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;
(c) 17 cents or, if another amount (not exceeding $4.00) 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;
(c) the prescribed amount (not exceeding 20 cents), if any;
(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;
(c) 17 cents or, if another amount (not exceeding $4.00) 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
Views: 2769
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Roger Rankin Crook on -
I would like to contribute to this debate, but, quite frankly I am 'written out' 'exhausted' having written so much in the past about, largely but not elusively, what you are writing about now.
The only contribution I can make is to point you back several years in the hope that you might find something of interest even help in :http://justgroundsonline.com/group/the/forum/topics/the-paradox-of-...
Your challenges are not new. They have just been allowed to persist.
The other factor, for which I am trying to find funds right now, is to survey producers by age groups, how many there are in the various age groups (I have anecdotal evidence that the ABS average age of farmers of 53 (?) is skewed by the number of small farmers who qualify to the ATO as farmers. Know what I mean?)
I have the view that the 'real' average age of 'real' farmers is closer to sixty. That could mean that change is low on their priority list, survival and exiting with some dignity may be higher? I don't know.
I do know that a survey in the UK revealed that 80% of farmers there could not identify a successor for their farm business. Average age there in the mid fifties.
-
Permalink Reply by Roger Rankin Crook on
-
This is a summary from the USDA census in 2007:
Farmers by Age
A long term trend observed in the Census of Agriculture is the aging of farm operators. The average age of the principal farm operator has increased roughly one year in each census cycle, from 50.3 in 1978 to 57.1 in 2007. The majority of farm operators are between 45 and 64, but the fastest growing group of farm operators is those 65 years and older.
In addition to the more than 2 million principal operators, the new data show the 2007 Census counted an additional 1.1 million operators on farms.* These second and third operators on average are younger than the principal operators. However, this group of operators also showed an increase in average age between 2002 and 2007.
* Before 2002, the Census of Agriculture collected detailed demographic data on only one operator per farm. Since 2002, the census has taken a more comprehensive approach, counting all operators and collecting detailed demographic information on up to three operators per farm. The principal operator is the person in charge of day-to-day decisions for the farm or ranch.
-
Permalink Reply by Rob Moore on
-
Joanne - you certainly do more than your fair share.
We can write thoughtful theories and expose outrages by the dozens but we aren't engaging with the power brokers who cut all the cloth. The rigged system has protected them perfectly for 14 years and morale and fight to even Q any activities that are taken within our industry has left a deathly silence.
Where are those ABA warriors that were going to fight all the way to take the corrupt MLA down.
I don't need help- our group of 4 will endure and get the answers. Obviously - don't bother bobbing up with input later on and expect a seat at any negotiation! I have it on email now that the LRS doesn't have the exemption certificates to match the non-levies column.
I am waiting for a yes no answer and I will have to part with $250 to MLA and get the full voting register from the Longreach AGM and bingo - all will be clear.
-
Permalink Reply by Onslo Pale on -
Hey Joanne,
I can’t believe that you just said that.
So let me get this straight so we are on the same page, you believe that only professionals should have a go at reading and interpreting legislation that affects the client.
The problem here is, that if you do not know either what the legislation say’s or what you think it means; how do you know what the correct questions are when seeking further advice ?
Further are you saying that legislation and its definitions are somehow written in a foreign language and not to be understood by a mere mortal ?
Professionals have the distinct advantage in practice and procedure, but definitely no advantage when it comes to reading and the comprehension of our language.
Good God, a person in your position should be encouraging every single farmer, landowner, livestock owner and property owners in general to pick up the Statutes that affect them, either personally or in business, and bloody well read them.
Joanne Rea said:If we were a green organisation we would have the legal advice you need from suitably qualified QC's coming out of the woodwork everywhere offering to do the work pro bono (or at least an interpretation of the legislation this thread has been grappling with) but the rights of farmers don't even make it onto the list.
I have declined to pass opinion on the legislation because I believe it now needs professional interpretation.
-
-
Update!
After five weeks of asking direct questions of all the public servants who are solely responsible for administering this system- the silence is deafening.
Last night I wrote a long letter to the minister with all my evidence and research and I'm more confident than ever that we are correct on this.The onus is on them to confirm or deny and I have stated that- if the reply is not timely or meaningful- I will publish the letter on here and elsewhere.
-
-
They do this because they can! It is such a simple model and it worked here! Allflex wines and dines the top end- the big boys pull the scheme through and we pay for it all for no benefit!
More fool -the NZ ers. We are about to prove that the big boys had no votes to pull anything through (NLIS,LPA) and the register is a fraud!
Editor Memo: In the news item below please note the political spin-rhetoric that is being force fed to livestock producers world wide. The scheme of livestock ID, is forced on producers, at a time when world food is not just about quality, but more important, about future availability.
Note:
1) Every politician is telling their country they are behind other countries with animal ID. This account can only name 2 countries they are behind.
2) Two organizations saw the early need of animal ID -- interesting, now they are the organizations getting paid to administer the enforcements of the NAIT.
3) "We had to do it!" the politicians said, but why did they have to make a mandatory law to force the livestock producers to do something so good?
4) New Zealand is an island nation. The easiest to prevent disease of any country. Yet, their scare tactics threaten producers about the dangers of an exotic disease outbreak -- demanding ID protection from the government. (It is about government jobs and new increased taxes on food producers.)
5) The same huge companies that will profit in NZ are the tag and computer companies, that are funding USA animal ID mandatory efforts. DD
-
-
BEEF Central News
NZ moves to mandatory ID from July 1
By Jon Condon28 Mar 2012New Zealand will embrace a national mandatory animal identification system across its livestock industries over the next 12 months, with the beef and dairy components being implemented from July 1 this year.The NZ minister for Primary Industries, David Carter, told industry stakeholders attending Allflex’s Platinum Primary Producers conference in NZ yesterday that after being “eight years in the making,” NZ Parliament had last month passed legislation that would see its livestock industries join countries like Australia and Uruguay in operating under a comprehensive, whole-of-life animal traceability system.
He said there had been opposition from some NZ livestock stakeholders, principally led by the Federated Farmers, who suggested the system was unnecessarily costly, and should be voluntary only. Mr Carter said these people failed to recognise how far behind the country was, when it came to its ability to trace livestock.
“The more progressive farmers and groups like Beef & Lamb NZ and Dairy NZ saw the benefits of the scheme some time ago,” he said.
The ‘widespread’ support of farmers was in recognition that NZ was behind the rest of the world, and particularly countries like Australia and Uruguay, which had operated industry-wide programs for some years.
“We had to do it,” he said. “While it is now law for NZ farmers to provide traceability, this is a great opportunity, also, for performance information to be gathered, and to increase productivity through individual animal identification.”
“We’ve spent a lot of time training our staff, ensuring our readers and equipment is working properly, and I hope other farmers are in that position, or about to do it,” Mr Kelly said.
Minister Carter said he said some five million tags were sold in New Zealand last year, before the legislation was passed, and he was confident the industry would make the transition smoothly.
The program will be administered by a company called NAIT Ltd, owned by Beef & Lamb NZ, Dairy NZ and the Deer Industry Association.“We looked at NAIT as being the first step towards implementation in New Zealand. It is mandatory for cattle, because a major driver was BSE, which is a human health issue.
• Beef Central publisher Jon Condon is in New Zealand this week attending the Platinum Primary Producers conference, hosted by tag manufacturer Allflex, in Masterton. The PPP conference draws together some of the largest and most influential primary industry stakeholders from across Australia in a three-day program touching on some of the livestock sector’s big issues. More reports next week.
-
-
This should be a call to war - Livestock owners v MLA, WWF and every other parasite that is getting a free living at our expense.
This discussion is all but dead if I don't post on here . How bloody stupid are you Dale and Joanne if you think that to start up yet another bitch session on MLA and WWF is going to get any results.
Saw the bastards off at the knees would be a much better approach and we have the means.
Who is bothering to ph all the culprits and rattle their cage.?????
Don't bother commenting on here on these threads unless it is to disseminate the results of a ph conversation on the topic. Some of you must be connected enough to demand an answer out of Agforce, CCA, MLA Two years ago I posted the $26.8Million letter when MLA were given fund tolook into livestock emmissions. Two reports I posted immediately proved the cycle was neutral and even the biased QLD Govt agreed it was 80% neutral.
Why do we have to continually repeat ourselves and get lead by the nose from these bastards. I am serious about this - so get to work the lot of you!!
-
-
Sick of waiting- not even an email to acknowlege that I have contacted!!!Dear Minister,Also the head of the Levies Collection Unit and the ceo of ALFA. It has been about a month now since I started asking specific Questions of your three departments and also many to the MLA. I have had two lengthy discussions with - head of Corporate Affairs @mla.I have sent half a dozen emails to the minister without a single email of acknowlegement! I did receive a phone call one day from -Mr ludwigs number one advisor to see if I was serious or not. I could check my phone records and would find about 20 calls in without a single reply.This treatment from public servants is not in your best interests - I have spent many hours on this research and the implications of the discoveries are HUGE. No one yet has disputed my logic- no one even seems to understand the ACT that they are working under! No one cares a toss.!I care as this is my Industry of 35 years participating and I have been very involved for 6 years now and like everyone else - dispair at the MLA structure. Many an MLA -Agm we have been ridiculed and rubbished and the votes of the faithfull always support the "Club".In all that time the top four processors in this country always had the voting block second to none and always any threat to bring on accountability to the MLA was soundly voted down. Meanwhile - I could never understand how a Processor could have any votes (due to levies paid) - let alone the controlling voting block!!?? Five years ago I did detailled research on the Levies Revenue Service and how it all works and was told by all and sundry that- processors pay a transaction levy when an animal leaves their own feedlot and goes through their own works . Even then I think it was 35000per month non-levy but nobody was interested so I gave up and pulled my head in for 5 years.Flash forward to 5 weeks ago and through my website justgroundsonline.com- I read an article in the Rural Press from Cattle Council Aust on a plan to get a drip feed from our compulsory transaction levy.So pathetic was it that they were even telling producers that you could "opt in or opt out". This is totally impossible in my understanding of the system and fate interveened and three other associates who all did the same research at different times and came to the same conclusions were able to pool efforts and conclusions. One of them even opened a file with the AFPolice in 2006 and Mc Guarran sat on it. Five weeks later - they have formally lodged a claim for an explanation as is an obligation from you all where public money is administered- but never the less the "cold" shoulder is still being presented to us on a daily basis!!!LET ME SPELL THIS OUT HOW I THINK IT IS HAPPENING-Off the MLA/ALFA website with their feedlot surveys- The year ending Dec 2011On feed 790975 which is 62% of the TOTAL capacity of 1,284.416Total Turnoff 2,501,840. These were survey figures and projected three months ahead but the total capacity is crucial to this arguement!The LRS month by month figures of actual returns is most interesting! This also is for the twelve months ending Dec 2011Total Grainfed units recorded 2,262,446of that total - GRAIN FED NON_LEVY 528577 This equates to 23% no levy paid!My mission is about VOTING ENTITLEMENTS within the MLA structure and I am not trying to suggest anything - just get the answers and the rest will be obvious! Today Laurie Robertson and I agreed that the only scenario that a Processor would pay a transaction Levy - would be IF they are paying on the transfer (which isn't a transaction) from their own feedlot to works. To my mind there are four biggies that qualify here- Swift,Oakey Holdings, Cargil/Teys and Aust Country Choice . We have researched their own sites and got their max capacities and guessed at their feeding cycles to come up with a 100% all year round figure of about 750000 animals (grain fed)So multiply this by the 62% occupancy in the last year we get 465000 cattle approx of these four's own cattle = 20.5% of the total Grain Fed LRS entries. This gives 2.5% for those obscure scenarios that we have considered such as the very few GF cattle that get sold on speck in the saleyards.I am being told by every one that sect 5(1)c says that they must pay - but NO ONE wants to address sect 5(4) which is solely written for PROCESSORS and in effect says that they are taken to be delivered and slaughtered the same as all their Grass fed exemptions- 60 days 300 days - makes no difference - they are exempt according to the act. My research above is pretty compelling to say they don't pay the levy inspite of all the talk to the contary. Even if they were paying against the intent of the ACT -this would be a donation and under the MLA mou - does not give voting entitlements.I have run out of patience on this and unless I get a timely response with something meaningful -I will be publishing this letter on my site and elsewhere.Regards to all,Rob Moore.
-
-
Interesting gathering on the weekend-
See here-
http://www.beefcentral.com/news/article/1446
Have a read of this quote from Inall-
Cattle Council of Australia executive director David Inall said when red meat industry groups achieved consenus on single issues, such as the carbon tax, the existing structure worked very well.
“The perfect result with lobbying is the RMAC chairman on behalf of everybody and Jock Laurie going to parliament house, instead of all six of us going up, and that is a very powerful voice.
What rock has he been living under- We have a carbon Tax and a bs "Carbon Farming Initiative" ENDORSED by Jock Laurie and the NFF.
Another snippet-
A number of producers called for a review to start with a blank sheet of paper, and proposed that money from the Red Meat Industry Fund be used to pay for the review and restructure.
ALEC chairman Peter Kane, who also sits on the board of RMAC, said that path may not be possible under under RMAC’s current charter.
There we go - hiding behind the fraudulent CHARTER which they don't even understand themselves.
When they come to realise the gravity of my claims above- IT WILL be a BLANK bit of paper alright!
-
-
This is the man that has been paid $10000 per debate a few years ago and is about to be given a budget of $ 40 MILLION out of our levy and Taxpayer funds to conduct a project on Cattle emissions!
Honest Government, Fair Rights to property and compensation, Australia and our people strong and proud, reinstatement of values and respect
Forum
ODDS AND ENDS AND OTHER THINGS 859 Replies
Started by Dr Caroline Wright in General. Last reply by Bob Stewart 9 minutes ago.
MENTORING IN THE WORKPLACE AND BEYOND 100 Replies
Started by Dr Caroline Wright in Education. Last reply by Barbara lee 25 minutes ago.
Islamia Anyone? 531 Replies
Started by Bob Stewart in Activism. Last reply by Barbara lee 1 hour ago.
IS AUSTRALIA ADEQUATELY PROTECTED FROM FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC INVASION ? 1243 Replies
Started by Dr Caroline Wright in Politics. Last reply by Geoff Hutchesson 9 hours ago.
Playground, Juke Box and Notepad 936 Replies
Started by Geoff Hutchesson in Entertainment, Books, Movies, Music. Last reply by Geoff Hutchesson 10 hours ago.
UNITED NATIONS AGENDA 21 17 Replies
Started by greg rauchle in Activism. Last reply by Geoff Hutchesson 11 hours ago.
MIGRANTS, ASYLUM-SEEKERS, AND SOCIAL SERVICE BENEFITS (cont.) 1862 Replies
Started by Dr Caroline Wright in Activism. Last reply by Dr Caroline Wright 12 hours ago.
Barb's veggie flower Receipe photo chatt Patch 588 Replies
Started by Barbara lee in Entertainment, Books, Movies, Music. Last reply by Barbara lee 12 hours ago.
GREENPEACE USE SOCIAL MEDIA AND OTHER MEANS FOR ILLEGAL ACTIVITY: NOW I AM OUTRAGED! 935 Replies
Started by Dr Caroline Wright in Activism. Last reply by Dr Caroline Wright 13 hours ago.
EDUCATION 454 Replies
Started by james darby in Politics. Last reply by Russell Scott 18 hours ago.
DAIRY FARMING ISSUES 48 Replies
Started by Alyn Roule in General. Last reply by Ian Davies 22 hours ago.
UNIONS = Relevance or Tactical Manipulation ?? 13 Replies
Started by Alyn Roule in Politics. Last reply by Dr Caroline Wright yesterday.
THE ILLUSION OF THE LEFT - RIGHT PARADIGM 28 Replies
Started by Norm Finkelstein in General. Last reply by Norm Finkelstein yesterday.
Focus People- The Head of this monster (AWU puppet Govt) 117 Replies
Started by Rob Moore in General. Last reply by Alyn Roule yesterday.
PM and the ALP = Past - Current - Future = 2013 338 Replies
Started by Alyn Roule in General. Last reply by Alyn Roule yesterday.
Vegetable Growing + EU + Monsanto etc + Seeds = FUTURE of FOOD 3 Replies
Started by Alyn Roule in Agriculture. Last reply by Alyn Roule yesterday.
LEADERSHIP FOLLOWING THE NEXT FEDERAL ELECTION 173 Replies
Started by Dr Caroline Wright in Politics. Last reply by Dr Caroline Wright yesterday.
TASMANIA AT THE CROSSROADS? 227 Replies
Started by Dr Caroline Wright in General. Last reply by Dr Caroline Wright on Sunday.
Local Government and Agenda 21 is this the reason for the upcoming slated referendum at the Election in 2014 215 Replies
Started by Stephen Cox in Activism. Last reply by Stephen Cox on Sunday.
HOMELESSNESS: THE FORGOTTEN AUSTRALIANS 54 Replies
Started by Dr Caroline Wright in Activism. Last reply by Dr Caroline Wright on Sunday.
Blog Posts
Restore Australia petition
Posted by kate wade on April 12, 2013 at 9:12pm — 4 Comments
PEOPLES SOVEREIGNTY VS PARLIAMENTARY SOVEREIGNTY
Posted by alex and sonja kraskov on March 25, 2013 at 4:30pm — 50 Comments
THE SHEEPLE OF HUMANITY
Posted by Colin Uebergang on March 2, 2013 at 4:36am — 1 Comment
AUSTRALIA MAD-COW COUNTRIES CAN SELL US THEIR BEEF NOW
Posted by Terry S. Singeltary Sr. on February 14, 2013 at 4:10am — 5 Comments
Knowledge of this fact may save you having an accident
Posted by Geoff Hutchesson on February 8, 2013 at 9:11am — 6 Comments
© 2013 Created by Rob Moore.
Powered by
