WA horticulture stars join national line-up of finalists in industry awards
Two of WA horticulture's 'best and brightest' have made the South West proud after being named finalists in the industry's biggest excellence awards.
Nicole Giblett, of Newton Orchards in Manjimup, and Sam Licciardello, of Orchard 1 Sixty in Donnybrook, are among the finalists for this year's Horticulture Awards for Excellence.
Ms Giblett is part of a 12-strong line-up of finalists for the Women in Horticulture Category, while Mr Licciardello is one of five finalists for the Community Stewardship Award.
The annual awards aim to recognise and celebrate the outstanding achievements of leading growers, businesses and individuals who make up Australia's diverse horticulture industry.
More than 80 finalists were announced across the awards' nine categories, which include different accolades for both individuals and businesses.
Mr Licciardello is continuing his family's legacy running the third-generation, family-operated orchard on the South Western Highway near Donnybrook.
His family has farmed the 45ha property since 1950 and these days focus predominantly on apples and pears, as well as plums, nectarines, peaches and cherries.
Ms Giblett — widely regarded as a trailblazer in the horticultural sector — returned to her family farm in 2008, continuing the business her family started in 1929.
She has since spearheaded the success of Newton Orchards' brand development, promotion and marketing.
Ausveg chief executive Michael Coote said the nominees represented the 'best and brightest' of Australian horticulture and its future.
'Their impressive achievements and contributions to industry are an inspiration to us all,' he said.
IFPA ANZ managing director Belinda Wilson said this year's finalists were a 'full field of deserving nominees', reflecting the achievements and innovations of the sector.
The awards ceremony will be held during the Hort Connections Gala Dinner on Friday, June 6, at the end of Australia's biggest horticulture conference, Hort Connections 2025 in Brisbane.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Advertiser
an hour ago
- The Advertiser
Biosecurity not competition a meaty issue in beef talks
Even if the federal government lowers barriers blocking imports of US beef, it would be no match for higher quality and cheaper to produce Australian cattle. Australia is considering granting more American beef producers access to the local market as a potential bargaining chip to strike a deal on tariffs, as the two nations' leaders prepare to potentially meet face-to-face for the first time. For biosecurity reasons, Australia imposes a soft ban on US beef. Cattle that can be proven to have been raised and slaughtered in the US are allowed into the Australian market, but large amounts of beef sent to American abattoirs come from Mexico or Canada, which are barred from importation. Challenges in tracing the origin of cattle means in practice beef imports are not allowed, until the US can show the same traceability systems Australia has in place. Australian beef producers urged the government not to loosen biosecurity protections. "Australia's biosecurity status is integral to the success and sustainability of our agricultural industries," National Farmers Federation president David Jochinke said. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese assured farmers the government would make no compromises on biosecurity. But as long as biosecurity was protected, Mr Albanese said he would be open to discussions about easing restrictions. David Humphreys, vice chair of industry body Western Beef Association, was open to the idea as well. As long as Australia's biosecurity standards were protected, it would be a beneficial outcome for all Australian farmers if it could be used as leverage to lower US tariffs, he said. Assuming US beef imports posed no disease risk, the impacts for Australian farmers from extra competition would be limited. "Australia has very competitive and relatively cheap beef production in comparison," Mr Humphreys told AAP. "Any beef that's coming in from the US is probably going to be targeting quite select segments of beef consumption, probably the cheaper cuts, produced beef products. "So it's not really competing with the premium Australian beef products that our beef farms produce." The low exchange rate of the Australian dollar as well as the high cost of transporting US beef also reduced the likelihood of it outcompeting homegrown products, he said. Local consumers are accustomed to leaner, higher-quality Australian beef and unlikely to be won over by fatty, hormone-injected American competitors. "I think there's not a lot of risk to Australian producers of beef, with this possibility of some limited US beef being imported into Australia," Mr Humphreys said. Australia's Department of Agriculture is reviewing its ban on Mexican and Canadian beef slaughtered in the US. Agriculture Minister Julie Collins said any decision to allow greater access for US beef would be based on science and evidence. Even if the federal government lowers barriers blocking imports of US beef, it would be no match for higher quality and cheaper to produce Australian cattle. Australia is considering granting more American beef producers access to the local market as a potential bargaining chip to strike a deal on tariffs, as the two nations' leaders prepare to potentially meet face-to-face for the first time. For biosecurity reasons, Australia imposes a soft ban on US beef. Cattle that can be proven to have been raised and slaughtered in the US are allowed into the Australian market, but large amounts of beef sent to American abattoirs come from Mexico or Canada, which are barred from importation. Challenges in tracing the origin of cattle means in practice beef imports are not allowed, until the US can show the same traceability systems Australia has in place. Australian beef producers urged the government not to loosen biosecurity protections. "Australia's biosecurity status is integral to the success and sustainability of our agricultural industries," National Farmers Federation president David Jochinke said. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese assured farmers the government would make no compromises on biosecurity. But as long as biosecurity was protected, Mr Albanese said he would be open to discussions about easing restrictions. David Humphreys, vice chair of industry body Western Beef Association, was open to the idea as well. As long as Australia's biosecurity standards were protected, it would be a beneficial outcome for all Australian farmers if it could be used as leverage to lower US tariffs, he said. Assuming US beef imports posed no disease risk, the impacts for Australian farmers from extra competition would be limited. "Australia has very competitive and relatively cheap beef production in comparison," Mr Humphreys told AAP. "Any beef that's coming in from the US is probably going to be targeting quite select segments of beef consumption, probably the cheaper cuts, produced beef products. "So it's not really competing with the premium Australian beef products that our beef farms produce." The low exchange rate of the Australian dollar as well as the high cost of transporting US beef also reduced the likelihood of it outcompeting homegrown products, he said. Local consumers are accustomed to leaner, higher-quality Australian beef and unlikely to be won over by fatty, hormone-injected American competitors. "I think there's not a lot of risk to Australian producers of beef, with this possibility of some limited US beef being imported into Australia," Mr Humphreys said. Australia's Department of Agriculture is reviewing its ban on Mexican and Canadian beef slaughtered in the US. Agriculture Minister Julie Collins said any decision to allow greater access for US beef would be based on science and evidence. Even if the federal government lowers barriers blocking imports of US beef, it would be no match for higher quality and cheaper to produce Australian cattle. Australia is considering granting more American beef producers access to the local market as a potential bargaining chip to strike a deal on tariffs, as the two nations' leaders prepare to potentially meet face-to-face for the first time. For biosecurity reasons, Australia imposes a soft ban on US beef. Cattle that can be proven to have been raised and slaughtered in the US are allowed into the Australian market, but large amounts of beef sent to American abattoirs come from Mexico or Canada, which are barred from importation. Challenges in tracing the origin of cattle means in practice beef imports are not allowed, until the US can show the same traceability systems Australia has in place. Australian beef producers urged the government not to loosen biosecurity protections. "Australia's biosecurity status is integral to the success and sustainability of our agricultural industries," National Farmers Federation president David Jochinke said. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese assured farmers the government would make no compromises on biosecurity. But as long as biosecurity was protected, Mr Albanese said he would be open to discussions about easing restrictions. David Humphreys, vice chair of industry body Western Beef Association, was open to the idea as well. As long as Australia's biosecurity standards were protected, it would be a beneficial outcome for all Australian farmers if it could be used as leverage to lower US tariffs, he said. Assuming US beef imports posed no disease risk, the impacts for Australian farmers from extra competition would be limited. "Australia has very competitive and relatively cheap beef production in comparison," Mr Humphreys told AAP. "Any beef that's coming in from the US is probably going to be targeting quite select segments of beef consumption, probably the cheaper cuts, produced beef products. "So it's not really competing with the premium Australian beef products that our beef farms produce." The low exchange rate of the Australian dollar as well as the high cost of transporting US beef also reduced the likelihood of it outcompeting homegrown products, he said. Local consumers are accustomed to leaner, higher-quality Australian beef and unlikely to be won over by fatty, hormone-injected American competitors. "I think there's not a lot of risk to Australian producers of beef, with this possibility of some limited US beef being imported into Australia," Mr Humphreys said. Australia's Department of Agriculture is reviewing its ban on Mexican and Canadian beef slaughtered in the US. Agriculture Minister Julie Collins said any decision to allow greater access for US beef would be based on science and evidence. Even if the federal government lowers barriers blocking imports of US beef, it would be no match for higher quality and cheaper to produce Australian cattle. Australia is considering granting more American beef producers access to the local market as a potential bargaining chip to strike a deal on tariffs, as the two nations' leaders prepare to potentially meet face-to-face for the first time. For biosecurity reasons, Australia imposes a soft ban on US beef. Cattle that can be proven to have been raised and slaughtered in the US are allowed into the Australian market, but large amounts of beef sent to American abattoirs come from Mexico or Canada, which are barred from importation. Challenges in tracing the origin of cattle means in practice beef imports are not allowed, until the US can show the same traceability systems Australia has in place. Australian beef producers urged the government not to loosen biosecurity protections. "Australia's biosecurity status is integral to the success and sustainability of our agricultural industries," National Farmers Federation president David Jochinke said. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese assured farmers the government would make no compromises on biosecurity. But as long as biosecurity was protected, Mr Albanese said he would be open to discussions about easing restrictions. David Humphreys, vice chair of industry body Western Beef Association, was open to the idea as well. As long as Australia's biosecurity standards were protected, it would be a beneficial outcome for all Australian farmers if it could be used as leverage to lower US tariffs, he said. Assuming US beef imports posed no disease risk, the impacts for Australian farmers from extra competition would be limited. "Australia has very competitive and relatively cheap beef production in comparison," Mr Humphreys told AAP. "Any beef that's coming in from the US is probably going to be targeting quite select segments of beef consumption, probably the cheaper cuts, produced beef products. "So it's not really competing with the premium Australian beef products that our beef farms produce." The low exchange rate of the Australian dollar as well as the high cost of transporting US beef also reduced the likelihood of it outcompeting homegrown products, he said. Local consumers are accustomed to leaner, higher-quality Australian beef and unlikely to be won over by fatty, hormone-injected American competitors. "I think there's not a lot of risk to Australian producers of beef, with this possibility of some limited US beef being imported into Australia," Mr Humphreys said. Australia's Department of Agriculture is reviewing its ban on Mexican and Canadian beef slaughtered in the US. Agriculture Minister Julie Collins said any decision to allow greater access for US beef would be based on science and evidence.
West Australian
2 hours ago
- West Australian
Anxiety Aunt: My family never say thank you for anything — how do I teach them manners matter?
Dear Aunty, As a mother of two, grandmother of three and great-grandmother of one, I suffer a great deal of disappointment as to why none of my offspring seem to know the words thank you. Since when did we drop these gracious words from the Australian vernacular? The words 'thank you' in the family environment seem to be totally neglected and unfamiliar. It is very hurtful to my soul of giving and I don't know how to tell them. I have tried dropping hints by going overboard with my thanks to them. I take photos of flowers they give me and send them back with a big 'THANK YOU!!' message. But my good example does not seem to be working. What should I do? Yours, Underappreciated Dear Underappreciated, One knows exactly how you feel, Underappreciated. Hell would freeze over before old Bert Saunders from next door ever uttered the words thank you for all the things your Aunt does for him. To be fair he did take your Aunt away on a holiday once, which was probably partly his way of saying thank you without having to utter the words. But One isn't fool enough to think One was top of a long list of options he had. The man isn't exactly sparkling company so only has himself to blame for his lack of friends. Mind you, One does need to go a bit easier on him now because, as he tells your Aunt, he has now been diagnosed as neurodivergent which, according to him, means One cannot hold him 'to the same standards' that One applies to others. That makes it sound like your Aunt makes friends jump through hoops when really One would just appreciate if he took a break from ranting on about his verrucas, psoriasis, ingrown toenails and gallbladder issues. One would also like if he brought more than a half-melted tray of ice cubes to our veranda gin sessions, and, like you say, Underappreciated, One wouldn't mind all that so much if he said thank you once in a while when your Aunt supplies the gin, mixers and often lets him stay for Uber Eats when One gets too tiddly to cook. One really isn't sure what the best approach is, Underappreciated, other than simply trying to reinforce good manners in those who will carry your genetics into the future. One doesn't know whether it is just the nature of this fast-paced world where people are getting ruder and less polite or if it is a case of familiarity breeding contempt when it comes to those closest to us, but One believes you should not give up pushing for your family to display better manners. It's somewhat passive aggressive but can be excused in the pursuit of a greater good if you just start inserting responses to the words thank you where they have failed to say them. So, for instance, if your granddaughter asks for a drink and you pour her one, if she takes it without a word of thanks you could pointedly interject with 'you're very welcome, my dear!' Or a slightly cheekier response might be if you give your son or daughter a gift and they say nothing, you could quickly quip back, 'oh, please, don't mention it — it was my pleasure'. Hopefully by highlighting the fact that they are failing to be courteous with your slightly scathing replies, they will be less inclined to let basic good manners fall by the wayside. Good luck, my dear.
Sky News AU
4 hours ago
- Sky News AU
‘Whitlam-esque': Zoe McKenzie blasts Labor's divisive tax hike on super accounts, slams Tasmanian opposition for triggering early election
Victorian Liberal MP Zoe McKenzie has lambasted Labor for continuing to advance its plan to hike taxes on superannuation accounts and impose levies on unrealised gains whilst hammering the Tasmanian opposition for sending punters to a winter election. Labor's plan to raise taxes on superannuation accounts over $3 million to 30 per cent and to target unrealised capital gains has sent shockwaves throughout the political and business arena, with financial doyens accusing the government of discarding decades of precedent. The Coalition was previously in talks with the Albanese government to revise certain elements of the legislation, chiefly the concept of taxing unrealised gains, however shadow Treasurer Ted O'Brien officially confirmed on Thursday the LNP would oppose the bill. Yet, former Reserve Bank board members Donald McGauchie and Roger Corbett, in addition to a litany of major Liberal Party donors, have pressed the Coalition to remain at the negotiating table and to secure what it deems crucial exemptions for illiquid assets including farms and small businesses. Ms McKenzie, an outspoken moderate who holds one of the Liberal's last outer-suburban seats, railed against the policy, but did not address if the Coalition would resume talks with Labor to modify the legislation. 'I think this is a terrible piece of policy and a terrible precedent for the future, Labor is effectively saying that they will tax money in your pocket, and you do not yet have this money,' she told Sky News on Saturday. The Member for Flinders echoed criticism from industry magnates in relation to the controversial concept of taxing unrealised gains, stating, 'you may have it in the future, you may not have it in the future, but you will be taxed on it'. 'You may incur a loss in the figure, and you won't get that tax back and that's the principle that we must fight here, because once it's started, it could go anywhere,' indicating that the tax could be extended to a range of other assets including real estate and stocks. 'This is a devilish tax and should be fought by the Coalition parties most stridently, this government is very good at speaking liberal-light in terms of their economic narrative, but it is utterly Whitlam-esque in terms of its impact on the Australian economy'. While the Coalition has vowed to fight the legislation, the bill is expected to pass both houses of parliament unopposed, with the Greens joining with Labor in the Senate despite lobbying for the policy to be levied on those with super accounts over $2 million. 'The point is they're going after money no one yet has, these are paper profits, these are family businesses, these are farms held in super funds that people may well have to liquidate just to pass a putative profit that may not exist when finally realised in years to come," Ms McKenzie said. 'They will need the Greens support in the Senate and as you know, the Greens are pushing to lower that threshold from three million to two million. So, it gives the Australian people a very clear indication of what might happen when Labor and the Greens run the show for the next three years'. The shadow assistant minister then turned her attention to the ongoing political chaos in Tasmania. Liberal Premier Jeremy Rockliff lost a no-confidence motion in parliament on Thursday, with the speaker casting the deciding vote, resulting in the state heading to it's second election in as little as 14 months. Ms McKenzie savaged Tasmanian Labor leader Dean Winter for sending the state to a snap winter poll and argued the opposition parties had collectively torpedoed a popularly elected government. 'I think the Tasmanian people would be very disappointed with what's happened this week, basically holding an elected government hostage, so it looks like they will be going back to a mid-winter election. We've all done them and they're horrendous," she said. 'I'm sure the people of Tasmania will not be grateful for being dragged back to the polls so soon after a federal election and indeed just 14 months after a state election." Tasmanians will have to wait until next Tuesday to find out when they will return to the polls, with the parliament scrambling to draft emergency legislation to fund government services of which are due to be tabled on the same day. Independent MPs including Craig Garland have called on the beleaguered Premier to resign, with Mr Rockliff guaranteeing he would not sell off state-owned assets to pay down debt if he won the election, of which served as a key factor in sparking the political row.
