VFF members were told this week its board had decided to “cease our membership or provide notice of resignation where required” of several national agricultural groups.The notice to VFF members said the cost of the combined memberships to national agricultural advocacy amounted to close to $700,000 each year.
Feedback so far suggest the VFF withdrawal is not expected to cause major issues to the national bodies involved.
WoolProducers president and Victorian wool grower Steve Harrison said he recognised the NFF and VFF membership models were “broken” but the VFF board decision would not change the makeup of the WPA board “at this stage.”
However, Mr Harrison said the timing of VFF president Emma Germano and the board in making the decision was not right.
Mr Harrison said he is an independent board member of WPA, and the VFF delegate on WoolProducers Bradley Venning, also would not be affected by the VFF board decision for at least another 12 months.
Sheep Central was told the VFF position will not affect the makeup of the Sheep Producers Australia board.
SPA chair Andrew Spencer said Sheep Producers Australia works daily to ensure a productive and profitable national sheep meat industry.
“Our role is to advocate for a sustainable and profitable future for the Australian sheep industry.
This is achieved through Sheep Producers Australia’s policy council and board, working with our members, service providers, government, and many other partners,” he said.
“We will be working hard to ensure that Victorian sheep farmers continue to have a strong and relevant input into the critical national sheep meat policy issues.”
The VFF membership notice went on to state that the VFF board is concerned the national agricultural advocacy model is fundamentally broken.
“We will not force Victorian farmers to continue funding as unsustainable and ineffective model that delivers duplication and fails to meet the needs of Victorian agriculture.
“Furthermore, the cost to the VFF in many cases is much higher than the contribution made by other organisations,” the notice said.
“It is patently unfair to expect our members to carry this burden when others do not contribute their fair share.
MLA is obligated to seek feed back from levy payers ,and grower representative groups like SFO’s and Cattle Australia so part funding of them should not be considered “conflict of interested ” contracts as John Gunthorpe argues when they are able to provide MLA feed back regarding levy payer views .
Just so we understand better this relationship between CA and MLA, we turned to the Red Meat MOU the document that governs the roles and responsibilities of peak councils and others including MLA.
At clause 5.1 talks on “Role and responsibilities of CCA, SCA, ALFA and GICA and their relationship with MLA”. Sub-clause (g) of that clause reads: CCA is “to assess performance of services delivered by MLA or arranged by MLA to be delivered by other persons towards achieving the goals identified in MISP”.
Now “other persons” cannot include CCA (now rebadged as CA). They are a party to the agreement and defined in the agreement.
Our understanding is that the contracts awarded by MLA to CCA (we believe at the time you were a director of CCA representing PGA) are for work to be done to deliver their services to the red meat industry. If we are correct (please let us know if we are in error), then you cannot assess the performance of services delivered by MLA if you are the contractor delivering them. This is where the “conflict of interest” for CCA arises.
This is why our members believe the contracts are just a way of redirecting grass-fed cattle producer levies to CCA.
The new directors of CA must understand they are failing their members, and all the others in the grass-fed cattle industry who pay levies, in partaking in these contracts. However, what is worse for them personally, they may also be contravening the Companies Act as directors of CA.
Now, it was said to us, by a then employee of CCA, that the weekly wage bill would not be paid if the funds from MLA were not received.
Transparency is needed on this issue. MLA and CA need to explain what contract work is undertaken by CA. It was substantially reduced a year or so back when the annual value of the contracts fell from $1.3 million to about $750,00.
We would invite you David to set the record straight if we have erred in our explanations above.
Australian Cattle Industry Council
After much research, John, it seems there is no organisation called ‘The Australian Cattle Industry Council’. Can you clarify why you are promoting an organisation which does not exist?
If you research the ASIC website, you will find ACIC have a registered business name dating from 2017.
As an organisation, we were invited by CCA, of which you were then a director, to participate in the Grass-fed Cattle Industry Restructure Steering Committee in 2021 and 2022. This committee was chaired by CCA and was known as the Industry Leaders Forum. After its recommendations were unacceptable to CCA, CCA took control of the agenda and our industry finished up with a rebadged CCA. We lost the opportunity for true reform at that time but the gravy-train moves on.
During our push to change Government policy on managing BJD , we held meetings across the eastern seaboard of grass-fed cattle producers. At these meetings we passed resolutions and lobbied politicians. We were successful in releasing 248 producers from quarantine and the national plan for the management of BJD was changed. However, WA only voted for the change if the CCA-inspired J-BAS was introduced. Now that WA have agreed they have BJD, it is time to remove J-BAS and stop our industry incurring all the vet testing costs. It is the least important disease we face and the cost is unwarranted.
Anyway, back to your concern. ACIC secured many members during this time and since. We did not come over to WA in 2017 and so have no members from that state. Might you be interested David in starting a chapter over there so we can increase our numbers.
In any event, are you able to now comment on the matters raised in my earlier comment?
Australian Cattle Industry Council
Sorry Val this was a reply directed to David not you. Our apologies.
Australian Cattle Industry Council
Yes, it is imperative for producers to choose which agricultural lobby group best suits its core business. (Or join multiple lobby groups).
It is very important to be a member of Cattle Australia, Dairy Farmers, Grain Council, Sheep Council, Horticultural Councils etc. at the National level.
Agriculture in Australia is a huge contributor to the wealth of our nation, each commodity sector competes with each other in the use of land.
However,the National Farmers Federation is an appropriate Federal advocacy organisation which focuses on macro economic issues whilst each commodity organisation can focus on both internal and international issues that affect its sector.
Best to decide which organisation or multiple organisations suit your needs.
Single commodity organisations are extremely effective when recognised by governments.
Eg RMAC does not represent cattle producers.
However, an NFF type structure to provide input to governments on macro economic issues is essential.
Could this be the thin edge of the wedge? The VFF model fails to represent members’ interests across most rural industries. SA changed a few years back to a commodity-based membership and they seem to be more focused and giving members a better bang for their buck. VFF financial troubles are not new, and neither is their inability to retain membership. These go back a decade at least.
With directors now being elected at the national rural groups, VFF’s influence on these groups will be unchanged with this decision. However, if other SFOs follow VFF in withdrawing from these peak councils, then some groups will be financially weakened. For example, Cattle Australia has its own problems trying to fund their existence with very limited membership. Wages would not be paid if it was not for funding from MLA via “conflict of interest” contracts. If an organisation cannot survive on membership fees, then it is unsupported, and does not deserve to claim they represent their members.
Boards of our other SFOs need to be honest with their members and consider the same issues that have led to the VFF withdrawing from these groups.
Australian Cattle Industry Council