National Representation Structural and Funding Options
Cattle Council has developed ‘Beef 2015 and beyond’, a national strategy for the grassfed beef industry. The plan has been developed in consultation with
producers and key stakeholders.
One of the strategic imperatives from the strategy is to develop and implement an improved representative and funding model for the national body
representing grassfed beef producers. A small group of stakeholders has worked with Cattle Council and developed the following options for discussion.
The Cattle Council board has determined that it will only pursue funding models that involve grassfed producer marketing levies being redirected from Meat &
Livestock Australia to the peak council for representing grassfed beef producers. Only if the option of diverting the levy is completely exhausted will other
funding models be pursed.
The options are ‘Option A’, ‘Option B’ and ‘Option C’. Option A & B are directly comparable, Option C is significantly different from Options A & B.
Whilst there are some differences between Options A & B there are a considerable number of similarities. Comparing A & B there is really only one key issue
of difference between A & B (B has State Farming Organisation (SFO) Directors, A does not). Option C is a more significant change to the greater red
meat industry structure and for it to progress it would require the involvement and agreement of the grainfed beef industry (ALFA) and sheep meat industry
(SCA) to merge MLA with national peak council for beef producers.
For Options A & B the following elements were common to each model:
 The directors will elect the chairman/president of the Board. The chairman/president is elected each year with a maximum term of 3 years.
 There will be 16 directors, one of which becomes the Chairman/President creating 15 directors and a chairman/president.
 All options have some directors directly elected from producers and not nominated by state farming organisations.
 The board be regionally representative e.g. a portion from the North, South & West.
 Only a portion of the directors will be replaced each year to retain corporate knowledge and stability within the organisation.
 That a membership category be created to allow producers to join directly (direct membership).
 Votes allocated to direct members should be based on levies paid with a sliding scale as per the MLA system.
 That state farming organisations remain involved in the organisation. There is still debate around the level of involvement e.g. the member rights of
state farming organisations.
 Other groups or organisations will be able to become associate members. The board must have the ability to determine the eligibility criteria and
membership rights of associate members. This category is designed for breed societies, beef producer groups such as ABA or other organisations
that would like some access to the organisation and its information but do not have a great capacity to pay.
 The policy development process will be managed through a system of policy committees.
 Policy committees would make recommendations to the board and would be required to consult widely with producers on a regular basis as part of
their policy development process. This would involve the SFO networks, producer forums, online policy development and regular briefings from
industry stakeholders.
 The make up of the committees is a mixture of SFO nominees, direct producer applicants and skills based board appointments.
 The policy committees would come together with the board annually for a national policy forum at which strategic issues would be debated and an
AGM would be held to report on performance to the members.






Based on the priorities identified in Beef 2015 and beyond, and estimating the cost to run a structure with the attributes outlined here it is estimated
that between $4m and $5m is required.
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.
The constitution of the organisation will ensure the appropriate restrictions and reporting requirements are placed on the organisation to ensure levy
funds are only used for their nominated purpose and are not used inappropriately, specifically for political activity.
The only significant difference between option A & B is the membership rights of state farming organisations and if SFOs have positions on the board.
To ensure the new organisation remains a relevant advocacy body it must have income for advocacy. Membership income must be sourced from:
1. direct member contributions;
2. SFOs; and/or
3. associate membership.
The new structure must strike a balance that provides those members who are voluntarily contributing income with a value proposition that will ensure they
will continue to contribute funds into the organisation. If no income is sourced from non-levies the organisation will not be able to perform its most critical
function, lobbying.
OPTION C
This option adopts a board structure similar to Option A, still utilises committees to enable producers to have input into the work of the organisation. The
difference is that it requires a significant restructure many sections of the red meat industry so that Meat & Livestock Australia (or parts of it) can merge with
the national beef producer bodies Cattle Council and ALFA to form one organisation. All marketing and research & development levy money is managed by
this organisation, which undertakes the roles and functions of Meat & Livestock Australia and Cattle Council of Australia.