View
9
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Australian Meat Processor Corporation Performance Review 2011-15
Final Report
July 2015
Executive summary The Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) is the rural Research and Development
Corporation (RDC) for the Australian red meat processing industry.
Under its Statutory Funding Agreement (SFA) with the Commonwealth, AMPC is required to
conduct an independent review of performance. The previous performance review was
completed in 2010 by Arche Consulting. This performance review addresses issues relating to
AMPC’s operations, investments and engagement with the broader Australian meat processing
industry. It is intended to provide Government and other key stakeholders with an assessment
of AMPC’s efficiency and operational effectiveness.
The review was guided by an evaluation framework that includes seven separate areas of
assessment. The over-arching assessment criteria, as set out in the SFA, focus on effective,
efficient and ethical use of levy payers’ funds.
It should be noted in this review that during the period in question, AMPC stated that around
80% of contracting, project management and program evaluation activities were the
responsibility of MLA. To improve transparency, communication and program delivery, and with
the agreement of the Boards of both AMPC and MLA, in FY 2014-15 AMPC assumed full
responsibility for Core program management.
It should also be noted that as a result of the transition of Core program management activities
from MLA to AMPC, which has included a new AMPC structure and business process focus,
AMPC has recognised areas of its activities that need to be addressed and evidence of
improvement is outlined in this review.
This report presents the findings of GHD’s performance review of AMPC for the period 2011 –
2015 which are summarised under each evaluation area as follows:
Company operations and funding
AMPC’s constitution reflects its obligations in accordance with the SFA. While communication of
members’ rights occurs on a regular basis, the role performed by AMPC relative to other red
meat industry organisations remains unclear to some stakeholders.
AMPC has attempted to address stakeholder understanding of its functions through issuing
separate reports: an Annual Report for Members, and a Directors report and Audited Financial
report to replace the traditional annual report issued for the 2013-14 year. Mixed feedback on
this reporting indicates that AMPC should evaluate the outcomes of this approach before
finalising the 2014-15 reporting.
Recommendation: Evaluate effectiveness of approach to present multiple Annual
Reporting documents before proceeding with format for 2014-15 report.
Levy payers have demonstrated strong support for AMPC to take greater responsibility for the
management of its core RD&E investments, however some administrative issues have been
reported by stakeholders.
Recommendation: Review administrative issues.
AMPC received approximately $17 million in levy funds over the review period. In addition,
AMPC has access to accumulated reserve funds estimated to be $35 million. Reserves assist to
manage volatile levy income, which is a function of unforeseen seasonal factors and complex
market conditions. The company is considering developing a documented reserves policy.
Recommendation: Finalise a strategy for managing reserves.
GHD | Report for Australian Meat Processor Corporation – Performance Review, 21/24496 | 3
Program planning and effective delivery
AMPC invests in three key programs – the Core program, the Joint program and the Plant
Initiated Projects Program. GHD reviewed program planning and effective delivery performance
with regard to the following plans produced by AMPC:
Strategic Plan – Aligns with the SFA
Recommendation: Develop a formal consultation process for stakeholder input into the
next strategic planning cycle.
Annual Operating Plan (AOP) – Each year there is a delay in submission of the AOP due
to the requirement to align with the AOP produced by MLA
Recommendation: Amend the SFA submission requirement to ensure alignment with
MLA AOP submission requirements.
Cross RDC collaboration – Major collaboration occurs on joint programs with MLA
Recommendation: Further distinction between Joint, Core and PIP programs and
associated investments to improve understanding of the use of Commonwealth and levy
funds.
Delivery of benefits
Project outcomes are documented in Annual Reports and Project Reports. Research outcomes
in summary reports in the past have been more qualitative in nature and did not demonstrate
consistently the potential financial benefits regarding the adoption of research for individual
establishments. AMPC advises this is now being addressed following the transition of Core
program management responsibilities from MLA to AMPC, as evidenced by the company’s new
evaluation framework.
Recommendation: Improve reporting and communication of the benefits of AMPC’s
activities.
With the recent transition of core project management responsibility from MLA to AMPC, an
evaluation framework has been prepared for research and development activities, marketing
programs and projects. The draft evaluation framework has been designed to put a process in
place to evaluate every AMPC project / program.
Recommendation: Implement the new evaluation framework and associated reporting of
outcomes. Improve communication of the complexity of evaluation including the time lag
between proof of concept and adoption of research.
Engagement, consultation and communication
Consultation and engagement is necessary with industry, government and research providers to
inform identification of RD&E and marketing priorities, extension activities and strategic
research direction. AMPC has developed a strategic communications plan based on the results
of the 2010 performance review.
Communication initiatives include: the provision of a new website; upgrade of the online
‘members area’ component of the website; the AMPC learning platform to house industry-
specific training; information events such as webinars, workshops and seminars; and electronic
direct marketing – distribution of electronic newsletters to stakeholders.
Recommendation: Complete a review of the AMPC 2015-18 Strategic Communications
Plan within two years of its implementation to determine if it is achieving its stated goals,
and amend if necessary.
Company structure and staffing
AMPC’s structure has changed substantially since the 2010 performance review, reflecting the
company’s emphasis on active investment and management of R&D funds. Early indications
are the new company structure and operations will allow for the CEO to manage the business of
AMPC more effectively, while empowering other staff to focus on their specific area of expertise.
Recommendation: Consider whether the staffing structure remains appropriate for the
efficient and effective management of the company.
Corporate governance
AMPC’s corporate governance practices have been reconciled with the ASX Corporate
Governance Council’s Corporate Governance Principles and Recommendations. AMPC is
largely compliant with the Principles except in the following areas:
Independence;
Board and Committee Performance Evaluation;
Nomination Committee; and
Diversity Policy.
Recommendation: Complete a Board and Committee Performance Evaluation.
Recommendation: Establish a Nomination Committee.
Recommendation: Establish an induction process for the board.
Recommendation: Develop a diversity policy.
Recommendation: Develop a policy on board training and ongoing professional
development of directors.
There is evidence of many good governance practices including the development of a Board
Charter, a Delegations Register, Conflicts of Interest Policy and Procedures including a meeting
agenda item for declaration of conflicts of interest.
Response to the 2010 performance review
AMPC responded to each of the recommendations in the 2010 performance review.
Recommendation: Complete implementation of the recommendations from the previous
review, noting that many actions are substantially complete. Remaining actions will be
covered by the recommendations from this review.
GHD | Report for Australian Meat Processor Corporation – Performance Review, 21/24496 | 5
Table of contents 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 8
1.1 Purpose of this report........................................................................................................... 8
1.2 Australian Meat Processor Corporation ............................................................................... 9
1.3 Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 12
1.4 Scope and limitations ......................................................................................................... 13
2. Company operations and funding ................................................................................................ 14
2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 14
2.2 Findings ............................................................................................................................. 14
2.3 Summary of findings .......................................................................................................... 19
2.4 Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 20
3. Program planning and effective delivery ...................................................................................... 21
3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 21
3.2 Findings ............................................................................................................................. 22
3.3 Cross RDC collaboration ................................................................................................... 31
3.4 Summary of findings .......................................................................................................... 31
3.5 Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 32
4. Delivery of benefits ....................................................................................................................... 34
4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 34
4.2 Findings ............................................................................................................................. 34
4.3 Summary of findings .......................................................................................................... 39
4.4 Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 40
5. Engagement, consultation and communication ........................................................................... 41
5.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 41
5.2 Findings ............................................................................................................................. 41
5.3 Summary of findings .......................................................................................................... 43
5.4 Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 44
6. Company structure and staffing ................................................................................................... 45
6.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 45
6.2 Findings ............................................................................................................................. 45
6.3 Summary of findings .......................................................................................................... 46
6.4 Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 46
7. Corporate governance ................................................................................................................. 47
7.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 47
7.2 Findings ............................................................................................................................. 47
7.3 Summary of findings .......................................................................................................... 51
7.4 Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 52
8. Response to the 2010 performance review ................................................................................. 53
8.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 53
8.2 Findings ............................................................................................................................. 54
8.3 Summary of findings .......................................................................................................... 55
8.4 Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 56
9. Conclusion and recommendations ............................................................................................... 57
10. References ................................................................................................................................... 59
Table index Table 1 Review framework - Company operations and funding ..................................................... 14
Table 2 Slaughter Levy Rate effective 1 November 2010 .............................................................. 15
Table 3 Income - statutory levy ($m) .............................................................................................. 16
Table 4 AMPC Reserves ($m) ........................................................................................................ 16
Table 5 AMPC contribution to MLA consolidated funding for AOP 2014-15 ($’000s) .................... 18
Table 6 Review findings - Company operations and SFA obligations ............................................ 19
Table 7 Review framework – program planning and effective delivery .......................................... 21
Table 8 Key strategic imperatives and measurement 2013-2017 .................................................. 24
Table 9 Project expenditures ($m) .................................................................................................. 28
Table 10 AMPC funding by strategic imperative ............................................................................... 29
Table 11 Review findings – program planning and effective delivery .............................................. 32
Table 12 Review framework – delivery of benefits ........................................................................... 34
Table 13 Examples of project outputs .............................................................................................. 36
Table 14 Review findings – delivery of benefits ................................................................................ 40
Table 15 Review framework – engagement, consultation and communication ............................... 41
Table 16 Summary of communication activities 2014-15 ................................................................. 42
Table 17 Review findings – engagement, consultation and communication .................................... 44
Table 18 Review framework – structure and operational model ...................................................... 45
Table 19 Review findings – structure and operational model ........................................................... 46
Table 20 Review framework – system of corporate governance ...................................................... 47
Table 21 Review findings – system of corporate governance .......................................................... 51
Table 22 Review framework – response to the 2010 performance review ...................................... 53
Table 23 Review findings – response to the 2010 performance review ........................................... 55
Figure index
Figure 1 RMAC and industry structure ............................................................................................. 11
Figure 2 Strategic alignment 2008-2017 .......................................................................................... 23
GHD | Report for Australian Meat Processor Corporation – Performance Review, 21/24496 | 7
Figure 3 Annual portfolio development cycle ................................................................................... 26
Figure 4 AOP alignment with strategic plans ................................................................................... 27
Figure 5 AMPC organisation chart ................................................................................................... 45
Appendices Appendix A – Evaluation framework
Appendix B – Document register
Appendix C – Stakeholder consultation
Appendix D – Corporate Governance
Appendix E – Communication Activities in 2014/15
1. Introduction 1.1 Purpose of this report
The Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) is the rural Research and Development
Corporation (RDC) for the Australian red meat processing industry. The company administers
statutory levies collected by the Commonwealth from processors for the purposes of conducting
research, development, extension and marketing services for the red meat processing industry.
AMPC has a Statutory Funding Agreement (SFA) with the Commonwealth that guides AMPC’s
administration of the statutory levies. One requirement of the SFA is for AMPC to conduct an
independent performance review to consider its operations, investments and engagement with
the broader Australian red meat processing industry thereby providing Government and other
key stakeholders with an assessment of AMPC’s efficiency and operational effectiveness.
GHD Pty Ltd was contracted by AMPC to complete a performance review for the period 2011 –
2015. This report presents the findings of the independent performance review.
1.1.1 Terms of reference
The terms of reference for the review are as follows:
1. Assess AMPC’s performance in delivering research and development, extension and
marketing services. This will include an assessment of the:
a. Performance of AMPC in meeting its obligations under its Statutory Funding
Agreement 2011-15 with the Commonwealth (see Sections 2 to 9).
b. Development, implementation and the efficiency in the delivery of its strategic, annual
operational, risk management, fraud control and intellectual property plans and the
company’s effectiveness in meeting the priorities, targets and budgets as set out in
these plans (see Section 2 and 3).
c. Structure and operations of the company, to ensure good practice and systems of
corporate governance, including changes to AMPC’s recent operational model for
managing R&D delivery with Meat & Livestock Australia Limited (see Sections 6 and
7, and Appendix D).
d. The effectiveness of the arrangements for engagement, consultation, and
communication with, and feedback to, stakeholders, including the opportunities for
levy payers and other contributors to influence the investment of levies (see Section
5).
e. AMPC’s efforts in cross-RDC collaboration (see Section 3.3).
2. Assess the delivery of benefits, including the achieved value for money and return on
investment to levy payers, the industry, the general public, and the contribution to
increasing farm gate returns, as foreshadowed in the company’s strategic and operational
plans (see Section 4).
3. Assess AMPC’s effectiveness in addressing and implementing the recommendations
from the 2010 performance review (see Section 8).
4. Make recommendations for improvement to AMPC’s performance in delivering research,
development, extension and marketing services (see Section 9).
GHD | Report for Australian Meat Processor Corporation – Performance Review, 21/24496 | 9
1.2 Australian Meat Processor Corporation
AMPC was declared by the then Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to be the Meat
Processor Marketing and Research body under Section 60 (3AA) and 60 (3AB) of the Australian
Meat and Livestock Industry Act 1997 (Cth) (Act) in 2007. The Act enables AMPC to receive
statutory levy funds from processors for the purpose of RD&E delivery and reporting in
accordance with the legislation and SFA. Prior to the Act funds were collected on a voluntary
basis for RD&E activities and in certain years there was a carry-over of funds. This carry-over is
reported as pre-statutory reserves (see Table 4). All red meat matching funding is provided to
Meat & Livestock Australia (MLA). Section 66(1)(b) provides for MLA to receive matching
funding from amounts received by approved donors (e.g. AMPC).
AMPC has 124 members accounting for 150 processing establishments and representing more
than 97% of red meat processing capacity in Australia, as at 2014/15, which represents no
change in membership numbers since the beginning of the review period. Levies on beef and
livestock (cattle, bobby calf, sheep, lambs and goats) slaughter are payable by processors for
each animal slaughtered at an abattoir for human consumption, irrespective of whether they are
a member of AMPC. Levies are used to fund research, development, extension and marketing
services for the red meat processing industry.
In order to improve transparency, program management and business focus, AMPC’s
operational model has undergone substantial change since the previous performance review
that was completed in 2010 (Arche Consulting 2010). Up to 2013, MLA was the primary provider
of services to the processing sector and AMPC’s role was more as a ‘passive’ investor. The
financial year 2013/14 marked the beginning of a transition period with AMPC assuming an
increasing role in project and contract management. By the end of 2014/15 AMPC will have
largely completed the shift to self-governance, in particular for its Core program activities.
Accordingly AMPC advises that for the period in question MLA was responsible for more than
80% of the contracting, project management and evaluation activities referred to in this report.
AMPC’s portfolio of activities includes three broad delivery platforms: Core Programs (fully
managed by AMPC from FY 2014-15); MLA Joint Program (for joint industry programs including
marketing and market access); and Plant Initiated Projects (in conjunction with the MLA Donor
Company through the MLA Collaborative Innovation Strategies (CIS) Program).
1.2.1 Core Program
The Core Program is the main RD&E program within the meat processing sector. From FY
2014-15 this program has been fully administered by AMPC but prior to that it was the
management responsibility of MLA. FY 2013-14 was a transition year. Following transition this
program is now administered and delivered by AMPC and is supported by an industry-wide
consultation process. This program addresses key issues facing the entire red meat processing
chain in terms of productivity, profitability, sustainability and capability.
The Core Program is funded by processor levies (50%) and matching Commonwealth funds.
1.2.2 Joint Program
The Joint Program is collaboratively funded between AMPC and MLA using both producer and
processor levies and matching Commonwealth RD&E funds. The Joint Program generates
supply and value chain outcomes which support food safety, eating quality and increased
market demand for meat and meat products. In collaboration with the peak industry councils
and MLA, AMPC contributes to developments across the red meat industry supply chain and
the establishment of targets and KPIs for joint activities.
The Joint Program activities are funded by a combination of processor levies and producer
levies and are agreed between the sectors within MLA’s Annual Operating Plan (AOP). Joint
program activities include RD&E and marketing projects, with the RD&E projects eligible for
matching Commonwealth funding.
1.2.3 Plant Initiated Projects (PIP) Program
The Plant Initiated Projects (PIP) Program is a mechanism for leveraging additional private
investment directly into industry RD&E programs. This program enables processors to identify
and undertake RD&E projects on plant that can deliver benefits to the whole of the red meat
processing sector. It enables the transition and adaptation of new technologies into operating
plants under real world conditions.
AMPC allocates 25% of each processor’s levies for funding PIP activities. This amount is
matched by the processing plant involved (a voluntary contribution), and there is an opportunity
to apply for matching R&D funds from the Commonwealth, via the MLA Donor Company (MDC).
MDC is a fully-owned MLA subsidiary which provides a vehicle for attracting voluntary
contributions from individual enterprises that share a mutual interest with MLA to co-invest in
innovation initiatives that will deliver benefit to the Australian red meat industry. Since its
inception in 1999, the MDC (R&D partnership) program has engaged enterprises from all parts
of the industry supply chain including processors, value-adders, breed societies, large pastoral
companies and technology providers. A specific component of MDC activity relates to plant
initiated projects which are co-funded with AMPC and processors. In addition, MDC has also
formed international alliances which have assisted in accelerating Australia’s access to valuable
intellectual property at much lower cost than would otherwise have been possible.
Guidelines for the utilisation of PIP funds within the MLA CIS Program are available for
members. MLA manages all MDC projects and also manages the selection of PIP projects for
funding. All MDC projects are subject to standard MLA RD&E contract terms and conditions and
commercialisation is managed via standard licensing agreements which aim to maximise benefit
to the Australian red meat industry. Intellectual Property arrangements are in accordance with
standard MLA policies and aim to protect benefits for the Australian red meat industry.
Exclusivity arrangements are rare and for limited time periods.
Further details regarding the changes in AMPC’s operations are provided in Section 2 including
details of the funding of initiatives.
1.2.4 Australian red meat industry structure
AMPC is part of a broader red meat industry structure under the umbrella of the Red Meat
Advisory Council (RMAC) which was formed in 1998. This structure includes the various
industry bodies that develop policies for industry direction and the three levy-funded service
companies responsible for program delivery, including AMPC, MLA and the Australian Livestock
Export Corporation (LiveCorp) (see Figure 1).
The red meat industry is underpinned by an operating framework in the form of the Red Meat
Industry Memorandum of Understanding 1998 (MoU), which incorporates the definition of
agreed organisation roles and responsibilities, funding, planning and service delivery
arrangements, and a strategic framework in the form of the Meat Industry Strategic Plan (MISP).
GHD | Report for Australian Meat Processor Corporation – Performance Review, 21/24496 | 11
Figure 1 RMAC and industry structure
Source: GHD (2013)
Under the MoU, AMPC is recognised as the processor marketing body and processor research
body. The MoU outlines the funding of AMPC and its activities to be undertaken by AMPC or
jointly with MLA, including joint functions and core functions, through a statutory levy on
processors. The document also sets out the roles of each of the signatories including the
Commonwealth, and includes an obligation to cooperate on mutually agreed terms. This
includes the extent to which the Commonwealth commits matching funds for industry research
and development to be undertaken by or arranged through MLA for the benefit of the industry.
Under the MoU, MLA has a responsibility to negotiate and enter into contracts with AMPC under
which MLA will perform, or arrange for other persons to perform, joint functions and services on
behalf of processors for achieving the goals identified in the MISP.
Up to 2013, MLA was primarily responsible for managing RD&E and marketing programs on
behalf of AMPC. Since then, AMPC has taken a more active role in program and project
management and the relationship between AMPC and MLA was formally documented in an
agreement (known as the Relationship Agreement) dated 22 May 2013. This agreement
outlines the obligations for AMPC Managed RD&E and MLA Managed RD&E whereby AMPC
has responsibility for managing research agreements for AMPC Managed RD&E which AMPC
has been approved to enter into.
The implementation of the agreement is overseen by a Governance Committee and an
Executive Committee comprising representatives of both MLA and AMPC. In the event of a
disagreement both parties reserve the right to identify, commence, and progress projects and
activities to ensure their obligations under their respective SFAs and the MOU are met.
The Relationship Agreement is complemented by a Management Agreement between MLA and
AMPC that was signed on 15 October 2013. This agreement relates to the management of
research agreements being conducted by a research organisation utilising AMPC funds. It
classifies the different types of research agreements, including transition and existing research
agreements, and the management protocols and responsibilities with each research
organisation. This includes, for example, how MLA’s rights and obligations under an “existing
agreement” are assigned and novated to AMPC.
1.2.5 Vision
AMPC’s vision is for a sustainable, profitable and competitive red meat processing sector that
meets national and international customer, consumer and community expectations.
1.2.6 Objectives
AMPC’s objective is to maximise the efficiency, viability and sustainability of the red meat
processing sector by supporting the development of sound, scientific solutions that will:
Improve the long term efficiency and competitiveness of the industry;
Enhance the sustainability of the industry;
Assist to protect, secure and maintain market access;
Enhance capability and;
Enhance overall productivity and performance of the meat processing sector.
1.3 Methodology
The review of performance was undertaken in four discrete tasks:
Task 1: Development of an evaluation framework – the framework provides a structure for
the review and ensures the analysis is evidence-based. The framework is presented at
Appendix A;
Task 2: Desktop review and consultation – an extensive range of documents were
reviewed to inform the analysis. A document register is provided at Appendix B.
Consultation with a range of stakeholders was undertaken to complement the desktop
review and address information gaps. Stakeholders consulted during the review process
are summarised at Appendix C and include AMPC Board members and staff, processors,
the Department, peak councils, MLA, and research providers;
Task 3: Presentation – following the desktop review and consultation, preliminary findings
were presented to AMPC. This provided an opportunity to address any remaining
information gaps; and
Task 4: Final reporting – the outcomes of the presentation were incorporated into a draft
report for AMPC feedback prior to completion of the review.
1.3.1 Structure
The structure of this report is aligned with the seven evaluation framework areas:
Section 2 assesses AMPC’s operations and funding;
Section 3 details the company’s planning processes and the effectiveness of plan
delivery including collaboration with other RDCs;
Section 4 describes AMPC’s delivery of benefits;
Section 5 assesses the effectiveness of AMPC’s engagement, consultation and
communication with stakeholders;
Section 6 describes the company’s structure and staffing;
Section 7 analyses AMPC’s system of corporate governance; and
GHD | Report for Australian Meat Processor Corporation – Performance Review, 21/24496 | 13
Section 8 assesses AMPC’s response to the 2010 performance review
recommendations.
The conclusions and recommendations arising from the review are detailed in Section 9.
1.4 Scope and limitations
This report: has been prepared by GHD for Australian Meat Processor Corporation and may
only be used and relied on by Australian Meat Processor Corporation for the purpose agreed
between GHD and the Australian Meat Processor Corporation as set out in section 1.1 of this
report.
GHD otherwise disclaims responsibility to any person other than Australian Meat Processor
Corporation arising in connection with this report. GHD also excludes implied warranties and
conditions, to the extent legally permissible.
The services undertaken by GHD in connection with preparing this report were limited to those
specifically detailed in the report and are subject to the scope limitations set out in the report.
The opinions, conclusions and any recommendations in this report are based on conditions
encountered and information reviewed at the date of preparation of the report. GHD has no
responsibility or obligation to update this report to account for events or changes occurring
subsequent to the date that the report was prepared.
The opinions, conclusions and any recommendations in this report are based on the
methodology applied, the evidence collected and the assumptions made by GHD described in
this report. GHD disclaims liability arising from any of the assumptions being incorrect.
2. Company operations and funding 2.1 Introduction
AMPC is bound by the Corporations Act 2001, the Australian Meat and Livestock Industry Act
1997 (Cth) and the SFA. The company operates under a constitution that sets out its obligations
to members and other stakeholders, the receipt of funds and how these are managed. Its
operations are listed as ‘Objects’ within the constitution and there is a requirement for these to
be upheld by due process under the direction of a skills-based board.
Table 1 outlines the key areas and assessment criteria this review has adopted to assess
performance in relation to the company’s operations and funding. The application of funds is
discussed in section 3 while more detailed aspects of corporate governance are discussed in
section 7.
Table 1 Review framework - Company operations and funding
Review Area Assessment Documents / Methods
Constitution and membership
The constitution amendments align with the SFA
Membership aligns with the constitution
Constitution
Consultation with Government, Partners, collaborators and service providers.
Consultation with levy payers
Documented amendment changes
Payment and management of funds
Audited financial reports complete and compliant
Viewing reports (audited financial reports 2011-15)
Performance Review Review commissioned
Implementation of the previous review recommendations
2015 performance review
2.2 Findings
2.2.1 Constitution and membership
Constitution
The constitution defines AMPC’s obligations as a public company limited by guarantee. The
SFA states that AMPC agrees to amend the constitution if there is a conflict between the AMPC
constitution and AMPC’s obligations under the SFA. The SFA also states that any change to the
constitution needs to go through the Minister. The Minister has delegated this authority to the
Department.
The current constitution was adopted by members on 28 November 2013 and is a revision of
the previous constitution dated 18 May 2007. The Department was notified of the changes
before they were adopted by members. The changes to the constitution reflect updates to the
requirements within the SFA and were also required to reflect an increase in the cap for annual
director remuneration (in aggregate), from $300,000 to $500,000.
AMPC’s obligations under its constitution have also been enabled by the execution of a
Relationship Agreement between AMPC and MLA in 2013 to reflect the more proactive role of
GHD | Report for Australian Meat Processor Corporation – Performance Review, 21/24496 | 15
AMPC in managing its RD&E portfolio, which until that time was largely outsourced to MLA. This
agreement and associated management agreement was described in section 1.2.4.
Membership
AMPC is bound by the SFA to remain representative of the industry’s marketing, promotion and
research development interests. Currently AMPC has 124 members across 150 processing
establishments (out of approximately 175-180 levy paying establishments) and represents more
than 97% of red meat processing capacity in Australia. Membership is voluntary and available to
all levy payers. There is no membership fee and membership does not expire.
It is a requirement for AMPC to ensure that all levy payers are aware of their membership
entitlements. The SFA states that levy payers who are not members of AMPC need to be
advised of their entitlement to become members and that a suitable communications program is
established to ensure that persons that are entitled to, but are not members of AMPC, are
encouraged to become members of AMPC.
Part 7.3 of the AMPC communications plan identifies initiatives to engage with non-member levy
payers. These include an annual direct mailing initiative to inform these organisations of the
benefits of AMPC membership, and working with the Queensland Country Meat Processors
Association to identify organisations that are eligible for AMPC membership. Further details
regarding the AMPC communications plan are provided in section 5.
Levy payers are made aware of their membership rights through several means including the
AMPC annual report (emailed and sent via hard copy), board election notices (sent every two
years to notify members of their voting rights), R&D newsletters, and invitation to AMPC
conferences.
2.2.2 Payment and management of funds
The Australian Meat and Livestock Industry Act 1997 enables AMPC to receive statutory levy
funds from processors for the purpose of RD&E delivery and reporting in accordance with the
legislation and SFA.
The Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Act 1999 imposes the levy on beef and livestock (cattle,
bobby calf, sheep, lambs and goats) payable by processors for each animal slaughtered at an
abattoir for human consumption. The current rates of levies are summarised in Table 2 below.
Table 2 Slaughter Levy Rate effective 1 November 2010
R&D ($) Marketing ($) Total ($)
Beef (per kg) 0.004 0.002 0.006
Sheep (per head) 0.09 0.06 0.15
Lamb (per head) 0.09 0.07 0.16
Goat (per head) 0.07 0.03 0.10
Source (Beef): http://www.agriculture.gov.au/ag-farm-
food/levies/categories/livestock/buffalo_slaughter2/information_sheet
Source (Sheep, Lambs and Goat): http://www.agriculture.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/ag-
food/levies/livestock/livestockslaughter.pdf
Based on the above levy rates, AMPC received approximately $17 million per year over the
review period to fund its operations with yearly income outlined in Table 3. Income fluctuates
between years because of the variation in livestock slaughter numbers that are a function of
largely unpredictable factors including seasonal (drought) and market conditions.
Table 3 Income - statutory levy ($m)1
Financial Year (FY) R&D ($m) Marketing ($m) Total ($m
FY 2011 10.69 6.02 16.71
FY 2012 10.90 6.13 17.03
FY 2013 11.56 6.50 18.06
FY 2014 12.81 7.21 20.02
FY 2015 (estimate) 10.72 6.03 16.75
Source: AMPC 2013-14 Directors’ report and audited financial report, AMPC Finance & Administration Manager
In addition to the yearly income from statutory levies, AMPC also has access to reserve funds
that have accumulated over time and are currently estimated at almost $35 million (Table 4),
down from $38 million in FY 2014.
Table 4 AMPC Reserves ($m)
Financial Year (FY)
Pre-statutory2 R&D Marketing Total
FY 2012 3.49 25.41 -0.49 28.41
FY 2013 3.59 28.48 -1.88 30.19
FY 2014 6.17 34.30 -2.13 38.34
FY 2015 (Estimate) 6.38 33.94 -5.61 34.71
Source: AMPC 2013-14 Directors’ report and audited financial report, p12
The current expenditure of reserves is based on 36% of expenditure in any one year being
spent on marketing and 64% on R&D. Marketing funding is directed to AUS-MEAT, MLA and
AMPC activities. This requires more marketing funds than allowable under the 36/64 ratio. The
board recognises that it needs to change this ratio, however a decision is yet to be made as to
what the new ratio should be. AMPC is not allowed to borrow R&D funds for marketing activities
under its SFA, as levy funds must be used for the purposes for which these are collected. The
company therefore borrows pre-statutory funds to go into deficit (see Table 4) for marketing
activities.
Reserves assist AMPC to manage volatility in levy income arising from seasonal and market
factors. Reserves also provide an opportunity for the company to pursue ‘disruptive innovation’
(i.e. longer term investments that have the potential to create new market opportunities, rather
than incremental innovation) and/or higher (calculated) risk investments that have the potential
for greater impact.
The company is considering developing a documented reserves policy. Modelling has recently
been undertaken to understand the main ‘levers’ that can be used to address the size of the
reserve. AMPC has advised it is awaiting the outcome of the grass-fed beef levy inquiry before
developing a policy.
AMPC meets with the Department on a regular basis. The company has discussed its reserves
with the Department. The Department is not concerned by the magnitude of reserves and
recognises that this is largely due to drought conditions driving slaughter numbers (and reserves
can therefore fluctuate more than is the case for some other industries). The Department
considers that a reserves policy is part of good governance and that AMPC is best placed to
determine what the reserve should be. The Department has suggested AMPC consult the
Cotton Research and Development Corporation (CRDC) regarding its reserves policy, given
1 Excludes matching funds from the Commonwealth, which are received by MLA rather than AMPC when funds are allocated to R&D projects. 2 The increase in pre-statutory funds from FY 2013 to 2014 reflects a successful litigation to recover previously stolen funds.
GHD | Report for Australian Meat Processor Corporation – Performance Review, 21/24496 | 17
that CRDC is of a similar size and that both industries can experience large fluctuations in
income. AMPC’s reserves are discussed in the context of corporate governance in Section 7.
Under the MOU, all of the participating service providers agree on the investment of funds as
guided by the MISP and their own strategic plans and these are further distilled into Annual
Operating Plans (AOPs). AMPC’s use of funds is guided by the various Strategic Plans and
Annual Operating Plans, which are further discussed in section 3, however coordination of the
total red meat industry expenditure is the responsibility of MLA.
Table 5 is an extract from MLA’s AOP that shows the MLA Consolidated budget for the year as
well as the contributions to the total by AMPC and the MDC. The table differentiates AMPC’s
contribution to the Joint and Core programs as well as showing the amounts spent on RD&E
and marketing. The RD&E component is eligible to receive matching funding from the
Commonwealth.
The funding of joint programs from multiple funding sources indicates the collaborative nature of
the investment of levy funds for the benefit of the red meat industry but this also complicates the
evaluation of the benefits of those investments to levy payers. This is discussed further in
section 4.
Table 5 AMPC contribution to MLA consolidated funding for AOP 2014-15 ($’000s)
Activity / Program Area AMPC Joint AMPC Core MLA Donor Co MLA Consolidated
RD&E Marketing RD&E RD&E 2014-15
Maintaining and improving market access 1,363 4,113 514 - 26,292
Growing demand 808 1,856 673 - 61,279
Increasing productivity across the supply chain - - 2,265 - 41,502
Support industry integrity and sustainability 52 98 2,449 - 15,787
Stakeholder communication and reporting - - - - 1,933
Ausmeat - - - - 575
R & D Partnerships - - - 14,000 28,000
Total expenditure pre corporate services 2,223 6,067 5,901 14,000 175,368
Corporate Services - - - - 10,260
Levy Collection Costs - - - - 729
Total expenditure 2,223 6,067 5,901 14,000 186,357
Income available
Levies (producers) - - - - 95,401
Commonwealth - - - - 49,983
Processors (AMPC) 2,223 6,067 5,901 - 14,191
Live export - - - - 1,869
R & D partnerships - - - 14,000 14,000
External - - - - 6,189
Total income 2,223 6,067 5,901 14,000 181,633
GHD | Report for Australian Meat Processor Corporation – Performance Review, 21/24496 | 19
2.2.3 Performance Reviews
The previous performance review was undertaken by Arche Consulting and was submitted on
21 June 2010. AMPC’s progress towards addressing the recommendations arising from the
Arche review is detailed in section 8.
The current SFA requires a performance review to be conducted before 1 July 2015 for the
2011 – 2015 review period (i.e. the subject of this report).
AMPC’s implementation of the previous review recommendations is assessed in Section 8.
2.3 Summary of findings
The review of documentation and external consultation indicates that the company’s constitution
reflects its obligations under the SFA and that communication to its members of their rights
occurs on a regular basis. AMPC’s responsibilities under the MoU, including further refinement
of its responsibilities through the Relationship Agreement and Management Agreement with
MLA also appear to conform with its obligations.
External consultation with stakeholders indicated that while communication of members’ rights
occurred, there is still some level of confusion by members of the roles performed by AMPC in
relation to other red meat industry organisations. This has been recognised by AMPC and is
being addressed in its recently completed Strategic Communications Plan which is discussed in
section 5.2.1.
A recent initiative designed to improve the understanding of AMPC’s operations and outcomes
of its investments to funding bodies (levy payers and the Commonwealth) was to present
separate reports on performance, namely: Annual Report to Members 2013-14; and Directors’
Report and Audited Financial Report 2013-14. Some feedback from external consultation has
questioned whether this has been an improvement as a single document enables all of AMPC’s
compliance responsibilities to be captured without the need to cross check multiple reports.
Furthermore, additional summary documents could be prepared for specific sectors to further
highlight achievements from its RD&E programs if required.
Before concluding the format of presenting the upcoming 2014-15 Annual Report, AMPC could
evaluate the outcomes of its 2013-14 reporting and decide on the most appropriate approach.
The direction of AMPC to take greater responsibility for the management of its core RD&E
investments is very much supported by levy payers, although understandably there have been
some administrative issues between MLA and AMPC that have been reported to GHD that will
need to be resolved.
Table 6 summarises the findings of this review with regard to the company’s operations and
SFA obligations.
Table 6 Review findings - Company operations and SFA obligations
Review Area Performance
Constitution and membership
Complies – constitution and membership align with the SFA. Improvement in communication with members is being implemented.
The implementation of the Relationship Agreement and Management Agreement with MLA is supported by levy payers, however, reports of some administrative issues have been received and will need to be resolved.
Payment and management of funds
Complies – audited financial statements complete. Reserves policy currently being investigated.
Performance Review Complies – review undertaken by GHD.
2.4 Recommendations
1. Evaluate the effectiveness of presenting the 2013-14 Annual Report as multiple documents
and use this evaluation as a basis for determining the format for the 2014-15 report.
2. Review the reported administrative issues associated with the implementation of the
Relationship Agreement and Management Agreement with MLA and determine a resolution
so that AMPC can continue to manage agreed Core and other projects in an efficient and
effective manner.
3. Finalise a strategy for managing reserves and clearly report this to members in the context of
risk management associated with fluctuating levy income as a result of slaughter numbers.
GHD | Report for Australian Meat Processor Corporation – Performance Review, 21/24496 | 21
3. Program planning and effective delivery 3.1 Introduction
As discussed in Section 2, AMPC invests in three key programs – the Core Program, the Joint
Program and the Plant Initiated Projects (PIPs) Program. AMPC prioritises its investments
utilising a strategic planning process as follows:
A 10 year strategic plan to 2025 (due for completion in October 2015) that identifies
longer term challenges that the industry needs to address and which could involve longer
term, more complex research projects (not a requirement of the SFA);
5 year strategic plans which are required under the SFA. The latest of these is the 2013 –
2017 Strategic Plan;
3 year program roadmap plans, which assist in defining the portfolio of projects for
investment by program and program stream; and
Annual Operating Plans that are guided by the above plans and are required under the
SFA.
Each of the SFA approved plans needs to be signed off by the AMPC/MLA Governance
Committee and the AMPC Board. The 10 year strategic plan and the 3 year program roadmap
plans are signed off by the AMPC Board. AMPC must work with the Department to ensure its
strategic and annual operating plans meet the intent of the SFA and for the Commonwealth to
reference its priorities into the plans. The implementation of the plans is also subject to the
requirements of separate Risk, Fraud and Intellectual Property (IP) management plans to
ensure the appropriate delivery of projects and services.
Table 7 below outlines the framework adopted in this review for assessing program planning
and effective delivery of projects.
Table 7 Review framework – program planning and effective delivery
Review Area Assessment Documents / Methods
Strategic Plan Plan has been developed in timely manner
Documented process for plan review
Evidence of plan use and review each year in accordance with the SFA
Stakeholder access to plans
Strategic plans 2011-15
Discuss planning and review process with Board and management staff
Discuss availability with levy payers and key stakeholders
Annual Operating Plan Plans developed in timely manner
Documented process for the development of plans
Alignment with SFA and Strategic Plan
Documentation of participation in any relevant evaluation projects
Documented planned expenditure
Use of plans in company activities
Annual Operating Plans 2011-15
Financial reports 2011-15
Consult with Department
Review Area Assessment Documents / Methods
Collaboration Evidence that increased cross collaboration has been achieved.
Outline of opportunities and optimal level of collaboration is considered
Review project reports involving collaboration
Review of potential opportunities for collaboration
Discussions with Board members, management and other RDCs
3.2 Findings
3.2.1 Strategic Plans
Background
The strategic plan defines AMPC’s high-level goals, strategies and performance measures for a
five-year period, developed in consultation with stakeholders and the Minister. The plan is
required under AMPC’s SFA with the Commonwealth. The plan includes an overall vision for the
processing sector and AMPC’s objectives, priorities and key strategies to achieve the stated
goals.
The strategic plans relevant to this review are the plans for 2008-2011 and 2013-2017. The
current strategic plan was originally going to include 2012 however delays to the planning
process resulted in the new strategic plan commencing in 2013. Figure 2 shows the alignment
of strategic imperatives between 2008 and 2017. The number of strategic imperatives has
increased during this period, however these essentially address the same issues.
GHD | Report for Australian Meat Processor Corporation – Performance Review, 21/24496 | 23
Figure 2 Strategic alignment 2008-2017
Source: AMPC strategic plans (2008-11 and 2013-17)
AMPC’s strategic planning process as outlined in the ‘Context for this plan’ section of the 2013-
17 strategic plan included, but was not limited to, consideration of the:
Meat Industry Strategic Plan;
MLA Strategic Plan;
Beef Industry Strategic Plan;
Sheep Industry Strategic Plan;
Relevant RD&E Strategies within the National RD&E Framework; and
Other relevant documents including the Government’s Science Strategy 2013-2018.
For the 2013 – 2017 Strategic Plan, AMPC stated that it consulted widely as follows: Our
primary stakeholders, Australian processing representatives, the Australian Government, Meat
and Livestock Australia (MLA) and the members of the Australian Meat Industry Council (AMIC),
have worked closely with us to identify and define their strategic research priorities. Other
stakeholders with whom we consulted included all AMPC members (157 processing
establishments), processing networks including the Australian Processor Council, Queensland
Country Meat Processors, NSW domestic processors and, scientists, technicians, policy
makers, supply chain partner organisations and councils, Cattle Council, Sheepmeat Council,
the Goat Industry Council, the Australian Lot Feeders Association, the National Farmers
Federation (NFF) and the Red Meat Advisory Council (RMAC).
In addition to the above, the strategic plan also states that it made use of an Environmental
Future Scan 2012 document which was utilised for two industry workshops to identify the
research, development, extension and marketing implications for AMPC and its partner
organisation MLA on the basis of a fully integrated and shared investment portfolio between the
RDCs. The outtakes from the workshops were filtered, grouped, prioritised and integrated to
form the basis for this Strategic plan (p 13).
The 2013-17 Strategic Plan identifies 10 ‘Mega Trends’ related to red meat processing and the
supply and demand factors influencing key components of the supply chain. From this analysis,
six key strategic imperatives were identified with each of these comprising specific strategies,
key focus areas and measures of success. The key strategic imperatives and examples of the
focus areas and success measures are shown in Table 8.
Table 8 Key strategic imperatives and measurement 2013-2017
Key strategic imperatives
Key focus areas (example) Measures of success (example)
Enhancing domestic and global competitiveness
Market access barriers and targets are identified and strategies developed to resolve these in the short, medium and long term
Minimal or no reduction in market access through 2013-2017 as a result of technical or regulatory issues
Delivering to customers and consumers
In the domestic market, examine the drivers of consumer demand and measure the effectiveness of marketing and promotional activities.
Development and refinement of a predictive model for ongoing change over time analysis of changing consumer, community and customer attitudes, social influences and product attributes
Product integrity, safety and wholesomeness
Recognisable and scientifically valid performance indicators for agreed elements of wholesomeness and integrity are established, benchmarked and communicated.
Establish agreed performance measures for food safety, product integrity, quality assurance processes and verification.
Improving meat processing productivity, products, and processes
Opportunities to enhance the measurement and specifications for lean meat yield and other carcase monitoring options are explored.
Enhanced objective carcase measurement leads to improvement in productivity and yield.
Improving sustainability
Investigation and implementation of waste to energy and nutrient recovery technologies and practices.
Investigate at least 2 alternative processing practices that demonstrate savings in water and energy use.
Building capability, and influencing practice change
Benchmarking of current and future disciplinary needs for processing businesses in industry informs investment in capability and upskilling programs and the opportunity for further extension of RD&E outcomes.
Approximately 30 industry representatives are supported through leadership development, capability and/or innovation training by 2017.
Source: AMPC Strategic Plan 2013-17
Timeliness
The SFA states that AMPC must maintain a 3 to 5 year Strategic Plan and that the plan must be
reviewed at least once a year and updated as appropriate (SFA – 12.1 p13).
As noted above, there was no strategic plan for 2012 however the 2011–12 and 2012–13 AOPs
were based on the 2008–11 Strategic Plan.
GHD | Report for Australian Meat Processor Corporation – Performance Review, 21/24496 | 25
The 2013-2017 Strategic Plan was issued in 2013. Due to new requirements in the SFA, AMPC
sought and obtained an extension of time to forward the Minister a copy of its new strategic
plan.
The review of the strategic plan is raised with the Board as an agenda item each year however
no changes to the plan have occurred.
Documented process for plan review
AMPC’s strategic plan has traditionally been very reliant on MLA’s strategic plan, however the
company’s increased emphasis on active management of R&D funds means that the next
strategic plan (i.e. from 2017) is intended to be quite different from previous plans. AMPC has
consulted with AMIC and some members regarding the changes they would like made to the
plan. Rather than making annual ‘cosmetic’ changes to the current strategic plan, AMPC has
instead decided to focus on the 10 year strategic plan (discussed above). Once complete,
AMPC will revisit the 2013-2017 strategic plan and use the 10 year strategic plan as a basis for
stakeholder discussions in developing a SFA approved strategic plan for the period 2017-2022.
The 2013-17 strategic plan does not document the plan review process however it does
highlight that in 2015 the plan will need to be revised to reflect changes in other relevant
industry strategic plans including the MISP, the Beef Industry Strategic Plan, the Sheep Industry
Strategic Plan and MLA’s Strategic Plan. The strategic plan notes that the high degree of
coinvestment and collaboration across organisations in the red meat supply chain dictates that
the outcomes of these other planning processes must be taken into account as part of the
annual review of this (AMPC) Red Meat Processing Strategic RD&E Plan for 2013-2017.
The company recognises a more explicit review process could be a beneficial inclusion for
future plans, so that members understand the review process and how they can contribute to
this process.
Evidence of use and review
As discussed above, there is a clear link between the strategic plan and the investment priorities
identified in the AOPs. This is the primary way in which the strategic plan is used, with the
company’s day-to-day operations directly guided by the AOPs.
The strategic plan is reviewed each year and discussed as part of the company’s SFA meetings
with the Department.
Accessibility
AMPC’s 2013-2017 and 2008-2011 strategic plans are available to levy payers, stakeholders
and the general public on the AMPC website (http://www.ampc.com.au/about-ampc/strategic-
plans). A summary of the 2013-2017 plan is available online.
3.2.2 Annual Operating Plans
In implementing AMPC’s strategic plan and for the development of the Annual Operating Plan
(AOP), three processes are in operation:
Portfolio Development Process (PDP)
AMPC initially canvasses all members through a National Member Survey to assess potential
areas for investment. Core Program Advisory Committees (PACs) have been set up to support
development of the annual portfolio for each of the five core programs. Each PAC consists of 7-
10 representatives of levy payers, a PAC Chair (Board Director) and an AMPC Program
Manager. The PACs select priority areas for investment which leads to the generation of a
number of Requests for Proposals (RFPs) that are then communicated to research providers. In
response to over fifty (50) RFPs that were developed in FY 2014-15, 328 Preliminary Research
Proposals (PRPs) were received from research providers. The PRPs were refined to around
125 Full Research Proposals that were subsequently reviewed by the AMPC Investment
Committee and finally approved by the Board for the Annual Operating Plan. The PDP is an
open, transparent and accountable process that has generated a six-fold increase in research
provider engagement in the Core program post transition (i.e. 328 PRPs received in 2014-15
compared to around 50 PRPs per annum pre-transition).
The selection process for PAC membership for Core programs commences with an Expression
of Interest call across all members. Members are selected based on a skills matrix determined
by the respective PAC chairperson.
Figure 3 shows the portfolio development cycle and timeline in more detail.
Contract and Project Management Process (CPM Process)
Program managers ensure research providers are accountable through milestone reporting and
dissemination of extension information to members regarding research benefits. This includes a
close-out and communication phase to members (~30 face-to-face network meetings around
Australia are held per year as a part of this process) and non-members, with an increasing on-
line presence.
Financial administration
A financial administration system is in place to allow transparency and accountability for funds
received and expended.
Figure 3 Annual portfolio development cycle
Source: AMPC
NB: There are three PAC Meetings; PAC1 to decide on priorities, PAC2 to advise of Preliminary Research Proposals
(PRPs) and PAC3 to provide feedback on the Board approved portfolio.
GHD | Report for Australian Meat Processor Corporation – Performance Review, 21/24496 | 27
The AOPs outline the basis for AMPC’s RD&E programs and marketing activities and the
associated budget for the relevant financial year. The activities are aligned to the relevant
strategic plan and its key focus areas. At the same time, there is the opportunity for the AOP to
respond to emerging external drivers and changing priorities during the life of the strategic plan
and revise emphasis on research themes if appropriate. In addition, the AOP can adjust
investments to align with strategic imperatives and the direction of other relevant RDCs, in
particular the co-investment with MLA on behalf of the red meat processing industry and
broader supply chain.
GHD has reviewed each of the AOPs that were developed to guide investments over the review
period. Evidence of how the AOPs align with the strategic plans is provided in Figure 4.
Figure 4 AOP alignment with strategic plans
Source: AMPC strategic plans (2008-11 and 2013-17) and AOPs (2011-12 to 2014-15)
The strategies and key activities that underpin AMPC’s strategic imperatives are recorded in the
AOPs along with an indicative budget for the year. AMPC then outlines performance measures
that are to be reported against by MLA and performance measures that are to be reported
against by AMPC.
Table 9 shows project expenditure over the review period. Actual spend has been, on average,
25% below budget. AMPC stated that the reasons for underspending included:
Delays in research delivery by providers;
Cost savings by strict project delivery governance;
Termination of some projects for various reasons such as reduced provider capability and
resources, industry priority changes, feasibility study showing negative results etc;
Underspend by MLA in joint programs; and
Reduced spend on PIP projects although the number of projects remained as planned.
AMPC considers that the disparity between budgeted and actual expenditure will be reduced in
future as the transition to more AMPC responsibility increases.
Table 9 Project expenditures ($m)
Financial Year (FY) Budget ($m) Actual ($m)
FY 2011 14.9 10.98
FY 2012 15.23 15.04
FY 2013 18.14 14.99
FY 2014 17.35 15.00
FY 2015 20.31 12.14*
Source: Budget figures are AOP forecast estimates from each plan over the review period, actual figures provided by
AMPC Finance & Administration Manager.
* Actual year to date to 30 April 2015
Over the review period funds have been distributed in accordance with the strategic
imperatives. Table 10 shows the annual funding that each of the imperatives received over the
review period. The expenditure of funds is not differentiated into Joint, Core and PIP programs
but information on this differentiation was provided earlier in Table 5.
GHD | Report for Australian Meat Processor Corporation – Performance Review, 21/24496 | 29
Table 10 AMPC funding by strategic imperative
Strategic Imperative / Outcome
2011-12 ($) 2012-13 ($) 2013-14 ($) 2014-15 ($) Total ($)
Budget Actual Budget Actual Budget Actual Budget Actual YTD 30 April
Budget Actual
Enhancing domestic and global competitiveness
3,472,070 2,283,447 2,410,004 2,719,462 3,857,032 4,102,825 4,848,617 3,141,666 14,587,723 12,247,400
Delivering to customers and consumers
2,235,000 2,230,000 4,320,000 3,606,000 3,137,866 2,777,226 3,188,642 2,344,584 12,881,508 10,957,810
Product integrity, safety and wholesomeness
3,568,000 3,532,077 2,526,909 1,673,051 3,418,162 2,692,437 3,354,455 2,317,973 12,867,526 10,215,538
Improving meat processing productivity, products and processes
2,230,000 3,042,080 2,547,022 2,128,518 2,660,747 1,952,046 3,866,466 1,121,912 11,304,235 8,244,556
Improving sustainability 1,740,330 1,802,581 2,306,400 2,282,549 2,383,120 1,585,983 1,402,514 542,296 7,832,364 6,213,409
Building capability and influencing practice change
1,031,163 1,153,618 1,838,984 1,174,487 794,850 968,346 2,049,325 1,983,839 5,714,322 5,280,290
Continual improvement in business practice
952,068 996,672 2,191,105 1,401,442 1,102,800 928,594 1,599,520 689,980 5,845,493 4,016,688
Total 15,228,631 15,040,475 18,140,424 14,985,509 17,354,577 15,007,457 20,309,539 12,142,250 71,033,171 57,175,691
Source: Budget figures are AOP forecast estimates from each plan over the review period, actual figures provided by AMPC Finance & Administration Manager.
Timeliness
AOPs are available on the AMPC website for each year of the review period.
It is a requirement of the SFA that the Commonwealth receives a copy of the AOP prior to 1 July
each year. AMPC formally requests and receives an extension from the Department to the AOP
reporting timeframe each year, to align with the MLA AOP.
Documented process for plan development
AMPC must consider section 12.5 of the SFA when developing the AOP. Section 12.5 refers to
investment direction, directions from the Minister and establishing evaluation structures.
The 2014/15 AOP describes the consultation framework underpinning AMPC’s annual
investments (summarised in Figure 3) including an annual member survey and the use of PACs.
Alignment with SFA and Strategic Plan
The AOPs over the review period align with the SFA and the strategic plans. Figure 4 (above)
highlights the relationship between the AOPs and the strategic plans.
As discussed above, the AOPs report against the strategic imperatives of the strategic plan.
Similarly, the ‘sections’ and ‘outcomes’ reported in the annual reports are aligned with the
imperatives included in the strategic plan. The exception is the 2013/14 annual report, which
reports on ‘programs’ that are not directly aligned with the strategic imperatives. AMPC has
advised that this was a conscious decision made by the company, to make it easier to
communicate results that are meaningful to members (as opposed to information that is of more
interest to ASIC or the Department). The 2014/15 annual report will also report at the program
level.
Actual expenditure by strategic imperative over the review period broadly aligns with the
forecast expenditure included in the AOPs (Table 10), albeit at a lower level (i.e. total
expenditure of $57 million compared to forecast expenditure of $71 million).
Documentation of participation in any relevant evaluation projects
The 2014/15 AOP refers to evaluation and demonstration of investment outputs as part of
Outcome 7 - Continual Improvement in Business Practice. For more information regarding
project evaluation refer to Section 4.
Documented planned expenditure
The AOPs document planned expenditure against each of the strategic imperatives / outcomes
identified in Table 10.
Use of plans in company activities
The AOP sets out the strategies and key focus areas for investment and allocates funding
accordingly. Program managers need to ensure that the investments made in their program
area align with the AOP, and this is part of their key performance measures.
New employees are given a copy of the AOP as part of their induction process.
GHD | Report for Australian Meat Processor Corporation – Performance Review, 21/24496 | 31
3.3 Cross RDC collaboration
3.3.1 Collaboration
Evidence that increased cross collaboration has been achieved
Cross collaboration between RDCs is an important performance indicator in delivering research,
development, extension and marketing services. It provides opportunities to maximise
economies of scale and avoid duplication of research effort.
As AMPC is the only RDC that focusses exclusively on processors (i.e. rather than producers),
the company tends to collaborate with other RDCs on industry-wide research (rather than
processing industry specific issues) such as occupational health and safety, and animal welfare.
The company feels this results in fewer opportunities for collaboration than is the case for some
other RDCs.
However the most apparent and significant example of AMPC’s collaboration with other RDCs is
the investments it makes with MLA as discussed in section 2 and Table 5. AMPC contributed
approximately $9 million to MLA investments in the Joint Program in 2014/15.
Another example of cross-RDC collaboration is the Primary Industries Health and Safety
Partnership, of which AMPC and MLA are members. The Partnership manages research into
improving workplace safety and also includes the Cotton, Grains, Fisheries and Rural Industries
Research and Development Corporations.
The aim of the Partnership is to undertake RD&E activities that improve the:
Physical health of farming and fishing workers and their families;
Mental health of farming and fishing families; and
The safety of the work environment and practices in farming and fishing industries.
The Partnership also provides a forum for sharing successful WHS initiatives undertaken by
industries that may be transitional to other industries.
AMPC has also prepared joint submissions with MLA and Australian Pork Limited for Rural
Research and Development for Profit Program funding.
Examples of collaboration with other R&D stakeholders include AMPC’s membership of the
Sheep CRC, and a collaborative research agreement with the University of Queensland.
Outline of opportunities and optimal level of collaboration is considered
AMPC is mindful of striking the right balance of cross RDC collaboration to ensure its decision
making is in the best interests of AMPC members. An example cited by the company is AMPC’s
investment in the National Livestock Identification System (NLIS) via the Joint program. The
company invests in NLIS (a system that benefits all of the industry, rather than the processing
sector alone) because it recognises the consequence of a biosecurity issue could be extreme.
The Department has discussed the need for AMPC’s greater collaboration with other RDCs
including opportunities under the National Primary Industries RD&E Framework and the
Commonwealth’s National Science and Research Priorities.
3.4 Summary of findings
The review of documentation and external consultation indicates that AMPC’s program planning
process meets its obligations under the SFA, however various improvements have been
identified and are either being currently addressed or are recommended for future
consideration. Specific comments from external consultation in relation to planning include the
following:
The establishment of PACs and their involvement in the annual operating planning
process and the prioritisation of R&D investment is strongly supported
The process for developing Strategic Plans and the involvement of members and other
stakeholders is less visible. A formal consultation program would be beneficial. The
process has been more complicated in the past due to AMPC’s planning being a
component of MLA’s strategic planning process.
As a result of the need for AMPC to align with MLA’s AOP, AMPC each year needs to
seek an extension of time from the Department for its submission. If the delay is likely to
be a feature in future, it could be advantageous for the delay to be recognised in future
SFAs to remove the administrative burden.
There is a reasonable understanding amongst stakeholders of the distinction between
Core, Joint and PIP programs however the reporting of selection of investments and
outcomes at the program level needs improvement. This is discussed more fully in
section 4.
A more formal and targeted communication of the various planning and reporting
documents is required. GHD notes that this is being addressed via the implementation of
the 2015-18 Strategic Communications Plan.
MLA and AMPC co-brand research reports where relevant. They also exchange copies of
relevant research reports (though sometimes there is a time lag associated with this) and
invite each other to relevant activities.
Table 11 summarises the findings of this review with regard to the company’s program planning
and delivery.
Table 11 Review findings – program planning and effective delivery
Review Area Performance
Strategic Plan Complies (with the exception of 2012) – strategic plan in place and aligns with SFA.
Annual Operating Plan
Complies – AOPs developed, and align with strategic plan and actual expenditure. There is a need to better articulate investments between the Core, Joint and PIP programs.
Each year there is a delay in submission of the AOPs due to the necessity of alignment with MLA’s AOP. This requires a request for an extension to the Department which appears to be an unnecessary administrative burden.
Collaboration Complies – collaboration is considered as part of the decision making process and undertaken when in the best interests of AMPC members. Major collaboration occurs on joint programs with MLA, especially those related to market access and promotion.
3.5 Recommendations
1. Develop a formal consultation process for stakeholder input to the Strategic Planning process
and the communication of documents to stakeholders.
2. In consultation with the Department, consider amending the SFA on the date required for
submission of the AOP to ensure alignment with MLA’s AOP submission date.
GHD | Report for Australian Meat Processor Corporation – Performance Review, 21/24496 | 33
3. Better articulate the distinction between Core, Joint and PIP programs and associated
investments to improve understanding of the use of levy and Commonwealth funds.
4. Delivery of benefits 4.1 Introduction
In order to evaluate the delivery of benefits to levy payers and the tax payer the following review
framework was applied.
Table 12 Review framework – delivery of benefits
Review Area Assessment Documents / Methods
Project outcomes Project outcomes documented and collated
Project reports
Annual reports
Structured evaluation plan
AMPC has delivered benefits in line with strategic objectives
Evaluation plan
Discussion with staff involved
Evaluation of the cost and benefit of programs to enable clear identification of value to levy payers from company investments
Program evaluation has taken place.
The results of evaluations were transparent to levy payers.
AMPC has included benefits and value for money in current reporting and future planning.
Cost benefit evaluations Documentation of where outcomes are reported and considered in future plans
Discussion with levy payers
4.2 Findings
4.2.1 Project outcomes
Project outcomes are documented in two key ways:
Annual reports
The 2013-14 Annual Report to Members featured 2-3 projects for each program which provided
an overview of the project, the main findings and outcomes of the projects. A brief overview of
all other projects was included (in a table) for each program. AMPC has advised that it will be
improving how this information is presented in the 2015-16 Annual Report to Members. It is
planned the format will report at the Core and Joint program level so that stakeholders have a
clearer understanding of the outcomes from the activities and implications for the beneficiaries.
Project reports
Project reports are available on the AMPC website (http://www.ampc.com.au/resources/report).
The MLA website also includes all project final reports that have been partially funded by AMPC
(http://www.mla.com.au/Research-and-development/Search-RD-reports). These reports provide
a detailed discussion of project findings.
4.2.2 Evaluation of the cost and benefit of programs to enable clear identification of value to levy payers from company investments
Program evaluation
Until 2013-14 formal program evaluation of AMPC projects was undertaken by MLA, with such
evaluation generally completed at the program level where investments included a mix of AMPC
and MLA funding. For this reason, it has been difficult in the past to clearly identify value of levy
investments to processor levy payers and the Commonwealth.
GHD | Report for Australian Meat Processor Corporation – Performance Review, 21/24496 | 35
AMPC has commissioned benefit cost analyses of a number of its project investments during
the review period and these can be viewed on the AMPC website.
AMPC recognises that the results of investments are sometimes influenced by economies of
scale and in some cases can favour large-scale processors. The company also appreciates that
attribution of value to levy payers of AMPC investments outside the Core Program is sometimes
difficult due to many projects being co-funded by MLA, individual processors and/or other
industry stakeholders.
AMPC reports regularly on the outputs of specific RD&E projects and this information is
disseminated to constituents via a range of methods (see section 5 for more detailed review of
AMPC’s communications). Many of the outputs are reported in Factsheets, and Table 13
provides examples of outcomes from a range of RD&E initiatives. In many cases a cost benefit
analysis (CBA) has been completed and estimates of other benefits from the adoption of the
research outcomes have been provided. This information then enables individual plants to
consider implementing the initiative. It should be noted that some benefits can be quantified
while others are intangible and not easily expressed in dollar terms.
GHD considers that such outputs describe the potential for processors to benefit from the
research but does not describe the extent of adoption by different types of processors of these
research results. Until such evaluations are completed it is difficult to quantify the actual benefits
that have been delivered. However, external consultation has enabled a qualitative assessment
of the benefits and this is discussed further in section 4.3.
AMPC has recognised that with the transfer of Core Program management from MLA to AMPC
there is an opportunity to improve program evaluations and has therefore initiated a more
comprehensive and structured evaluation framework which is discussed below.
Table 13 Examples of project outputs
Processing Initiative
Background / Research Adoption Benefits
Bladestop bandsaw safety aid
Band saws are a major contributor to serious injuries (including amputations) in the meat and wood industries. Slight lapses in concentration can cause loss or partial loss of limbs, consequent loss of income and also have drastic effects on both the injured party and the company. MLA initiated an R&D project to develop a new technology (based on an adaptation from the timber model) which consists of a circuit board that triggers a blade braking mechanism whenever human flesh is in contact with the blade. The system acts fast enough to avoid major injury to the operator.
Given the high level of risk involved (i.e. the consequences should the technology prove to be unreliable) it was considered critical that multiple in plant trial installations be completed (in strictly supervised conditions) prior to full commercialisation. The final phases of the project therefore included provision for ongoing modifications to design plus the services of a dedicated R&D safety engineer during the installation and testing phases at each site.
Reduced down time (when an accident occurs)
Cost of lost product Replacement worker cost Insurance savings Reduced sick leave and related
rehabilitation costs for injured workers
Intangible benefits include:
Social impact of serious injury or amputation
Improved safe work practices Improved employee relations Assuming one amputation every 3 years and 10 major cuts per year, estimated savings per plant may be around $282,000 per annum.
Evisceration automation
Evisceration, or removal of carcase organs and alimentary canal, is one of the stages in lamb dressing. Along with many other dressing tasks, it is repetitive and physically arduous. The task lends itself to automated machine processing, which provides benefits to the supply chain. Processing efficiency, processing consistency, improved shelf life through reduced human contact, improved workplace safety outcomes, and assists with labour supply sustainability are just some of the desired outcomes. The fundamental driver for automating evisceration in lambs is to reduce labour and eliminate OH&S risks associated with the current manual process.
The automated NZ process removes the thin skirt on the slaughter floor (compared to leaving intact in Australia) impacting on carcase yield more than the OH&S benefits. Depending on each Australian plant’s livestock purchasing methods and boning and sales processes, this yield difference has significant positive or negative impact on commercial viability of this automation solution with return on investment ranging from negative to 0.5 years.
Only companies running two shifts with trays already under the chain, and boning more than 85% of carcases slaughtered should expect a return on investment of less than 1.5 years using evisceration automation. Because of the limited number of processing scenarios where evisceration automation would be viable, MLA has not funded further development in this area.
LEAP III primal cutter and x-ray visioning
The overall vision is developing a fully automated process from the chiller exit through to the packaged product. The development has been occurring in stages/modules starting from the chiller output. One of the modules is named LEAP III and is an
The original concept relied on robots performing the cuts but that was changed to a linear system, and a prototype was based on two towers with a guillotine system each. Design improvements continued with one of the main changes developed being the use of
Various ex ante cost/benefit analyses (CBAs) have been completed. These include the following.
Ex ante CBA in 2010: $1.78 to $1.86 per head net benefit.
Ex ante and ex post CBA in 2012
GHD | Report for Australian Meat Processor Corporation – Performance Review, 21/24496 | 37
Processing Initiative
Background / Research Adoption Benefits
automated lamb primal cutting system guided with the use of x-ray technology. The solution required three major components: sensing or scanning equipment to accurately identify cutting lines transfer mechanisms to take a carcase from the chain, clamp it and hold it automated cutting set up to accurately separate carcases, along the cutting lines previously defined, into forequarter, middle and hindquarter
rotary blades instead of a guillotine in the first tower where the forequarter is separated from the rest of the carcase. This improvement is now part of the LEAP III Primal Cutting system currently offered commercially. The first successful Australian LEAP III ovine primal cutter (including x-ray) was installed in late 2011. Since installation the system has processed over 350,000 head in the first five months with less than four hours of downtime.
comparing predicted benefits in a New Zealand LEAP III site to the actual performance at an Australian processor.
Ex post CBA in 2013 at an Australian processor showed $1.32 to $1.49 per head net benefit.
All CBA results have been conservatively adjusted to remove plant specific, commercially sensitive data and hence actual results observed at individual plants may differ from those reported.
LEAP IV lamb middle cutting machine - splitting, flap cutting, rack & loin separation, spine cord removal modules
The LEAP IV is another module which forms part of the RTL lamb boning development. It is an automated lamb middle cutting system guided with the use of a camera which breaks the rack barrel into various subprimal components. It includes an optional chining module. The project undertook further engineering development so that machines integrated with the LEAP III primal cutter and could operate as a commercial boning room would do when installed in an Australian lamb processing facility.
A fully integrated lamb automation system comprising of an x-ray, primal and middle process was installed. The middle system formed part of this project and was supported by a previous R&D project that installed the x-ray primal components. The LEAP IV system (with an associated chining module) has been installed successfully at two large processors and is now ready for commercialisation.
An ex post cost/benefit analysis was carried out which confirmed the large benefits of this system, showing $2.72 - $3.05 per head benefits.
Spray chilling Spray chilling is the intermittent spraying of carcases with water to minimise carcase weight loss (shrink) during initial chilling. It is widely used in the USA and other countries but had not gained wide acceptance in Australia possibly due to the perception that the shelf life of vacuum-packaged meat is reduced. A PIP project was supported to quantify the benefits and determine whether shelf life is affected for beef.
A system was successfully installed to service one beef chiller and operational parameters were devised and tested. Average carcase weight loss was reduced to 0.47% and boning trials confirmed an increase in saleable meat yield of 0.53%. Carcase cooling rate and microbiological status was not affected by spraying carcases with ambient (22°C) water. Storage trials with vacuum-packaged primal cuts showed that shelf life was not affected by spray chilling up to a storage period of 13 weeks.
The benefits of implementing beef spray chilling primarily through yield savings are valued at an estimated $11 per head processed and for an operation with 680,000 hd / year the benefit could upwards of $7m per annum. Many processors have also taken up spray chilling as a result of MLA investments in this area.
4.2.3 Structured evaluation plan
As discussed above, AMPC’s evaluations were conducted primarily based on a timetable
established by MLA. However, AMPC has contracted ACIL Allen Consulting to prepare an
evaluation framework for research and development activities, marketing programs and
projects. The evaluation framework is in draft form as of June 2015.
The draft evaluation framework has been designed to put a process in place to evaluate every
AMPC project / program. The draft evaluation framework identifies three potential evaluation
points:
1. Point of investment
2. During implementation
3. On completion
The draft evaluation framework is designed to assist AMPC make investment decisions by
structuring assessments so that projects can be evaluated and AMPC can balance its portfolio
by reviewing the distribution of projects against the strategic imperatives previously identified.
The draft evaluation framework includes an evaluation plan (ACIL Allen Consulting Draft
Evaluation Framework, Table 5.1 page 25). The plan includes actions, an approximate timetable
for each action to take place, responsibilities for each action and resourcing requirements.
The evaluation plan links to several evaluation tools which are designed to ensure that project /
program selection aligns with strategic imperatives. The framework is also aligned to the
guidelines recommended by the Council of Rural Research & Development Corporations
(CRRDC) and MLA has been formally consulted on its content.
AMPC intends to use the framework for Core program activities and will continue to rely on MLA
to do Joint and PIP program evaluations. However, the framework is suitable for use to evaluate
all investments if required.
The results of evaluations are transparent to levy payers
Annual reports offer an overview of projects and programs for each financial year based on the
seven outcomes / strategic imperatives, however these reports do not provide the results of
project evaluations.
The results of some project / program specific evaluations are available on the AMPC and MLA
websites.
AMPC reports that there is a variable appetite amongst members to see the results of
evaluations, however the company is hopeful that this will change as the evaluation plan is
implemented. The company has a strong desire to communicate to industry stakeholders the
benefits of its investments, and this forms a key part of AMPC’s new communications plan (see
section 5 for more details regarding communication activities).
AMPC has included benefits and value for money in current reporting and future
planning
As described above, AMPC currently reports the benefits and value for money of its investments
via selected project / program reports on the AMPC and MLA websites. The company
recognises that there is an improvement required in the reporting of the value it provides and
this is one of the main reasons a new evaluation framework is currently being developed
following the transition from MLA (discussed above).
The 2013-2017 strategic plan recognises the importance of measuring and communicating the
benefits and value for money provided by AMPC investment. For example, the strategic
GHD | Report for Australian Meat Processor Corporation – Performance Review, 21/24496 | 39
imperative of Improving meat processing productivity, products and processes includes benefit
cost analysis, evaluation and extension activities to improve understanding and encourage
adoption of new technologies. Similarly, the imperative of Building capability and influencing
practice change includes evaluations of RD&E outcomes within the following key focus areas:
Efficient and effective evaluation frameworks enable AMPC to demonstrate value add
from investments, whilst delivering on national key performance indicators as an RDC;
Evaluation outcomes are provided to levy payers to demonstrate transparency in process
and enhance learnings from RD&E projects; and
Evaluation is aligned with other RDCs where appropriate to maximise value adding and
co-investment.
The 2014/15 AOP is aligned with this, referring to evaluation and demonstration of investment
outputs as part of Outcome 7 - Continual Improvement in Business Practice.
4.3 Summary of findings
Program and/or project evaluation of the benefits from investment of levy funds is an essential
obligation under the SFA, but it is also important that levy payers are provided with details of
evaluations to enable them to determine that funds are being wisely invested. Program/project
evaluations are generally of a complex nature and contain assumptions on a range of variables
with different degrees of confidence in the adopted values. In particular, what would have
occurred in the absence of the investment (the counterfactual) is open to debate.
For AMPC (and other RDCs) the difficulty is further exacerbated by the fact that a number of
individual projects over a considerable time (in excess of 10 years) are required before outputs
can be implemented commercially and benefits to the processing sector can be evaluated.
Some of AMPC’s research projects are of a discovery nature with indeterminate commercial
outcomes but these projects are an essential component of a staged research portfolio. In
addition, the funding of projects is often shared by the various red meat industry bodies so that
attribution of benefits specifically to the processing sector can be difficult.
This does not absolve AMPC from its responsibilities to levy payers and the Commonwealth of
the need to evaluate projects, however improved communication of the evaluation process and
benefits to levy payers would help to explain the complexity and assist to alleviate criticism of
company performance. The recent transition of Core program management responsibility from
MLA to AMPC should help in this regard.
The research outcomes for selected projects are summarised in the Annual Reports but these
summaries tend to be more qualitative in nature and do not consistently demonstrate the
potential financial benefits that the adoption of research would provide to individual
establishments.
Also, the Annual Reports do not adequately describe the outcomes of joint R&D and marketing
programs completed by MLA but with partial funding from AMPC.
Comments from external consultation included:
AMPC investments are beneficial to members, provide a good return on investment, and
there is evidence of implementation of R&D findings.
The scope of outcomes is broad, including technological advances in processing, animal
welfare and occupational health outcomes that are used for discussion with Work Cover
agencies.
Levy payers understand that the nature of research means that some investments do not
result in immediate benefits. However, this is viewed as a valid research outcome as it
demonstrates the need to consider an alternative approach. One respondent stated that
“failures lead to success”.
Some additional effort on extension activities is warranted as there is evidence of good
research outputs not being adopted by industry. It was suggested that a clear plan at the
beginning of a project regarding likely beneficiaries would assist in better targeting
potential adoptees. This would also limit the risk of criticism that research outcomes only
benefit the ‘big end of town’.
Processors are generally satisfied with the way IP is managed. It is noted that outputs
from PIP projects are made available to the whole of the processing sector, including
modelled benefits for particular processing establishments. The only confidential
component of PIP projects is the actual benefit calculation for the plant in which the
project was completed as this is considered to be commercial in confidence.
AMPC also provides significant funding to joint programs completed by MLA, including
marketing and market access projects. Levy payers are not always aware that their funds
are expended on these non RD&E projects and the benefits that accrue as a result of
improved market access.
The overall findings on project evaluations and delivery of benefits are provided in Table 14.
Table 14 Review findings – delivery of benefits
Review Area Performance
Project outcomes Complies – the outcomes of projects are documented by research providers via final reports that are available on the AMPC website. An improvement to the reporting of outcomes in the Annual Report is recommended.
Structured evaluation plan Underway – a draft evaluation plan has been prepared to assess the benefits of investments in accordance with the strategic plan. The extension of project outcomes for widespread adoption should be an integral part of the project planning and completion cycle.
The evaluation framework aligns with the CRRDC’s guidelines and this will enable consistency of reporting across all RDCs and demonstrate performance to funding agencies (levy payers and the Commonwealth)
Evaluation of the cost and benefit of programs to enable clear identification of value to levy payers from company investments
Underway – some evaluations have taken place and the company is currently developing a new evaluation framework (and implementing a new communications plan).
4.4 Recommendations
1. Improve reporting and communication of the benefits of AMPC’s activities so that these
are more easily understood by levy payers and the Commonwealth.
2. Implement the new evaluation framework and associated reporting of outcomes but at the
same time better communicate the complexity of evaluation, including the time lag
between the initial proof of concept research stage and the adoption stage. The funding
by multiple sectors is also an issue that needs to be better described when reporting on
evaluation.
GHD | Report for Australian Meat Processor Corporation – Performance Review, 21/24496 | 41
5. Engagement, consultation and communication 5.1 Introduction
AMPC undertakes consultation and engagement with industry, government and research
providers. Engagement activities inform the identification and development of RD&E priorities,
marketing priorities, extension activities and strategic research direction.
The 2010 performance review undertaken by Arche Consulting highlighted the need for a
strategic communications plan to ensure all communication efforts are focused and messaging
to members, stakeholders and the broader industry is consistent across all platforms.
AMPC has developed a strategic communications plan. The plan outlines objectives and
initiatives for the 2015-18 financial year periods. The plan has been developed to comply with
the SFA and the previous performance review recommendations.
Table 15 documents the review framework to assess stakeholder engagement, consultation and
communication.
Table 15 Review framework – engagement, consultation and communication
Review Area Assessment Documents / Methods
Engagement and communication
Examine documented changes to improve transparency
Stakeholders understand approach to engagement
Communication is comprehensive, inclusive, and consistent with strategic goals
Program of communication events is available
Minutes from meetings
Discussion with external stakeholders including Government, industry business partners, collaborators and service providers
Discussion with directors and management
5.2 Findings
5.2.1 Engagement and communication
Engagement and consultation activities are the basis for AMPC to inform all stakeholders of its
activities and the benefits that are likely to accrue as a result of its investment of levy and
matching funding to processors and broader stakeholders, including the taxpaying public. The
objectives of AMPC’s engagement and communications activities are summarised in its recently
completed Strategic Communications Plan as follows:
To enhance AMPC’s service delivery through the implementation of targeted RD&E
communication initiatives that benefit members.
To increase member engagement and involvement in AMPC’s activities, including PIPs
and RD&E communication initiatives, outputs and resources.
To improve member and stakeholder understanding of AMPC’s role, function and
mandate in the red meat processing industry and to distinguish AMPC from other industry
groups.
To promote the technological basis for the industry and career pathways that attracts and
retains personnel in the red meat processing industry.
To increase AMPC’s profile as an innovative, forward thinking RDC for the long-term
profitability, competitiveness and sustainability of the red meat processing industry.
To articulate the importance of the levy system to members and stakeholders.
AMPC completes a number of engagement and communications activities with levy payers with
methods ranging from passive communication (eg website and email) and active approaches
(eg training events and network meetings).
An example of these activities is the “Young Guns” program that was established to provide
personal and professional development to young people employed in the meat processing
sector and is a mechanism to extend R&D to young processors. The program is directed at the
next generation of managers and owners, with participants encouraged to discuss and pursue
extra skills and training.
The activities completed during 2014-15 are summarised in Table 16, with a complete list
provided at Appendix E.
Table 16 Summary of communication activities 2014-15
Type Number
Corporate Reports 4
Newsletters 7
RD&E Reports
Environment and Sustainability 18
Technology and Processing 1
Implementation, Extension and Education 5
Food Safety, Product Integrity and Meat
Science
11
RD&E Factsheets/SnapShots
Implementation, Extension and Education 7
Food Safety, Product Integrity and Meat
Science
14
Environment and Sustainability 4
RD&E Webinars 7
Source: AMPC Communications Manager
Documented changes to consultation and engagement strategy
AMPC has recognised the need for a more formalised and targeted consultation and
engagement strategy to members and levy payers and the AMPC 2015-18 Strategic
Communications Plan has been developed to meet the requirements of the SFA and also
address one of the recommendations arising from the previous review of performance. The plan
outlines the company’s intended communications objectives and initiatives for the next three
years.
GHD | Report for Australian Meat Processor Corporation – Performance Review, 21/24496 | 43
The communications plan was informed by a member insights initiative undertaken in late 2014
by an external provider to identify the communication needs and preferences of AMPC
members. The initiative identified: the need for clearer messaging about AMPC’s role, function
and mandate; members’ personnel communication preferences vary depending on their role in
the organisational hierarchy (e.g. senior management versus operational staff); and the
preferences of members in regards to communication channels.
Members also indicated AMPC could improve its communications by:
Providing less detail but a greater range of information;
Providing more electronic articles;
Increasing the amount of training programs and activities; and
Improving the navigation, information and services on the AMPC website.
AMPC reports that during FY2015/16 a variety of communication initiatives will be launched
including:
A new website to meet the current and emerging needs of the membership and other key
stakeholder groups. The ease of use, attractiveness and content quality will be improved
to provide a better interface for members and other stakeholders
AMPC website member’s area – electronic subscription to communication initiatives. The
online member’s area will be upgraded as part of the new website development project. A
key feature of this upgrade is the ability of members and their personnel to update their
details and select their communication preferences securely online.
An AMPC learning platform – which will house industry-specific training and extension
resources.
AMPC events including webinars, workshops and seminars – AMPC plan to host a series
of online webinars to engage members in extension initiatives. A series of seminars and
workshops will be held on an annual basis to communicate the outcomes of a series of
completed research projects that are bundled to focus on a specific innovation area.
Electronic direct marketing (eDM) campaign tool – this tool will enable AMPC to develop
and distribute electronic newsletters and other direct marketing materials to members and
other stakeholders.
Stakeholders understand engagement approach; comprehensive, inclusive and
consistent communication
AMPC has been proactive in discussing the engagement process with stakeholders. As
discussed above, a survey of members identified: the need for clearer messaging about
AMPC’s role, function and mandate; members’ personnel communication preferences vary
depending on their role in the organisational hierarchy (e.g. senior management versus
operational staff); and the preferences of members in regards to communication channels.
Stakeholder feedback from the consultation undertaken for the review is summarised below.
5.3 Summary of findings
While AMPC has conducted a range of engagement and communications activities during the
review period, it recognises that a more strategic and targeted approach is required. The 2015-
18 Strategic Communications Plan has been developed and is now ready for implementation.
While the new plan is likely to result in improved communication outcomes, external
consultation during this review has demonstrated positive attitudes by members on past
activities, with a selection of comments as follows:
AMPC’s update manuals based on R&D outcomes are useful for plants to consider
upgrading technology.
The monthly newsletter has useful updates on research outcomes including completed
research reports, however there is a desire amongst some stakeholders for more
information in this regard so that companies can decide whether to adopt.
Site visits organised as part of training courses are worthwhile as these enable
participants to ‘see things in action’ at advanced establishments.
While the overall benefit of training and information events depends on the individual’s
existing personal knowledge and also their role in the company (e.g. middle management
versus senior management), generally the events are of high standard. Examples include
the value-add seminars regarding improved packaging and advances in waste water
management.
A more filtered and targeted communications approach would be useful, as members are
very busy and it is easy to overlook important email correspondence.
Personal communication (e.g. telephone discussion with program managers) is
appreciated.
AMPC is responsive to member suggestions and complaints, acts on criticism and seeks
to continually improve.
An overall assessment of engagement, consultation and communication is provided in Table 17.
Table 17 Review findings – engagement, consultation and communication
Review Area Performance
Engagement and communication
Engagement and communication is provided via a range of activities and these are valued by members.
There is a need to have a more targeted approach to communication, and this is being progressed via a detailed communications plan has been prepared and will soon be implemented.
5.4 Recommendations
1. Complete a review of the AMPC 2015-18 Strategic Communications Plan within two
years of its implementation to determine if it is achieving its stated goals, and amend if
necessary.
GHD | Report for Australian Meat Processor Corporation – Performance Review, 21/24496 | 45
6. Company structure and staffing 6.1 Introduction
AMPC’s current organisation structure is shown in Figure 5.
Figure 5 AMPC organisation chart
Table 18 shows the review framework in regards to the company’s structure and operational
model.
Table 18 Review framework – structure and operational model
Review Area Assessment Documents / Methods
Company structure and operational model
Structural changes since last review align with SFA
Structure facilitates effective delivery of company objectives
Constitution
Strategic Plan
Relationship and management agreements
Discussion with Board and management
6.2 Findings
6.2.1 Company structure and operational model
Structural changes since last review align with SFA
AMPC’s structure has changed substantially since the Arche review, largely reflecting the
company’s greater emphasis on active investment and the management of Core R&D funds.
AMPC management advises that it is seeking to operate the company in a very commercial
manner, underpinned by a culture of continuous improvement and encouragement of disruptive
innovation.
AMPC has 12 staff (up from 5 staff members in 2010), with new roles including:
Communications (Marcom) Manager
Trade Director; and
Business Manager, which is currently being advertised.
The company is currently introducing a range of new business processes and IT automation to
complement these structural changes. The new systems are designed to improve the conduct of
day-to-day business and facilitate company growth.
Structure facilitates effective delivery of company objectives
The company’s new structure is still being embedded and it is therefore too early to conclude if
it has been a success. However early indications are that the new structure and business
processes will enable the CEO to focus on managing the business of AMPC and the
achievement of its objectives, and empower other senior staff to focus on their specific areas of
expertise such as communications management and program management.
The new structure is also likely to make relevant staff more accessible to members as program
management is now split into four discrete areas with a separate program manager for each.
6.3 Summary of findings
The structure of the company and in particular its organisational structure has changed over the
review period in response to the transition of increased management responsibility to AMPC
and away from MLA. As the scope and quality of deliverables has expanded, this has resulted in
an increase in staff (from five to 12) but this increase has occurred under an overall
understanding of no net change in total AMPC/MLA staff engaged on AMPC funded programs.
External consultation was supportive of the new structural and operational model as members
now consider that processors have more input into the use of processor levies and that this will
result in more efficient and effective outcomes.
Notwithstanding the above, some administrative issues with the implementation of the transition
have been identified. This was discussed in section 2, including a recommendation to review the
reported administrative issues associated with the implementation of the Relationship
Agreement and Management Agreement with MLA.
The overall summary of findings is provided in Table 19.
Table 19 Review findings – structure and operational model
Review Area Performance
Company structure and operational model
Complies – the new company structure aligns with the SFA and will facilitate achievement of objectives, however some administrative issues with MLA need to be reviewed.
6.4 Recommendations
1. In conjunction with the review of the implementation of the Relationship Agreement and
Management Agreement with MLA (see Recommendation 2 in section 2.4), consider
more generally whether the staffing structure remains appropriate for the efficient and
effective management of the company.
GHD | Report for Australian Meat Processor Corporation – Performance Review, 21/24496 | 47
7. Corporate governance 7.1 Introduction
AMPC is responsible for the investment of statutory levies provided by processors. Under its
Constitution and its statutory funding agreement (SFA) with the Commonwealth Government,
AMPC is required to implement a framework of good corporate governance to manage and
invest levy funds. The framework is required to draw on the ASX Good Governance Principles
and Recommendations. This requirement has been noted in the AMPC strategic plan 2013-17,
the AOPs and the annual reports
Table 20 Review framework – system of corporate governance
Review Area Assessment Documents / Methods
Board corporate governance
AMPC complies with its corporate governance obligations
AMPC’s corporate governance practices are considered appropriate.
The effectiveness of AMPC’s corporate governance practices has been improved.
Corporate governance is effective
The efficiency of corporate governance processes, systems and procedures has been improved.
Corporate governance is efficient
ASX Corporate Governance Council’s Corporate Governance Principles and Recommendations.
Board minutes.
Discussion with board members.
Documentation of submission to the Minister.
Review updated governance procedures for alignment with contemporary practices
Compliance audit and certification reports
Documents signed-off and submitted in accordance with the SFA
Compliance audit report 2011-15
Certification report 2011-15
Discussion with Chairperson/CEO
Risk, Fraud Control and Intellectual Property Management Plans
Plans are current
Documented process for the development and review of plans
Use of plans embedded in day-to-day activities
Risk, fraud control and IP management plans
Discussion with relevant AMPC board members and management
7.2 Findings
7.2.1 Board corporate governance
AMPC complies with its corporate governance obligations
AMPC’s corporate governance practices have been reconciled with ASX Corporate Governance
Council’s Corporate Governance Principles and Recommendations, Third Edition, March 2014.
Those principles have been designed for companies listed on the Australian Stock Exchange.
They can largely be applied to AMPC but need to be adapted to fit AMPC, which has a different
governance model, given its purpose of administering statutory levies collected by the
Commonwealth from the red meat processing industry. It is difficult for AMPC to have a board
which has a majority of “independent” directors given the eligibility criteria in the Constitution
and the voting procedure for election of directors.
We have found AMPC to be largely compliant with the Principles except in the following areas:
Independence
Board and Committee Performance Evaluation;
Nomination Committee; and
Diversity Policy.
The Board and Committee performance evaluation and Nomination Committee were subject to
a recommendation in the 2010 Performance Review but have still not been adopted.
Independence
The ASX guideline which suggests a majority of independent directors and an independent
chairman is designed to ensure that the board as a whole does not get dominated by the wishes
of a major shareholder or advisor or become ‘captive’ to management. What it is seeking to
achieve is to promote independent judgement by directors about what is in the best interests of
the company untainted by a director’s other loyalties.
Many non ASX companies have constitutions which build representation into the governance
model, as is the case for AMPC. Whether the constitution should be changed to make it less
representative would require a careful consideration and balancing of the benefits of having
member elected representatives who have intimate knowledge of the industry and members’
perspectives compared with the ‘virtues’ of independence. Such an inquiry, if it were to be
considered valuable, would necessarily require comparison with other RDC governance and a
close examination of how AMPC’s model is in fact performing which would include a board
performance review.
AMPC’s representative model is to some extent ameliorated by the requirement for two Special
Qualifications Directors who are appointed by the board, not election. This is an opportunity to
ensure that the board has specialised governance skills. We note however that the definition of
Special Qualifications Directors does not require directors to be independent of Members.
Board and Committee Performance Evaluation
Completion of a board and committee performance evaluation is a requirement. In addition to
satisfying stakeholder expectations the evaluation would allow the board to reflect on current
structures and to identify areas for continuous improvement or issues to be addressed. The
evaluation could also consider the need for independent directors.
Nomination Committee
Having a Nomination Committee is a requirement and has been referred to in the Board Charter
but does not presently exist. Although the governance model is for Processor Directors to be
elected, the board, using this committee and a skills matrix could still play a part in
communicating with members about what skills sets are most required by the board at any
particular time. It could be argued that the seven processor directors who are elected also act
as a nomination committee for additional Special Qualification directors and that such
nomination could be guided using a skills matrix.
Diversity
With respect to diversity, we have been informed that, because the meat processing industry is
traditionally a male nominated industry, it is difficult to find females with appropriate skill and
experience sets. We understand that female candidates have previously been interviewed for
board positions but were ultimately not successful. To comply with the ASX good governance
principals, a policy could be developed to articulate AMPC’s approach and goals in relation to
increasing diversity in the recruitment of board appointees and company employees.
GHD | Report for Australian Meat Processor Corporation – Performance Review, 21/24496 | 49
AMPC’s corporate governance practices are considered appropriate
There is evidence of many good governance practices including the development of a Board
Charter, a Delegations Register, Conflicts of Interest Policy and Procedures including a meeting
agenda item for declaration for conflicts of interest.
There appears to be a high functioning and well chaired Audit and Risk Management
Committee with independent members giving close oversight to corporate reporting and risk
management.
AMPC has appointed an external firm to conduct internal audits and they are conducted on a
quarterly basis. The external auditor attends Audit and Risk Management Committee meetings.
The CEO’s contract contains key performance indicators against which it is intended his
performance will be reviewed by the Chair on behalf of the board.
The effectiveness of AMPC’s corporate governance practices has been improved
There is evidence that AMPC is on a path of continuous improvement in terms of corporate
governance. A Board Charter has recently been drafted and the Charter for the Audit and Risk
Management Committee has also been redrafted. These documents demonstrate an eye for
good contemporary governance practices. As AMPC moves toward self-governance, more
attention appears to be paid to improving the governance frameworks to ensure strategy and
risk management are well integrated and that the board and the Audit and Risk Management
Committee are appropriately involved in these areas. Recently there have been expert
presentations to the committee and the board on the contemporary approach to the board
setting the Risk Appetite which is the cornerstone of an improved approach to risk management
and strategic planning. In this regard the AMPC approach is very much in step with
contemporary good governance thinking and practice.
Corporate governance is effective
As it is compliant with most of the ASX good governance principles and using appropriate
governance frameworks to ensure accountability, it appears that AMPC’s governance is
effective.
An example of the company’s corporate governance working well is the oversight which the
board has taken in monitoring and considering the company’s reserves (see Section 2.2.2
above). We have been informed that the Board actively considers a reserves policy and
quantum on a regular basis and discusses this with the Department and is considering
developing a documented reserves plan.
The efficiency of corporate governance processes, systems and procedures has been
improved
See improvements referred to above. In addition, we have been informed by directors that the
board is increasingly performing its role at the appropriate board oversight level and that
relations between the board and the CEO are constructive and functional.
We understand that a Business Manager is being recruited which will allow more resources to
be applied to continuing improvement of governance policies and procedures.
Corporate governance is efficient
Governance efficiency appears to be adequate with room for more improvement as more
sophisticated frameworks are developed and implemented to better serve AMPC as it moves to
self-governance.
7.2.2 Compliance audit and certification reports
AMPC’s compliance audit is undertaken by an independent auditor, Nexia Court & Co. The
certification reports are financial statements of compliance signed by the Chairperson and Chief
Executive Officer of AMPC.
The review team has sighted the Directors Reports and the Audited Financial Reports over the
review period. The documents have been signed in accordance with the Corporations
Regulations 2001 and the Corporation Act 2001 by AMPC Directors and by Nexia Court & Co.
In order to ensure compliance with the SFA there needs to be evidence of submission of the
compliance audit and certification reports to the Commonwealth within five months after the end
of the financial year in question. Consultation with the Department confirms that this has been
undertaken.
7.2.3 Risk, Fraud Control and Intellectual Property Management Plans
AMPC’s fraud and risk management framework includes processes for project, program and
portfolio level risk management, general compliance and operational risk management and
financial risk management, and prudential guidelines for business ventures. AMPC aligns these
processes with MLA, who oversee processes for approval and the delivery of RD&E activities.
The risk, fraud control and intellectual property management plans are all a requirement of the
SFA.
Plans are current
As noted previously the risk, fraud and IP plans will be reviewed following the finalisation of the
10-year strategic plan in late 2015.
Risk management plan
The risk management plan was released in 2012 and is due for review under the SFA (Clause
13 p16).
Fraud control policy
The AMPC Fraud Control Policy was received and approved at the (27 November 2008)
reconvened Board meeting on 11 December 2008. This policy was revised and redrafted in
2012 however has not been formally approved by the Board.
Intellectual property plan
The AMPC Intellectual Property Plan was released in June 2008, prior to the relationship
agreement that is currently in place with MLA. Under the current plan, commercialisation of
ownership is retained by MLA, including for AMPC commissioned projects.
MLA has subsequently agreed that for relatively new research areas AMPC will have
commercialisation rights and ownership of IP, however where MLA has existing background IP
it will retain these rights. The relationship and management agreements with MLA will be
modified to reflect this.
Given that intellectual property is a major asset of a company which is involved in research and
development, the Board has an important role in the high level oversight of the intellectual
property policy. The board’s role should include
Ensuring that there is an Intellectual Property Register which they monitor periodically
The Intellectual Policy should be approved by the board and compliance with the policy
should be monitored
GHD | Report for Australian Meat Processor Corporation – Performance Review, 21/24496 | 51
Intellectual Property should receive specific attention in both the strategic plan and the
new risk management plan
It should be noted that the Board has no involvement in the management of IP which is the
direct responsibility of the CEO.
Documented process for the development and review of plans
Risk management plan
The 2014-15 AOP states that there will be a revision of the risk management plan as required
by the SFA (p22). Page 3 of the SFA review document states that a revised risk assessment will
be conducted in FY 2014-15.
Risk is reviewed via the Audit and Risk Committee. The committee is currently upgrading its risk
framework, to determine the Board’s appetite for risk and disruptive innovation. Once the risk
framework is complete (due for completion by July/August 2015) it will form the basis of the
updated risk and fraud control plans. The new Business Manager will play a key role in the
update of these plans.
The new evaluation framework (currently under development, see section 4) will also assist in
risk management as it will directly inform the decision to invest.
Fraud control policy
As per the above, once the risk framework is complete the fraud control plan will be updated.
Intellectual property plan
The AMPC IP plan is dated June 2008.
Use of plans embedded in day-to-day activities
Discussions with AMPC staff indicated that they were mindful of the corporate governance
requirements associated with the management of projects.
7.3 Summary of findings
External consultation showed that stakeholders are generally positive about the performance of
the Board. Examples of feedback include:
The Board is responsive to feedback and there is evidence of changes made as a result.
One example was that the Board now provides feedback on original PAC
recommendations and the rationale behind project prioritisation when finalising the
research portfolio.
The Board offers good stability, takes its job seriously, and has good understanding and
depth of knowledge.
Overall we consider AMPC’s corporate governance to be good and improving with a focus also
on creating frameworks and practices which will support it as it moves into self-governance.
The overall findings are provided in Table 21.
Table 21 Review findings – system of corporate governance
Review Area Performance
Board corporate governance Good. Recommendations for further improvement are recommended below
Compliance audit and certification reports
Complies
Review Area Performance
Risk, Fraud Control and Intellectual Property Management Plans
In place and being reviewed and updated to support self-governance
7.4 Recommendations
1. Complete a Board and Committee Performance Evaluation – this is a requirement and in
addition to satisfying stakeholder expectations would allow the board to reflect on current
structures and to identify areas for continuous improvement or issues to address. The
evaluation could also consider the need for independent directors.
2. Establish a Nomination Committee – this is a requirement and has been referred to in the
Board Charter but does not presently exist. The committee should also develop a skills
matrix to guide the nomination of non-elected directors.
3. Establish an induction process for the board.
4. Develop a policy on board training and ongoing professional development of directors.
We understand that some board members have been supported to do the AICD
Company Directors Course, but it is not compulsory and no other governance
development training is offered.
5. Develop a Diversity Policy to articulate AMPC’s approach and goals in relation to
increasing diversity in the recruitment of board appointees and company employees.
GHD | Report for Australian Meat Processor Corporation – Performance Review, 21/24496 | 53
8. Response to the 2010 performance review 8.1 Introduction
This section looks at the steps and processes that AMPC has taken in response to the previous
performance review. AMPC prepared a response to the 2010 performance review
recommendations in December 2014. The response was provided to the Department and
published on the AMPC website.
Table 22 highlights the assessment criteria used to evaluate AMPC’s response to the 2010
performance review.
Table 22 Review framework – response to the 2010 performance review
Review Area Assessment Documents / Methods
1. Formalise and document processes and structures for developing strategic and annual operating plans.
There have been documented changes to processes and structures in developing plans.
Stakeholders understand planning process
Strategic plans 2011-15
Operating plans 2011-15
Discussions with directors and management
Discussion with stakeholders
2. Consider standardised program guidelines, application procedures and assessment processes with MLA.
Identify if standardised program guidelines, application procedures and assessment processes are in place.
If not, what was the process of deliberation
Program guidelines
Review changes that were made
Application procedures
Assessment processes
Discussion with management
3. Adopting a more strategic and planned approach to stakeholder communications
Evidence of a planned approach to communication
Demonstration of key changes over the review period
Evidence/documentation of interactions with stakeholders
Review communication materials
Discuss with stakeholders
4. Board to update governance practices
Changes to board including:
Active management of conflict of interest
Formal training and processes for managing performance
Structured processes for considering the appropriate mix of skills relevant to the governance of the company.
Governance practices and policies
Annual reports 2011-15
Annual operating plans 2011-15
Discussions with board members to assess change
5. Consider an evaluation of the BCA across all programs to enable clear identification of value to levy payers from company investments
Company-wide evaluation strategy in place
Evaluation has been undertaken and made transparent to levy payers
Value from company investments is clear to levy payers
Benefit-cost evaluations
Annual reports 2011-15
Annual operating plans 2011-15
Discussions with levy payers
8.2 Findings
8.2.1 Formalise and document processes and structures for developing strategic and annual operating plans
What are the documented changes to processes and structures in developing plans?
A strategic plan has been developed for the 2013-17 period. The annual operating plans are
designed to implement the strategic plan on an annual basis. Over the review period AMPC has
established a new investment framework and a new portfolio development process (PDP) to
improve stakeholder consultation and engagement and transparency. Further details regarding
the strategic and AOP planning processes are provided in section 3 including Figure 3, which
shows the new annual portfolio development cycle.
Stakeholders understand planning process
Stakeholders’ understanding of the planning process is discussed in section 5.2.
8.2.2 Consider standardised program guidelines, application procedures and assessment processes with MLA
Identify if standardised program guidelines, application procedures and assessment
processes are in place. If not, what was the process of deliberation?
In 2013 AMPC and MLA agreed that AMPC would manage all RD&E activities for the Core
program and that both Core and Joint projects that utilise AMPC levy funds will be overseen by
an AMPC/MLA executive committee. These changes were formalised in a Relationship
Agreement and Management Agreement and were implemented in 2014-15. The agreements
include governance procedures between AMPC and MLA designed to ensure their effective
operation.
8.2.3 Adopting a more strategic and planned approach to stakeholder communications
Evidence of a planned approach to communication
As per section 5 AMPC has developed a strategic communications plan. The plan outlines
objectives and initiatives for the 2015-18 financial years to ensure alignment with the strategic
plan 2013-17. Implementation of the plan will be managed by the company’s Communications
Manager, who was appointed in 2014.
Demonstration of key changes over the review period
Over the review period AMPC has made four key changes to improve stakeholder
communication and engagement. These include:
Recruitment of a specialist marketing communication manager;
Development of a three year communications plan;
Introduction of a new branding policy with MLA and MINTRAC; and
Implementation of a new AMPC website platform (to be implemented in 2015/16).
GHD | Report for Australian Meat Processor Corporation – Performance Review, 21/24496 | 55
8.2.4 Board to update governance practices
Changes to board including:
Active management of conflict of interest
The board now actively manages conflicts of interest.
AMPC has consulted with both internal and external auditors as well as the Audit and Risk
Committee to revise internal policies. Policies that were flagged for review were subject to a
strategic planning forum with the AMPC board of directors.
Formal training and processes for managing performance
Formal training and processes for managing performance include:
The Board has set KPIs for the CEO and plans to monitor performance against these.
All staff receive an annual performance review.
Structured processes for considering the appropriate mix of skills relevant to the
governance of the company
The board considers the appropriate mix of skills relevant to the governance of the company but
this could be further formalised and structured by the creation of a nomination committee with
responsibility for reviewing the skills mix as part of succession planning.
8.2.5 Consider an evaluation of the BCA across all programs to enable clear identification of value to levy payers from company investments
The change in management of the Core program from MLA to AMPC and the introduction of a
new evaluation framework and communications plan will improve the way in which the impact of
AMPC’s investments are evaluated and communicated to levy payers. The new evaluation
framework will focus on evaluating all projects and programs and an evaluation schedule is
being developed as part of the evaluation plan.
8.3 Summary of findings
AMPC has responded to each of the recommendations in the Arche review as outlined in Table
23 below.
Table 23 Review findings – response to the 2010 performance review
Review Area Performance
1. Formalise and document processes and structures for developing strategic and annual operating plans
Underway – the planning process has been formalised and work is underway (as part of the new communications plan) to ensure stakeholders understand the planning process
2. Consider standardised program guidelines, application procedures and assessment processes with MLA
Underway – agreements in place
3. Adopting a more strategic and planned approach to stakeholder communications
Underway – a communications plan has been completed and a number of changes are being implemented in response to member feedback
4. Board to update governance practices
Not completed – see commentary and recommendations in section 7
5. Consider an evaluation of the BCA across all programs to enable clear identification of value to levy payers
Underway – draft evaluation framework has been developed which includes BCA of all investments
Review Area Performance
from company investments
8.4 Recommendations
1. Complete implementation of the recommendations from the previous review, noting that
many actions are underway and the remaining actions will be covered by the
recommendations from this current review.
GHD | Report for Australian Meat Processor Corporation – Performance Review, 21/24496 | 57
9. Conclusion and recommendations This review finds that AMPC generally complies with its various obligations as prescribed in the
SFA, the MOU and its Constitution. In addition, the company has largely implemented the
recommendations from the previous review although some issues have not been addressed
fully and others have only recently commenced.
This review comes at a time of substantial change at AMPC and this change is the possible
reason why actions have been delayed, including the need for improving the communication of
benefits to levy payers and the Commonwealth. To enable those improvements, the most
significant change is the transition in project management of Core programs from MLA to AMPC
responsibility.
Consultation with stakeholders for this review demonstrated support for AMPC taking increased
responsibility for the Core projects, but at the same time this has created some administrative
and procedural issues that will need to be resolved.
AMPC is aware of these issues and is working to resolve them. Of most significance is the
imminent implementation of:
A project evaluation framework that will consistently allow ex ante and ex post
evaluations of investments; and
A Strategic Communications Plan that differentiates each of AMPC’s stakeholders and
determines which communication products and methods are most suited to each
stakeholder group.
The red meat industry has many agencies with differing roles, but there is a need for the
agencies to work together for the overall benefit of the industry as envisaged under the MOU.
The structure of the industry under RMAC relies on the selection and management of projects
by the full range of agencies involved, and collaboration between agencies, including
agreement on the share of funding for joint projects, is paramount to ensuring the efficient and
effective use of funds.
The recommendations arising from this review are:
Company operations and funding
1. Evaluate the effectiveness of presenting the 2013-14 Annual Report as multiple documents
and use this evaluation as a basis for determining the format for the 2014-15 report.
2. Review the reported administrative issues associated with the implementation of the
Relationship Agreement and Management Agreement with MLA and determine a resolution
so that AMPC can continue to manage agreed Core and other projects in an efficient and
effective manner.
3. Finalise a strategy for managing reserves and clearly report this to members in the context of
risk management associated with fluctuating levy income as a result of slaughter numbers.
Program planning and effective delivery
4. Develop a formal consultation process for stakeholder input to the SFA Strategic Planning
process and the communication of documents to stakeholders.
5. In consultation with the Department, consider amending the SFA on the date required for
submission of the AOP to ensure alignment with MLA’s AOP submission date.
6. Better articulate the distinction between Core, Joint and PIP programs and associated
investments to improve understanding of the use of levy and Commonwealth funds.
Delivery of benefits
7. Improve reporting and communication of the benefits of AMPC’s activities so that these are
more easily understood by levy payers and the Commonwealth.
8. Implement the new evaluation framework and associated reporting of outcomes but at the
same time better communicate the complexity of evaluation, including the time lag between
the initial proof of concept research stage and the adoption stage. The funding by multiple
sectors is also an issue that needs to be better described when reporting on evaluation.
Engagement, consultation and communication
9. Complete a review of the AMPC 2015-18 Strategic Communications Plan within two years of
its implementation to determine if it is achieving its stated goals, and amend if necessary.
Company structure and staffing
10. In conjunction with the review of the implementation of the Relationship Agreement and
Management Agreement with MLA (see Recommendation 2 in section 2.4), consider more
broadly whether the staffing structure remains appropriate for the efficient and effective
management of the company.
Corporate Governance
11. Complete a Board Performance and Committee Evaluation – this is a requirement and in
addition to satisfying stakeholder expectations would allow the board to reflect on current
structures and to identify areas for continuous improvement or issues to address. The
evaluation could also consider the need for independent directors.
12. Establish a Nomination Committee – this is a requirement and has been referred to in the
Board Charter but does not presently exist. The committee should also develop a skills
matrix to guide the nomination of non-elected directors.
13. Establish an induction process for the board.
14. Develop a policy on board training and ongoing professional development of directors. We
understand that some board members have been supported to do the AICD Company
Directors Course, but it is not compulsory and no other governance development training is
offered.
15. Develop a Diversity Policy to articulate AMPC’s approach and goals in relation to increasing
diversity in the recruitment of board appointees and company employees.
Response to the 2010 performance review
16. Complete implementation of the recommendations from the previous review, noting that
many actions are underway and the remaining actions will be covered by the
recommendations from this current review.
GHD | Report for Australian Meat Processor Corporation – Performance Review, 21/24496 | 59
10. References ACIL ALLEN CONSULTING 2015, AMPC Evaluation Framework for Research and
Development and Marketing Programs and Projects.
ACIL Tasman 2013, Assessing the industry impact of automation, prepared for AMPC and MLA
2013.
Arche Consulting (2010) Australian Meat Processor Corporation Review of Performance, Final
Report prepared for AMPC Ltd.
Australian Commonwealth Government 2007, Australian Meat and Live‑stock Industry Act
1997, section 60 (3AA) and 60 (3AB), Act No. 206 of 1997 as amended.
Australian Commonwealth Government 2007, Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Act 1999, Act
No. 31 of 1999 as amended.
Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) 2011,
Funding Agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia represented by the
Commonwealth Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Australian Meat
Processor Corporation 2011-2015, DAFF 2011.
Australian Meat Processor Corporation, 2014, Annual report 2013-14, Australian Meat
Processor Corporation Ltd, North Sydney.
Australian Meat Processor Corporation, 2013, Annual report 2012-13, Australian Meat
Processor Corporation Ltd, North Sydney.
Australian Meat Processor Corporation, 2012, Annual report 2011-12, Australian Meat
Processor Corporation Ltd, North Sydney.
Australian Meat Processor Corporation, 2014, Annual Operating Plan 2014-15, Australian Meat
Processor Corporation Ltd, North Sydney.
Australian Meat Processor Corporation, 2013, Annual Operating Plan 2013-14, Australian Meat
Processor Corporation Ltd, North Sydney.
Australian Meat Processor Corporation, 2012, Annual Operating Plan 2012-13, Australian Meat
Processor Corporation Ltd, North Sydney.
Australian Meat Processor Corporation, 2015, Strategic Communications Plan 2015-18,
Australian Meat Processor Corporation Ltd, North Sydney.
Australian Meat Processor Corporation, 2013, Strategic Plan 2013-17, Australian Meat
Processor Corporation Ltd, North Sydney.
Australian Meat Processor Corporation, 2013, Strategic Plan Summary 2013, Australian Meat
Processor Corporation Ltd, North Sydney.
Australian Meat Processor Corporation, 2014, AMPC’s Response to Arche Review
Recommendations 2010 (December 2014 update), Australian Meat Processor Corporation Ltd,
North Sydney.
GHD (2013) Mid-term evaluation of MISP3, Final Report prepared for Red Meat Advisory
Council.
GHD | Report for Australian Meat Processor Corporation - Performance Review, 21/24496
Appendices
GHD | Report for Australian Meat Processor Corporation – Performance Review, 21/24496 | 61
Appendix A – Evaluation framework
The following assessment framework was used to guide the performance review:
Review Area Assessment Documents / Methods
Company operations and funding
Constitution and membership
The constitution amendments align with the SFA
Membership aligns with the constitution
Constitution
Consultation with Government, Partners, collaborators and service providers.
Consultation with levy payers
Documented amendment changes
Payment and management of funds
Audited financial reports complete and compliant
Viewing reports (audited financial reports 2011-15)
Performance Review Review commissioned
Implementation of the previous review recommendations
2015 performance review
Program planning and effective delivery
Strategic Plan Plan has been developed in timely manner
Documented process for plan review
Evidence of plan use and review each year in accordance with the SFA
Stakeholder access to plans
Strategic plans 2011-15
Discuss planning and review process with Board and management staff
Discuss availability with levy payers and key stakeholders
Annual Operating Plan Plans developed in timely manner
Documented process for the development of plans
Alignment with SFA and Strategic Plan
Documentation of participation in any relevant evaluation projects
Documented planned expenditure
Use of plans in company activities
Annual Operating Plans 2011-15
Financial reports 2011-15
Consult with Department
Collaboration Evidence that increased cross collaboration has been achieved.
Outline of opportunities and optimal level of collaboration is considered
Review project reports involving collaboration
Review of potential opportunities for collaboration
Discussions with Board members, management and other RDCs
Delivery of benefits
Project outcomes Project outcomes documented and collated
Project reports
Annual reports
Structured evaluation plan
AMPC has delivered benefits in line with strategic objectives
Evaluation plan
Discussion with staff involved
Evaluation of the cost and benefit of programs to enable clear identification of
Program evaluation has taken place.
The results of evaluations were transparent to levy payers.
Cost benefit evaluations Documentation of where outcomes are reported and considered in future plans
Review Area Assessment Documents / Methods
value to levy payers from company investments
AMPC has included benefits and value for money in current reporting and future planning.
Discussion with levy payers
Engagement, consultation and communication
Engagement and communication
Examine documented changes to improve transparency
Stakeholders understand approach to engagement
Communication is comprehensive, inclusive, and consistent with strategic goals
Program of communication events is available
Minutes from meetings
Discussion with external stakeholders including Government, industry business partners, collaborators and service providers
Discussion with directors and management
Company structure and operational model
Company structure and operational model
Structural changes since last review align with SFA
Structure facilitates effective delivery of company objectives
Constitution
Strategic Plan
Relationship and management agreements
Discussion with Board and management
System of corporate governance
Board corporate governance
AMPC complies with its corporate governance obligations
AMPC’s corporate governance practices are considered appropriate.
The effectiveness of AMPC’s corporate governance practices has been improved.
Corporate governance is effective
The efficiency of corporate governance processes, systems and procedures has been improved.
Corporate governance is efficient
ASX Corporate Governance Council’s Corporate Governance Principles and Recommendations.
Board minutes.
Discussion with board members.
Documentation of submission to the Minister.
Review updated governance procedures for alignment with contemporary practices
Compliance audit and certification reports
Documents signed-off and submitted in accordance with the SFA
Compliance audit report 2011-15
Certification report 2011-15
Discussion with Chairperson/CEO
Risk, Fraud Control and Intellectual Property Management Plans
Plans are current
Documented process for the development and review of plans
Use of plans embedded in day-to-day activities
Risk, fraud control and IP management plans
Discussion with relevant AMPC board members and management
Response to the 2010 performance review
1. Formalise and document processes and structures for developing strategic and annual operating plans.
There have been documented changes to processes and structures in developing plans.
Stakeholders understand planning process
Strategic plans 2011-15
Operating plans 2011-15
Discussions with directors and management
Discussion with stakeholders
GHD | Report for Australian Meat Processor Corporation – Performance Review, 21/24496 | 63
Review Area Assessment Documents / Methods
2. Consider standardised program guidelines, application procedures and assessment processes with MLA.
Identify if standardised program guidelines, application procedures and assessment processes are in place.
If not, what was the process of deliberation
Program guidelines
Review changes that were made
Application procedures
Assessment processes
Discussion with management
3. Adopting a more strategic and planned approach to stakeholder communications
Evidence of a planned approach to communication
Demonstration of key changes over the review period
Evidence/documentation of interactions with stakeholders
Review communication materials
Discuss with stakeholders
4. Board to update governance practices
Changes to board including:
Active management of conflict of interest
Formal training and processes for managing performance
Structured processes for considering the appropriate mix of skills relevant to the governance of the company.
Governance practices and policies
Annual reports 2011-15
Annual operating plans 2011-15
Discussions with board members to assess change
5. Consider an evaluation of the BCA across all programs to enable clear identification of value to levy payers from company investments
Company-wide evaluation strategy in place
Evaluation has been undertaken and made transparent to levy payers
Value from company investments is clear to levy payers
Benefit-cost evaluations
Annual reports 2011-15
Annual operating plans 2011-15
Discussions with levy payers
Appendix B – Document register
The following materials were reviewed to inform the review process:
Constitution of AMPC – 18/05/2007
Constitution of AMPC – 28/11/2013
AMPC Board of Directors – Meeting Agenda – 25/11/2014
AMPC Board of Directors – Meeting Agenda – 18/02/2015
AMPC Board of Directors – Meeting Agenda – 24/03/2015
AMPC Board of Directors – Meeting Agenda – 20/01/2015
Audit and risk management committee charter – Version 1.3
Audit and Risk Management Committee Charter – September 2015
Audit and Risk Committee Meeting Agenda – March 2015
AMPC Risk Appetite Presentation – Deloitte – 16/03/2015
AMPC Delegation Register – Approved by Board – 02/09/2014
Conflict of interest register
Conflict of Interest Policy and Procedures
Executive Service Agreement – CEO – 14/01/2015
AMPC Board charter
AMPC Organisational Chart – May 2015
AMPC Submission to Levies Enquiry – November 2014
Statutory Funding Agreement 2011-15
Directors’ report and audited financial report 2013-14
Annual Report 2013-2014
Annual Report 2012-2013
Annual Report 2011-2012
Annual Report 2010-2011
AMPC Strategic Plan 2013-2017
AMPC Strategic Plan Summary 2013
Annual Operating Plan 2014-2015
Annual Operating Plan 2013-2014
Annual Operating Plan 2012-2013
Annual Operating Plan 2011-2012
AMPC Risk Management Plan – 2012
AMPC Fraud Control Policy – December 2008
AMPC – Intellectual Property Management Plan – June 2008
MLA Intellectual Property Management Plan – 07/05/2015
GHD | Report for Australian Meat Processor Corporation – Performance Review, 21/24496 | 65
AMPC Business Plan Diagram
AMPC 2015-2018 Strategic Communications Plan
MISP and Meat Processing – Report on AMPC RD&E Outcomes and Investment for
MISP from 2011-2013
AMPC and MLA Management Agreement – 22/05/2013 (signed agreement)
Red Meat Industry Memorandum of Understanding – Version 3 (September 2007)
AMPC’s Response to Arche Review Recommendations 2010 (Dec 2014 update)
AMPC Request for Proposals FY2015-16
ACIL Allen Draft AMPC Evaluation Framework – 18/05/2015
Report on AMPC RD&E outcomes and investment for MISP from 2011-2013
Portfolio Development Process Timeline
AMPC 3 Year Review Report – ARCHE Consulting Pty Ltd – 21/06/2010
AMPC core and PIP projects from MLA
AMPC Register of Relevant Interests
Processing Efficiency – MLA –AMPC – FINAL - 31/10/13 (evaluation example)
Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Regulations 1999 (Including amendments up to 2013)
Australian Meat and Livestock Industry Act 1997
AMPC 2013 Election – Skills Base Spreadsheet – 25/11/13
Appendix C – Stakeholder consultation
Interviews were undertaken with the following AMPC staff, management and external
stakeholders to inform the review process:
Stakeholder type Number of stakeholders interviewed
AMPC Board members 3
AMPC management and staff 3
Processors 3
Department of Agriculture 5
Research providers 1
MLA 2
AMIC 2
Total 19
GHD | Report for Australian Meat Processor Corporation – Performance Review, 21/24496 | 67
Appendix D – Corporate Governance
AMPC, under its Constitution and its SFA with the Commonwealth, is required to implement a
framework of good corporate governance to manage and invest levy funds. The framework is
required to draw on the ASX Good Governance Principles and Recommendations. For the
purposes of this review we have referenced the 3rd edition of these principles which have been
in place since March 2014.
ASX Principle & recommendations
Assessment Documents/Methods
1.Lay solid foundations for
management and oversight
1.1 (a) disclose respective
roles & responsibilities of
management and
(b) those matters expressly
reserved for the board and
those delegated to
management
Yes
Yes
Board Charter
Delegations Register
1.2 Undertakes appropriate
checks before appointing a
person or putting forward a
candidate for election as
director
Eligibility for both Processor
and Special Qualifications
directors are set out and the
individuals have to sign to
confirm they meet the
requirements
1.3 has a written agreement
with each director and senior
executive setting out the
terms of their appointment
Term set by the constitution.
Would be good practice also
to confirm in a letter of
appointment
1.4 Company secretary
accountable directly to the
board through the chair on all
matters to do with the proper
functioning of the board
Yes
Could also be included in
Company Secretary’s position
description
Company secretary’s role prescribed in the constitution
1.5 Diversity policy –
measurable objectives for
achieving gender diversity
No
1.6 Process for evaluating
performance of the board and
its committees and individual
directors
No
1.7 Process in place for
periodically evaluating the
performance of senior
Yes for CEO
There are no other senior
executives, all staff get annual
ASX Principle & recommendations
Assessment Documents/Methods
executives
performance review.
2.Structure the board to add
value
2.1 Nomination committee
No Referred to in new Board
Charter but not in existence at
this time
2.2 Board skills matrix Yes Skills Base According to the
Statutory Funding
Arrangements used during the
last board election process
2.3 disclosure of names of
directors considered by the
board to be ‘independent’
directors
No
“ Independent” in ASX
guidelines means “ not allied
with the interests of
management, a substantial
security holder or other
relevant stakeholder and can
and will bring an independent
judgement to bear on issues
before the board”
This is likely to be difficult to
achieve in a model where
Processor Directors are
elected by Members.
Special Qualifications
directors may be independent
but this is not disclosed.
2.4 majority of independent
directors
No
2.5 Chair should be an
independent director
No
3. Act ethically and
responsibly
3.1 have a code of conduct for
its directors , senior
executives and employees
Yes
Code of Conduct in Board
Charter contains requirements
concerning Conflicts of
Interest.
There is also a Conflicts of
Interest Policy and
Procedures and a Register of
Relevant Interests.
The board papers have an
GHD | Report for Australian Meat Processor Corporation – Performance Review, 21/24496 | 69
ASX Principle & recommendations
Assessment Documents/Methods
item at the top of the Agenda
for declaration of conflicts of
interest
Code of Conduct published in
Annual Report
4. Safeguard integrity in
corporate reporting
4.1 Audit committee
- all non executive members
and chaired by an
independent director who is
not the chair of the board
Yes The amended Audit and Risk
Committee Charter requires
that the committee be chaired
by an independent director
who is not the Chair of the
board.
March board papers Item 5 (
c) notes that the lawyers have
advised the present
composition of the committee
complies with the Charter
4.2 before board approves
financial statements should
receive from CEO and CFO a
true and fair declaration and
that opinion formed on the
basis that a sound system of
risk management and internal
control which is operating
effectively
Yes for CEO
(There is no CFO)
similar report/declaration from
internal and external auditors
4.3 ensures that external
auditor attends it’s AGM
Yes Audit & Risk Management
Committee Charter
5. Makes timely and
balanced disclosure
Not relevant – continuous
disclosure under ASX listing
Rules
6. Respect the rights of
security holders
6.1 provides information about
itself and its governance via
its website
Yes
6.2 have an investor relations
program to facilitate effective
two way communication with
investors
Not strictly relevant but refer
to communication strategy re
communications with
stakeholders
6.3 policies and procedures in
place to facilitate and
encourage participation at
Yes all members get physical and
electronic communications
ASX Principle & recommendations
Assessment Documents/Methods
meetings of security holders
6.4 should give security
holders the option to receive
communications electronically
7. Establishes a sound risk
management framework
and periodically review the
effectiveness of that
framework
7.1 committee to oversee risk
management
Yes
7.2 review the risk
management framework
annually
Recently significantly
reviewed
Required by Audit and Risk
Management Committee
Charter
7.3 disclose of whether have
an internal audit function
Yes Audit and Risk Management
Committee Charter
7.4 should disclose whether it
has any material exposure to
economic, environmental and
social sustainability risks and
if so how does it manage
them?
Development underway New risk management
framework
8. Remunerate fairly and
responsibly
8.1 remuneration committee
Yes – whole of board Corporate Governance
Statement in Directors Rep[ort
2013 - 2014
8.2 disclose policies and
practices regarding the
remuneration of non executive
and executive directors and
other senior executives
Yes Corporate Governance
Statement in Directors Rep[ort
2013 - 2014
8.3 equity based
remuneration scheme
Not relevant
GHD | Report for Australian Meat Processor Corporation – Performance Review, 21/24496 | 71
Appendix E – Communication Activities in 2014/15
Area of focus Publication
Corporate Reports
2013-14 Annual Report to Members
2013-14 Directors' Report and Audited Financial Report
Annual Operating Plan Final Report 2013-14
2014-15 Annual Operating Plan
Newsletters
December 2014 Monthly Alerts
January 2015 Monthly Alerts
February 2015 Monthly Alerts
March 2015 Monthly Alerts
April 2015 Monthly Alerts
May 2015 Monthly Alerts
June 2015 Monthly Alerts
RD&E Reports
Environment and
sustainability
High rate aerobic treatment combined with anaerobic digestion and anammox (2013.4006)
Assessing the effectiveness of a carcase hot water decontamination cabinet in small stock processing (3000.5124)
Final Report for Meat Processor Opportunities for ERP Participation (2014.1013)
Renewable Energy Options for Off Grid Red Meat Processing (2013.3010)
Opportunities for Red Meat Processors under the Emissions Reduction Fund (2014.1013)
Review of wastewater treatment chemicals and organic chemistry alternatives (2014.1044)
Water chemistry control to minimise degradation of heating equipment at abattoirs
Trickling filter technology for treating abattoir wastewater
Water efficient cleaning of viscera trays using steam sanitation
Cost benefit analysis of treating abattoir sludge using three-way decanters
Agri-industrial wastewater treatment and nutrient recovery (2013/5018)
Options to maximise process heat recovery at red meat processing facilities (2013/5011)
Review and cost benefit analysis of Torrefaction technology for processing abattoir waste (2013/5015)
Nutrient recovery from paunch and covered anaerobic lagoon effluent (2013/4007)
NGERS and Wastewater Management - Mapping waste streams and quantifying the impacts (A.ENV.0151)
Water saving in the routine cleaning of carcase chillers (A.ENV.0138)
Tripe wash water reuse in beef processing (A.ENV.0137)
Technology and Processing
Resource Manual for Adopting Technology - Introducing new equipment in meat processing
Implementation, Extension and Education
A Guide to Competencies and Training Options for Maintenance Engineers in Meat Processing Plants
Identifying and eliminating 'Zero Tolerance' contamination on carton beef reference guide - beef packing
Identifying and eliminating 'Zero Tolerance' contamination on carton beef reference guide - beef trimming
Area of focus Publication
Identifying and eliminating 'Zero Tolerance' contamination on carton beef reference guide - sheep/goat packing
Identifying and eliminating 'Zero Tolerance' contamination on carton beef reference guide - sheep/goat trimming
Food Safety, Product Integrity and Meat Science
Ultrasonics to improve meat texture (A.MIS.1003)
Shelf life: improving beef colour (A.MIS.1002)
Effect of processing technology on microbiological growth and safety (A.MIS.1004)
Effect of testing regimes on E.Coli 0157 isolation (A.MIS.1005)
Effect of intramuscular fat on beef eating quality, flavour generation and release (A.MQA.0001)
Greening of vacuum packaged lamb - causative factors (A.MQA.0003)
Enhancement of meat quality by PEF application (A.MQA.0005)
Predicting colour and flavour stabilities of meat from pre-slaughter assessments (A.MQA.0006)
Influence of nutritional regime on sheep meat texture and flavour (A.MQA.0007)
Understanding confirmation test failures for detection pathogenic E.Coli (G.MFS.0282)
Metagenomics analysis of the microbial communities contaminating meat and carcasses (G.MFS.0290)
RD&E Factsheets/ SnapShots
Implementation, Extension and Education
Extension of WHS Updates to Industry
A resource to assist in the integration of new processing technologies
Animal Welfare Auditing Training
AMPC providing industry with yard design resources
Carcase Hygiene Inspection Training Resources
Developing a predictive model to assist in the purchase and implementation of new processing technologies
Enhancing industry capacity to monitor and audit electrical capacity to monitor and audit electrical services carcase stimulation
Food Safety, Product Integrity and Meat Science
Influence of nutritional regime (rye grass, brassica etc.) on sheep meat texture/flavour
Research into the metagenomics of microbial communities contaminating meat/carcasses
Sheep CRC Meat Science Program. The following fact sheets were published: • Carcase lamb composition • What is electrical stimulation? • Types of electrical stimulation • Optimising electrical stimulation • Intramuscular fat • Lamb eating quality • Lamb nutritional value • Lean meat yield current and future technologies • Meat colour and shelf life • Meat colour stability • Research breeding values
Environment and Sustainability
Small stock interventions - assessing the effectiveness of a carcase hot water decontamination cabinet in small stock processing (3000.5124)
Water chemistry control to minimise degradation of heating equipment at abattoirs
Evaluating greenhouse gas emission mitigating technologies: refrigeration technologies
Evaluating greenhouse gas emission mitigating technologies: anaerobic digestion
RD&E Webinars
GHD | Report for Australian Meat Processor Corporation – Performance Review, 21/24496 | 73
Area of focus Publication
Implementation, Extension and Education
Beef Carcase Contamination Webinar
Sheep Carcase Contamination Webinar
Electrical Stimulation of Beef Carcases
Electrical Stimulation of Sheep Carcases
Meat Hygiene Assessment Webinar
Cattle Yard Design
Sheep Yard Design
Source: AMPC Communications Manager
GHD
133 Castlereagh St Sydney NSW 2000 - T: +61 2 9239 7100 F: +61 2 9239 7199 E: sydmail@ghd.com.au
© GHD 2015
This document is and shall remain the property of GHD. The document may only be used for the purpose for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the Terms of Engagement for the commission. Unauthorised use of this document in any form whatsoever is prohibited.
G:\21\24496\WP\Final draft report_June 2015.docx
Document Status
Rev No.
Author Reviewer Approved for Issue Name Signature Name Signature Date
0 J Lane E Ray
J Lane E Ray 09/06/2015
1 J Lane E Ray
J Lane E Ray 08/07/2015
2 J Lane E Ray
J Lane E Ray 16/07/2015
www.ghd.com
Recommended