognised that a static system would not remain fit for purpose in a changing operating environment.

Yet there are other parts of agriculture that have not evolved with the same flexibility.

The grains levy system remains largely fixed despite the operating environment around it changing significantly over time. HERE

Costs, risks, technologies, research priorities and biosecurity pressures have all shifted, but the mechanisms available to adjust levy settings remain slow, inflexible and difficult to modernise.

That raises an important question for the broader industry.

If agriculture itself is expected to remain adaptive and responsive, should the systems supporting agriculture not also be capable of evolving when circumstances change?

That does not mean levy rates should constantly fluctuate or shift without proper process. Stability matters.

Long-term investment matters. But flexibility also matters, particularly in an industry where production conditions, market dynamics and national priorities can look very different from one decade to the next.

The same principle applies more broadly across agricultural policy and regulation.

Growers are constantly being asked to modernise, improve productivity, reduce emissions, strengthen environmental outcomes and adopt new technology, yet many are doing so while operating within systems that often struggle to keep pace with the practical realities of farming.

That disconnect is becoming harder to ignore.

A producer can make decisions quickly when seasonal conditions change, but governments and regulatory systems generally cannot.

Farming businesses are often left operating in the gap between the pace of agriculture and the pace of policy.

That might mean dealing with chemical reviews that stretch across multiple seasons while weed pressure continues building in paddocks. HERE

It might mean hearing constant discussion about autonomous machinery and precision agriculture while large parts of regional Australia still struggle with the connectivity needed to properly support those systems.

It can also mean watching global disruptions to fuel and fertiliser markets unfold in real time while trying to make planting decisions with limited certainty around supply availability and input costs. HERE

None of this is about resisting change.

Australian grain growers have consistently shown they are willing to adapt when there is a practical pathway forward.

Minimum tillage systems, precision agriculture, targeted input use and improved water efficiency are now standard practice across much of the grains industry because those practices improved productivity, reduced soil disturbance and made long-term business sense.

What creates frustration is when policy conversations lose sight of operational reality.

At the same time, many of the decisions increasingly shaping agriculture are being made well beyond the farm gate.

Trade policy, chemical regulation, sustainability frameworks, market access, biosecurity preparedness and infrastructure investment all directly affect grain producers, even though growers themselves are often several steps removed from where many of those discussions occur.

That is why industry engagement remains important.

Farming organisations, grower groups and broader industry structures continue to play an important role in keeping practical on-farm experience connected to policy and industry discussions as decisions are developed.

Equally important is ensuring growers themselves remain involved in those conversations by raising issues from the paddock, contributing to industry discussions and continuing to support the structures that help keep practical farming realities part of the national conversation around agriculture.

The future of Australian agriculture will not be determined by ambition alone.

It will also depend on whether the systems surrounding agriculture remain capable of evolving alongside the industry itself, and whether the people producing the nation’s food and fibre remain part of the conversation shaping how that change is delivered in practice.