News 
 National Rural News 
 Grains and Cropping 
 General 
 GPA ready to lead 

GPA ready to lead

04 Sep, 2010 04:00 AM
THE FINAL touches were put on deal last week that will see start-up grain grower representative body Grain Producers Australia (GPA) as successor to the now defunct Grains Council of Australia (GCA).

The decision of the South Australian Farmers Federation (SAFF) to sign off on the paperwork means the GPA now has a strong position in its battle to become the undisputed grains peak body with rival organisation, National Grains Australia.

SAFF’s decision, reached after some tense negotiations, means there was a unanimous decision from all former GCA members to resign, and for all former directors to resign.

GPA spokesman Pete Mailler, a farmer from the NSW/Queensland border districts, said the constitution of GCA would also be changed to adopt GPA’s constitution and the company’s name would legally be changed.

A new board of directors, comprising Mr Mailler, Victorian grower Andrew Weidemann, WA farmer Barry Large, and non-grower director Jane Walton, with the possibility of two more additions, has been formed to serve until the organisation’s first annual general meeting in March.

Although GPA is following on from GCA, Mr Mailler is confident there will not be a repeat of the mistakes that led to GCA’s downfall, which ended when it was forced into administration earlier this year.

“The model is fundamentally different, and the principles of the GPA are different,” Mr Mailler said.

“While we will be performing the same legislative roles and prescribed functions as GCA, unless the minister responsible decides otherwise, the operation will be totally different.”

He also said, due to GCA entering administration, even though the execution of a deed of company arrangement had gone through, meaning the new GPA will have the same company number as GCA, the new body would not be saddled with any debt.

“We’ve put a proposal to the creditors, who have accepted it, and we’re confident we will start out debt-free.

“By going through the administration process, the old GCA comes out with no debt, and there’s a safe trading environment for us.”

The final obstacle will be for the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) to sign-off on the proposal, which will mean GPA can open a bank account and begin its work in earnest.

“I’ve got advice that this will take a maximum of a week from now,” Mr Mailler said.

Operationally, there are some small seeding funds from SAFF, the Victorian Farmers Federation and Queensland’s AgForce to get the organisation up and running.

Once GPA was up and running, Mr Mailler said it would be a frantic race to woo growers prior to harvest.

“We’re a month behind where we want to be, we need to strike while the iron is hot and before farmers start focusing on other issues.

“We want to establish a membership base to elect the new board by Christmas, and in order to do that, we need to reach out to growers before they are busy with harvest.

“Given the Central Queensland harvest is beginning now, we are conscious we really have to get moving.”

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
Gregor Heard's article is somewhat biased. How do you come up with these facts? I am sure grain growers will be impressed with levies that will be taken out to feed the top heavy structure. What about the rest of us average and small growers? We deserve a say as well. GCA/GPA need to tell us what is going to be different with this new structure, tell us what these fees are going to be and what are these directors paid? From what I see democracy is with NGA and not much cost back through SFO, with grains committees representing grain growers and that is a elected structure. There needs to be a comparison of the two models so grain growers can see for them selves the grower impact, not merely a conclusion by you Gregor forcing your opinion on grain growers. From what I see GPA is in a hurry to open a bank account so they can suck money out of grain growers.
Posted by Pedro, 5/09/2010 11:12:05 AM
It’s worth noting that only the undemocratic SFOs of VIC, SA and Qld support the concept of the GPA, these SFOs are struggling to continue and are largely disregarded by farmers in those states. The GPA election structure has a compounded loading for the biggest growers which simply means this organisation is as unrepresentative as its bankrupt (for good reason) precursor the GCA. For this gang to convince govt into legislating a levee on all growers is wretched. The GPA is about the big end of the wheat industry making all farmers pay for a big farmer club that’s designed to endorse their best interest. The NGA model has the voted endorsement of farmers from NSW and WA, and will cost growers nothing to run and will represent ALL growers’ interests, it’s established, in place and working. The execs of the GCA seem to be struggling with the difference between finished and phoenix.
Posted by Ken, 6/09/2010 9:05:17 PM
Pedro, the lack of a significant financial contribution brought the demise of GCA. The alternative does not have a budget nor plan to address a sustainable national model. Some SFOs have chosen not to support that model because the grains industry cannot be held to ransom by one or two members. SFOs in their own right cannot sustain a national body. As for you Ken, I don't know where you live but if it is in NSW, you may want to ask how the democratic process works for NSW Farmers. Throughout Australia, this state and WAFF represent the least number of growers on a grower percentage basis. Oh, and Ken, the federal government has nothing to do with the legislation of the levee. It is a voluntary levee which will be administered by NGR. You blokes need to do some research and homework for yourselves before you put pen to paper. Get on the GPA website and read the full business plan and constitution. It is and will be an open and transparent process.
Posted by DD Qld, 7/09/2010 7:18:06 AM
DD, The democratic integrity of NSW Farmers is not a debate, the policy to support the NGA was passed unanimously at NSWF conference and the reps that put it into place are all duly elected from the floor and the costs of running it will be borne by the SFOs, finding it completely unnecessary to build a huge cooperate junket to do very little. With the PGA finding it necessary to levee growers on a per ton basis suggests that the PGA is more of an ego trip for its execs than a functional organisation. Why did the original GCA go bankrupt? Why couldn’t they run a cheaper more representative organisation? The answer isn’t that the NSW and WA SFOs wouldn’t finance it - it was simply that the GCA was unrepresentative and had lost touch with what it was supposed to be doing. The reinvented PGA with its compounded loading for the biggest growers is STILL unrepresentative and will fail accordingly; it’s just a BIG WHEATGROWERS CLUB. Oh, and DD the PGA levee is retrospectively voluntary, that is you pay up front and then fill in the paper work to get it back, try putting the voluntary bit before receival and see it evaporate.
Posted by Ken, 7/09/2010 12:14:26 PM
Yes Ken.

Same old big boys club that destroyed our worlds best marketing system is setting themselves up to make sure we don't get it back.

And don't forget that the same minister who listened to those big boys and got rid of the single desk is the man now with the job of getting rid of our irrigation by just listening to the Greenie extremists who wont see that irrigation and food production create a better environment for everyone.

Posted by E J, 16/10/2010 8:05:15 PM

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
01 September, 2010
POLL
Q: Are the current record lamb prices sustainable for the industry in the long term?

Yes
(37.2%)

No
(49.9%)

Unsure
(13%)

Total Votes: 401
Poll Date: 29 August, 2010

Most popular articles

Advertisement



Stock & Land







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...