If NVD’s are fatally flawed what about LPA?!
If as Murray Arnel at Stock and Land (Fairfax) (May29) reports, NVD’s are not being completed up to 50% of the time then where does that place the LPA program that relies upon NVD’s?
It’s not news that NVD boxes aren’t being ticked and animal breeds aren’t being completed. While NVD’s have become the default transactional document they are by no means mandatory to transact livestock.
And now it seems the claims made by processors and their membership body, MLA, that NVD’s must be completed, is not absolute and agents are working with processors to attempt to get their client vendors to rectify the situation. This then raises another question about whether agents should be working for their client vendors or the processor buyers – who is paying whom for what services here?!
There’s no doubt NVD’s have served a productive purpose over the years. Is it just since MLA and the processors have interferred with the free market that they are buggering up?
What do you think?
Please leave your comment below to share with others.
NVD’s Are NOT Mandated By law – So Why Are We Being Told They Are?! « Rural Australia said
[...] June 18, 2010 at 11:17 am · Filed under LPA, Livestock issues, MLA, Rural business, Stock Agents, Stock agency, farming, meat industry, rural australia, rural issues, tagging Who is spreading the upsetting and costly myth that NVD’s are law? Does anyone have a vested interest in such misleading and deceitful promotion? We all know that NVD’s are a tool owned by the Industry (and that is the groups who got together and invented and implemented it in the first instance – The Agents Association, Cattle Council, Sheep Council, Safemeat, AQIS, etc etc – Notably, MLA was not a party to this!) The NVD has since been hijacked by MLA’s LPA program as a Trojan Horse for their replacement for CattleCare and FlockCare, but in reality an NVD is only required if requested by the buyer. It only becomes subject to The Law and DPI once signed as it then acts in effect as a Statutory Declaration. This should be cleaned-up with a letter posted to all participants stating the facts i.e. An NVD is only required if a vendor wishes to present their stock for sale with an NVD. And this may be dependent upon the wishes of their prospective buyer. Whether or not a vendor wishes to participate in MLA’s LPA QA program and use their LPA stamped NVD’s is a matter for outside the selling ring. It has no bearing on the fact that NVD’s can theoretically be written on a piece of old tin (without an MLA LPA stamp) and still be OK (The buyer might take issue with this but legally there is no problem). This should then solve the growing friction between ‘yards operators, DPI reps and agents who are all being fed the wrong information by their respective associations and managers. Get it? Whether producers and buyers use NVD’s is up to them and no-one else. Here’s another angle too Article on flawed NVD’s [...]
RW said
“It only becomes subject to The Law and DPI once signed as it then acts in effect as a Statutory Declaration.” – This statement is not correct. The LPA NVD as with all NVD’s do not meet the statutory requirements of a “Statutory Declaration” viz, for example, there is no provision for a “Witness” signature and there is no provision for a “Justice of the Peace” signature within the NVD’s.
In relation to the “Trade Marked” MLA NVD, now “Trade Marked” to Aust-Meat Ltd, it is NOT the NVD itself that is trade-marked it is only the LPA “Logo” that is trade-marked. By virtue of the trade-marked “Logo” together with the ‘Business Rules’ this then creates a “Third Party” contract with Aust-Meat Ltd for the purposes of the “Trade Practises Act”. In effect the LPA NVD creates a point of sale third party contract, other than between vendor and purchaser, with strong characteristics of a restrictive covenant.
Like all contracts, any part of the LPA NVD must be subject to vendor contestability (i.e) – By simply ruling a line ‘Through’ (strike out) any erroneous provisions of the contract and initialling each strike out. This could also include the strike out and initialling of the trade-marked LPA ‘Logo’ therefore removing the third party participation in the sale.
JJ said
Gee, that IS very interesting RW!
So, while it is difficult to avoid paying MLA for NVD’s as the only others easily available are via http://www.Austbeef.com.au or http://www.saleyards.com.au, you can at least just rule a line thru the LPA logo and even state, “This NVD is not subject to LPA rules”. Then initial it??
JJ
RW said
JJ – The normal rules and manner of contract law apply including contestability. Ultimately is your signature at the bottom of the page. Your signature can only be given freely upon your examination and final consent. Any hint of coercion within the contract will automatically null and void the contract.
You can try this if you like, I did; take a copy of the LPA business rules to your agent and ask this:- In the absence of the fact that it is nearly impossible to trade livestock without full LPA accreditation(coercion), would you (the agent) voluntarily agree to these Aust-Meat LPA business rules (contract) as a part of his (or her) business ??