AUSVEG control 

The battle for the control of national vegetable industry organisation, AUSVEG is continuing.

Following the recent resignations of the Chairman, Mike Badcock and CEO, John Roach, and a steady stream of staff resignations, all is not well within the embattled organisation.

Much of the disquiet appears to centre around a bitter struggle for control of the organisation being retained by its State-based members. Three State-based representative organisations including Growcom, the New South Wales Farmers Association and the Virginia Horticultural Centre, are said to have opposed a change to the organisation's Rules which would have made AUSVEG more inclusive by allowing other grower organisations and growers to become members.

At present, the organisation is unable to do this.

Mike Badcock, a Tasmanian grower and former Chairman of AUSVEG has said that the proposal was torpedoed by the CEO's of these three organisations. He has been extremely vocal in his criticism of their refusal to allow grower membership, as these three organisations represent only a very low percentage of growers in each State.

What AUSVEG was seeking to achieve followed a number of reviews and ongoing debate about the kind of organisational structure that would best serve the needs of vegetable and potato growers and the industry into the future.

The fruit and vegetable industry is renowned for its division and infighting and this latest flare-up includes a number of regular faces who also featured in the ongoing dispute with the wholesaling sector over the Horticulture Code.

It is ironic that while opposing change and the chance for AUSVEG to pursue a vision of creating an effective national representative organisation, Growcom's own CEO has overseen consecutive operating losses totalling some $5 million for that organisation over the past six financial years.

Despite all efforts to date, the inability of these State-based organisations to engage growers, increase their membership numbers and secure the funding streams necessary so as to be viable and effective must surely be a sign that it is time to try something different.

From a commercial and operational perspective, it would seem appropriate to conclude that if growers want effective representation, there is a strong argument for change.