In this day and age most are becoming overtly conscious of Government organisations and non-government organisations becoming more driven by omissions (cherry-picking) from their public information reporting rather than any adherence to their transparency and honesty.
And, so it is with financially strapped Cattle Council of Australia (CCA) who would rather undermine its very own special select restructure group which includes independent Cattle producers, headed by the conflicted president of CCA Andrew Ogilvie, and omit certain information from the inwardly looking narcissistic Beef 2015 and Beyond Draft Strategy draft plan released on 24 September 2012.
Thru the public release of the draft plan, CCA would have all and sundry believe that they (CCA) are looking to only restructure themselves with no suggestion as to how this is intended to be funded however, in an immediate internal forward document obtained by United Stockowners – National Representation Structural and Funding Options - it is clear that CCA’s special select committee are investigating a number of options, including an undisclosed complete restructure of the grass-fed sector (Option “C”) and, an undisclosed preferred CCA funding option with which to reschedule CCA’s own insolvency.
In relation to any funding originating from the draft plan, United Stockowners in a -previous article- stated:
“What did the ‘The Plan’ reveal about any funding of the ‘New Structure’ ? – Unfortunately ‘The Plan’ reveals not a solitary word. Must be going to be a surprise !!”
So what did the immediate internal forward document disclose about any funding ?
“Producers would be given the option to opt-out of having a % of the $3.66 marketing levy redirected from MLA to the peak council for grassfed beef producers. If producers opt-out the money will go to MLA for marketing.
8% or $0.30 of the marketing levy is estimated to raise approximately $3,500,000, the RMAC Fund would continue to provide over $500,000 annually creating a $4m budget.
Direct income from members e.g. SFO and Associate Membership must be part of any model. This money will be quarantined to fund advocacy work, which is not able to be undertaken using levy or RMAC funds. This income is estimated at $100,000-$250,000 depending on what value the SFO and associate members see in being a member of the new organisation.
One off campaign-based contributions from all membership categories would bolster advocacy income, although this is unlikely to be a significant amount.”
Given that the conflicted chairman of the special select committee and president of CCA, Andrew Ogilvie, is addicted to the immoral, unethical and illegal provision that any “Opt-out” payment system contrives, in which he is a part of a South Australia group that is advocating an “Opt-out” funding proposal (scheme) with the SA Government that mandatorily confiscate monies from all SA farmers to fund the ailing South Australian Farmers Federation (SAFF) and upon which any farmer not wishing to participate in the scheme can apply to the Minister to have their money returned on a year on year basis, but only after the money has been confiscated in the first instance.
Imagine somebody raiding your bank account without your consent then telling you that you can have your money back, but only if you ask !!
CCA’s undisclosed percentage of a legislated compulsory levy diversion “Opt-out” proposed funding scheme “Assumes Consent” in the first instance whereas, a “Opt-in” funding scheme “Assumes Refusal” in the first instance therefore “Consent” must be acquired. The immorality, unethical and illegality of this type of proposal (opt-out) is breathtaking in the extreme. Perhaps WWF, Greenpeace or any other advocacy organisation could try the same trick by putting the scheme against all taxes collected !!
Unless remedied, other huge problems with CCA’s undisclosed “Opt-out” funding proposal is in the fact that they (CCA) have no way of identifying who it is that is funding them given that the “Intermediary System of Levy Collection”, as deducted directly from account sales and is bulk paid by the intermediary to the “Levies Collection Unit” 1 month and 28 days following all clients Cattle sales, conceals from the “Levies Unit” the identity of the “Levy Payer” or trading entity.
The stupidity of this statement: – “If producers opt-out the money will go to MLA for marketing.” – is determined by the fact that the language that would enable this to occur must acknowledge that the percentage portion of the compulsory levy is in fact “Voluntary” in the first place and therefore the “Voluntary” percentage portion cannot be forwarded to “….MLA for marketing.”, which is a compulsorily funded organisation, but instead must be returned to the trading entity by virtue of the “Opt-out” provision.
For CCA’s “opt-out” proposal to have anywhere near a chance of success, if accepting of the immorality, unethical and illegality of this setup, then it must be a separate legislated “Opt-out Levy” in its own right, and not siphoned off from some other levy. Perhaps it could be called the “Ogilvie CCA Benevolence Levy (inc)” !!
United Stockowners placed the following comment on CCA’s website at the concealed comment section for the Beef 2015 and Beyond Draft Strategy draft plan link:
To: Cattle Council of Australia (CCA)
From: United Stockowners of Australia (US of A)
http://unitedstockowners.com.au/
Re: Beef 2015 and beyond – Draft Plan.
Dear Sir/Madam,
We have reviewed your (CCA) “Beef 2015 and Beyond Draft Strategy” – (draft plan) publically released by CCA on or about 24 September 2012.
We note that the draft plan offers nothing substantive with respect any type of corporate structure and specifically withdraws from any disclosure of any type of a proposal for funding.
More specifically and of greater substance, the draft plan does not address the fundamental issue of ‘Trading Entity Identification’, that would enable member or shareholder identification for the governance of an appropriate and transparent corporation that would be registered under the Corporations Act.
As has been disclosed to US of A, we note with concern that the draft plan does not disclose” or any portion thereof of Option “C” as detailed in the document titled “National Representation Structural and Funding Options”- (Dear Stakeholder). This apparent non-disclosure does little to instil confidence that CCA is working in the best interests of the grass fed sector.
It would appear that CCA is more interested, or concerned with, its own corporate well-being than that those it purports to represent.
We therefore believe that the publically released draft plan is not only flawed, but also incomplete via non-disclosure.
We again bring to the attention of CCA the US of A’s proposal on the same issue as described. We also note that the non-disclosed option “C” has more in common with US of A’s proposal than that which has been publically disclosed in CCA’s draft plan.
Further comment by US of A on CCA’s draft plan can be viewed at this link:
http://unitedstockowners.com.au/cattle-council-of-australia-the-plan-aka-using-voodoo-to-survive-extinction/
US of A’s proposal is currently a matter of public record and can be viewed at this link:
http://unitedstockowners.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Proposed-Restructure-.pdf
Rob Wass – (for & on behalf of United Stockowners of Australia)
info@unitedstockowners.com.au