Just Grounds Community

For Like minded people who like to see-

The Problem with Livestock Breeder Representation in Australia

A recent push by Cattle Council of Australia (CCA) for extra funding, due to declining State Farm Organisation (SFO), membership has prompted this blog.

Since 1997 we have had the current Government monopoly in Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA) and CCA etc.

Livestock producers have funded increased levies (what some refer to as compulsory unionism) , however their returns have remained almost stagnant since the 1980's.

The trickle down effect to producers, when meat prices increase are reaped by those in the supply chain above the producer.

As a result livestock producers are rightly concerned that a grab for some of the money by Cattle Council is an expectation that we should be forced to help them now that times are tougher, and farmers have lost the confidence of SFO's and CCA in looking after their "interests"

The problem for most livestock producers is they no longer see SFO/CCA as supporting them. Some SFO's have been accused of getting into bed with government to the detriment of farmers e.g. agreeing the natural resource management legislation, accepting funds in relation to leasehold property etc. It would appear that SFO's will continue to decline because they aren't seen as farmer orientated.

The problem with CCA is that they are not a grass roots livestock producer organisation and get involved in meat marketing, trace back, NLIS etc and as a result many livestock breeders are not interested in financially "propping them up"

This results from what CCA are seen to be actually involved in, and where all the costs associated with their activities end up, that is back on the livestock breedere.g.NLIS, LPA and increased transaction levies.

Comments by Cattle Council members indicate that they are confused about whom they represent and what they should be doing, examples from the dialogue on farmonline blogs include:-

a) " I would suggest that stakeholders would include the State Farming Organisations who have funded been the "owners" of CCA since its inception."

NB Not Livestock breeders, CCA's starting fund and reserve are from historical cattle levies.

b) " who then goes into bat for the Australian industry when there is an Ecoli outbreak in Nth America, when steel shot appears in beef products in Asia, when Russians want to renegotiate the price of beef?"

Logically cattle means living beast, but they see their role as looking after what are really meat processing problems. Where was CCA when the indonesian market was closed by our Governemnt? ( I know the answer )

What is also unusual in CCA discussion paper is the following statement:"

"It is important to provide an “opt out” option as producers must not be forced to pay for national representation (compulsory unionism). Producers must also take on the responsibility of actually joining the national representative organisation as a ‘member’ before they can vote or stand for direct election."

Two points come to mind:-

1) MLA transaction levies etc in effect is already compulsory unionism, but worse because levy payers have to register to vote.

2) Producers must join the proposed organisation even though the current system cannot recognise who paid levies, and how much they paid. That means the system is still open to the current rorts where individuals/companies just claim their right whether it is correct or a blatant lie.

Logically livestock breeders would voluntarily join an organisation that was seen to support their interests. The decline of SFO's is just the chickens coming home to roost.

My questions to you are:-1) Do livestock producers want a representative organisation that is not a government department and represents their interests instead of the current system where transaction levy benefits flow to processors and supermarkets, instead of livestock producers whom paid the levy in the first place?

2) Is the current structure a dinosaur needing drastic evolution?

3) Who actually represents the livestock breeder now?

THE ACT-

PRIMARY INDUSTRIES (EXCISE) LEVIES ACT 1999 - SCHEDULE 3

Cattle transactions

1 Definitions

In this Schedule:

"bobby calf" means a bovine animal (other than a buffalo or a head of lot-fed cattle):

(a) which has been slaughtered and the dressed weight of whose carcase did not or does not exceed 40 kg; or

(b) which has not been slaughtered but which, at the time of the leviable transaction or other dealing, had or has a liveweight that did not or does not exceed 80 kg; or

(c) which has not been slaughtered or had its liveweight determined at the time of the leviable transaction or other dealing but which, in the opinion of the intermediary, would, if slaughtered at that time, have constituted or constitute a carcase whose dressed weight would not have exceeded or would not exceed 40 kg.

"cattle" means bovine animals other than buffalo.

"dairy cattle" means cattle that are, or, unless exported from Australia, would be likely to be, held on licensed dairy premises for a purpose related to commercial milk production, including, but without limiting the generality of the above, bulls, calves and replacement heifers.

"industry marketing body" has the same meaning as in Part 3 of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997 .

"industry research body" has the same meaning as in Part 3 of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997 .

"leviable bobby calf" means a bobby calf to which subclause 6(4) does not apply.

"licensed dairy farmer" means the person having day to day control of licensed dairy premises.

"licensed dairy premises" means premises that, under a law of the State or Territory in which the premises are situated, are authorised for use as a dairy farm.

"lot-fed cattle" means cattle that are, or are likely to be, used in the production of grain-fed beef.

2 Intermediary

A reference in this Schedule to the intermediary is a reference to the person required, under the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act 1991 , to pay to the Commonwealth, on behalf of the producer, an amount equal to the amount of levy imposed by this Schedule.

3 Determining the weight of a carcase

For the purposes of this Schedule, in determining the weight of a carcase immediately after it has been dressed, no adjustment of that weight is to be made on account of shrinkage.

4 Related companies

For the purposes of this Schedule, the question whether companies were or are related to each other is to be determined in the same manner as the question whether 2 corporations are related to each other is determined under the Corporations Act 2001 .

5 Imposition of levy

(1) Levy is imposed on:

(a) each transaction entered into after the commencement of this Schedule by which the ownership of cattle is transferred from one person to another; or

(b) the delivery, after the commencement of this Schedule, of cattle to a processor otherwise than because of a sale to the processor; or

(c) the slaughter by a processor, after the commencement of this Schedule, of cattle purchased by the processor and held for a period of more than 60 days after the day of the purchase and before the day of the slaughter; or

(d) the slaughter by a processor, after the commencement of this Schedule, of cattle in respect of which levy imposed by this Schedule would not be payable under paragraph (a), (b) or (c).

(2) Levy is not imposed by this Schedule:

(a) on the sale of dairy cattle for dairying purposes; or

(b) on the sale of cattle at auction to the vendor; or

(c) on the sale or delivery of cattle between related companies, unless the company buying or taking delivery was or is a processor; or

(d) on the delivery of cattle to a processor for slaughter on behalf of the person delivering the cattle if:

(i) the delivery occurs within 14 days after the cattle were or are acquired by that person; and

(ii) the cattle are afterwards slaughtered; and

(iii) the person continues to own the cattle immediately after their hot carcase weight, within the meaning of Schedule 1, is determined or is taken, for the purposes of that Schedule, to have been determined, as the case requires; or

(e) on the sale or delivery of cattle to a processor, if the cattle are not, at the time of the sale or delivery, fit for human consumption, under any applicable law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory; or

(f) in circumstances where the ownership of the cattle changed or changes:

(i) as a result of a sale or transfer ordered by a court in proceedings under the Family Law Act 1975 ; or

(ii) by devolution on the death of the owner of the cattle; or

(iii) on the happening of events referred to in subsection 70-100(1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 ; or

(g) on a leviable bobby calf on which levy imposed by this Schedule, or by the repealed Cattle Transactions Levy Act 1997 , has already been paid; or

(h) in such other circumstances (if any) as are prescribed.

(3) For the purposes of paragraph (2)(a), dairy cattle are taken to be sold for dairying purposes if:

(a) both the vendor and the purchaser are licensed dairy farmers; or

(b) either the vendor or the purchaser is a licensed dairy farmer and the cattle are being acquired for inclusion in, or eventual inclusion in, a herd of dairy cattle.

(4) If cattle are delivered to a processor, otherwise than because of a sale to the processor, for fattening or agistment for a period before slaughter by the processor, the cattle:

(a) are taken not to have been delivered to the processor for the purposes of paragraph (1)(b) unless they are slaughtered at the end of that period; and

(b) if they are slaughtered at the end of that period, are taken to have been delivered to the processor immediately before their slaughter.

6 Rate of levy

(1) The rate of levy imposed by this Schedule on each head of cattle (other than a head of lot-fed cattle or a leviable bobby calf) is the sum of the following amounts:

(a) $2.16 or, if another amount (not exceeding $6.50) is prescribed by the regulations, the other amount;

(b) 72 cents or, if another amount (not exceeding $2.00) is prescribed by the regulations, the other amount;

(d) 13 cents or, if another amount (not exceeding 50 cents) is prescribed by the regulations, the other amount.

Note 1: Paragraph (a) identifies amounts that, under the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997 , are destined for the industry marketing body.

Note 2: Paragraph (b) identifies amounts that, under the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997 , are destined for the industry research body.

Note 3: Paragraph (c) identifies amounts that, under the National Cattle Disease Eradication Account Act 1991 , are destined for the National Cattle Disease Eradication Account.

Note 4: Paragraph (d) identifies amounts that, under Australian Animal Health Council (Live-stock Industries) Funding Ac... , are destined for the Australian Animal Health Council.

(2) The rate of levy imposed by this Schedule on each head of cattle that is a leviable bobby calf is the sum of the following amounts:

(a) 48 cents or, if another amount (not exceeding $1.90) is prescribed by the regulations, the other amount;

(b) 16 cents or, if another amount (not exceeding 40 cents) is prescribed by the regulations, the other amount;

(d) the prescribed amount (not exceeding 50 cents), if any.

Note 1: Paragraph (a) identifies amounts that, under the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997 , are destined for the industry marketing body.

Note 2: Paragraph (b) identifies amounts that, under the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997 , are destined for the industry research body.

Note 3: Paragraph (c) identifies amounts that, under the National Cattle Disease Eradication Account Act 1991 , are destined for the National Cattle Disease Eradication Account.

Note 4: Paragraph (d) identifies amounts that, under the Australian Animal Health Council (Live-stock Industries) Funding Ac... , are destined for the Australian Animal Health Council.

(3) The rate of levy imposed by this Schedule on each head of lot-fed cattle is the sum of the following amounts:

(a) $2.16 or, if another amount (not exceeding $6.50) is prescribed by the regulations, the other amount;

(b) 72 cents or, if another amount (not exceeding $2.00) is prescribed by the regulations, the other amount;

(d) 13 cents or, if another amount (not exceeding 50 cents) is prescribed by the regulations, the other amount.

Note 1: Paragraph (a) identifies amounts that, under the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997 , are destined for the industry marketing body.

Note 2: Paragraph (b) identifies amounts that, under the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997 , are destined for the industry research body.

Note 3: Paragraph (c) identifies amounts that, under the National Cattle Disease Eradication Account Act 1991 , are destined for the National Cattle Disease Eradication Account.

Note 4: Paragraph (d) identifies amounts that, under the Australian Animal Health Council (Live-stock Industries) Funding Ac... , are destined for the Australian Animal Health Council.

(4) For the purposes of subclause (1), a cow with a calf at foot are together taken to constitute a single head of cattle.

7 Who pays the levy

(1) Levy imposed by this Schedule on a transaction by paragraph 5(1)(a) of this Schedule is payable by the person who owned the cattle immediately before the transaction was entered into.

(2) Levy imposed by this Schedule on a delivery of cattle by paragraph 5(1)(b) of this Schedule is payable by the person who owned the cattle immediately before the delivery.

(3) Levy imposed by this Schedule on the slaughter of cattle by paragraph 5(1)(c) or 5(1)(d) of this Schedule is payable by the person who owned the cattle at the time of the slaughter.

8 Regulations

(1) The Minister may, by notice in the Gazette, declare a body to be the body whose recommendations about the amount to be prescribed for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a), 6(1)(b), 6(1)(d), 6(2)(a), 6(2)(b), 6(2)(d), 6(3)(a), 6(3)(b) or 6(3)(d) of this Schedule are to be taken into consideration under subclause (2).

(2) If a declaration is in force under subclause (1), then, before the Governor-General makes regulations for the purposes of the paragraph to which the declaration relates, the Minister must take into consideration any relevant recommendation made to the Minister by the body specified in the declaration in relation to that paragraph.

9 Transitional--regulations

(1) This clause applies to regulations if:

(a) the regulations were made for the purposes of a particular provision of the Cattle Transactions Levy Act 1997 ; and

(b) the regulations were in force immediately before the commencement of this clause.

(2) The regulations have effect, after the commencement of this clause, as if they had been made for the purposes of the corresponding provision of this Schedule.

10 Transitional--declarations

(1) This clause applies to a declaration if:

(a) the declaration was made for the purposes of a particular provision of the Cattle Transactions Levy Act 1997 ; and

(b) the declaration was in force immediately before the commencement of this clause.

(2) The declaration has effect, after the commencement of this clause, as if it had been made for the purposes of the corresponding provision of this Schedule

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Rob Moore on May 3, 2012 at 8:08am

and another on the CCA blog-

Rob Moore Comment 3 3 May 2012, 7:47 AM Edit (0m 00s)

Good morning Sam-I can see from the little video that you are a keen young fellow with the best of intentions. I used to be like that too but the years and the battles give one a thick skin and a good bs detector on these matters which come down to "reality v perception". I have many opinions and Jed Matz asked me to contribute here. I don't want to dominate with negativity but you would have to conceed that the blog opinion is that CCA is redundent and misguided. I feel it is weak of the staff there to let you carry the can on your own- Where is Inall, McDonnel ,McCamley etc?

This topic-Blue sky Research! -where do I start! We have corrupted science for many many years to come, in this country due to the AGW-CC hoax that has absolutely been debunked and inspite of that we are about to saw our leg off with a carbon Tax. SHAME on AGFORCE, Shame on NFF,-CCA....I have tried relentlessly to get you people to take a stand against this nonsense in the last two or more years. I offered to shout anyone at Agforce -tickets to Lord Monckton's Brisbane talks. Even called in to see who was coming before hand. The flat earth blinkered view forbade anyone coming to get enlightened. No sooner was Rudd PM and he gave MLA $26.8M to look into cattle emmissions. This was extra to their normal running budget of around $170M. Of course they weren't going to say that the cattle emission cycle is neutral -he's your money back- were they! Bribes and cash for comments in the greatest hoax ever to be put over the Aust population and now we have our major Processors with Million $ liabilities and guess who will pay. Well done - thanks for nothing in the representitive stakes.With pathetic judgement like this they couldn't be trusted to run the school tuck shop much less a multi Mill R&D program . What is worse is MLA has Flannery on it's books and he has his bib in the trough on this Target 100 bs - more cattle methane R&D. It is neutral -I can send you two reports for NOTHING.

The meat owners should market and research for themselves and the "Livestock" owners only want to be profitable which are commercial variables and have nothing to do with "ponzi" Carbon Farming Initiatives or cows that dont fart!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rob Moore on May 17, 2012 at 7:57pm

just put this on the CCA blog-

Rob Moore Comment 2 17 May 2012, 7:53 PM Edit (8m 04s)

Baden- you make good points here. I have three in their early 20's and a couple of years ago there were a useful group of back packers and they had a good little group to have a bit of fun in what is an isolated area.

Career path is a bit of a "false hope" term as the work is often character building and difficult. For teen agers and even under 30's - it is often a great experience to get out on a company place for a year. Family places are a bit of a lottery- kids could be treated like family or slaves and all points in between. There was a fightening accident at a place my daughter was working at last year involving a back packer ( she saved the person's life) and there will be a long drawn out blame game which could see the landowners loose everything which would be totally unwarranted.

I undertook to pay mine $1000 per week which tested my capacity but they all earn two to three times that flying about the country as they know how to work. I just get their week off from time to time and my wife and I branded 700 big calves recently and I know that if we didn't have a well developed property and NO Debt- we would be stuffed. This is why I get so irrate at all these experts from MLA and CSIRO and DPI sprouting all the motherhood nonsense which has zero effect on our daily lives if but to choke us down even further. Let us get a consistent $2.50 per kg liveweight for our quality product and all would sort itself out in no time. Come on CCA - push THIS instead of chasing fairies at the bottom of the garden!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rob Moore on May 22, 2012 at 9:06pm

just put this on CCA blog

G'day there boys on the CCA.
Just got home after trucking feeder steers to a friendly feedlot and what a joy to tare off the truck and get on my way knowing the average pay weight. ( 86 milk tooth av 460 odd kg so far out of last years drop)
Jed promised me that he would raise MY BEEF at the next meeting at the end of this month! That would be soon! This is most important as I can prove beyond doubt that the " weigh next morning cost me $38.50 per head !"

To the CCA operatives and board-I would like to table a meaty issue that you could take up for the good of your "peoples" bottom line!

THAT ALL CATTLE SOLD ON WEIGHT DIRECT TO A FEEDLOT HAVE THE FACILITY TO BE TRUCK TARED OFF ON A REGISTERED WEIGH-BRIDGE@ DELIVERY WITHIN ACCEPTABLE HOURS. THIS BEING THE POINT OF SALE AND PAYWEIGHT.

Unloading and pay weighing the following day is totally unacceptable and seems to be becoming by stealth and dominance over the sellers market position. Here is your chance to show us what your made of!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rob Moore on May 23, 2012 at 6:14pm

Thanks James @ Beef Central

Grainfed levy exemptions under scrutiny

By James Nason23 May 2012

The Federal Government is looking into why cattle transaction levies were exempted on almost a quarter of all grainfed cattle sold in Australia last year.

The investigation by the Levy Revenue Service has been launched in response to a long-running campaign for clarity on the issue by Queensland cattle producer Rob Moore.

Mr Moore said he was advised by the Levy Revenue Service (LRS) earlier this year that a total 2,262,446 grainfed cattle units were transacted in Australia last year.

Of that number, the LRS’s figures showed that the cattle transaction levy was not paid on 528,577 of those units, or about 23 percent of all grainfed cattle sold last year.

The substantial figure has prompted the obvious question – on what grounds did so many cattle receive exemption from the cattle transaction levy?

The short answer seems to be that no one, including the Levy Revenue Service, can provide a simple answer.

Beef Central posed questions to the LRS on the issue earlier this month, but has yet to receive a response.

Australian Lot Feeders Association chief executive officer Dougal Gordon said that both ALFA and the Cattle Council of Australia had also directed similar questions for clarification to the LRS.

Mr Gordon said he understands the LRS has commenced an investigation to determine the underlying reasons for the exemption certificates provided by processors.

Under the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Act 1999 Act, provision is made for vendors or processors to claim exemptions in certain circumstances. To claim an exemption, they must supply an exemption certificate or other proof to support their application with their cattle transaction levy return forms.

Mr Gordon said the current LRS audit process only determined the processors from whom exemption certificates were received, and not the reasons for the exemptions.

It was hoped the investigation would provide clarity as to those reasons, and areas where improvements in the existing auditing system are required.

Rob Moore’s view is that the 528,577 non-levied cattle are explained by processors claiming a levy-exemption for cattle fed in their own feedlots under section 5 (4) of the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Act 1999.

He believes that section effectively classifies processors’ own feedlot cattle in the say way as all other killed cattle, which are exempt from the cattle transaction levy. (Processors pay a red meat processing levy on all cattle they process which goes to the Australian Meat Processing Corporation).

Mr Moore said publicly available information indicated that feedlots directly owned by the four largest processors in Australia – JBS, Teys Cargill, Nippon Meat Packers and Australian Country Choice – have the combined capacity to feed about 750,000 cattle per year.

Based on average feedlot occupancy rates of 62pc in 2012, he estimates that the big four processors would have fed around 465,000 cattle in their own feedlots last year, or 20.5pc of total grainfed units recorded by the LRS last year.

He believes that number goes very close to explaining the 23pc or 528,577 grainfed cattle that did not incur a cattle transaction levy in Australia last year.

“The 2.5pc difference would be for those obscure scenarios such as the very few grainfed cattle that get sold on spec in the saleyards.”

However others point to another clause in the Act which stipulates that the levy is payable by processors when taking delivery of cattle from a related company they own, such as their own feedlot.

The LRS investigation will hopefully provide much needed clarification over what is clearly a grey area, confused by often ambiguously-worded legislation that appears to invite a range of possible interpretations

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rob Moore on May 24, 2012 at 8:41am

Thanks Dale.

Ludwig sent me a very weak reply finally on April the 7th and I had been too busy till yesterday morning when I sent off a blunt email and cc all the media and all the players.

Finally James has put it out for public scrutiny but there will be no answers from the LRS as they have told me that they have no idea where the cattle come from. This isn't a lobbying , wishlist scenario- it is more a whistleblower,fundamental legal matter of interpretation -issue.

Levy payers would do well to sign onto the implications of all this!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Carol Petith on May 24, 2012 at 9:44am

Hi Rob

I am amazed at the work that you continue to do (against all odds) to bring forward the facts of your industry and to inform others.

I would like to say that without people like your self and your supporting family this country would be completely R** S**T

I wish you good health and strength in all you do.

Carol Petith

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rob Moore on May 29, 2012 at 6:27pm

Carol- I am no hero and I do it out of self interest. Of course that also means that a reform that helps me then will help all my peers.

Only those with an interest in livestock- have a look here at these prices on the weekly USDA figures which are gathered by legislation to give proper market intelligence over there-

http://www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/lswwcbs.pdf

US $ of $1.23 a lb so two and a quarter times that and they are creaming it . Why have we been on $1.90 per kg AUD until this week overhere for the best of the best. CCA ought to be be keeping vigilant on these rip offs rather than playing pathetic games with the big boys that give us peanuts.

Also just noticed that there is almost NO DIFFerence in the Hiefer price to the Steer on the hook . This is as it should be but overhere it is a standard 10-15 cents a kg discount on the hiefer

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rob Moore on June 1, 2012 at 1:09pm

Latest on the CCA blog-

NO! $750000 is a huge amount of money for 4 staff! "Industry consultations"- just what does that mean?? I run a blogsite with 3200 members and we have a never ending flow of topics and opinions-all for $60 per month (I pay) Even this exersize here is being shouted by the MLA.
I wanted to talk to David Inall yesterday but since he was away - I spoke to Jed Matz. We had a long an fiery talk and I tried to warn him that any jobsaving , levy attaching moves by CCA and ABA is totally unlawful and should be stopped immediately. This compulsory levy that we all send off into the anonomous "wishing well" is underwritten by an Act of parliament and I pointed out that there will be NO deals done on the funding with out repealing the act and further more - the whisleblower research that we have done is casting a very large legal shadow over the legitimacy of the MLA corporate governance to date. THIS is where everyone should be focussing and a clean sheet of paper and simply transparent goal posts would negate the need for any nationalized bodies.

David Inall-Can you confirm that the Cattle Council of Australia are prescribed by government and report to the Minister, they cannot under the current structure represent grass fed beef producers without a conflict of interest. YOU CANT SERVE TWO MASTERS and apart from the Beef Roundtable fiasco- I can't thing of a single usefull thing that you (CCA) have done for me (A producer)- in living memory. Live export - left in the carpark! My query on the weighbrige issue - too hard -we don't get involved in commercial disputes etc etc.
This begs the Q of just what do you do and WHY do you need funding at all. If you provide me with support or a service- I would join voluntarily- Don't think you can just ignore me and get some inhouse think tank to get the minister to give the green light -straight to my levy. The gloves are OFF and you boys will just have to find a real job in the real world - no life jackets - just the same as all of us that you claim to represent.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rob Moore on June 1, 2012 at 3:33pm

This is the last week of the CCA blog and the entire content of the site would be about a third of this dicussion alone in content. I wouldn't mind the money that MLA have put up to give them this service!

Must be heading towards an inch of rain today and still quite heavy - decided to push my luck and add this parting shot!

Beef Central had the story of how the CCA and ABA,UBG saw it all happenning. I read about the 5out of 12 positions on the board coming from Agforce and thought to myself- what and earth has happened @ABA?? They must be selling their souls to get some scraps @ the trough.
                                You asked me the question -so here is how I see it.. ALL perscribed , levy funded quasi govt depts that become the "spokesmen " for the "INDUSTRY" - whatever that is??( Is it cattle ,is it meat, is it pr companies).......must be wound up at the close of this years AGM's. All levies and red tape must be lifted . A truly transparent market reporting system like the USDA must be collated weekly including the forward selling contracts written.
                Sales of cattle sold on weight must be allowed to be weighted off on delivery if it is at a reasonable time and this being the "point of sale" Multi nationals applying their own form of extra curfew and weighing off with no witness or defined timeframe the following day would fail any trades practises test! Remember a few years ago when the MLA staff got on the Farmonline poll and corruptly turned the strong anti NLIS vote into a solid pro vote! We got it just the same and history has shown that it is a costly meaningless exersize that hasn't lifted our returns by one cent per kg.
                  THIS IS WHY WE DON"T WANT YOUR REPRESENTATION. Meat owners are quite capable of funding and doing their own promotion as they own it. AQIS- should be fully funded and strengthened so we can say for sure that anything that leaves our shores is 100% safe- end of story... Producers responsibility and liability must end at the knocking box as regards LPA.
NLIS should be voluntary and those that love it will gladly pay a premium for it won't they??. If everybody does what they do best - there would be no need for these CCA like bodies. The judgement to get into bed with the WWF shows what a gullible lot you all are.
                  Personally -I would support a Cattlemans Union type group that we could all join just to promote ideas and actions- I thought the ABA might have been it but the big govt funded bodies had their foot on our throats for so long it seems that they have finally thought - If you can't beat them -you might as well join them!
John Andersen as minister implemented the Meat and Livestock Industry Bill 1997-14 years ago and most of its intentions have not been met-
*Reducing AMLC/MRC bureaucracy has failed as MLA has a budget of $170M and MLA has a very large PR machine to justify MLA programs
*MLA has become increasingly arrogant and untouchable at the one time of the year that it can be Q'd-it's AGM. It has discovered that the combination of Corporate Law, being unlisted and slack DAFF/ Ministerial attention to the Mou makes it untouchable The staff of mla are members of the C'wealth Public Service Union and have entered workplace Agreements with the Feds.
*MLA refuses to list indiv expenditure or progress on R&D projects and they continue to use consultants who have lived off the meat industry for years and recycle advice paid foryears ago.
*MLA refused to stand up to the obvious and blatant climate change hoax because they got paid millions to research it- CCA and Agforce couldn't raise a whimper - now producers will bear the cost of this neglegence
It is CCA 's role to be a watchdog and advise MLA but as I have pointed out they are prescribed and answer to the minister the same as MLA so the whole circus is a joke . Just shut it down please.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Brad Bellinger on June 1, 2012 at 6:30pm

What absolute rubbish Rob Moore you have posted here concerning the ABA having their snouts in the trough.I have said a thousand times before if we can get a democratic beef industry structure with equal rights for all levy payers then there is no need for an ABA.It has alraedy been suggested at the meetings we have had that ABA has a seat on the CCA ,the offer has been refused.Where have you been in the last 2 years when we have moved and debated the motion to wind up the MLA.

The new CCA restructure plan to have 8 SFO and 4 independently elected has been rejected by the ABA and at a board meeting this week all ABA directors voted unanamously for us to stick to our original re-structure with all board members being directly elected from grass-fed levy payers.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rob Moore on June 2, 2012 at 9:36am

Hello Brad - well that is good news re ABA's stance. Thank Linda for that email of support for me too!

Since we are doing a bit of soul searching- wasn't that leaked restucture doc ( way back pages ago on the comments of this discussion)- just an impossible wish/dream of how both organisations can continue and get fund @ the cost of all of our hard won beliefs of what is right or wrong.

WHY don't we ever discuss the real issues at hand (listed my views above) and the NUMBER one ISSUE is that you can all meet and hold hands for the next 40 years BUT the AMLI act must be overhauled OR repealed and I have provided the PERFECT catalyst for this to happen.

At these phone hook ups -do you ever discuss that I have put my body and name on the line over what is probably a mismanaged fraud amounting to over $1.8Billion over the last 14 years of levy and taxpayer funds going out without due corporate governance. All your deals is just guaranteeing more of the same and all you seem to mention is representation and funding in the one sentence.

Ludwig is going to have to repeal the act sooner or later and IF there is ever to be another LEVY- it will have to be done in a traceable auditable manner the same as the wool one is .

The irony is that every single one of us in this talk, advocacy,lobbiest, anti lobbiest, trough feeding activity where we are all trying to push an agenda would not be more than 50-80 people in the whole country. THIS is the problem- the other 200000 must not care, have given up or most likely are on a debt treadmill and haven't got time to even think of these finer details and also probably not game enough to attract attention to themselves and their bankers!

So - given all that - NONE of us are qualified to interfere on behalf of the rest and if everyone did their appointed job in the chain- we could stop being lead by the nose through all these b******* red herrings like MLA and CCA and WWF and NFF and Agfarce etc etc.......

What do you say to that Brad?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rob Moore on June 2, 2012 at 6:37pm

True Alan-

We are all individuals firstly and should not hide behind banners and teams- we only have to answer to ourselves in the long run. We should be able to adapt and learn to get things in order of priorities. For example - the carbon tax has been looming for two years or more and ground zero then was this site-AGMATES. PRA group lead by Ron Bahnisch organised for Prof Bob Carter to do a speaking tour , Barnaby Joyce the only Politician in Aust to stand up and say it was rubbish, Lord Chris Monckton and of course Joanne Nova and husband Dr David Evans.....all lead the charge and we all follow!.

There wasn't a single person in the whole of Agforce or NFF or CCA that would even open their ears to an alterate view . I KNOW because I engaged them all -one by one. Couldn't even get them to issue even a limp dick PR of support. The Carbon Farming Initiative carrot had the simple minds mesmerized. Here we are now - the same people are meekly saying how bad it is that Swift will have to fork out $2 Million a year for Dinmore alone and all the others likewise. the CFI has been proven the dud lemon that a grade three pupil would have picked up on -already. ONly new work qualifies and it has to last 100 years. What a joke.

This is why I can't cut these people any slack to reboot themselves to be interfereing in my industry for one more minute.