Does anybody want a grass fed Cattle Corporation that is well resourced and focused totally on grass fed levy producers interests?
Cattle Council readily admit that their income is not sufficient to carry out their current roles and responsibilities.
One of these roles is to look after grass fed levy payers interests in the MLA. Cattle Council publically admit that with 4 staff members and the MLA with 250 employees the job is virtually impossible.
Cattle Council say their board is democratically elected and the ABA to say otherwise is nonsense.
The fact is cattle Council is elected from state organisations that represent a small percentage of people who pay the five dollar transaction levy.
It is well-known that state farming organisations are struggling financially through lack of membership.
This means the number of states have people sitting around the Cattle Council table who have failed to pay their subs to the Cattle Council.
If Mr Ogilvie thinks this is democracy he should consult his dictionary. Even worse Cattle Council are prepared allow corporates to buy seats on the board.
Imagine if the Federal Government allowed corporates to buy seats in parliament without any election? How could this be Democratic?
The Cattle Council has been making substantial losses over the last two years if not longer.
As a Peak Council having a role in overseeing MLA they have accepted money from the MLA for work carried out on MLA’s behalf.
He we have a cattle Council saying it can’t do its job with only four staff members, yet they can take paid consultancy roles with MLA.
Surely this is a conflict of interest with Cattle Council being at MLA’s beck and call for paying work.
The Cattle Council attempted to find solutions to its problems and the grass fed cattle industry’s problems by setting up committees to advise and find solutions.
Both these committees submitted their papers only to have them knocked back by the Cattle Council board which of course is made up of state farming organisations.
With the comings and goings one could be excused for wondering if the Cattle Council board want to move the deckchairs and still keep state farming organisations in control.
Surely it would be better if a new producer organisation was formed? An organisation that represented every grass fed levy payer in Australia which could still call itself Cattle Council. Or indeed the Cattle Corporation of Australia
Before any new structure could be voted on we would have to have a voting register similar to AWI whereas all levy payers get a (Democratic vote).
Cattle Council would like to get hold of a percentage of the five dollar levy they even suggest an opt out clause if people choose not to pay. Why not an Opt In clause? Surely this is, dare I say, democracy?
When questioned why the Cattle Council, like AMPC, would not consider taking all of the five dollar levy and then giving it to a service provider like MLA, the simple answer by Cattle Council was that this would be compulsory unionism. Surely if one takes either part or all of the five dollar levy, the principle is the same.
Jed Matz says
the resolutions passed at the ABA meeting failed to reflect the views of the wider community. However, I note that similar resolutions were passed by 1700 cattle producers at the Beefs New Direction Forums at Armidale NSW and Rockhampton QLD in 2010. And that the resolutions passed at the Roma Forum on 10 July 2013 are in line with the views of the ABA membership and the major cattle industry figures that took part in the AMPG think-tank .that was formed after the Armidale and Rockhampton Forums.
ABA also notes that at the producer forum held recently at Casino, Mr Matz refused to accept any resolutions from the floor along the lines that were also moved in Roma.
Author: David Byard