Northern Australia’s agricultural workforce needs bespoke development. What works in the south may not work in the north, and capability-building strategies must be adapted accordingly through genuine engagement with those in the industry.
Northern Australia’s proximity to the Indo-Pacific has underwritten its strategic potential. As the region’s primary sector, agriculture can drive economic growth, strategic reach and diplomatic engagement through its established and emerging product lines. However, this potential cannot be realised without an appropriately sized and skilled agricultural workforce.
Existing trends and programs—such as agricultural apprenticeships or career placements—do well to support a manual labour workforce that northern agriculture certainly needs. But initiatives that recruit, retain and develop high skilled agricultural professionals are found wanting, as are liveability initiatives that make settling in the north an attractive prospect. Without advancement in both workforce development and liveability, the professionals needed to drive development and innovation across the north will not settle in the region.
Approaches that have worked in the south are unlikely to work in the north. The region is sparsely populated: only five percent of Australia’s population lives in the north, despite it making up 55 percent of the country’s landmass. As a result, capacity-building models that rely on large populations are not workable. One-size-fits-all approaches are also unsuitable, as the diversity of roles and responsibilities in the agricultural workforce require a range of skill sets encompassing both technical and non-technical knowledge. These skill sets differ widely between agricultural job types, and between agricultural industries.
The need for a relatively sparse but highly diversified agricultural workforce will require agile and creative solutions. But these solutions can’t compromise on quality or become economically unviable, no matter the scale of training. Investment for these initiatives is most successful when tailored to the individual worker at the grassroots level, building capability and training where it is most needed. By speaking with the existing workforce we can ensure that any program is focused on building their knowledge and skills to most effectively improve outcomes at the industry, business and individual levels.
For example, Central Queensland University Australia’s Agricultural Education and Extension teams have worked on building digital capability within the industry. We have upskilled farm owners and managers to use high-level decision-making tools, while adapting the same training approaches to build capacity in low-skill workers around basic digital competencies such as data collection and entry.
Primary producers have told us they want specific training that is useful to them, rather than broad skills that demand time and money outside of core business. We therefore did not seek to raise capacity in all areas of digital skills for all workers involved in our program, instead focusing on skills and capabilities that individual workers needed most. These capabilities go beyond technical skills such as those associated with crop production, animal husbandry, or farm technology. Leadership, teamwork and communication are essential non-technical skills.
Resolving the dual challenges of liveability and upskilling will require evidence-based approaches that are informed by the unique realities of northern Australia. To start with, we need to know more about northern Australia’s workforce needs, including the full range of role types required. Anecdotal accounts of workforce shortfalls are not sufficient to support the policy changes needed to strengthen northern development. Instead, we need clear, measurable evidence.
Universities and research groups should drive this work, with support and direction from governments and industry. Research will also need to examine the types of training or upskilling best suited to the region, as well as the most suitable methods for delivering capacity building, noting that digital tools are limited in the face of poor internet connectivity across rural Australia.
If the status quo is maintained, the sector may struggle to advance, fail to meet the needs of our international markets and subsequently fall behind other nations’ agricultural production. The north’s primary production sector must develop a unified message to communicate this risk to policymakers. The alternative—a continually upskilled and dynamic sector—will have a ripple effect, improving Australia’s strategic, economic and diplomatic standing.
Key to this change will be young people—those who currently live in the north and those who will relocate there from within and outside of Australia, attracted by the opportunities the region presents. Through CQUniversity’s work with young people, we have learned that they want to know what their opportunities are and how they can develop their careers and find pathways for advancement. This too will require research and clear communication.
Northern Australia’s unique environment forces its commodities and supply chains to adapt and expand differently to the south. The same must be true for workforce development. Without an agile, creative and evidence-based approach to capacity building, northern Australia’s agricultural professionals will not be adequality supported to drive the development of their sector, leaving the region’s potential unrealised.