A GRITJURK sheep and wool producer has recently launched some strong criticisms of the Victorian Farmers’ Federation (VFF), singling out an apparent obsession with unity.

Peter Small recently posted a letter on the Sheepcentral website, raising a number of concerns in the wake of a controversial attempt to replace the incumbent VFF president, Emma Germano and vice-president, Danyel Cucinotta.

VFF member and Rupanyup grain grower, Andrew Weidemann had been part of unsuccessful litigation in the Federal Court which sought an injunction for an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM). 

The breakaway group were proposing The Nationals MP, Paul Weller and Heywood farmer, Georgina Gubbins OAM as president and vice-president respectively.

This was followed by a similarly ill-fated attempt at last week’s NFF annual general meeting (AGM) to move a motion to replace Ms Germano and Ms Cucinotta.

Somewhat surprisingly, the NFF’s constitution does not provide for the removal of the president by members’ ballot.

These events triggered Mr Small’s correspondence.

It should be pointed out that Mr. Small has a VFF membership history of over 50 years, having first been a member of the Victorian Farmers Union (VFU), the VFF’s main predecessor.

His first concern was that there has been an overemphasis on unity within the VFF.

While unity is in essence desirable and was the VFF’s clarion call to members in its early years, Mr Small saw difficulties with it, describing it as having become a “dogma”.

He told The Spectator this week “it is absolutely essential that the (seven) Industry Divisions of the VFF maintain complete autonomy.”

These seven industries are Livestock, Grains, Dairy, Horticulture, Chicken meat, Eggs and Pigs.

The industry divisions address the specific problems confronted by each sector.

More global issues, such as climate change and farmers’ mental health, are dealt with by the NFF’s head office.

Mr Small’s view was this plurality of interests should be central to the VFF’s mission and should not be smothered by an over-emphasis on unity.

In his letter, Mr Small fleshed out the background - originally, (in the mid 1960s) he had been impressed with the UK’s National Farmers Union (NFU) which focussed on unity.

However, he pointed out that in Britain at that time, there was widespread farmer subsidisation and a unified approach was probably effective.

Mr Small went on to say, “Whilst unity can bring strength, it has also negative implications that can be terminal.”

“Having only one organisation can prevent the discussion of competing ideas,” he said.

“Compared with the ‘battle of ideas’ of the 1960s, the VFF today appears brain dead. It is very dangerous for any organisation to allow competing ideas to be locked out and for a small elite to take control.

“A large active membership is an essential prerequisite for a successful forward-looking organisation. This has not been an objective of the VFF for a very long time, and does not fit comfortably with an elite who want to run their own show without scrutiny.

“Members will join and pay substantial membership fees, but only if they can participate in policy development that effects their interests, and they see results for their investment.

“These are failures of successive VFF leadership teams. And now, I fear, we are reaping the results.”

The Spectator contacted the VFF who said that they would respond to Mr Small’s letter.