Code v Code 

Is it little wonder that many within the fresh fruit and vegetable industry are confused about the two different codes which apply to transactions between growers and wholesalers.

One Code is overly simple, the other overly complicated. One imposes no operational requirements on business, the other prescribes how business must be done.

The Produce and Grocery Industry Code of Conduct (PGIC) exists as a voluntary Code, with its application covering the produce and grocery industry. This includes growers, wholesalers and retailers and is separate and distinct from the Mandatory Horticulture Code of Conduct which applies only to growers and wholesalers.

While the effectiveness of both codes is regularly debated, the Chairman of the Horticulture Australia Council, Stuart Swaddling, has made his views clear. In the January edition of the Produce and Grocery Industry Code of Conduct e-zine newsletter, Mr Swaddling is quoted as saying that the voluntary Code is “proving to be very effective in improving relationships between growers, wholesalers, distributors and retailers and fostering professional behaviours”.

He goes on to add that he believes without the Code (the voluntary PGIC) the industry would be back in the dark ages. Mr Swaddling's comments are both interesting and timely given the two current reviews being conducted into the effectiveness of the Mandatory Horticulture Code of Conduct.

His position appears to substantially undermine his organisation’s earlier preference for the Mandatory Code. Interestingly, the newsletter also reports that the PGIC Committee has agreed to develop a “Standards and Specifications Sub-Committee” to consider the use of produce standards and specifications within the produce and grocery industry.

The lack of national produce specifications has been identified as one of the major flaws in respect of the other code, the Mandatory Horticulture Code of Conduct. In this regard, Tuesday of this week saw the closing date for submissions to the ACCC inquiry into Retail Prices and the Effectiveness of the Mandatory Horticulture Code of Conduct. Yet another grower representative organisation has publicly slammed the mandatory code as unworkable.

The comments by Judy Greensill, outgoing President of the Australian Melon Association, were made last week in a radio interview conducted during that association's national conference.

Her comments were very timely, with the Horticulture Code Committee also progressing a review of the support for and effectiveness of the code. Increasingly however, concern is being expressed that the reviews being conducted will not adequately focus on the real issue, being the unworkable pricing and transfer of title requirements in the existing mandatory code. It would appear that with two codes, two committees, two separate dispute resolution frameworks and the lack of any industry endorsed national grade standards; the industry may well still be in the dark ages.

Surely more than ever, strong arguments exists for a single industry endorsed code which promotes good commercial practice, provides for the use of documented terms of trade and a dispute resolution framework, but which allows businesses the flexibility to meet the commercial needs of their customers and suppliers.