Northern Territory Cattleman Rod Dunbar “Nutwood Downs” writes:
It is certainly good to read a transcript of Australian Beef Associations (ABA) John Carter’s USA address in last weeks Agmates AgNews.
Mr Carter and I do have one thing in common; we are both former directors of ABA. In an online reply to that article I questioned Mr Carter regarding ABA’s NLIS policy because I know that the ABA did not have a policy on NLIS when I was a Director.
However seeing it is quite a long time since I was a director I am interested to ascertain if a policy had been formulated since my departure.
(Below is a photo taken from the air of my cattle station “Nutwood Downs” which is approx 400kms south of Katherine and 100kms North East of Daly Waters in the Northern Territory. We run approx 18,000 cattle on the station.)
It may interest some to know that when I was a director the ABA had no dedicated published Policy Document on any issue facing the grass roots of the Livestock Production Sector; moreover there was a strong underlying principal for the board to concentrate on strategies of political opinion and public ridicule, without proposing a viable alternative or indeed, an other appropriate defense against intrusive bureaucracy; that is the difference between a strategy and policy.
(Below is a picture of our station “work horse”. Because of the huge distances up here we use the Schweizer 300C Helicopter on a daily basis to muster cattle, check fences and stock waters and many other station activities.)
I did not dismiss Mr Carter’s speech; I simply say I have heard it before and that the strategy did not work here in Australia and question how it is possible to work in the USA, given that Mr Carter proposes no action only political rhetoric?
Mr Carter’s comment regarding the application of Law is an extraordinary one; one that puts the ABA at odds to their sister (?) organization in the USA, R-CALF.
By definition R-CALF, the group Mr Carter delivered his speech too; is the “Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund”; they have a clear policy which embraces Court Action and has been used very effectively to protect their Members interests when there is an impasse.
(The photo below is of our river, the Hodgson River in flood with the homestead in the distance. We are in the middle of our traditional Northern “wet season” and having our average yearly rainfall of 26 - 30 inches) (650- 750mm).
By implication, Mr Carter seems to be saying here that the policies that flow under that framework are wrong and “Just riding a Tiger”. I can just see it now, “ABA does not agree with sister organization R-CALF in the use of legal avenues to address Livestock owners concerns when battling illegal actions of governments and bureaucracy”. “ABA’s John Carter calls legal policy “just a ride on a Tiger with no dismounting strategy!!!!!!!!”
Additionally, Mr Carter’s speech omits the crucial piece of advice which should have been delivered to R-CALF, learnt from the Australian enforced regulatory application of NLIS; fight Premise Registration Implementation (PIC Codes).
(The season is a good one as you can see, last year was one of the worst in 20 years, there are Mitchell/ Flinders grass plains; the country is mostly lightly timbered and all the grass is natural pasture.)
One wonders why Mr Carter chose not to pass this on to the R-CALF Meeting; NLIS cannot exist without Premise Registration (PIC Codes).
An examination of history may give us the answer; when Mr Carter headed up the NSW Meat Authority, as a Regulator, in the times prior to ABA; he implemented a strategy from which emerged the National Vendor Declaration (NVD) system; NVD’s are Mr Carter’s brainchild; the concept of a PIC was a regulatory necessity, to achieve the NVD system. By implementing that strategy Mr Carter laid the foundations of both NLIS and LPA through Premise Registration (PIC).
The strategy employed by Mr Carter’s ABA has failed to empress a Liberal Government over the previous decade and seems unlikely to influence the new Labor Government.
(The yards are called the Starkvale Yards and they are one of 3 sets, all steel, that can accommodate about 1500 - 2000 each comfortably. We run Brahman cross cattle approx. 18,000 head and the annual production predominantly go live export.)
The question for the ABA now is relevance; how can they achieve and address the removal of over regulation in the Livestock Production Sector, something that they have failed utterly to do thus far, without a major overhaul in their mode of operation; at the same time justifying the annual expenditure of members fund’s, to their membership?
I think Mr Carter’s perception of the ABA as a permanent opposition group to the mainstream, using only political strategies, that are permanently opposing, whilst at the same time riding and flogging a dead horse is misconceived; the trick for him will be at what point he will he dismount the dead horse, not to mention the danger of riding and flogging a dead horse in the first instance.
Have your say! To enter into an online discussion with NT Cattleman Rod Dunbar or leave your thoughts click on the Blue word Comments below.
Related Posts
- What Future For Australian beef Industry? Time For An Audit!
- Fart Tax “on the nose” for Australian Beef Export
- Australian Beef Producers & Consumers left Seething after ACCC Grocery Inquiry
- Australian Beef & Lamb Producers Guzzumpt by China & South Korea FTA’s
- Video That Sparked 62million KG Beef Recall in USA
Tags: ABA, NLIS, Northen Territory
Dear Rod,
True and appropriate comments. Sadly, Australian Wool Growers Association (AWGA) operate in the same negative manner within the Wool industry, to the detriment of the whole industry i.e. no accountability, public ridicule of opponents and no offer of viable alternatives. Love your photos of “Nutwood Downs”. Please send some of the water south!
Dear Mr. Dunbar,
I don’t agree with your comments. To me ABA is not afraid to publicly announce what they see as wrong with the system.
It appears you wish to go down the litigation track, not the political one.
Legal avenues tend to be long, drawn out and very expensive affairs where the rules and regulations one begins with, change during the process, leading to more costs to be borne whether the case is won or lost and meanwhile the systems have already been imposed.
Power lies in the hands of Government and as rural producers are few in the scheme of things (primarily votes) , it is difficult to gain the full attention of politicians who are ever willing to listen to and believe the few so called leaders of the industry who inhabit the CCA, MLA, etc.
When NLIS was first proposed MLA used producers money, as always, to send out glib talking representatives to hoodwink producers into believing NLIS was essential to gain and maintain markets. This has clearly proved NOT to be the case.
It will always be a battle to gain a fair go for producers until the MOU of the MLA is changed to give levy payers a say and I think this has to be through political channels. A cost/benefit study which the MLA refused to do on NLIS would show this to be so.
This is, however, a very condensed reply on the many and varied complex issues , most of which have been the same for long years, that are still facing cattle producers in Australia.
May I ask if you have become a member of AGForce?
Love the look of and am envious of your Nutwood Downs, if I wasn’t so old I would move to the Territory.
In Australia it has become blatantly obvious that some politicians and government bureaucrats; like those funded from our levies (consolidated revenue ) including MLA and Cattle Council, will ignore the will of the majority of livestock producers and /or tax payers if they believe they can get away with it. NLIS is a prime example.
Catherine has hit the nail on the head that rural people do not have the political clout in Australian politics. As a result we will be bullied from pillar to post and no amount public announcements and press releases from Agricultural Organizations will have any effect, because our votes are no longer significant. Whether the organization be AgForce, NFF or the ABA justifiable legal action cannot be ruled out; if it is, the organization looses an avenue of activity that could benefit its members. Government for the people and by the people has GONE for all rural people in Australia, the sooner rural communities wake up to this fact the better.
Unless primary producers use their full legal rights to pursue the invalid nature of many things happening to the rural sector in the near future, landowners and primary producers can only expect more of the same. More invalid legislation and regulation, and the invalid removal of common law rights. For those who don’t believe this, I can show you where this is in State Government Statutes.
Only when all primary producers and landowners understand the gradual invalid removal of their legal rights is occurring; in a never ending stream of legislation and regulation, and become actively involved stopping this loss of rights will things change. The belief amongst many, still is that “the “government ” will not remove our rights, it couldn’t happen in Australia” WAKE UP AUSTRALIA.
Hence if the ABA only ever wants to be a “vocal opposition” they are doomed to failure in the longer term.
Unless “we” are willing to use every avenue to protect our rights and our chosen business’s the “bureaucratic machine” will overwhelm us.
How in the future is the ABA to retain its credibility in helping Australian Beef Producers without considering legal avenues as an option?
It is now in the public domain that legal challenges are “off the table”. Why would any bureaucrat even worry about the ABA or its comments in the future.
Duncan,
Thanks for your input; I have many good friends in the wool/sheep industry and they echo your sentiments; yes at present all that water in our river drains into the Gulf of Carpentaria.
Dear Catherine
I welcome your comment and respect your views, and whilst I agree with your comment that the ABA does not shy away from calling it as they see it, not having a Public Policy on the important issues to take it to the next level seems a negative approach at best.
I do believe in using a legal approach, but not on its own; it must be combined with a political stance which is critical when it needs to be, but importantly explains what the alternative is and why ABA’s Policy is better; but you must fight; and if that means in Court then you must do that, the same as R-CALF. By comparison, what ABA currently has is a Neville Chamberlain approach; what they need in Winston Churchill approach!!!
I agree legal action is fraught with all sorts of problems however throughout history there has been litigation and it has shaped society, without it we would not have the freedoms and rights we now have. I am amazed that the ABA does not have a legal firm or barrister that does their work on a pro bono basis; many legal firms do it these days.
With regards to MLA using “producers money”; this is a common misconception perpetuated by ABA and many others; I have a letter from former Minister McGauran dated 18th January 2007, in which I asked the Minister about the Transaction Levee, he said …”Levies are a form of tax and once collected, like all tax, become the property of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth has authority, subject to the Constitution, to use these taxes.”
That’s why so called levee payers will never ever gain control of MLA; because the levee is a Tax, it is not producer’s money and therefore the funding of MLA and the Peak Councils comes directly from Commonwealth Consolidated Revenue Funds. MLA was and is just an illusion to make us all think we have input, and show up at MLA AGM’s and feel included; the facts are it’s a lie!!! In fact membership of MLA is a problem if you want to fight NLIS and LPA and the overall control policy of MLA/Peak Councils. Being a member binds you legally to comply.
The reason the MOU is in place in the form that it is, is because under the Constitution only people and legal entities authorized under an appropriate law and directed my a Minister of the Crown can legally spend Tax funds. That’s why the MLA and CCA and all the Peak Industry Councils in addition to their traditional roles, are “Prescribed Industry Body’s” appointed by the Commonwealth Minister for Agriculture at s59 of the Australian Meat and Livestock Industry Act 1997, appointed by the Governor General at s74 (of the same Act) as Civil Servants, and named in the Australian Meat and Livestock Industry Regulations 1998, at s4.
The Liberal/National Government knew all this when they set the model of the “Red Meat Industry” in 1997; additionally, there are two independent reports written at that time saying the proposal would destroy the concept of the “family farm”; more importantly the Peak Councils also knew this at the time. Under the terms of the MOU the Peak Councils manage the Red Meat Industry in accordance with a plan formulated by Federal Cabinet and answerable to Federal Cabinet, only, not the producers. It’s not a matter of applying a cost benefits analysis, because its Tax money, that’s why they will not do it; the trick is to justify an investigation to the Commonwealth Auditor General who is the only entity authorized by Law to do it. The ABA Board is aware of this too, but I notice Mr. Carter did not tell the R-CALF these facts in his speech.
Importantly, primarily the Peak Councils operations are funded through a complicated system of Consolidated Revenue, in addition to the traditional funding from State producer organisations, and they do not need to depend on their traditional funding sources for financial survival. The Peak Councils and to a degree the State farming organisations are just an arm of Government under the MOU. This fact is also known to the Board of ABA, but they don’t say much about it.
The tentacles of MLA with regard to its expenditure on things such as sponsorship, advertising and private entity marketing permeates the Livestock Sector, so much so that there is a problem with disclosure of pecuniary interests and conflict of interest of some of the Board members of ABA; there should be disclosure in the written form on these matters in accordance with the Corporations Act 2001. Also some ordinary members of ABA with vast interests in the industry who are receiving funding for marketing from MLA Limited which should be disclosed particularly at ABA AGM level when strategy/policy is debated.
No, I am not a Member of Agforce and never ever have been; I do not want to be a member of an organisation that is a Civil Servant of the State which is what they are now as “Tree Police” in Queensland; they form part of Government which in the Queensland Premier’s own words is third in line after (communist) China and Russia in State owned land.
Thank you Catherine for your contribution I hope you write some more.
John M, keep up the good work!!!!
Thank you Rod for your clarification of all these various aspects re the legal mandates..I have battled to understand how it can be that the Government can over ride us.
It is so complex but no wonder the average cocky defers to the likes of NFF and takes their “orders’ from them…in the belief they should know best what is good for them. Ignorance abounds and the ability to access a varied point of view in any media out let is a battle. If you buck the system then YOU have to be wrong. You wear the label of being a rabble rouser, a trouble maker, a publicity mongerer….but just occasionally you have people acknowledge you are talking sense.
I have found that if I can get people to examine how the system is working against them eg the $$$ discrimination applied to non Life Time traceable cattle when they get a single non reader buttons showing up in a pen and the whole pen is labeled Not LT Traceable they start to listen and take notice.
Basically down in the South we have ignorance at the Stock and Station Agent level and a flow on to the yard hands. The scanner crews and data processors are the most informed and there wouldn’t be 10 % of farmers who have any idea how it all works or impacts on them or the person who buys their stock. Most would go to a sale twice a year, sell twice a year and most rely on Agents to buy in stock for them or more recently commission buyers!!!!
They read the rural press via the pictures and turn to the machinery for sale section. Few comprehend any aspect on an NVD or what they are signing their life away on…or how it even came to be or why they have to do it.
Yes I will run with the Winston Churchill approach when I see that somehow the army of rural slaves can be whipped into action and united in one voice. Has never happened yet and the way I see it we’ll be a dead breed before it does happen.
Great property….I delighted in the insight into the country and conditions in which you work . Our pocket handkerchief sized plots and operations must seem like childs toys to you.
Thank you. Jenny