australian meat processor corporation › uploads › pdf › 2015 › ampc-performanc… · the...

75
Australian Meat Processor Corporation Performance Review 2011-15 Final Report July 2015

Upload: others

Post on 03-Jul-2020

9 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Australian Meat Processor Corporation › uploads › pdf › 2015 › AMPC-Performanc… · The Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) is the rural Research and Development

Australian Meat Processor Corporation Performance Review 2011-15

Final Report

July 2015

Page 2: Australian Meat Processor Corporation › uploads › pdf › 2015 › AMPC-Performanc… · The Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) is the rural Research and Development

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.

Page 3: Australian Meat Processor Corporation › uploads › pdf › 2015 › AMPC-Performanc… · The Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) is the rural Research and Development

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.

Page 4: Australian Meat Processor Corporation › uploads › pdf › 2015 › AMPC-Performanc… · The Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) is the rural Research and Development

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.

Page 5: Australian Meat Processor Corporation › uploads › pdf › 2015 › AMPC-Performanc… · The Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) is the rural Research and Development

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 

Page 6: Australian Meat Processor Corporation › uploads › pdf › 2015 › AMPC-Performanc… · The Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) is the rural Research and Development

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 

Page 7: Australian Meat Processor Corporation › uploads › pdf › 2015 › AMPC-Performanc… · The Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) is the rural Research and Development

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

Page 8: Australian Meat Processor Corporation › uploads › pdf › 2015 › AMPC-Performanc… · The Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) is the rural Research and Development

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).

Page 9: Australian Meat Processor Corporation › uploads › pdf › 2015 › AMPC-Performanc… · The Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) is the rural Research and Development

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.

Page 10: Australian Meat Processor Corporation › uploads › pdf › 2015 › AMPC-Performanc… · The Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) is the rural Research and Development

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).

Page 11: Australian Meat Processor Corporation › uploads › pdf › 2015 › AMPC-Performanc… · The Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) is the rural Research and Development

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

Page 12: Australian Meat Processor Corporation › uploads › pdf › 2015 › AMPC-Performanc… · The Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) is the rural Research and Development

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

Page 13: Australian Meat Processor Corporation › uploads › pdf › 2015 › AMPC-Performanc… · The Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) is the rural Research and Development

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.

Page 14: Australian Meat Processor Corporation › uploads › pdf › 2015 › AMPC-Performanc… · The Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) is the rural Research and Development

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

Page 15: Australian Meat Processor Corporation › uploads › pdf › 2015 › AMPC-Performanc… · The Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) is the rural Research and Development

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.

Page 16: Australian Meat Processor Corporation › uploads › pdf › 2015 › AMPC-Performanc… · The Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) is the rural Research and Development

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.

Page 17: Australian Meat Processor Corporation › uploads › pdf › 2015 › AMPC-Performanc… · The Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) is the rural Research and Development

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.

Page 18: Australian Meat Processor Corporation › uploads › pdf › 2015 › AMPC-Performanc… · The Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) is the rural Research and Development

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

Page 19: Australian Meat Processor Corporation › uploads › pdf › 2015 › AMPC-Performanc… · The Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) is the rural Research and Development

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.

Page 20: Australian Meat Processor Corporation › uploads › pdf › 2015 › AMPC-Performanc… · The Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) is the rural Research and Development

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.

Page 21: Australian Meat Processor Corporation › uploads › pdf › 2015 › AMPC-Performanc… · The Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) is the rural Research and Development

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

Page 22: Australian Meat Processor Corporation › uploads › pdf › 2015 › AMPC-Performanc… · The Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) is the rural Research and Development

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.

Page 23: Australian Meat Processor Corporation › uploads › pdf › 2015 › AMPC-Performanc… · The Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) is the rural Research and Development

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).

Page 24: Australian Meat Processor Corporation › uploads › pdf › 2015 › AMPC-Performanc… · The Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) is the rural Research and Development

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.

Page 25: Australian Meat Processor Corporation › uploads › pdf › 2015 › AMPC-Performanc… · The Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) is the rural Research and Development

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

Page 26: Australian Meat Processor Corporation › uploads › pdf › 2015 › AMPC-Performanc… · The Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) is the rural Research and Development

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.

Page 27: Australian Meat Processor Corporation › uploads › pdf › 2015 › AMPC-Performanc… · The Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) is the rural Research and Development

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.

Page 28: Australian Meat Processor Corporation › uploads › pdf › 2015 › AMPC-Performanc… · The Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) is the rural Research and Development

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.

Page 29: Australian Meat Processor Corporation › uploads › pdf › 2015 › AMPC-Performanc… · The Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) is the rural Research and Development

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.

Page 30: Australian Meat Processor Corporation › uploads › pdf › 2015 › AMPC-Performanc… · The Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) is the rural Research and Development

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.

Page 31: Australian Meat Processor Corporation › uploads › pdf › 2015 › AMPC-Performanc… · The Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) is the rural Research and Development

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

Page 32: Australian Meat Processor Corporation › uploads › pdf › 2015 › AMPC-Performanc… · The Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) is the rural Research and Development

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.

Page 33: Australian Meat Processor Corporation › uploads › pdf › 2015 › AMPC-Performanc… · The Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) is the rural Research and Development

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.

Page 34: Australian Meat Processor Corporation › uploads › pdf › 2015 › AMPC-Performanc… · The Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) is the rural Research and Development

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.

Page 35: Australian Meat Processor Corporation › uploads › pdf › 2015 › AMPC-Performanc… · The Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) is the rural Research and Development

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.

Page 36: Australian Meat Processor Corporation › uploads › pdf › 2015 › AMPC-Performanc… · The Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) is the rural Research and Development

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

Page 37: Australian Meat Processor Corporation › uploads › pdf › 2015 › AMPC-Performanc… · The Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) is the rural Research and Development

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.

Page 38: Australian Meat Processor Corporation › uploads › pdf › 2015 › AMPC-Performanc… · The Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) is the rural Research and Development

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

Page 39: Australian Meat Processor Corporation › uploads › pdf › 2015 › AMPC-Performanc… · The Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) is the rural Research and Development

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

Page 40: Australian Meat Processor Corporation › uploads › pdf › 2015 › AMPC-Performanc… · The Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) is the rural Research and Development

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.

Page 41: Australian Meat Processor Corporation › uploads › pdf › 2015 › AMPC-Performanc… · The Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) is the rural Research and Development

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.

Page 42: Australian Meat Processor Corporation › uploads › pdf › 2015 › AMPC-Performanc… · The Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) is the rural Research and Development

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.

Page 43: Australian Meat Processor Corporation › uploads › pdf › 2015 › AMPC-Performanc… · The Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) is the rural Research and Development

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:

Page 44: Australian Meat Processor Corporation › uploads › pdf › 2015 › AMPC-Performanc… · The Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) is the rural Research and Development

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.

Page 45: Australian Meat Processor Corporation › uploads › pdf › 2015 › AMPC-Performanc… · The Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) is the rural Research and Development

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:

Page 46: Australian Meat Processor Corporation › uploads › pdf › 2015 › AMPC-Performanc… · The Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) is the rural Research and Development

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.

Page 47: Australian Meat Processor Corporation › uploads › pdf › 2015 › AMPC-Performanc… · The Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) is the rural Research and Development

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.

Page 48: Australian Meat Processor Corporation › uploads › pdf › 2015 › AMPC-Performanc… · The Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) is the rural Research and Development

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.

Page 49: Australian Meat Processor Corporation › uploads › pdf › 2015 › AMPC-Performanc… · The Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) is the rural Research and Development

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.

Page 50: Australian Meat Processor Corporation › uploads › pdf › 2015 › AMPC-Performanc… · The Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) is the rural Research and Development

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

Page 51: Australian Meat Processor Corporation › uploads › pdf › 2015 › AMPC-Performanc… · The Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) is the rural Research and Development

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

Page 52: Australian Meat Processor Corporation › uploads › pdf › 2015 › AMPC-Performanc… · The Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) is the rural Research and Development

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.

Page 53: Australian Meat Processor Corporation › uploads › pdf › 2015 › AMPC-Performanc… · The Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) is the rural Research and Development

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

Page 54: Australian Meat Processor Corporation › uploads › pdf › 2015 › AMPC-Performanc… · The Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) is the rural Research and Development

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).

Page 55: Australian Meat Processor Corporation › uploads › pdf › 2015 › AMPC-Performanc… · The Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) is the rural Research and Development

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

Page 56: Australian Meat Processor Corporation › uploads › pdf › 2015 › AMPC-Performanc… · The Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) is the rural Research and Development

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.

Page 57: Australian Meat Processor Corporation › uploads › pdf › 2015 › AMPC-Performanc… · The Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) is the rural Research and Development

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.

Page 58: Australian Meat Processor Corporation › uploads › pdf › 2015 › AMPC-Performanc… · The Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) is the rural Research and Development

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.

Page 59: Australian Meat Processor Corporation › uploads › pdf › 2015 › AMPC-Performanc… · The Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) is the rural Research and Development

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.

Page 60: Australian Meat Processor Corporation › uploads › pdf › 2015 › AMPC-Performanc… · The Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) is the rural Research and Development

GHD | Report for Australian Meat Processor Corporation - Performance Review, 21/24496

Appendices

Page 61: Australian Meat Processor Corporation › uploads › pdf › 2015 › AMPC-Performanc… · The Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) is the rural Research and Development

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

Page 62: Australian Meat Processor Corporation › uploads › pdf › 2015 › AMPC-Performanc… · The Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) is the rural Research and Development

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

Page 63: Australian Meat Processor Corporation › uploads › pdf › 2015 › AMPC-Performanc… · The Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) is the rural Research and Development

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

Page 64: Australian Meat Processor Corporation › uploads › pdf › 2015 › AMPC-Performanc… · The Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) is the rural Research and Development

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

Page 65: Australian Meat Processor Corporation › uploads › pdf › 2015 › AMPC-Performanc… · The Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) is the rural Research and Development

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

Page 66: Australian Meat Processor Corporation › uploads › pdf › 2015 › AMPC-Performanc… · The Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) is the rural Research and Development

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

Page 67: Australian Meat Processor Corporation › uploads › pdf › 2015 › AMPC-Performanc… · The Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) is the rural Research and Development

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

Page 68: Australian Meat Processor Corporation › uploads › pdf › 2015 › AMPC-Performanc… · The Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) is the rural Research and Development

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

Page 69: Australian Meat Processor Corporation › uploads › pdf › 2015 › AMPC-Performanc… · The Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) is the rural Research and Development

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

Page 70: Australian Meat Processor Corporation › uploads › pdf › 2015 › AMPC-Performanc… · The Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) is the rural Research and Development

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

Page 71: Australian Meat Processor Corporation › uploads › pdf › 2015 › AMPC-Performanc… · The Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) is the rural Research and Development

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

Page 72: Australian Meat Processor Corporation › uploads › pdf › 2015 › AMPC-Performanc… · The Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) is the rural Research and Development

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

Page 73: Australian Meat Processor Corporation › uploads › pdf › 2015 › AMPC-Performanc… · The Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) is the rural Research and Development

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

Page 74: Australian Meat Processor Corporation › uploads › pdf › 2015 › AMPC-Performanc… · The Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) is the rural Research and Development

GHD

133 Castlereagh St Sydney NSW 2000 - T: +61 2 9239 7100 F: +61 2 9239 7199 E: [email protected]

© 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

Page 75: Australian Meat Processor Corporation › uploads › pdf › 2015 › AMPC-Performanc… · The Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) is the rural Research and Development

www.ghd.com