John Cotter
If current QLD Premier has to rely on Green preference votes to retain government or even is returned with a reduced margin she will honour her pre-election promise to the Greens and halt all clearing of regrowth.
In what can only be described as a high risk gamble AgForce and the groups President John Cotter have decided to keep the issue out of the spotlight.
In a recent AgForce Members Alert (25th of February) John Cotter outlined the groups election strategy.
AgForce has long-recognized the importance of engaging urban consumers on the basis of where food comes from, which was the essence of our ‘Every Family Needs A Farmer campaign’.
During the first part of this year, I have been actively communicating our rural perspective to urban audiences via regular interviews on Brisbane commercial and FM radio and in The Courier Mail.
Sorry I must have missed that John Cotter, even though I comb the Courier Mail everyday. Now here John articulates his (AgForces) campaign strategy to members for the upcoming election:
It would be easy for us to talk about a whole range of issues that you understand and would like to hear us talking about on your behalf such as vegetation management, reef regulation and the encroachment of mining on agricultural land.
Well actually John Cotter, yes that is exactly what we’d expect from you and AgForce the most influential farmers lobby group in QLD.
However, we trust you understand that our focus needs to be targeted at the informed swinging voters in the vital seats on the northern coastal strip and the south-east corner who that (sic) will decide the outcome.
On reading this, right there and then I was outraged. John Cotter and AgForce have decided that they are not going to stand up and represent QLD farmers on those issues that are crucial to the long term viability, no, let me say survival of agriculture in QLD.
John Cotter even says that he and AgForce actually know what their members expect of them:
and would like to hear us talking about on your behalf such as vegetation management, reef regulation and the encroachment of mining on agricultural land.
But he hopes you understand that they won’t be. Well what the hell are they going to campaign on? John writes:
Focusing on our relevance to everyday urban living gives AgForce some levergae to create an expectation of the need to support agricultural businesses and the need to invest in things such as roads and rail infastructure and education in rural areas.
Right there and then if I were a member of AgForce I would resign on the spot.
Can I make this clearer, if Anna Bligh is re-elected she has committed to the Greens to stop clearing of regrowth. If that happens, as productive land is choked out by the green invasive scrub, there will be no farmers and no food.
John Cotter and AgForce what other message do you need to get across to the folk in the cities?
As the peak farmer organization AgForce and John Cotter are taking an enormous gamble with the livelihoods of thousands of rural Queenslander’s with this insane policy of ignoring it’s members issues and views.
Is it any wonder farmers are abandoning the peak farmer bodies in droves? Aaaahhhhh
END
*****
Have Your Say!
March 11, 2009 at 9:48 pm
Steve,
Great paper mate !!
But it looks like you are flogging a dead horse with this story. My ole pappy always told me that the trick with riding a dead horse is knowing when to dismount.
Cockies out there don’t care what deals, arrangements, and understandings those blokes at agforce do, or have done with the ALP or the Greens. Problem is, what if there is a change, will the new blokes running the show in Brisbane take kindly to the undertakings forged by agforce and the other blokes. Means those agforce blokes will have to do the ole switch-er-roo.
You may get better engagement by doing a story on the techniques and qualifications needed for riding the dead horse.
WheresWally
March 11, 2009 at 6:59 pm
G’day Greg,
Mate and thank you for putting the AgForce side of the debate.
One last point we are 2% of the vote -
That statement is peddled by the peak bodies all the time – its just defeatist crap actually. Here is the figures from the last QLD State election.
Labor – 47.4%
Liberal 20.2%
Nationals – 17.3%
Greens 7.9%
Now you’d think that nearly all of the National and a fair chunk of the Liberal and Labor voters are sympathetic to the plight of country people.
We are not the minority – we are being dictated to by a minority, because they use that minority vote to keep Labor in power.
Anybody who believes that 2% stuff has fallen for the great Green con.
Thats my whole point mate – we are a majority with lots of friends in the city. Talk to anybody in the city – they all dream of one day owning a farm. It’s all of our ancestral roots, its in our genes.
We have been conned and let down by a lack of leadership in our rural peak bodies, not just AgForce.
But anyway – mate that’s for your time, I’ve enjoyed the debate that you have afforded us here this afternoon and i hope all those watching have got some useful information out of it.
I know I don’t make myself very popular in some quarters, but hey where else in Australia do you see these issues raised and debated?
Someone has to be dumb enough / brave enough to ask the tough questions.
March 11, 2009 at 6:38 pm
“Greg just explain to me how campaigning against taking productive lands out of food production is such a negative in the minds of urban voters. What are farmers environmental criminals for wanting to keep currently productive Agriculutural land iin production”.
Agree – but simply in an election time frame, the Green point of view may be embraced more readily by the urban population, It has to be a longer educational campaign, bearing in mind that farmers have been/are portrayed by the Greens and populist media as “land rapists” – Haven’t we all heard comments on all the land clearing around Longreach that has taken out all the trees!!
Of course the media are not in the farmers corner anyway – they just want to sell and conflict, controversy and bad news sells.
I think I will let someone else comment on behalf of AgForce, however we should be helping them get their point accross, which from their media releases is non negotiable on re-growth and any proposed changes to the Veg Mgt Act. All us “splinter” groups need to re-inforce their firmly stated views that no doubt would have been represented to the Premier with the full force of the backing of the membership (being one quarter of possible membership). Someone else said “divided we fall” – unfortunately rural producers do not have the luxury of being divided. What is a quarter of a less than 2% vote?
March 11, 2009 at 6:11 pm
G’day Greg,
Mate unforunately you are correct – it is to late with only 9 days to go.
Ok we will go with your premise that all the Greens will be asking of Labor in exchange for their prefernces is a promise “to consult” and that carries no more sway that Labors promise to consult with AgForce on the issue.
What Ronan Lee is saying is that he wants the Loopholes in the Tree Clearing Legislation closed. He is not asking for consulation in exchange for Green preferences – he is demanding a commitment – before the election.
If Labor gives those commitments in exchange for Green preferences and Labor gets re-elected – It’s game over.
Sure Labor will go through the pretense of consulting with AgForce. But the deals done the day the election results are known, anything that happens after that is just a PR exercise. How many times have we seen this before.
What are the so called Loopholes – Clearing regrowth – thats it – can’t be taken any other way.
This is actually what the WWF web site says:
Loopholes of clearing recovering and mature forests….
- stop ALL CLEARING of endangered, vunerable and threatened REGROWTH forests.
They class brigalow as vunerable.
- Stop ALL CLEARING of lands subject to erosion, salinity or OTHER forms of degredation.
That about sums up every soil type in Australia. These are the same people who want Buffel grass ban because to them its a noxious weed.
- Stop ALL Clearing near river banks, wetlands and state wildlife corridors.
How close is NEAR. State Wildlife corridors are Stock Routes.
Greg just explain to me how campaign ng against taking productive lands out of food production is such a negative in the minds of urban voters. What are farmers environmental criminals for wanting to keep currently productive Agriculutural land iin production.
No one not even the LNP is talking about undoing the total ban on Tree Clearing. What this battle is about is the treatment of regrowth. If you do not keep regrowth, be it Brigalow or Mulga under control it will choke out the land.
I mean how hrad a consept is that to get across. Try this.
Q. Do you have or ever had a vegy garden?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you have to consistantly work on keeping the weeds under control.
A. Yes.
Q. What happens if you don’t keep the weeds under control
A. They choke out the garden and the vegies die.
Q. What is the result of that.
A. No vegies – no food.
As I said we are not trying to convince the populous on the merits of uranium mining here.
But alas you are right – it is to late.
All we can do now is hope we get lucky and that the LNP pulls off an against the odds victory on March 21. Pray.
March 11, 2009 at 4:44 pm
The Greens preferences are probably not news given their allegiances in the past except that Ronan is going to be a concientious objector as a defector from the ALP. Ronan objects to “broadscale landclearing” (what about re-growth) Annas promise to AgForce is simply”to consult rural producers” on the other hand I can’t find the actual promise to the Greens other than to consult with them as well. The WWF policy from their web page states – “stop all clearing of endangered, vulnerable or threatened re-growth forests” . Again this does not allude to other previous remnant species (previously green on the Veg maps prior to clearing) or Brigalow re-growth which now all appears white on the Veg maps which is what producers would like to see left in production for all the food issues mentioned. Do you think AgForce or Agmates can get the ear of the city media to such an extent in the coming week and a half to change the city folks opinions about re-growth v’s food production without possibly moving the vote further towards labour instead. Good luck.
March 11, 2009 at 4:10 pm
G’day Greg,
Mate good comment and thanks for expressing that side of the argument in such a clear and concise way.
Here however is the problem and I point you to the article I wrote:
If Labor Wins The Election On The Green Vote - Clearing Regrowth Across Australia Will End.
This article clearly outlined the tactics that WWF are emloying and it is confirmed in todays Australian Newspaper
Greens Turn Back On LNP
To quote from the article:
The Greens announced yesterday they would not give their preferences to the LNP ……..
Ronan Lee said yesterday the LNP decision to allow uranium mining in QLD had finalised the Green’s decision…… But negotiations with the ALP continued, with preferences in about 12 seats up for discussion.
He would like Labor to move towards the World Heritage listing of Cape York, abolish loopholes in tree clearing legislation …..
Seats where Greens preferences could decide the outcome include Chandler, Aspley, Cleveland, Pumicestone, Mudgeeraba, Mulgrave and Hervey Bay….
Greg that is why your suggestion that Anna Bligh will decide after the election which promise she will honour, the one to the Greens or to AgForce is naive.
AgForce won’t get her re-elected, Greens preferences will. And as we all know, after the election results are in, and if she gets up, particularly if its close she will ‘pay the piper’.
Mate farmers can spill blood on the steps of Parliament house after the election and it won’t make a zot of difference. Politicians are all about getting relected and they don’t bite the hand that feeds them, no matter what.
The whole thing is an absolute set up by the Greens and AgForce has fallen for it hook line and sinker.
All they have to do is be out their explaining that if / when the Greens get their way (and mark my words if Labor gets up that they will be stopping the treatment of regrowth exactly to the letter of what is published on the WWF site) this will ultimately strangle our ability to feed ourselves.
For pete’s sake mate – we are not talking about the resumption uranium mining here, We are just talking about maintaining our current capacity to feed ourselves.
How hard is that to sell to a urban population?
What is happening is frieghtening – if Labor gets up – God help us.
We’ll look back and say John Cotter and AgForced took a massive punt. If Labor gets up, AgForce will have given away farmers ability to control regrowth with a squeak – Why would any farmer want to belong to a farm body that did that?
I know you are like me and most QLD farmers – “I rather die on my feet than live on my knees”
About time John Cotter and AgForce got of theirs and made a stand.
March 11, 2009 at 2:28 pm
I can see where AgForce is coming from on this issue. Whilst realising that some members and non-members expect to see ‘blood on the steps of parliament house’ in relation to issues such as regrowth control, the reality is that the blood of their less than 2% of the vote may not sway the vote of the other 98% who will determine the outcome of the election “far from the farm gate”
Bodies such as AgForce have to lobby, demonstrate, engage and educate the governments of the day, regardless of the government’s politics. No doubt this is achieved whilst the party concerned is in power, not whilst they are in caretaker mode.
The Agforce comment that “inflaming the issue in the media is counter-productive because it gives oxygen to the other side of the debate” is valid and may in fact move swinging voters in a direction that is not beneficial to rural producers.
To raise some issues during an election campaign just to satisfy the rural converted may as they say “not be strategic”
As to honouring pre-election promises to the Greens, Anna Bligh has also promised AgForce that she will take no action on vegetation management until further discussion have been held . Which promise gets up will depend on the strength and quality of argument put up by both sides of the debate. The time for lobbying, engagement and possible demonstration or “blood on the steps”
There is a distinct difference between “broadscale land clearing” and re-growth control in areas such as those that have been developed to productive pastures such as in the Brigalow areas that were developed in the 1960’s. Not many city dwellers, now totally dis-connected from rural relatives and life on the land, would understand this during an election campaign.
The quality of lobbying, engagement, debate and demonstration may reflect the finances of the lobbying organisation which is affected by membership numbers and also the representatives who have not only become members but chosen to stand for voluntary office. Decisions are not usually made by individuals but by a council of elected members or a commodity board. The concept that representations to Government should be made by informed debaters with dirt under their fingernails (ie producers with heart and soul in the industry) as opposed to staff is a good one.
This gives credence to comments elsewhere in another debate on membership suggesting enrolment of the whole rural community into the organisations and the election of genuine representatives to take forward their views. Of course this requires continuing respect of the grass roots membership and due consideration to their resolutions from branch meetings.
The three previous Queensland organisations decided to amalgamate, some 10 years ago, to hopefully form a credible and united force and to reduce duplication of costs of effort. If it hasn’t turned out that way, maybe the apathy of members or non members has played a role.
I realise that the above Agmates article has been written to stimulate debate within the, however I am not sure that actively advocating resignation from farm bodies is the answer. Maybe we should think about how we can make them work better.
March 10, 2009 at 9:57 am
Steve,
I have been shock to see not real push from Agforce during this election campaign. I was sitting watching Farmer wants a Wife to other night with the family (which I could imagine there would be alot of these potential swinging voters watching it), and was impressed with the advertising push from Dairy Farmers, but was left wondering the missed opportunity from Agforce. the campaign (if that’s what you call it), “Every Family needs a Farmer”, had its perfect opportunity to promotes wheres. I can understand them not wanting to take sides, but if they actually have a backbone, they could atleast make the average voter aware of the impact their vote could have on their eventually cost of living through food pricing. But they obviously know more than what I know.
March 9, 2009 at 10:37 pm
Well said Steve,
I am thrilled to hear that Agfarce is trying to get Labor reelected.They are trading the hundreds of thousands of dollars i have spent building a good property to buy a few greenie votes in Indooropily. I am a member of this pathetic group but not for much longer. Peter Kenny and Peter Beattie were joined at the hip so to speak. It seems that nthing has changed!