Sounds ironic, don’t you think? MLA has apparently claimed it is giving itself (its Board and senior executives), salary increases because NLIS is so successful.
Cop that!
A salary increase justified by a severe impost on producers (and agents) that is paid for by producers and benefits processors and retailers!
The MLA already receives a triple tax from producers:
1. The increased per head ‘levy’ tax
2. LPA tax to use the industry’s standard NVD form.
3. Federal Govt. co-funding from ‘Normal’ government farm taxes to boot!
(So, despite the fact that it is an independent corporation, MLA is actually funded primarily from taxes and would have very little revenue without taxes. Not much free market economics going-on there! )
However, it does seem a tad strange, don’t you think, that it can have the gaul to increase its salary based upon the spending of producer’s taxes. i.e. “We have spent your taxes so well, we deserve an increase in salary”.
One wonder whether they will then have the gaul to increase the taxes (levies) again in order to pay for the salary increases. Now that would be a truly vicious cycle.
If we are to take other large corporations as an example, we would expect to see peer group benchmarks and performance hurdles before salary increases would even be mentioned. As it stands, it seems there are no benchmarks on NLIS and all we have are:
1. PWC audit that showed ‘black’ holes in NLIS
2. Producer and agent displeasure with the NLIS
3. No international requirement for NLIS
4. No international implementation of NLIS
If this is the case, where is the case for MLA salary increases based upon the success of NLIS? In 2008 it should no longer be possible to say something is so without proof.
What do you think?
Please leave a comment below
Susan Clarke said
As long as MLA and AWI exist our customers will never have to pay for what they require from us as these organisations deliver us tied hand and foot.
If our customers required trace back they should have come to individual farmers, and said they would give a premium for such a requirment. BUT NO to justify the MLA’s existance they force all beef producers to have NLIS tags and the only people to make money out of it are the tag manufacturers, the soft ware suppliers and the MLA…..we just pay for it.
Catherine said
This leaves me almost speechless! MLA stands for obfuscation, greed and a total lack of ethics. Producers of this necessary food have to contend with Ticks, Buffalo Flies, and the MLA. The AMLC was disbanded, and it is long past time that MLA went the same way, only the next time ALL producers should be allowed to read the MOU and vote upon it’s adoption before it becomes law.
chuck connors said
It,s high time articles such as this received wide exposure in the general press rather than preaching to the converted in the rural papers throughout the country.Even ‘if’ an increase in MLA salaries was deserved, to accept it in the present economic climate is nothing short of greed an total disrespect.
Rural Australia (Ed) said
Hi ‘Chuck’,
‘Traditional’ media is fast being replaced by this type of ‘democracised’ media where *you* get to give immediate feedback and comment on issues that concern *you*!
The best thing you can do is send this link to as many people as you think should know about it. http://ruralaustralia.wordpress.com
If the Berlin Wall can fall, the Soviet Union can be dissolved and an American black man can become the most powerful leader in the World, then surely Asutralian farmers can get rid of this MLA crowd’s power! (Speak to you local MP today and at least send them this link!)
(Ps ‘Chuck’, I wouldn’t recommend you wasting any bullets on them MLA varmints though!
John Andison said
Large, unaccountable bureaucracys with large, guaranteed incomes have two things in common worldwide.
1) They are notoriously inefficient in handling money.
2) After a very short space of time they begin to exist more for themselves than those they were set up to serve.
MLA is a large, unaccountable bureaucracy with a large, guaranteed income
Lesley O'Hern said
We’re only small producers with sheep and cattle, and mainly sell through local stock agents. However, we know, living in a semi rural community, that Australia still has tens of thousands in cattle, sheep and goats on tiny acreages without PICs, and are bought and sold between these without registered brands, NLIS, or the use of Waybills. Nor do they pay the levy to MLA.
These are honest folk who have had a “Tree Change” and just want to have their own milk, or sell livestock to pay the rates, or breed their own meat,or have environmentally safe lawn mowers and big, wet nosed, rough tongued pets who get cared for with kid gloves and have the vet called if they flick their tails in an anti-clockwise direction.
However, it shows how ludicrous the whole NLIS system is for traceability. Would the MLA want to deny people the freedom of breeding their own free range meat, if they don’t want feed lot, or unknown quality packaged supermarket meat at exhorbitant prices?
MLA is a quango. To operate an effective board you need producers with their feet on the ground and a democratic voting system.
Rod Dunbar said
I’d like to make just a few comments and point out the facts that might shed some light on the dilemma facing the livestock sector.
Firstly, MLA Limited is a company name registered under Corporations Act 2001 as a result of a Commonwealth Act (Australian Meat and Livestock Industry Act 1997); it has 2 types of share holder in its Constitution, Primary (Red Meat Industry Council (RMAC)) and Secondary (Ordinary Producers) who are powerless; with a voting veto vested in RMAC over the Producer. Accordingly, RMAC and other Producer groups are appointed in Law as Civil Servants of the Crown.
(See http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/amalir1998516/s4.html )
There is a very good reason for this; constitutionally only Civil Servants can expend Consolidated Revenue Funds (at the direction of a Minister) which is what MLA operates on; additionally after they are prescribed the organisations owe their Primary responsibility to the Commonwealth and not to their membership.
MLA Limited is really an exempt public authority,
(see http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca2001172/s9.html#exempt_public_authority )
They operate under Ministerial direction to a planned expenditure document (Meat Industry Strategic Plan (MISP)) where wage increases are predetermined and approved.
So you can now see how futile MLA AGM’s are; Producer membership of MLA Limited is designed to make you feel good and included, but that’s it.
With regards to NLIS;
• All that info gathered by MLA Limited in connection with the administration of NLIS must be administered in accordance with the Commonwealth Privacy Act C’th 1988 unless you give that right,
• Any info on their NLIS Database is the Property of the entity who is the subject of the information, not MLA,
• The authenticity of the info is MLA’s responsibility
• Maintenance of the database is MLA’s responsibility both legal and financial,
• any expenses and costs of tags and readers are to be reimbursed by MLA in accordance with the Privacy Act 1988 (C’th)
• NO info is to be disseminated unless written permission is given by the entity who owns the Property in the information,
• Processors and feedlotters are to be denied access accept with the written consent of the entity who is the subject of the information,
• The States, Territories and the Commonwealth can only have access to your info IF there is a declaration (of declared disease or Chemical Residue) under the Quarantine Act,
• Under no circumstances can entities who are the subject of the information on the Database be compelled to contribute financially to the maintenance and upkeep of the Database in accordance with the Commonwealth Privacy Act C’th 1988 ,
Clearly what is happening is illegal.
Things you should do to fight the Structure;
• Resign from MLA Limited immediately
• Resign from State farming organizations affiliated with the RMAC Group and the Peak Industry Councils, the membership fees paid here are being used against you at the Federal level,
• Align or form yourselves into organizations that are not included in the current structure
• Use forums such as this to scream for change.
Finally, something to think about;
“Industry” is a word much used by many people, the word has a statutory meaning; it is contained in the Australian Meat and Livestock Industry Act here,
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/amalia1997407/s3.html
It says;
industry means the meat and live-stock industry.
live-stock means cattle, calves, sheep, lambs, goats or other
animals prescribed for the purposes of this definition.
meat means the fresh or preserved flesh of cattle, calves, sheep,
lambs, goats or other animals prescribed for the purposes of this
definition, and includes meat products, meat by-products and
edible offal, but does not include meat of a kind declared by the
regulations to be, for the purposes of this Act, unfit for human
consumption.
In the extended definition of “industry” in relation to all livestock and meat produced in Australia includes a word … Prescribed… which means …” A method of acquiring a nonpossessory interest in Property.” The Prescription is for and on behalf of the Commonwealth.
In layman’s terms we do not completely own the livestock we produce on our Properties and the Commonwealth has appointed the RMAC Group to manage their ‘interest’ for them.
ruralaustralia said
Thanx for that, Rod.
What does it mean in ‘ordinary’ layman’s terms? (In just a coupla sentences if possible, please
Most of us aren’t as skilled as you in the legal aspects)
1. How can MLA be registered as a corporation under ASIC’s rules but still be a bunch of public servants who can control their own salaries?
2. If NLIS is so private, then it shouldn’t be possible for banks etc and processors etc to use that data, even if they are just checking to make sure stock does exist on certain properties (PICs) (?) (Altho’, I guess this could be possible if an individual provides authority to do so ??)
Rod Dunbar said
Question 1:
A group which included myself wrote a long list of detailed complaints re MLA to ASIC. They replied, it is a company limited by guarantee its internal affairs are of no concern to ASIC, they said if we thought our complaints were serious enough we should complain to that Australian Federal Police, otherwise we should take the matters up with the primary shareholders or the Commonwealth Minister for Agriculture. I hope that answers you question; it was enough for me.
On the subject of salaries; did you know that the Commonwealth pays the costs salaries and upkeep for the entire operation of the Peak Councils (RMAC)? That’s why they are so arrogant they do not rely on membership for funding.
Question 2:
Simply, why do we have to participate in NLIS al All????
Because the States and Territories have Regulated it!!!!
Exactly what did they Regulate??? NLIS for ID of Disease and Chemical Residue purposes, for Departmental use only; the regulations don’t authorise any other use.
Now MLA is allowing Processors (and by the look of it Banks!!!!)to use that Regulated Information not authorised by the Legislation for Marketing and the dissemination of general private information.
That’s illegal!!!!!!
Why do you need to… “even if they are just checking to make sure stock does exist on certain properties (PICs) (?)” ??????
That’s Private information!!!!! What is it to anyone what’s on your Property.
I can explain more but it will be longer that a sentence.
Rural Australia (Ed) said
Thanx again for your knowledge, Rod.
This is obviously a frustrating issue for producers. I think so many producers are just punch-drunk with MLA’s behaviour that they probably don’t know what’s really going-on. It’s a terrible situation!
It sounds like this NLIS privacy concern is the next big issue though! I wonder whether this might be a case for a different Government department(?) Remember that Al Capone ‘went’ for tax evasion not murder!
John Michemore said
Lesley hit the nail on the head. MLA is undemocratic and was designed by the then John Anderson government to be that way.
You only have to look at the way the cattle transaction levy was introduced avoiding the required vote at the AGM. The vote was barely carried even when it was a unlawful in relation to the rules of the Co.
If producers want to make a change to the organisation you’ll need 75% thankyou. This is almost unachievable and thats why its such a good number for the Government and MLA.
Thanks to Rod for the detailed explanations, very accurate information.
What indicates that MLA is a government organisation is that at the MLA AGM’s nobody ever has to accept the financial statements. Why? Because ordinary levy payers have no right to be involved in the allocation and spending of Commonwealth Consolidated Revenue. That’s right its a Governement organisation and all you livestock producers who think differently are being fooled into thinking its a democratic representation of producers etc.
Start writing to Tony Burke, secondly resign from MLA if your a member as a protest. Resignations from this organisation is one way to show the Minister what you think.
As has been said , this organisation need to funded on performance, nothing else.
Rod Dunbar said
The MLA issue is a minefield that’s for sure,
John Michelmore has raised a good point re the levy; the levy is a Tax, former Minister McGauran has confirmed that to me in a letter he said it goes straight to Consolidated Revenue; what Corporation has share allocation and shareholder voting rights based on a Commonwealth Tax?
Additionally, the question arises about compulsory membership of a Corporation because the Tax is identified as your shareholding because of the way voting rights are allocated in the constitution of MLA. This leads to 2 facts; compulsory (I mean enforced by a law) shareholding in illegal under Corporations Law, and qualification and allocation of voting rights of the actual shareholding that is not the shareholder’s property in money but based on a Commonwealth Tax is also illegal under Corporations Law.
I mean if this were the case in real life in a general election for the House of Representatives a company like BHP with the Tax it pays would be able to cast millions of votes …
Another issue is the collection of the Tax (I mean the $5 transaction levy); it is collected by intermediaries licensed by DAFF and allowed to keep the funds collected and invest the levy funds for 1 month and 28 days (and I might add) keep the accrued interest for themselves!!!!! What sort of a deal is that???? So just imagine, there is around that $200 million during each year in the hands of processors, agents and live exporters earning interest for them!!!!! No one seems to care that this in breach of s82 and s83 of the Commonwealth Constitution.
Under Australian Tax law taxpayers must be identified; Transaction Levy payers are not!! Why doesn’t the ATO collect the Tax? Why do the licensed intermediaries collect the Tax? Simple, voting entitlements!!! Members of the AMIC are voting at MLA AGM’S wielding millions of votes; if you carefully research the annual through put of these processors the voting entitlement allocated by MLA roughly equates to their annual through put; the levy collected as intermediaries. That allocation belongs to the thousands of Producers who sold cattle during the preceding year that aren’t correctly and positively identified!!!!!
Processors are not required to pay Transaction Levy under any circumstances; see
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/pila1999367/sch3.html
In particular;
(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.
Therefore no Levy is payable even on Processors cattle in a feedlot regardless of days on feed.
It’s a scam, the whole deal is a scam; the Processors have this insatiable desire to control who do you think thought up NLIS and LPA?
Do you think we should discuss the R & D funding Rorts, and the LPA Rort, the fact that the MLA, RMAC, Peak Councils are Commonwealth Public Officials and what their responsibilities are under Part 7 s 130 Commonwealth Criminal Code…etc… in this blog????
Rod Dunbar said
Dear Rural Australia Editor;
Just found this in my notes re company/ corporation/body corporate.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca2001172/s601ba.html?query=corporation%20sole
Please read this carefully…..
• The concept of MLA was formulated in negotiations between the Commonwealth and the Peak Councils;
• Those negotiations culminated in the drafting of the MOU;
• After the MOU was signed the Commonwealth enacted the Australian Meat and livestock industry Act1997
• MLA is a body corporate required to be set up under the MOU and required to be registered as a company limited by guarantee under that Act of Commonwealth Parliament;
• It was not a company or a Corporation at that point in time it was an unincorporated body
• It was subsequently registered after it was formed into a body corporate into (d) a company limited by guarantee;
If a company Limited by Guarantee is formed in the first instance the voting entitlement is 1 membership 1 vote, but when it is formed as a body corporate first voting entitlements are contained in the Constitution of the Body Corporate and simply adopted by the ASIC.
That’s how they did it.
Ty Redofmla said
MLA has got us tied-up with NLIS and the illegal mandating of LPA.
Until NLIS was mandated (by MLA – who leads the dumb politicians we all vote for!) the NVD was the one document in control of food safety and MLA didn’t/couldn’t control ! it worked very well and across the whole industry and MLA wanted to control it because they want to control everything!
They couldn’t get any QA system to work as no-one wanted them (except the processors and retailers!) so they then found the silver bullet to control everything – No, not NLIS, but the NVD.
They promised to have their member producers pay for a QA program (LPA) for processors amd retailers. The processors didn’t believe they could do it but when they agreed to mandate the use of only MLA (LPA) branded NVDs (despite them being no different from the original NVD’s) they were home and hosed. And then the bloody compliant agents jumped on board instead of backing the people who pay their bloody bills – the producers!!
1. Yes, resign from MLA so they can’t keep saying you voted for their non-democratic decisions.
2. Force your agent (and their association) to NOT accept processors demands for the LPA NVD – use another NVD instead (they’re all the bloody same information!)
3. Contact your local MP and write to Fed Minister Tony Burke and complain about MLA (tell him to tell ACCC about it).
John Michemore said
Good points Ty,
I think the best bet here for irate producers is to do the above and inaddition they can also;
1) Close their NLIS Account because it infringes prosucers privacy rights. I had a example of information concerning a producer supplied to me from the database that included his name, his address, his PIC Number and property location: and I didn’t even request the information. This system is a blatant infrigement of private informationn and MLA must be bought to account.
I closed my account on that day.
2) At every occassion try and use the NewBrain NVD instead of the MLA LPA NVD. You can access this NVD thru the Australian Beef Association Website.
In relation to the beef gravy train these MLA people are on , you only have to look at the past outcomes of MLA R&D report. Quite often they just reprint the last years. Many of the projects have been discontinued or are inactive. Some of the projects have already been investigated overseas and our levies are just wasted doing to same investigations again.
Regularly these reports talk about triple bottom line benefits , but there are rarely actual dollars and cents in the data. Again this expenditure needs to be on a cost for performance basis. The days of just handing out taxpayers money for very little return are gone.
Rod Dunbar said
John and Ty
Regarding the NVD; the irony is that the NVD is of no effect in law in its current form.
Apparently it is the original brainchild of John Carter of ABA fame; it is not, in its current format a legal document; all current NVD’s and Vendor Declarations are not executed in the way that Statutory Declarations must be signed and are therefore void ab initio and that includes the Ebrain one as well.
Far more important are the legal documents of the State and Territory namely “Animal Health Statement” which are guaranteed by the Government by the people who keep the recorded information on the health and residue status of each Property upon which the animals are depastured.
MLA only enforces it because they have a legal monopoly over livestock production, in clear violation of the Trade Practises Act and Ty you are right they use it to enforce compliance. A Professor Fox from New England Uni, a key architect of the current communist structure, first suggested that they use it to as he put it…” pull through…” the MLA plan …
Ty Redofmla said
Interesting, Rod.
However, I figure the NVD has served us very well as an vendor’s declaration and food safety mechanism and should continue to do so.
It was developed by all industry parties under the auspices of Safemeat so it covered what the Industry wanted. However, MLA didn’t/couldn’t control it (and not being a peak body they don’t sit on Safemeat) and so they then went about controlling it. This is where they did an illegal deal with the processors and set-up yet another QA system, LPA! And now I reckon they’re trying to make money out of it by getting overseas countries to use it! (Just like Angus and ABRI sell breed data systems overseas)!!
Rod Dunbar said
Ty
MLA is a Peak Industry Council prescribed like the rest. The Processors Peak Council is also prescribed and sits with MLA and the rest on RMAC.
How did the industry get the power to decide these things? Did you vote to give them the power, I didn’t.
No other country in the world has Safemeat or this structure; no illegal deal was done with the processors everything is approved by the Minister.
No other country would have this arrangement whereby you use illegal documents and have civil servants masquerading as industry representatives.
Edgar Burnett said
How come that when a beast is sent to slaughter on a weight and grade basis without a NLIS tagged fitted, the resultant carcass does not attract a price penalty?
We are being told by the experts that the NLIS is required for the meat to attract a premium price in the real world, well how come that the meat that is not identified by a NLIS tag does not get a price penalty?
The real world is the world market price for a kilo of a particular grade of meat. The meat from the beast that has not got a NLIS tag fiitted must be being sold for the same price as the meat from a beast that has a tag fitted otherwise the Processors would be penalising it when they pay the Producer. It would be easy enough for them to do it because they are the ones with the cheque boo. So that proves that in the real world, the added value of the NLIS identified meat is ZERO.
In this day and age of “user pays” (which as a general rule, I have no argument with), those who want the NLIS system should be made pay for it.
The majority of the producers did not want it initially as evidenced by the initial online poll conducted by The Land, the poll that was corrupted by the MLA’s IT people. (Did anybody get sacked over that corrupt activity?) As well as subsequent polls.
Now that the producers have had enough time to have a good look at the NLIS system, this majority most likely has increased. If the MLA disputes this statement, I challenge them to conduct a secret vote on the matter.
For those people who are getting real benefit out of the NLIS system, well good on them and if they are getting real benefit out of it, they can pay for the privilege! There are plenty of producers in the real world who are being economically disadvantaged by the NLIS.
As far as the implementation of the NLIS goes, it is so impractical that those people who were responsible for the introduction of the NLIS have made criminals out of thousands of honest men.
Thank you Rural Australia for the opportunity to make comment on this matter.