While researching the pressures facing modern farming, I came across the concept of a two-tiered or two-speed economy. What surprised me most was discovering that I am far from alone in my concerns: many people across agriculture are also questioning the growth of a two-tier economy.
I’m a second-generation farmer. My parents moved our family to Australia and bought a coffee farm because they loved the view. As first-time farmers, they saw enormous potential in Australian agriculture. I have since had the privilege of raising my own children on the farm and working alongside my parents as they branched into papaya. I still appreciate the view, and I continue to believe agriculture is one of the best industries to work in. First, people have to eat, plain and simple. Second, there is no limit to how we can improve, modernise, integrate and diversify. There are no glass ceilings, and a healthy measure of grit seems to make its way into every farmer’s DNA, keeping our industry moving forward.
Even so, the idea of a two-speed, or two-tier, economy concerns me. If it is not something you have considered before, I believe it is time we started the conversation.
From the outside looking in, our industry can appear to operate under two different models, largely divided by the cost of doing business. In Group A are farmers who invest in compliance so they can access a broader range of sales channels. In Group B are those who opt out, whether because of their business model, their needs or their capacity. On its own, that choice may seem fair. The problem arises when the fruit reaches the market. Suddenly, the playing field is level again: the same fruit may be sold through the same channels and, in some cases, by the same agent, but at the same price. Compliance adds costs in time, resources and management, yet both farms ultimately produce a similar product for the same market. To me, that is where the system stops feeling fair.
I am not opposed to compliance. Protecting our employees and the environment is important, and both deserve proper scrutiny. But compliance also raises a difficult question. Government already provides frameworks for employment conditions, including national awards and other established requirements, so why are independent audits also needed to check the same ground? More importantly, the rising cost of compliance has placed some sales channels beyond the reach of growers who genuinely want to meet the requirements. That widens the gap and creates an increasingly uneven playing field.
I do not pretend to have all the answers. However, we need to talk openly about how a two-tier structure affects the sale of Australian-grown produce and what a fair system should look like. As compliance expectations continue to grow, we must ensure they deliver meaningful outcomes without creating unnecessary barriers that divide growers into different classes of participation.
That may be a controversial view, but problems cannot be fixed if we are unwilling to discuss them. In true farming spirit, I want to finish on a positive note. I feel very fortunate to be involved with the peak bodies for both papaya and coffee, and I am encouraged by the depth of the conversations taking place, the willingness to share knowledge and the genuine passion for change. Those conversations give me confidence that, if we keep speaking honestly and working together, we can build a fairer and more sustainable future for growers and their communities.
Candy Maclaughlin
Skybury Farms, Paddys Green
