UDV, processors and votes

That emerged as the United Dairyfarmers of Victoria (UDV) position on the dairy industry's proposed reform after its policy council met last week.

UDV president Paul Mumford said the forum involving councillors from across the state was fiery at times.

"It was a difficult discussion but we did come to a consensus and that was really pleasing," he said.

The policy council meeting had addressed what Mr Mumford described as the top three issues associated with the Australian Dairy Plan garnering farmer attention.

First, how votes on a new model should be cast; second, what role processors should play in a new advocacy model; and third, how advocacy on cross-commodity issues, like water, should work.

The council also reached agreement on who should head a new advocacy and research body.

When it came to voting on a new advocacy model, the UDV Policy Council was clear.

"We've got to make sure that the grass roots are front and central to any new organisation," Mr Mumford said.

"Democratic process has always been one person, one vote and that's where the UDV falls on this issue.

"If you want fundamental change for any organisation, you've got to make sure the grass roots is fully engaged.

"In order for that to happen, you've got to make sure farmers have, and feel, their voice is being heard."

Asked whether there should be one vote for each processor, Mr Mumford said, "The question of whether processors sit inside the tent or not is a very contentious one.".

"That's created a bit of a firecracker out there in the broader community and we need clarity.

"We want to find out what are the processors' intentions, what they are thinking.

"After that we'll decide whether they're actually sitting at our table, which will then tell us whether they can vote."

The example of the dairy crisis and clawback illustrated the need for farmers to be able to advocate separately from processors at times.

"One of the big issues we want to address is, 'How does the farmer portion of the industry call out bad behaviour like what happened in 2016?'," Mr Mumford said.

"There has to be a mechanism within the new framework that can call issues out.

"Thinking on the positive side and assuming that, if a processor was inside the tent, conversations prior to that event around that table should cut off any major event like that."

Mr Mumford agreed the Australian Dairy Industry Council (ADIC), which jointly represents both processors and farmers at the national level, should already fill that role.

"Essentially, yes, and that is why we are having the discussion around the Australian Dairy Plan," he said.

"Not all of our current structure is broken but there are portions of it that aren't functioning properly and that's one of them.

"The top level appears to be broken; the communication between the farmer and the processing sector.

"You would also say the RD&E piece is not fully effective and everything is underfunded in advocacy."

Australian Dairy Farmers (ADF) president Terry Richardson, whose organisation forms half of ADIC, said its key purpose was, "to represent the interests of the dairy supply chain where those interests are aligned".

"A new structure would seek to unite these advocacy arrangements with all other service functions," Mr Richardson said.

"But, one thing ADF is certain of is that, any new structure must allow farmers to express their unique views on a range of issues."

Mr Mumford called on processors to speak more publicly about their likely role in dairy industry advocacy.

"What's their vision for a mutual industry where processors and farmers are working together for the betterment of the industry?" he asked.

"I've had some of the conversations with the processors but it's more important that the processors is making the message to the broader industry.

"I'm calling the processors or the federation out of the darkness a little bit and saying, 'Step up and have the conversation with the farmers'."

Central to that conversation would be the financial contribution processors were prepared to make.

"We don't know what the processors are thinking of putting on the table," Mr Mumford said.

"Historically, the processors haven't put any money into RD&E."

Issues that cut across agricultural commodities, like water, Mr Mumford said, demanded a coordinated but state-based approach.

"We've got our own Dairy Food Safety Act, we've got Gardiner Foundation, the EPA and WorkCover to deal with, for example, and they're quite unique to Victoria," he said.

"The other big-ticket item is water policy, which is a very divisive topic.

"These are all relevant to the state organisation.

"I'm not saying the UDV should remain in its current form - I think it's clear that advocacy has to change - but what we've got to make sure of is that those cross-commodity issues are addressed in any new structure."

The UDV Policy Council called for a farmer-dominated board with a farmer chair for the new national organisation.

"We wanted to make sure that the farmer was always front and centre within the organisation," Mr Mumford said.

"Farmers have skills.

"We're not calling it a skills-based board, we're saying it's a farmer-represented board with skills.

That board must be elected rather than appointed.

"We have to make sure farmers have the opportunity to elect their representation; it can't be a shoulder-tapping exercise," Mr Mumford said.

The UDV will use those principles among a wider set of 12 to write its submission regarding the advocacy plan.