IF the results of a Farm Weekly web poll are anything to go by, the hyped-up merger proposal between WAFarmers (WAF) and the Pastoralists and Graziers of WA (PGA) will not go ahead.
Farm Weekly ran an online poll from August 13 to September 9, asking the Western Australian farming community for their thoughts on the merger idea.
Of the 791 respondents, 56 per cent said PGA and WAF should stay separate, while 44pc said they should merge.
On top of that, Farm Weekly asked if WA agriculture would be better represented politically by one single body - whether that be one of the two organisations mentioned, or another option.
In response 53pc said no, 44pc said yes and 3pc said maybe.
When breaking down the occupations of the people who responded, 87pc were either a farm manager or owner, with 11pc working in agriculture but not on a farm, with 1pc being a farm worker and 2pc being none of the above.
PGA members were the most represented in the survey, accounting for 47pc of respondents, while 20pc were from WAF, 1pc from both and 33pc from neither.
Of the PGA voters, 95pc were against WA agriculture being represented politically by one single body, with 4pc in favour and 1pc voting as maybe.
On the WAF side, 85pc said yes to one single body, with 9pc saying no and 6pc saying maybe.
An interesting statistic developed when it came to the ages of voters on being represented by one single body.
The younger demographic was in favour of one body and it went on a sliding game as they became older.
The 20 to 29 year group saw 73pc in favour, while in the 30-39 year bracket it was 62pc, sliding down to 48pc in the 40-49 bracket, 37pc in the 50-59 bracket and 31pc in the 60-69 bracket.
The balance against one single body tipped in the 40-49 years bracket at 49pc and increased to 61pc in the 50-59 bracket and peaked at 67pc in the 60-69 bracket.
The remainder on those age groups were in the 'maybe' column, with the highest undecided being 8pc in the youngest age group.
We also asked what farming organisations you were thinking of joining, if not WAF or PGA.
Twenty five per cent nominated GrainGrowers as their future organisation of choice, while equal votes of 13pc went to an unspecified grower group, the CropLife Australia, the Liberal Party, National Farmers' Federation, the Lakes Grower Group and the Grain Industry Association of WA (GIWA).
The most represented groups that respondents had already joined were WA Grains Group and GIWA (both 14pc), South East Premium Wheat Growers Association (10pc), Grain Producers Australia (7pc) and West Midlands Group (6pc).
Farm Weekly has passed on the results of the survey to both WAF and PGA.
SOME OF WHAT THE VOTERS SAID...
WHAT VOTERS SAID...
Not sure what problem we are trying to solve by having a single body. Diversity of views is important.
One voice is easy to get message across to government.
Unfortunately I think there have been times where WAFF and PGA have disagreed between each other and that has reflected badly on the industry - there hasn't been a clear message. Most the time I think there are agreeances, but where there isn't, I think they should be sorted out internally in a single organisation rather than publicly displayed differently.
No - I do not want one body and especially the WAF chief executive to push his views in my farming business.
A single body would be ideal but should not be motivated by maximising members to maximise incomes. The true motivation should be a united voice for an industry which has a very small voice in relation to the population and other industries. Infighting and continually dragging up past differences does not work well for the industry now. Abolish both and start fresh. Be clear and transparent in the process and engage with the diversity that is agriculture in WA - age, industry, sex etc.
Currently not a member of either. Would become a member of a single body.
I don't support the merger of the two groups. I used to be a member of WAF until they refused to support Mike Baxter and GM farmers.
I'm irritated by the behaviour of both WAF and PGA, particularly WAF. The antagonistic approach has created deep divide between the two organisations at a time when WA ag desperately needs them strongly united on the live export issue. Quite frankly it makes me want to be a member of neither. WAF presents like a bully and PGA seems stubborn in defiance. How can a merger even look close to successful if one party doesn't agree to it?
One voice does not give strength to a position. If anything it means alternate voices are silenced and governments only have one group to ignore. Without the ability to have choice, agricultural representation will suffer. How long before a break away group that doesn't agree with the single voice will emerge?
One representative body would enable members to do all their debating behind closed doors and then present to the public, politicians etc with a united front. Currently politicians and the public play both organisations off against each other and use that as an excuse to do nothing or make a completely different decision. If a merger can't happen it's in my best interest to be a member of neither organisation.
Play the politics in house and come out with a united voice. One voice could be very powerful.
This is a very leading question. I am happy with my membership of PGA - without their leadership in wool, wheat and lamb industries I would still be stifled by lack of competition. One group will lead us back into the dark ages
Was previously member of PGA - seemed ridiculous so pulled out and will rejoin when we have a single representative group.
If there was only one voice, we would still have a single desk, wool reserve price scheme and no live export industry. Even worse is that we would be paying into an Australian Produce Commission (APC).
Vitally important to the future of WA agriculture that we can be represented by one strong organisation in such challenging times when advocacy is more important than ever before.
We left WAFF because of their lack of support for live exports in 2011 and joined the PGA. Now with their support of the APC I see we made the right decision.
Why? If you agree with what one group is doing join them. If you don't, then don't - simple.
I can see that political decision makers need to have one message coming from agriculture in WA. They must prefer to have the debate/arguments between farmers/industry happen before representation comes to them.
Get on with a merge over five years.
A single voice works to our advantage in the national arena. The current two party arrangements in place often result in the national and other States avoiding WA. This is to our determent. They don't engage and as a result we end being victims of the decisions in the east. This is largely because PGA and WAFF will take opposing sides with little or no logic. Neither group actually represents the ag sector effectively, as both are under-resourced and spend more time arguing with each other, rather than focusing on providing a compelling value proposition to the WA ag sector
Why is WAF the only one talking about this?
Given the latest APC proposal being promoted by WAF one organisation would be dreadful. I may have supported previously but no longer.
Merge for the good of a whole industry, no 'factions' in merger, no bull...., do it properly and get on with the fairly large job at hand. Looks like a school yard fight from the outside currently.
It would, but would producers, associated industries and people support such an organisation? The apathy and excuses that come out are nothing short of ridiculous. To many, people in this industry are too selfish and only think what is best for themselves, not what is best for our industry as a whole. The closure of our Tier 3 railway lines would have to be the best example.
Local cropping and livestock matters are well accounted for by our port zones groups, eg SEPWA. State and national issues should be handled by one group so that the approach to address these issues is constant as it is only coming from one group. Also purely from an economic standpoint, one group which has several departments to handle/specialise - for example crop, pastoral, mixed farming - would be more cost effective then having several groups which all have costs and systems trying to accomplish same if not similar things.
I believe a panel is a better solution... one representative from the different industry groups on one panel. Issues can be brought to the panel and then the relevant representative can inform the panel and that goes to government.
Not sure about amalgamation, just work on setting up a new advocacy organisation.
Having two bodies opposed in their views allows the politicians to effectively do nothing.
Preferred option is to dissolve all current agro political groups and have a new voice. If ag is going to have the ability to meet key issues - social license, right to farm etc - a unified, strong, well resourced body is imperative. We need some ag industry individuals (respected/good profile) to drive this process. A merger will not work, it has to be a new entity from the ashes.
All other States are served by one grower group.
This survey is just a stunt. If WA Farmers were serious about a merger then they would have their own poll.
Has Australia lost the ability to deal with a diversity of opinion? I don't understand why this question keeps being asked. I voluntarily joined the PGA and am happy with my representation and the work that they do for me in the pastoral industry.
One single united body in today's political and economic environment would surely be far more effective. The issues facing agriculture today and into the future demand a more forceful, measured and united approach.
Would have considered it if WAF had supported the live export industry instead of selling it down the river by supporting David Littleproud's amendments.
Today more than ever particularly with fewer farmers, unity is by far the only way to go. On a daily basis all ag industries are being targeted by incorrectly informed idiots who seem to be driven by ego, fuelled by the abuse of social media to portray their inept knowledge of our very hard working farmers in a very competitive world environment. PGA leadership and attitude is deplorable to this amalgamation and they should resign and allow new and more forward thinking people to come forward. Our future is in a united force.
Doubt one group would deliver any greater representation. Just give governments the opportunity to only have to say no once.
Easier for government, better for industry as one united voice versus playing one organisation against the other. Falling number of producers can better fund one organisation, improve efficiency.
I think it's important to merge so the public can take ag seriously. At the moment we have groups saying different things and the public think it's a joke. I know not every member will agree with the stance of the organisation but the same happens at the moment with the two, so it's no different.
I work in transport and am dependent upon live exports. If it wasn't for the PGA's stance on live export, I wouldn't have a business. All WAF did was support those who want to shut down the industry.
Just stop asking this stupid question.
One voice would be more powerful towards politicians and lobbyists. It would also allow media and industry to focus on one organisation. It would also eliminate the left and right criticism that both parties receive today, but the risk is one voice may not be held accountable.
The way the proposed merger has been addressed is disgraceful.
Why limit our choice?
A bigger and combined group has more punch than many smaller, arguing ones.
I would definitely become a member of a single focus WA-based agro political group as a single voice has more lobbying power and would attract more members. This makes it more financial and able to undertake effective lobbying.The rise of animal activism and the fading voice with government on agriculture makes this absolutely critical.
No point in one single body. Will be influenced by government and not by industry.
We are seen as a mob of bickering farmers, rather than sophisticated, organised and well-represented business operators. Please pull it all together or consider dissolving your operations.
No need for this conversation - I reserve the right to join who I want.
Farmers are being increasingly told what we can do by people who do not understand our situation and needs. The current debate on the movement of agricultural machinery is just one example. A strong combined body will have a much better chance to fight for us because it would be much better funded and could employ top people to champion our needs instead of two, small, competing organisations trying to do it.
Having been a WAF member for many years, they have lost their way and many members as well. They have to move some management on, but most of all the chief executive.