Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Dale Stiller on January 3, 2012 at 10:53pm

Comments from the original Moratorium Monotony discussion

 

Replies to This Discussion

Reply by Dale Stiller on September 3, 2009 at 8:28pm

When Joh was premier he had a saying that I believe can be found in the book of Proverbs: “without a vision, the people will perish.”

As a leader you must provide hope. The hope of better future; the hope that a victory is possible. In the past many rural people have retreated behind their front gate & hoped that the mad, mad world out there will leave them alone. Unfortunately this will no longer work. We can no longer just whinge amongst ourselves, we need to leave the world know that we are mad as hell & won’t take it any longer! We need a Network moment.

The people need the hope that by standing up “it will do some good”.

 

 

Reply by Steve Truman on September 3, 2009 at 10:19pm

G'day Dale & Cate,

This is not a Joh quote nor a Steve Truman original ....

"Leadership is never given .... its always taken.
"
Agmates is the Forum to do it, we have already seen the "Green shoots" of what can be achieved.

I think we are already seeing the leaders emerging in the Agmates community .... don't you !

"Aqaba is over there, its only a matter of going." Lawrence of Arabia.

What are we waiting for?

 

 

 Reply by Dale Stiller on September 3, 2009 at 11:04pm

I know you put the youtube up about leadership Steve but my mind centred on this angle.

"Aqaba's guns are facing the sea, they can't be turned around to face the land"

I wonder where the Qld State Govt expects the attack to come from against the banning of clearing regrowth? Where would they least expect an attack to come from?

 

Reply by Dale Stiller on September 4, 2009 at 6:12am

You got it Susan, in this case the guns of Aqaba are focused on the bush. They can't be turned on those who live along the coastal strip as that is the locale that they get themselves elected back into the power.

For more than a decade we have witnessed the deplorable situation where for political gain an advantage was made from the drift (a lack of communication & information) that had developed between rural & urban people.

The greatest weapon the bush has is to simply to communicate with our urban fellow citizens. The average bloke & blokette down it the big smoke are reasonable people. They have a brain & will see when the wool has been pulled over their eyes.

 

 

Reply by Rob Moore on September 4, 2009 at 7:38am

Hello people,
I refer you all to my first and only Blog on Agmates- "Has AGFORCE lost the plot?"  Thousands of words $ comments later, nothing has changed accept I think Dale is right in that resolve from that initial outrage has weakened- Lifesoure?... haven't heard a squeak for my $2000- boss gone for a sea change in France I believe! Good luck to them all but it does leave one a bit cynical
The problem was caused by Agforces sell out and forming more groups was a waiste of time and money which should have been used to bring Agforce to account and represent their members. Bit like George Bush who couldn't get Bin Laden in Afganistan so goes off and starts a red Herring war that is still a global disaster and meanwhile the original problem is stronger and more hostile.
All of us have to work out a means of using Agmates info to demand a response.We know they look on here but they also know that until we get the leverage-to ignore us is a very effective policy.Should we present John Cotter with a copy of all these blogs and demand a "please explain" for their upcoming conference at the "Hilton" in Brisbane. We should demand a written response to get them on record as we know they are short on guts! Folks, until we solve this we are just wearing ourselves out chasing our tails-time ,energy and money for no results- so lets get focussed on the elected officals who aren't representing us!

 

 Reply by Steve Truman on September 4, 2009 at 10:07am

G'day Rob,

Re your questions on whats happened to Life Force and your $2,000, you could ask the founder. Peter Mahony who is a member of the community, even though he has never posted a comment.

Hey Rob if you do connect with peter, ask him why Life Force don't spend $572 of the reported $300,000 plus that they raised out of you graziers on an Agmates Group site.

I see from their web site they have 743 members and 1,606 supporters.

The Lifesource web site is Ranked 14,573,231 - which means it gets no traffic. The Agmates site is ranked at 289,721. to give you an idea the Farmonline site today is ranked at 252,379.

You can't find the lifesource site when you google Lifesource - except that they have a paid google click ad. Having an Agmates site would at least get them found in the search engines and save them paying everytime someone clicks through to the site.

I see they also sponsored the lakeside raceway meeting in June - I wonder what that cost.?

They do have a facebook group site which was launched in April. They have 831 members but its a pretty Barron place.

There have been 6 discussion topics posted by 4 members - (the last one on the 14th July.) and just 2 people have replied.

There are 15 Wall posts. On the 29th August - last saturday - this was posted

"We apologise for not keeping this facebook page updated. We will attempt to give more regular posts so you can all be in the loop.
SO WATCH THIS SAPCE

Lifesource"

Rob just compare that to The Property Rights Australia Group site here with just 26 members in 8 weeks there have been 14 Topics posted with 94 comments and 3 blog posts with 56 comment.

You as a member of Lifesource could suggest that part of your $2,000 would be better spent running an Agmates Group site. Now facebook sites are free, but you only get what you pay for.

Mate of course you don't have to do anything of the sort. I'm just sounding off really at how groups like Lifesource, Ag Force (amazing how similar those to names sound) continually try to pretend we don't exist. Why don't they just come on board with what works and get on with it instead of trying to reinvent the wheel?

 

Reply by Rob Moore on September 4, 2009 at 1:25pm

Steve,
Noticed that Natalie suggested early on to the Mahoney's that Lifesource should set up a group on Agmates. Dale asked about the Lakeside event? Both didn't warrant a reply. Bloody rude in my book and I'm sure the old -"we're extremely busy on more vital matters would be used" Doesn't wash with me as -we are all over worked and underpaid.
Micheal Hewitt is in charge now they have gone to France and I don't want to undermine whatever they are doing but will put a note on Linda'sPage re theabove info for her to pass on.

 

 Reply by Steve Truman on September 4, 2009 at 1:28pm

G'day Rob,

Mate sorry to show my ignorance, buts who's gone to France ?

 

 

Reply by Dale Stiller on September 4, 2009 at 4:59pm

Steve,
Peter Mahony & family have left for France for a year. Apparently it was something that was lined up before lifesource was set up. They have an elected board & Mick Hewitt is their chairman.

Lifesource have also employed a General Manager who's name is Ted Callanan
Contact details:

PO Box 43 Rockhampton. Q. 4700

m: 0458 789 100

e: gm@lifesourceqld.com.au

w: lifesourceqld.com.au

 

 

Reply by Steve Truman on September 4, 2009 at 5:30pm

G'day Dale,

Eidsvold or France, makes no difference, Peter for reasons best know to himself would not reply to messages from me or other Agmates community members when he was at Eidsvold so we'll be none the worse off now hes in France.

I'd actually met Peter a couple of times before Lifesource and he seemed like a nice enough bloke.

Reply by Dale Stiller on September 4, 2009 at 4:27pm

When Lifesource were first mentioned on this comment thread, I emailed them & have received this response from Ted Callanan, Lifesources, General Manager.

“Thanks Dale. I have had a look at the discussion and there are some great points coming out. You did a good job or asking the right questions in stimulating the discussion.

The moratorium issue has gone very quiet despite our efforts to find out as much about what is happening as we can. We have in the last week put out media releases to reinvigorate the issue in the media, however as seen in the latest Qld Country Life, our message has been edited and combined with those of AgForce. It is frustrating on our part that there are limited means of communication for the rural sector other than mainstream media and I now notice that the agmates site is an opportunity for us to keep in touch with a wider audience. In the interest of keeping people up to date with progress on the moratorium from what we know, I will follow the site and make comments as required.”

 

 

 

Reply by Steve Truman on September 4, 2009 at 6:51pm

G'day Cate,

You're getting phone calls from people who are reading this but not game to join and have their say would be hilarious if it wasn't so tragic.

Why are people who on the outside amongst the comfort of their peer group appear to be rugged independent individuals so afraid, of everything ?

You know there is an old saying that rings true:

"Those that stand for nothing,
will fall for anything."

Kinda tells you why the Bush is in the mess that its in.

The bush would be a whole lot better off if they just realized that their fear is the problem. All they need to know is:

"There is strength and security in numbers."

They are keeping themselves vulnerable and week by hiding and isolating themselves.

Tragic - really tragic.

 

 

Reply by Ted Callanan on September 4, 2009 at 5:29pm

Great time to start the conversation Dale and thanks for alerting me to this forum. Ron Bahnisch and I have just been lamenting how difficult it is to get potentially contraversial statements into the mainstream media especially when it is labelled as "old news" and together have had some success this week. In recent weeks we have been trying to get the moratorium back into the spotlight and will be ramping that up further as October 7th draws nearer.

There is no doubt that there will be new policy and subsequent regulation after the end of the moratorium and it will only ramp up government control over our land and businesses. Life Source feels it is very improtant for land managers to be aware of what is happening behind the scenes and although the government will not tell anyone what the new policy will look like, we should at least keep up the fight against increased regulation and be prepared for what comes after. Sitting back and waiting for what ever the government throws at us is not constructive and wouldn't be tolerated by any other sector.

Life Source as an environmental group that supports agriculture as a positive environmental solution will be presenting the environmental credentials of agriculture to the urban voters in SEQ in coming weeks as well as communicating back to supporters and the industry through the rural media. If you want regular updates of what we are up to, we have an email bulletin that comes out every couple of weeks and you can register through our website or send me your email address.

We have been a little quiet in recent weeks while we get our own house in order behind the scenes to make sure the organisation is set up for the long term and we have a clear direction for the future. Our founding members have also had to catch up on their own work at home that has been on hold since Life Source kicked off. We have had good support from the industry (not nearly as good as reported by Steve unfortunately) and will soon be widening our target for support to the urban and corporate sector. This will allow us to pump out some serious promotions in SEQ and the urban media.

The moratorium is only one issue on our desk obviously with the new Reef Plan just being announced and the ongoing Wild Rivers and carbon debates still raging. We needed to take some time to get our house in order to make sure we are still here in the long term as these issues and threats are going to continue to be pushed onto agriculture as long as the industry remains divided and has no solid defence in place.

I am excited to find this forum and will keep enagaged in the future. I will also remain in close contact with the electronically elusive Ron Bahnisch. Keep up the good fight.

Ted Callanan - General Manager Life Source Qld

 

 

Reply by Rob Moore on September 4, 2009 at 6:40pm

Hello Ted,
Glad to see you are on the job and have joined up.You will realise by now that the 400 odd spin doctors and other associated parasites that Anna Bligh employs to make our life difficult is an uphill battle.It will become apparent to you soon that Agfarce are so compromised that they can only be a liability to any Group fighting for fairness for the bush
What you have here on Agmates is the ONLY other outlet for media other than the joined at the hip Rural Press and Agforce. Dear old Auntie ABC is full of pap stories- supplied by our enemies to the few lazy uncontroversial reporters they employ. There are so few of us left that even show a pulse that the days of fence sitting are long gone.
After reading Steve's figures on site ratings I took heart because often it seems that there is only about 50 of us very active and I know I get sick of myself let alone the rest of you all. What the figures show is a lot of people having a look and this is reassuring. Computer competitancy is a problem to a lot of the people we need helping us but I know in my case this site has updated me by400% in a short time in that regard.
Given that this site is like a shopping centre of like minded I would recommend you get a community page and have links from the web page and facebook to an Agmates Lifesource -Group page. There could be benefits both ways then(Cate hadn't heard of you) and likewise will expose Agmates to others. Good Luck with it all-I know it is easy to criticise and harder to deliver.

 

 

Reply by Dale Stiller on September 4, 2009 at 6:57pm

Thanks everyone, after we have had a go at everyone lets get back to the original question of how we can channel the anger in the bush to action & give hope to landholders that they will do some good if they move out of their comfort zones?

Second question that goes back to the guns of Aqaba. The spin doctors will be focusing their attack on the bush by keeping their electoral base misinformed. How can we get our information through? Ted, Lifesource has been specialising in this arena & have found it hard going via mainstream media. Just like Agmates is a community based organisation, what are the possibilities of delievery through urban community organisations; community radio, suburbian newspapers?

 

 Reply by Dale Stiller on September 5, 2009 at 2:45pm

On page 2 of this comment thread I quoted from an email I recieved from Ted of Lifesource that included this sentence - "We have in the last week put out media releases to reinvigorate the issue in the media, however as seen in the latest Qld Country Life, our message has been edited and combined with those of AgForce."

Well the article, What will follow the land clearing moratorium?, is available on line & you can go there & comment on the topic. I wonder if someone ought to go there & inform the viewers of the farmonline site that the issue has been discussed on another rural site & invite them to come & have a look. It may not stay up too long.

 

 

Reply by Christopher Leeds on September 5, 2009 at 4:32pm

Good to see and welcome to Ted Callanan on agmates answering queries about Life Source I note the elusive Ron discussed with me some months ago how he had been in contact with Ted and that PRA was working along with Life Source on issues we are facing, this is an example of what Ron is doing all the time when we can't find him. I note on Life Sources last information E-mail they posted a link to PRA thanks Ted this is an example of how we are working together. Now lets get down to the business of attacks and blockades Aqaba style. The easiest targets and one that would wake up the city's to how things work would be to blockade the coal fired power stations in the name of reducing carbon pollution.(we better run a diesel generator down to Susan before we do it) Imagine how it would go we could just have a daily electronic poll on what carbon reduction target we would meet today and reduce Power Generation accordingly. I guarantee the by the end of one month there would be 90% plus in favor vote to scrap CPRS. We could even hang "Greenpeace" sign's on the blockade to divert any backlash against to bush. In any case Greenpeace would probably think this a great idea and give us some signs.

 

Reply by Ted Callanan on September 11, 2009 at 6:25pm

A hearty hello to all the Agmates out there. I have been offline for a while but have had the pleasure of catching up on a few of the discussions tonight. Great to see another politician with a forum as well. Better than any Twitter thingo from Ruddy.

Personally, I like the idea of blockading power stations. Let the cities realise their exposure to the CPRS for a while and feel the pain of having something taken away without any consultation or compensation. The cynic in me says though, that such an action would only strengthen the resolve to punish agriculture further to reach their targets as the closing down of our sector won't stop their plasma TV's working overnight....

Reply by Dale Stiller on September 11, 2009 at 6:50pm

Ted, I'm all for some action but it does need some careful thought so it dosn't come back against us. How do you rock the apathetic urban lounge lizard sitting in front of the plasma without putting the majority of the poluation offside? Blockade a group they have no sympathy with either, policitians car pool?

 

 

Reply by Christopher Leeds on September 11, 2009 at 7:10pm

Ted Glad to see you like the idea of blockading stations I really do think this would wake up the city and would come into effect hellishly quickly compared to some thing like not selling rural produce or even a transport strike. It would be nearly as instantaneous as turning the light or plasma TV off.

 

 

Reply by Christopher Leeds on September 11, 2009 at 6:59pm

Gee Susan I did not know you were one of them- you must bear my sense of humour but I think we could work with them. Yeah I did mean you would need the power plant we would not want to inconveinance one of our good blogers and would want you to keep us up to date with the mood of the city

 

Permalink Reply by Dale Stiller on January 3, 2012 at 11:04pm

Comments from the original Where's Ron? discussion

 

Reply by Ron Bahnisch on September 5, 2009 at 9:39am

Hi Agmates
I don’t have a lot of difficulty collaborating with Ted Callinan. As a working farmer I drive past his front gate almost every day. If Agmates have the impression I am missing in action, you are not members of PRA.

Firstly, a bit of personal history.
Last century, forty years ago, I single handledly had a brush with the League of Rights infiltrating the Graingrowers Organisation. When we started the Cattlemens Union the League of Rights warned everybody “There’s a very dangerous man in that organisation”.

I appreciate the fact, Steve, that you have kept the extreme right wing at bay in Agmates.

I subsequently led the successful CU blockade of the Gracemere Saleyards in 1976 - the first time in our history a bunch of conservative graziers took radical action to get coverage in the city media. For 25 years the CU at conferences, at times attended by over a thousand members, took Prime Ministers and Premiers to task in face to face confrontations.

On one occasion Rick Farley, without notice, called on me from the podium to move a motion critical of Sit Joh’s policies.
Joh knew me personally and took a fatherly attitude to the criticism.

The CU never took a backward step in representing its members’ interests.

I was also active in the National Party and after wearing out a new vehicle as Central Zone Vice President, and years on the state management committee, I was awarded an Honorary Life membership.

I mention the above to illustrate that I do have some cred when it comes to representation, whether political or the agri variety.

Last year, due to other member’s sickness, I was the last left standing on the PRA board. Now at age 74, I have landed this job.

Farmers for half a century that I know of have been attacked relentlessly from the right and the left of politics. The right calls us agri socialists and the left calls us rednecks. We get the first appellation from elements of the Liberal Party and the second from the latte set and the greens.

The only, and I mean ONLY, hope of the side now Is Barnaby Joyce. If he and the young man from WA weren’t around, we’d be wandering rudderless, everybody’s fall guy.

In the agri political arena, Agforce is now hopelessly compromised by accepting money to do government agency work. Rural press has built a firewall around Agforce and their constitution protects them from their member’s ire. With a multi-commodity set up on corporate lines, it was always going to happen.

So.what to do?
Support Barnaby and support Lifesource.

PRA has a fighting fund to run court cases, which is our specialty. 13 wins in 13 appearances in 9 years. As well, I take it as my duty to expose extreme environmentalism wherever it occurs. As Bill Heffernan so emphatically stated on QandA on Thursday night, the lunacy of locking up the north should become obvious to an electorate eating food imported from China.

 

 

Reply by Steve Truman on September 5, 2009 at 9:53am

G'day Ron,

Great to see you. I know your credentials and that your have proven over many years by your actions that you are a leader. Hence my agitating to get you on here. :-)

Welcome.

 

Reply by Greg Blackmore on September 7, 2009 at 7:24am

It's great to see you making comment Ron - maybe you can help this splinter group become an even more credible representation of the bush and regional people. As Rob Moore mentions very few, if any, in elected position on AgForce have dared to come on board and make comment.

 

Reply by Rob Moore on September 5, 2009 at 10:48am

Hello Ron and Lorna,
Great to see you comment and we need guidance with all your experience and I can only dream what it must have been like to have a strong Cattlemans Union.Yesterday inadvertantly Steve got you on and by me mentioning Lifesource in a comment Micheal and Ted are now involved.
Thanks for backing my views on Agforce today.Larry Acton did his best but it has been hopeless ever since. To me it is the root of most of our troubles. If they represented rural people as they are meant to there would have been no need for us to spend so much time and money in these splinter groups that try and do the dirty work that they won't touch.
I have found that this site puts us all under one roof and gives us the scope to combine our ideas and strategies.eg PRA,Lifesource ,Climate Sceptics, ABA,Agmates SFF Group,Wild Rivers and Reef Rescue topics. It occured to me that with the Agforce Annual Conference next Fri-Sat that there may just be time enough to organise a symbolic Protest.
It has frustrated me that there are heaps of good Disscussions followed by many good informative comments all over this site are stored unresponded to by those responsible. How would it be if all the above were summarised and put in a package from each Group with a clear list of action requests. If we could use this Conference to symbolicly hand them over to John Cotter.
If the media were oilled up and had a copy of requests we (AGMATES) will have officially "tabled" our list to the circus that sets the agenda.Depending on how Agforce handled this it wouldn't nesessarily undermine them as a lot of their members are looking for a way to divorce the QLD Govt.
Our beloved Premier and NFF President Crombie are guest speakers for god sake! They will be lecturing members on Food and Fibre requirements in a carbon constrained economy! There are two sponsers of all the speakers- Qld Primary Ind and Fisheries,Nature Refuges(@#? probably a branch office of wilderness society).Members have to pay good money for this riverting entertainment. Anna Bligh speaks at 10.30am on Sat 12 sept,exactly one week.Noel Pearson's group and John Faifax could do a file on Reef Rescue to be included as well. Enough for now as these are just some ideas to consider.

 

Reply by Greg Blackmore on September 7, 2009 at 7:18am

"It has frustrated me that there are heaps of good Disscussions followed by many good informative comments all over this site are stored unresponded to by those responsible" - Rob, I think this comment of yours says a lot - AgForce never seems to respond to what they perceive as splinter groups - out of what you have previously called professional jealosy - and possibly they also believe that they are the annointed ones? - by whom, or just the Govt cash cow in leiu of membership. Agforce had a great opportunity when it started as a new broom 10 years ago, however it is now harder than ever to change the perception even if the reality did somehow change. I have said before that even going back 6 years there has been lack of respect for membership and branch resolutions and even state council members.

 

 

Reply by Greg Blackmore on September 11, 2009 at 11:27am

Rob, The editorial by new Agforce CEO in this weeks QCL states in part - "But the power of these organisations and the key to delivering value to the general populous is to harness the collective intelligence of members..." In another quote " I understand...the pitfalls of not knowing and understanding what drives members..." Maybe we can expect a move back to reference to "grass roots" input!

 

Reply by Rob Moore on September 11, 2009 at 1:31pm

Don't They get it! WE DON"T WANT THEM TO DEAL WITH GOVT ON MY BEHALF as they don't represent what I want!I gave Robert Walker an ear full over the interferance that is being cooked up over the Stock Routes.
Another DONE DEAL just been announced and community consultation finishes on October 19th. We have one through here that hasn't been used in my lifetime and the survey fencing and water implications could easily cost me $50-60K. Just a blatant money grab and I would buy it at the unimproved value but they wouldn't sell it as it has biodiversity apparently.
They can't have it both ways. Any way WHO is AGFARCE working for -me or the state Govt?

 

Reply by Steve Truman on September 11, 2009 at 1:35pm

G'day Rob,

Mate you asked:

Any way WHO is AGFARCE working for -me or the state Govt?

To get the answer for that - Follow the money trail. If not See my comment here. That will answer your question.

 

 

Reply by Rob Moore on September 11, 2009 at 1:54pm

Half there wages are paid by by the Govt , the conferance is 100% sponswered by the govt. I know for a fact that some of the delegates from Roma area flew down to Brisbane for it. Who paid for that? I bet I know.(only a four hour drive!)
Like all the MLA meetings I've been to - we drive our old commodores 1000s of kms and stay on the edge of town and all the MLA staff fly in get hire cars ,stay in the centre of town and pick up an av salary of $117000 per annum. One year there i put $13000 into MLA in a zero profit drought year
IS it any wonder that I can't cut them any slack.

 

 

Reply by Greg Blackmore on September 11, 2009 at 3:34pm

If we keep throwing bullets in the fire - when they go off - they may start hitting home and the members may realise that something needs to be done to get back control of Agforce. I believe Rob mentioned that his wife was descended from William Wallace - one of my ancestors was Adam Gordon, one of two men chosen, in 1320, to take the letter, known as the Declaration of Arboath, to the Pope to reverse the sentence of ex communication on Robert the Bruce. This letter contained the famous words "For so long as an hundred remain alive we are minded never a whit to bow beneath the yoke of English dominion. It is not for glory, riches or honours that we fight: it is for liberty alone, the liberty which no good man relinquishes but with his life."

 

 

Reply by Greg Blackmore on September 11, 2009 at 5:18pm

Hi Cate, The ongoing difficulty is that Agmates is still only 370 members and about 10 of them are throwing bullets in the fire. AgForce members, who I still think are the "salt of the earth", number 4,000 enterprises (husband and wife are counted to make 8,000) and they have active branch members who still turn up and see their "resolutions" end up in the data base - how many branch resolutions are debated at Conference? - most pass through the commodity boards or state council first. Commodity boards are more independent, however state council is led fairly effectively, from my experience some 6 years ago by the President, CEO and close executive. Many decisions are taken by the executive for later ratification by the state council. I still think that the 4,000 members are an asset to your cause and should be helped to bring about change. Even in the heady days of the CU, they never got more than about 50% of enterprises (20.000) ever join up. The CU would not have gone to Govt for funding opportunities and all dealings with Govt were done by members with oratory and debating ability as well as "dirt under their fingernals" (not staff). Starting again is a difficult task as you guys are finding out. As background I worked at "Minnel" for Peter Roberts (President UGA) and also later at "Tartrus" for Graham McCamley. In the early 90's I was for 3 years a field officer for the Cattlemens Union in Southern Qld and all of NSW. From 1999 to 2003, I also worked for AgForce as Central Queensland and North Qld membership officer. I am not sure that a repeated call for all to resign from Agforce is going to achieve what everyone wants, unless there is something much better already in place. As you all know the Govt doesn't choose to listen to anybody, let alone rural producers with 2% of the political vote and maybe a knock on effect through business of 10%! It also previously proven impossible to unite rural Aussies. Steve wil make the comment that not all visitors/readers to the Agmates site are members and the numbers watching the site for opinion may be in their thousands. I know of at least two well regarded AgForce members of integrity who have been or are in positions of influence who are keeping tabs on this site and offer agreement on many of the points raised by Agmates. I know what Steve's comment will be - in the line of "Where's Ron?"

 

 

Reply by Christopher Leeds on September 5, 2009 at 3:35pm

I have to give full support to Ron and Lorna on an excellent job they are doing in between running their own substantial family cattle business they both devote a lot of effort in running PRA. I am in regular contact with them just because we do not see or hear of Ron do not think he is not there working be hind the scenes. He does write quite a few letters ,but has the usual trouble getting the media to publish them. Ron is constantly researching and connecting alliances, working out political blocking strategies like only Ron knows how. If he was a dingo trapper the dingo would be in the trap before he saw Ron. Also our other board members who are constantly working behind the scenes there is a lot more to PRA than the Public front and also there are PRA members devoting their support ,time and money all volunteered with no strings attached. This ensures PRA is totally independent and devoted to the cause of members Australian property and business owners.

 

 

Reply by Fiona Knox on September 10, 2009 at 9:15am

Well said Chris. The other thing that Ron does that takes up lot of his time besides the things you have mentioned is the phone calls he recieves from both PRA members and non members with problems needing some sort of advice. These calls usually take place of an evening when people have finished work for the day.

And as you and I both know Steve, Ron and myself both tried numerous times to sign up to your site with a lot of difficulty and after numerous tries gave up and had to call you to fix the problems we were having.

Ron doesn't need anyone to stick up for him I know he can do it perfectly well by himself, it just sounded to me like you thought Ron was on holiday. Join PRA and you will soon see how much time Ron does put in to his commitments. And thank goodness for Lorna

 

 

Reply by Christopher Leeds on September 11, 2009 at 6:50pm

Greg I was just wondering do you have any way of confirming how many members AgForce actually have. I have heard they claim 8,000 like you said but no one can tell me how it can be proved.

 

 

Reply by Greg Blackmore on September 11, 2009 at 7:56pm

Hi Chris, My figures are 6 years ago so there may have been some attrition since then that was not covered by new signings. As every year went by after it's inception, it became harder and harder to get new memberships, however I don't think that were too many losses up till then. I will endeavour to get some idea, however I think that my associate membership through my sister in law at Clermont has lapsed due to their non renewal (Weekly newsletter has stopped coming).

 

 

Reply by Christopher Leeds on September 11, 2009 at 6:36pm

I don't know what the answer is but I think we have to realise that AgForce has been very effectively turned on the salt of the earth rank and file members interests they are supposed to represent by a very smart Government strategy. I don't think the rank and file would be able to change this situation with out major upheaval with in AgForce, as the first thing the Government would do if AgForce did not toe the line would be to with draw funding making it impossible for Agforce to function in the manner they do at present. Lets face it when people get comforts they are reluctant to give them up, no more air travel,expensive hotels,plenty of staff, meeting fees and plush conferences, no way will I give that up. Also I look and feel important standing beside the Premier and Ministers even if they are just using me for a promotional exercise surly most people don't, or don't want, to know this fact?I still continue to be a member of AgForce with the only expectation that you are the first to be able get to know what the Goverment is doing through AgForce because they are part of the Government.

 

Reply by Christopher Leeds on September 11, 2009 at 7:17pm

Thats right Susan no point storming out of the room just because things are not going as you would like.

 

 

Reply by Greg Blackmore on September 12, 2009 at 11:22am

Chris, I was thinking about your comment above –

"I don't think the rank and file would be able to change this situation with out major upheaval with in AgForce" - and there may be an easy answer.

When Agforce started to look for funding to undertake advisory work such as property mapping, to replace the services being de-constructed in the QDPI, they set up Agforward to undertake these commercial activities.

Therefore to take the Agforce representation away from the government "hand that feeds it" may be as simple as de-mergergering Agforward from Agforce and leaving it to stand alone as a separate private company with directors and no members, only shareholders (possibly even list on ASX).

Agforce would then remain an autonomous membership only body with no links at all to Agforward and operate on membership subscription alone to keeps this autonomy.

This is an important bit –

Directors of Agforward could NOT be be representative directors on Agforce commodity boards or state councillors at the same time.

Agforce councillors/directors could not become Directors of Agforward for say 5 years after serving on Agforce.

Conversely Agforward Directors could not serve on Agforce boards and council for 5 years after being a Director of Agforward.

In addition shareholders of Agforward may not hold elected positions in Agforce at any time. The converse may not be required.

Eventually these two organisations would then grow apart, each providing their own set of services.

 

 

Reply by Christopher Leeds on September 12, 2009 at 8:41pm

Greg, I think what you propose is a good idea but the complexity of is going to make it hard for the rank and file to understand and therefore implement. This advisory work AgForce got funding for was them basically being paid to get rank and file members to accept Government policy. In the example of property mapping I assume you are referring to PVM's this was the Government getting land holders to accept the Government's interpretation of the vegetation on their property's for ever after, but it did not as we now know have any commitment what so ever from the Government, as we can clearly see now with the Moratorium on Regrowth clearing. This was promoted in good faith I believe by AgForce as a way of locking your country as far as development opportunities are concerned so at least a land holder could plan his family's future. As an average rank and file member of AgForce I have never differentiated between AgForce and AgForward. I always, as I am sure most other AgForce members did, assumed that AgForce was running those workshops
My simple solution is for AgForce to give all this AgForward work back to the DPI, as it is all Government work, that is I hope funded by the Government, forgive me for being suspicious that AgForce is at present subsidising Government promotion of Government policy.
We do need our old freindly adviser the DPI back to full strength, remember when you had a problem with weed or worms you would not hesitate just pick up the phone ring the DPI if they could not solve it there and they would come out and do what ever was necessary.
Now you would not be game! The only people,with a few exceptions, employed there are there to prosecute landholders for whatever reason they can.
It would be nice also if DNR would go back to collecting land rent or something productive like that!And likewise stop prosecuting or should we describe it for what it really is" persecuting" farmers in this wonderfully democratic state of Queensland ,that is for SE Queensland, the rest can just take what we dish out to you as we live by mob rule here.
AgForce should revert back to the old role models of UGA,CU,CGA,GGA and Dairy Men's Association that it replaced, these organisations while small did represent their members.Remember when the dairy farmers got well payed for their milk and the consumers were supplied with cheap milk! Now half the dairy farmers are out of business and the rest get nothing for their milk, strangely the consumer is paying three times what they used to pay for milk, I believe this does deserve questioning?
Frankly I think AgForce has just got to big for its boots and lost touch with reality. PRA is doing a niche job that in reality AgForce should be doing!
"Agforce would then remain an autonomous membership only body with no links at all to Agforward and operate on membership subscription alone to keeps this autonomy." Greg I agree this is the key to AgForce representing the membership's interests again, hell as a PRA director we do not get payed anything except hotel accommodation the annual conference (that does not include meals or drinks). We directors do this job because are committed to the success of rural farms, business small and large in Australia. We are realists prepared to stand our ground and oppose any policy that threatens the viability of these enterprises.
Hope I have not been too long winded but I've had a bit of time to night! Regards

 

 

Reply by Greg Blackmore on September 12, 2009 at 9:47pm

The strongest debate that will come up against a de-merger will be the financial one. When the CU, UGA and GGA merged 10 years ago it was because two of them were having financial difficulties and it was hoped there would be economies in a new united body and they could then survive on memberships. The advent of Agforward and seeking commercial (or subsidised) opportunities came about 3 years later. As most here have rightly pointed out, the organisation then became a reason for it's own existence, not the members. There would be a lot of pain in cutting a new "cloth" to suit a diminished budget. I can remember that as a field officer for the CU there were no hotel rooms - and there was no option but to stay with members, which built better trust, and members were only to happy to accomodate us - and we got lots of grass roots feedback that was valued by head office.

 

 

Reply by Greg Blackmore on September 12, 2009 at 8:56pm

Hear Hear - good points Chris - and it would be good to get DPI back, however I assumed that would be a harder one to achieve, than just ex communicating the govt funded part of Agforce, which already has a seperate entity. The reply was not long winded - just good debate and opinion - without this modern technology of today only your neigbours over the fence and friends at local sales would have known your thoughts. (acknowledging of course that you may have a wider audience through your commitment and work for PRA)

 

Permalink Reply by Dale Stiller on January 3, 2012 at 11:29pm

These are the comments from the original, AgForce Capitulates discussion

 

Reply by Rob Moore on September 15, 2009 at 7:55pm

This should be Agforces NEW theme song-

Dirty Deeds (DEALS) done Dirt Cheap"

 

 

Reply by Ernest Green on September 17, 2009 at 2:46pm

Cate
Last time i looked we live in a democracy. Why on earth do you pay to be a member of AgForce, when clearly, you can't stand a bar of it, its policies, its elected representatives and its members.

Were you in Brisbane at the AgForce conference? Do you attend branch meetings and contribute to the policy making of AgForce? Do you contact your elected representatives? Have you ever, in fact, put your hand up for election as an officebearer? We live in a democracy and the grassroots members own AgForce.

I am offended by the portrayal of AgForce members as a bunch of apathetic nobodies who won't join in spraying vitriol. There are many loyal and active mambers of AgForce who do engage in the activities of AgForce ; they are entitled to be offended as well.

 

 

Reply by Ernest Green on September 17, 2009 at 9:17pm

Exactly my point John, any AgForce member has the option to resign.
I am not aware that the AgForce executive agrees with the tree clearing legislation, nor am I aware that AgForce can enter into an agreement with the government on behalf of landholders.
However, as I said, AgForce is owned by the grassroots members and not, the government, so I as a member, don't intend wasting the money I pay to be a member by not being an active member and attending branch meeetings etc and putting my point of view forward,
Of course anyone has the right to voice an opinion. I have no idea if the AgForce executives are incensed by comments on this site or not.
The simple fact is that I have read posts here that chastise farm organisations who won't sign up to Agmants and I am replying as a member of one of the said organsations who also happens to a member of ths site.
I disagree with another post about the definition of vitriol There are insulting comments by some posters on this site and examples such as "I'd like to lock them in their offices.....with a few mixes of "chemicals"...to me, is anothe reason why some people regard us as rednecks who don't count. The site abounds with coarse language disguised as "b......t and b......s"
I will continue to read discussions and contribute. A site such as this is there for all to participate, I'm sure. Debate is healthy, in my view.

 

 

Reply by Steve Truman on September 17, 2009 at 9:35pm

G'day Ernest,

Good on you mate. I'm actually extremely pleased you are having your say. As you know I'm very critical of AgForce and the farm organizations.

I do however respect your right to hold and express a different opinion. Open and robust debate is always welcome and you like I and any other member are free to express and debate the issues within the bounds of our members code of conduct.

 

Reply by Christopher Leeds on September 17, 2009 at 10:51pm

Good evening,Ernest , while any AgForce member has the option to resign this is not in my view the best option under any circumstances at this stage anyway. AgForce can not and is not entering into agreements with the government on behalf of land holders, but they did some years ago accept some money (8million is the figre banded about) as part of an AgForward blueprint for the bush scheme. Apparently an understanding was reached with the Beatie Government at the time that"Tree Clearing was to be taken off AgForce's agenda", and it most surly was. This particular sell out of a portion of the grassroots members at the time was the beginning of AgForce's reliance on Government funding and the day grassroots members lost ownership of AgForce. AgForce is selling members interests down the drain by being payed to promote Government agendas on tree clearing, wild rivers and carbon trading to name a few. Surly you can not tell me that those AgForce "Carbon Workshops", are anything but ramming ETS down our throats! Now I do not hold any ill wishes of any kind for AgForce executives and have not read any of the kind you are referring to, as a moderator of this site if I did they would be removed immediately. Like wise this site does not abound with bad language. Debate sure is healthy, I am not sure if AgForce executives even read the comments on this site, but they should and would learn from them. I hardly think AgForce would get incensed by anything here, they would be used to it.

 

 

Reply by Greg Blackmore on September 18, 2009 at 7:17am

"QLD farmer members should resign their membership of the organization - en mass"
This constant call for AgForce members to resign makes one think that there is a vested commercial interest at play here. Should AgForce demise, does that mean AgMates will become the new voice of the bush? Not just yet ,with 400 members and other than voicing concerns amongst themselves, that no doubt the AgForce executives can read for a barometer of opinion, what processes does AgMates have to negotiate with Government. I have said previously that there are lot of good people in AgForce and some of these do hold elected positions. At least with 4,000 enterprises represented it accounts for a quarter of the enterprises in Queensland and is worth saving, if that is the word for it. Maybe there has to be some changes and the conflict of interest via Government funding to AgForward has to be resolved. Maybe the other 75% of producers have to stand up and become members and through their representation make the changes that are required. AgForce did evolve from the older organisations that enjoyed better loyalty and were, in their final days, financially constrained by lack of membership that there was no choice but to amalgamate. Unfortunaltely, few AgForce ececutives have commented here. Possibly they regard the site as a splinter group and to comment would give AgMates even more credibility, which no doubt it will achieve in time by itself as it's membership grows.

 

 

Reply by Greg Blackmore on September 18, 2009 at 9:10am

His Susan, Your opinion sounds fairly accurate - so no need to apologise for it. One of the ongoing problems with all rural based membership lobby groups has been membership itself. Most (75% now and possibly 50% during previous organisations) don't join. Why pay for something you can get for nothing. To try and ovecome this the lobby group has to offer some commercial benefits, advantages or real discounts to attract membership. (a good example would be RACQ). At the amalgamations of the three previous organisations there was also an amount of bitterness and grieving over a peceived lost baby to which they were fiercly loyal, so the loyalty was never passed over to AgForce. "We'll, wait and see how they go, before we join". Unfortunately, at the time there seemed to be no option, financially, but to amalgamate and hopefully speak with one voice. The word for this was "Unity" and the governments only had to deal with one body (easy). I am not sure I agree with this as commodity specific bodies may have been more effective and didn't have to compromise for the benefit of other commodities. Now we have the "Splinter" groups and just who is the "splinter" and who is the "wood" these days. Is more than one dog barking going to have more effect - probably, provided they are all barking from the same "hymm Book". Not easy to achieve, but it essential that all current lobby groups communicate with each other (and listen to the opinions of community forums such as AgMates, bearing in mind that they are responsible only to their membership and their views) and approach governments on a united front - not splintered.

 

 

Reply by Rob Moore on September 19, 2009 at 7:56am

AQIS and PIC fees

In a move strongly supported by AgForce, the Senate has defeated plans for implementation of new 'reform' charging regimes by AQIS. The reforms, which came about as a recommendation of the Beale Review, were supposed to be introduced with a parallel increase of over $160 million in federal funding. The red meat industry and other agricultural industries have lobbied hard against the new proposed regime, especially after proposals for reform (to save costs in export certification) appear to have been rejected. Combined with deficiencies in Biosecurity Queensland budgets, AgForce Cattle has resolved to push even harder against the proposal for property (PIC) fees and brand fees. This view was reinforced at a meeting with the Biosecurity Queensland's CEO this week.

Stock route review AgForce Cattle's Steve Taylor and Peter Hall have represented producer interests on the stock route assessment panel and the Queensland Government, after a long period of consultation, released a regulatory impact statement which is open for comment until 19 October. A full explanation of the RIS is available HERE. Please note that no Permit to Occupy applications or changes to water agreements will be processed under current rules, and that progress on these is not expected until later in the year.

Two items in Agforce rag that came last night.
Couple of points-so Biosecurity Qld is short of cash,what a shame. Here we have it again-PIC and brand fees on the menu.We all got the mandatory NLIS jammed onto us and has cost me alot of money all ready. Obviously i have to have a PIC for that and the brands office is the last (but one in a hundreth chance)chance of catching stock theft. noone looks at the mass of print outs and figures andthere are many errors. It has never been easier to sell someone elses stock as noone looking and noone cares. This is the govts obligation to fund not something Agforce has to grovell over to get as slightly less severe spanking.
re Stock Routes, I see that "after a long period of consultation" we have a done deal. THIS IS UNBELIEVABLE. Agforce is nothing more than a branch office of the state Labor Party. TELL them to get stuffed-there will be no negotiation till every single member has been canvassed! As i said I read about it first in the QCL (didn't buy it ,saw someones copy)

 

 

Reply by Greg Blackmore on September 19, 2009 at 7:22am

Hi Cate, Opinion still valued and if everyone took the interest and had the courage to stand up with the facts at meetings, like you did at St Geroge, a lot of problems may go away. With regard to lobby organisations, another of the big hurdles for rural people is their independence, firstly not to get involved in the first place in the public domain and secondly the reluctance of rural organisations that have a similar purpose to actually get on with each other and lobby on a unified basis. Historically and, even now, there is more interest in the groups sniping at each other (maybe this profesional jealosy thing), and this is a luxury rural producers/voters (the 2.5%) can ill afford. Polys, and parties of either persuasion, aren't going to bother to listen to a minority unless the minority has swayed the majority (wider community/city folk) to think the same way and it may effect an election outcome.

Permalink Reply by Dale Stiller on January 3, 2012 at 11:40pm

Comments from the original Moratorium Ends - Regrowth Regulations Start discussion

 

Reply by Dale Stiller on October 6, 2009 at 9:25pm

Found a bit of light reading, Vegetation Management (Regrowth Clearing Moratorium) Bill 2009

Don't forget the Explanatory Notes.

 

This is John Cotter's view - Regrowth laws recognises good land management: AgForce

 

 

Reply by Steve Truman on October 6, 2009 at 11:46pm

G'day Dale,

The Headline in the link you provided above to Farmonline 6th October 2009

One million hectares grabbed in new regrowth clearing bans

Lets go back just 19 days ago -

From a farmOnline article 17th October Issue - page 9. Agforce comes out strongly -

Bligh to move on regrowth:

"AgForce has consistently argued that Queensland landholders will not accept to loss of a single hectare of productive land. "

So the result - "1 million hectares locked, V's "Queensland landholders will not accept to loss of a single hectare of productive land."

In 19 days Agforce has gone from Not accepting one hectare of productive land lost - to

Agforce -

"Regrowth result recognises good land management

Queensland's new vegetation management law, which comes into effect on Thursday, October 8, recognises AgForce's policy input on behalf of broadacre producers who are sustainably managing their land."

What changed in the 19 days in between ?

 

 

 Reply by Dale Stiller on October 7, 2009 at 10:24am

ALL resourse management laws in Qld have been written in this fashion since somewhere around 2001. Its a major shift away from how our laws have been written in the past. It is, I believe unjust. I have attached a document of the opinion of a promanant constitutional lawyer.

Attachments:

• Suri Ratnapala, constitutional vandalism.pdf, 57 KB

 

Permalink Reply by Dale Stiller on October 7, 2009 at 7:52pm

Here are a further two news stories that were put to air or the web today.

Firstly the ABC radio Country Hour ran a story they called Tree clearing in state parliament. Look for the audio links at the bottom of the page, the first an interview with Jeff Seeney, LNP Natural Resources spokesman; the second with Ted Callanan, Life Source.

FarmOnline editor Michael Thomson has put up a very good blog entry called The perversity of green politics. Well worth a read everyone; look in the comments & you will see that PRA's fearless leader has beat us all to this story.

 

 

Reply by Dale Stiller on October 15, 2009 at 6:15am

In Micheal Thomson's article, The perversity of green politics, he speculates on the posibility of a tie up with future carbon trading & regrowth clearing laws.
That should mean that there are huge volumes of carbon being sequestered in pre-1990 regrowth that is now available to sell on the carbon market. The questions that were not answered in Government’s announcements were: who will do the selling and who will benefit in the carbon accounting stakes - the State or the landholder?"
Next day on the WWF web site Nick Heath writes New landclearing laws won't keep bulldozers at bay-
"The coalition of conservation groups expects landclearing to re-emerge as a key policy issue after the adoption of an Emissions Trading Scheme, as governments and businesses aim to reduce carbon emissions and seek 'green carbon' economic opportunities"
The following quote can be found in a joint statement called Plan B: An Agenda For Immediate Climate Action issued by a coalition of green groups
"Queensland and NSW both contain significant areas of re-growth forest and
woodlands that are now significant carbon stores. There is no mechanism to protect
these carbon stocks and prevent GHG emissions from clearing. 16 million hectares
of re-growth is at risk of clearing in Qld alone."

 

 

Reply by Chris Walton on October 15, 2009 at 6:38am

Lets stop the ETS then we'll go after our right to clear our land however we choose or at least force the government to pay back freeholding money plus interest as this last legislation has just brought freehold land in line with GHPL in terms of clearing rights.

 

Permalink Reply by Dale Stiller on January 4, 2012 at 6:13am

Found another old discussion about the regrowth moratorium, I will add it here as comment.

 

WWF QLD New Land Clearing Laws - Not Enough

• Posted by Steve Truman on October 7, 2009 at 10:16am in Property Rights Australia

 

New land clearing laws that lock up a further one million hectares (2.2 million acres) of Agricultural land in Queensland come into force tomorrow.

However if landholders thought for one minute that would placate green and conservation groups - they should think again.

WWF, the Queensland Conservation Council, Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland and The Wilderness Society are voicing their disappointment.

Speaking on behalf of the groups, the WWF's Nick Heath said:

 

" ... the new laws protected only 800,000 hectares of new land and meant the current clearing rates of more than 100,000ha a year would only be reduced by five per cent.

He said that between five and eight million hectares of land should have been protected and that farmers should have been offered incentives to conduct better farming practices.

"We have world significant land-clearing rates right here in Queensland," Mr Heath told reporters.

"We clear more trees than every country in the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) except Mexico.

"... We've had 150 years to establish our farmlands, why do we need more?""

But QLD farmers can sleep soundly knowing that fearless guardian of their property rights AgForce is standing guard. Speaking on behalf of AgForce he said yesterday -

"... the group (AgForce) was never happy with legislation that created impediments to production.

Certainly, we would have preferred that such legislation as this was not invoked and we would have been able to do it in partnership with government and land owners," he told reporters."

 

Sleep well my QLD farming friends.

Permalink Reply by Dale Stiller on January 4, 2012 at 6:18am

Comments made in response of the old discussion republished in the above comment

 

Reply by Rashida Khan on October 7, 2009 at 11:31am

Hi Steve,

I couldnt help but smile at the quotes from Nick Heath. "We have had 150yrs to establish our farmlands why do we need more?" Indeed a good point from Mr Heath!

However I have a question for him. We have had 150yrs to breed children why do we need more?

In relation to the figures quoted I want to know where clearing regrowth comes into this eqaution? Also what farming techniques does he suggest to improve farming without clearing/maintaining some land? Particuly in view of the pro vegetarian media of late. Im very interested in his answers to maintenace of open country (yes it naturally occurs too) and where that fits in the anti clearing debate?

 

 

Reply by Dale Stiller on October 8, 2009 at 1:25am

Placed on WWF web site today - New landclearing laws won't keep bulldozers at bay.

True to form, WWF uses a healthy dose of emotionalizing -

 

"Unsustainable levels of clearing in the past killed an estimated two million mammals in Queensland each year - including 9,000 koalas, millions of birds and 70 million reptiles - burnt or starved to death through clearing."

Of course we have future action by these green extremists to look forward to -

 

"The coalition of conservation groups expects landclearing to re-emerge as a key policy issue after the adoption of an Emissions Trading Scheme, as governments and businesses aim to reduce carbon emissions and seek 'green carbon' economic opportunities.

"The Queensland Government still has a long way to go on these issues," Mr Heath said. "We look forward to working with the Premier in the new year and beyond to further cut the devastating rate of clearing and greenhouse gas emissions in Queensland for the good of wildlife, biodiversity, our vulnerable landscapes and the future of the planet."