Posts by

Administrator

Home / Blog Archive
Uncategorized

A race to the bottom for milk price transparency

July 2, 2026

By Ben Bennett, President, Australian Dairy Farmers

As you wake up early, don your boots and get to the dairy on this second day of the new financial year, you may be left asking yourself “what price have I really signed up for this year?”.

Tuesday was the deadline for all Australian dairy farmers to have locked in a supply agreement for the 2026-27 season. It’s a big decision.

Contracts are signed, volumes committed, and the next 12 months of production are already taking shape. But while the deadline may have passed, it is worth reflecting on the process farmers have just had to work through, and the level of uncertainty with which they completed that task this year.

For many farmers, this year’s contracting period highlighted a persistent, if not increasing challenge: a lack of clear, comparable and transparent pricing.

Milk supply agreements represent one of the most significant commercial decisions any dairy farmer has to make. Dairy is one of the few sectors where producers forward contract a full year’s production.

At a time when input costs remain high for feed, fertiliser, fuel and labour, those decisions carry even greater weight. And yet, many farmers have had to weigh up competing offers this year without a straightforward understanding of what they are actually being paid.

That is not due to a lack of effort or diligence on the part of farmers. Across the country, producers have done exactly what you would expect of any prudent business operator – they’ve sought advice, crunched the numbers, and compared offers where possible.

The challenge lies in the structure of the offers themselves.

This season, we saw milk pricing offers of all shapes and sizes. We saw average prices and price ranges, various incentives, bonuses and conditions that can shift depending on production patterns, quality specifications, location and seasonal factors. Not to mention penalty clauses that, when applied, could be akin to clawbacks.

These price structures can make it extremely difficult to identify a clear “base price” and compare one processor’s offer with another.

For many farmers, the key question is simple: “will this price cover my cost of production and allow my business to remain sustainable?”.

Too often now, that question is arguably harder to answer than it should be.

The Dairy Code of Conduct was introduced to improve exactly this issue – to deliver greater transparency, support informed decision-making and promote a competitive marketplace.

These are the right objectives, and there has been some progress since the code came into effect.

But the experience of this year’s contracting period suggests those objectives are being challenged.

Transparency is not just an abstract principle. It underpins confidence in the market and the ability of farmers to plan for the future.

To put it plainly, we are asking farmers to commit to contracts of a year or more, without always providing a simple, consistent way to understand the value of those contracts.

This is the issue Australian Dairy Farmers has been raising for some time, including through the Dairy Code review process. The aim has always been to ensure farmers can clearly see what they are being paid for their milk and how different offers stack up.

Looking ahead, there is an opportunity and a responsibility for both industry and regulators to reflect on the lessons from this year.

Processors play a central role. Clearer, simpler and more comparable pricing would not only support farmers at decision time, it would help build trust and strengthen relationships across the supply chain.

Regulators, including the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) also have a role to ensure that these pricing structures adhere to both the spirit and intent of the Code, are not ambiguous or misleading, and are being met in practice.

We must ask whether basic ACCC competition principles are being adhered to, and whether there is access to clear, accurate and comparable price information to make informed commercial market decisions.

For farmers, the focus now shifts to the season ahead. The decisions have been made, and attention turns to production, efficiency and managing the ongoing challenges facing the sector.

But as an industry, we should not simply move on once contracts are signed, we should strive for a more efficient, effective, and competitive market.

Dairy cows in a field
Uncategorized

EU rules alter Aussie antimicrobial use

June 19, 2026

By Justin Toohey, Animal Health, Welfare and Biosecurity Advisor, Australian Dairy Farmers

What is changing?

  • Antimicrobials can no longer be used to boost growth, yield or production in animals producing milk or milk products destined for EU supply chains.
  • This rule applies to all imported products entering the EU supply chain.

What stays the same?

  • Antimicrobials for disease prevention or control remain permitted.
  • Products such as monensin and lasalocid can still be used for disease prevention or control.

Changes to the way the European Union regulates the use of antimicrobials in food-producing animals will affect all Australian dairy farmers, not just those directly supplying the EU market.

From now on, antimicrobials can be used for disease prevention or control, but cannot be used to boost growth, yield or production across the dairy industry.

The changes include antibiotics and ionophores.

This extends to all dairy farmers, given Australia cannot practically separate milk or milk products destined for the EU from other markets.

The entire Australian dairy industry must comply in order for Australia to maintain access to EU markets from September 2026 onwards. In 2025, Australian dairy exports to the EU were valued at $29 million.

Examples of allowed uses of antimicrobials include preventing bloat, controlling coccidiosis and treating ketosis or mastitis.

If you’re using antimicrobials to treat or prevent disease, you can continue to do so.

What do farmers need to do?

To stay compliant and protect market access, farmers should act now.

  1. Review all veterinary drugs and feed additives used on farm to make sure they are being used only for disease treatment or prevention.
  2. Keep clear and accurate records of all veterinary drugs and feed additives used on farm. You should record what product was used and why it was used (disease or condition being treated or prevented). This is essential to demonstrate compliance with EU requirements. Periodic reviews of Australian farms and processing plants will be conducted by EU regulators to check compliance.
  3. Consult with a veterinarian or a nutritionist for further information if needed.

Regulators are also playing a role in preparing for this change.

The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry is working with dairy processors to ensure readiness.

The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) is reviewing antimicrobial labels to ensure they align with trade requirements.

Some antimicrobial compounds (such as flavophospholipol, lasalocid, monensin, narasin and salinomycin) are commonly described as feed additives or nutritional supplements; use of these compounds for such purposes will be inconsistent with EU requirements for product access.

Product labels allowing use for disease management are expected to remain unchanged, but claims relating to growth promotion or increased yield will be removed.

Uncategorized

Why getting skilled migration right matters for dairy

June 19, 2026

By Michele Lawrence, Tasmanian dairy farmer, TasFarmers Dairy Council member and Chair ADF People and Communities Policy Advisory Group

Labour is one of dairy farming’s most critical inputs, so Australian Dairy Farmers (ADF) welcomed the opportunity to give evidence to the Federal Parliament’s inquiry into the value of skilled migration in May.

Dairy farms operate every day of the year. Cows must be milked, herds managed, and farm systems run continuously.

Keeping these operations running is no small feat, so skilled migration has become an important complement to the domestic workforce.

Many dairy regions are experiencing very tight labour markets, ageing populations and ongoing skill shortages, so skilled migration provides much-needed support to the workforce.

That reality underpinned ADF’s submission to the inquiry.

It was also the focus of the evidence I presented alongside Nathan Pope, ADF Policy Manager, to the parliamentary committee.

We reiterated the $18.5 billion economic contribution Australian dairy makes to the national economy, along with its role as a major exporter supplying more than 100 markets. The survival of dairy as a major economic driver relies on a sustainable workforce.

The challenge facing the dairy industry is not simply filling vacancies but finding the right people with the right skills at the right time.

The labour shortages in dairy are structural. Regional labour markets are already tight, with unemployment in key dairying regions well below national averages, and there is a persistent shortfall in domestic workers with relevant skills.

This means farmers are already competing over a limited workforce.

As I told the inquiry, without access to suitable workers, dairy cannot grow. We do not simply need more workers; we need stable long-term workforce capability in regional Australia to help combat the training fatigue felt by farmers.

A sustainable workforce is therefore not just about the survival of Australian dairy businesses, but also about Australia’s food security.

Migration, in this context, is not a substitute for local labour but a necessary complement.

ADF’s submission to the inquiry (which can be found on its website) points to growing reliance on overseas workers, with 42 per cent of farms using migrant labour in 2024 compared to 18 per cent in 2020.

Farms draw on a mix of pathways, from working holiday makers to employer-sponsored visas, because they must use every available migration mechanism to maintain operations.

However, it is clear the current system is not delivering effectively. As we repeated throughout the hearing, dairy needs the right people at the right time with the right skills, but existing visa settings are too slow, complex and poorly aligned with real workforce needs.

A core concern for ADF is that the migration framework has not kept pace with modern dairy skills requirements.

While the occupation of Dairy Cattle Farmer has historically been recognised, other critical roles (such as Senior Dairy Cattle Farm Worker) have not been consistently included in standard visa pathways, despite requiring substantial technical skill.

As a result, dairy businesses are often forced to rely on bespoke and regionally limited arrangements such as labour agreements and Designated Area Migration Agreements, which are administratively complex and geographically constrained.

ADF and TasFarmers have called for a more streamlined and responsive system that better reflects industry realities.

Central to this is recognising a broader range of dairy roles as skilled occupations and incorporating them into mainstream visa programs. This would reduce reliance on fragmented pathways and allow farms to access workers more efficiently.

As I stated during the hearing, we completely undervalue the skill it takes to cup cows and the importance to milk quality and animal welfare.

Dairy businesses are not simply seeking short-term labour; they need experienced employees who can develop skills over time and, in many cases, progress into management roles.

As evidence to the inquiry highlighted, many migrant workers have successfully followed these pathways, contributing to the long-term viability of the industry and regional communities.

We are therefore advocating for clearer and more accessible pathways to permanent residency, which would provide certainty for both employers and workers.

Models in comparable countries, such as New Zealand and Canada, demonstrate how work-to-residence pathways can help attract and retain skilled agricultural workers.

Finally, we raised concerns about the broader policy settings surrounding migration and training.

The message from ADF to the inquiry is clear: skilled migration is essential to sustaining dairy production, supporting regional communities and maintaining Australia’s food security. But to deliver these outcomes, the system must be better aligned with industry needs, more efficient in its administration, and more transparent in its outcomes.

Economics & Trade

Know your rights this milk price season

May 7, 2026

By Ben Bennett, President, Australian Dairy Farmers

As we move into another opening milk price period, the pressure on dairy farmers is as real as it has ever been.

Rising input costs, fuel, fertiliser, feed and labour continue to tighten margins, while uncertainty around opening prices leaves many businesses making critical decisions without full clarity.

Recent reporting highlights exactly what farmers are dealing with on the ground.

Input costs are being passed on, with diesel, fertiliser and contractor costs all rising sharply, and many farmers are rightly questioning how those costs can be recovered through milk price.

Against that backdrop, the importance of understanding your rights under a milk supply agreement has never been greater.

This is not just about the price offered. It is about the terms, the transparency, and your ability to make an informed decision.

Know what must be in your agreement

Under the Dairy Code of Conduct, milk supply agreements must clearly set out the minimum price payable for milk supplied, provided it meets the processor’s stated quality requirements. This is a fundamental protection.

The minimum price is not a guide, not an estimate, and not something that can be left vague.

It must be clearly specified so that farmers can assess whether the offer is commercially viable for their business.

At a time when many farmers are indicating they need significantly higher prices just to remain farming, understanding exactly what is being offered and how it is structured is critical.

Do not rely on headline figures or assumptions. Read the agreement in full and ensure you understand how that minimum price is calculated, what is included, and what conditions apply.

Seek information before making decisions

The opening price period can move quickly, and there is often pressure to sign agreements within tight timeframes. But this is one of the most important commercial decisions you will make each year.

Take the time to:

  • Compare offers across processors;
  • Understand step-ups, incentives and deductions;
  • Clarify any unclear terms before signing; and
  • Assess how the agreement aligns with your cost of production.

Information is your strongest weapon. If something does not make sense, ask questions. If answers are not forthcoming, that in itself is a signal to proceed with caution.

Varying and terminating agreements

Another key requirement under the Code is that milk supply agreements must clearly outline how they can be varied or terminated.

This includes:

  • Circumstances where both the farmer and processor can agree to vary or terminate the agreement; and
  • Circumstances where either party can unilaterally vary or terminate the agreement.

These provisions matter. They determine your flexibility, your risk exposure, and your ability to respond if conditions change.

Farmers should pay close attention to:

  • Notice periods;
  • Conditions that trigger change;
  • Any clauses that allow unilateral variation by the processor; and
  • Exit options and associated costs.

An agreement that locks you in without clear and fair pathways to vary or exit can create significant risk, particularly in volatile market conditions.

Use your support networks

You are not expected to navigate this alone.

If you have concerns about an agreement, or if something does not seem right, speak with your state dairy farming organisation. Your membership is there to provide support, guidance and advocacy.

These organisations deal with these issues regularly. They can help.

ADF will monitor closely

ADF will be closely watching this coming pricing period.

That includes:

  • Monitoring the process and timing of price announcements;
  • Utilising the Milk Price Transparency Tool Pilot launched in 2025;
  • Tracking public statements and market behaviour; and
  • Collecting evidence of any conduct that may undermine fair competition or transparency for the appropriate regulators.

Farmers should have confidence that the system is working as intended. Where it is not, it is critical that issues are identified, documented and addressed.

Take control of your position

This milk price season comes at a time of real pressure across the industry. Costs are high, margins are tight, and decisions carry significant weight.

But farmers are not without protections.

State dairy farming bodies and ADF are in place to support and advocate for dairy farmers. Use us.

Know what your agreement must include. Understand the price being offered. Be clear on your rights to vary or exit. Seek advice when needed.

Most importantly, take the time to make decisions based on full information, not pressure or assumption. In a season like this, clarity is not a luxury; it is essential.

Economics & Trade

EU FTA deepens the imbalance for Australian dairy

May 7, 2026

By Ben Bennett, President, Australian Dairy Farmers

Now that we have seen the initial text of the Australia–European Union Free Trade Agreement, and worked through the detail, one thing is clear for dairy farmers: this is not a balanced deal.

It’s an unfair deal which Australian Dairy Farmers (ADF) has relentlessly sounded the alarm on – in the media and directly with government.

Despite the earlier goodwill and commitments “no deal is better than a bad deal”, dairy once again finds itself pinned underneath this bus … or, perhaps, cheaper European luxury car.

At its core, this once-in-a-generation agreement locks in a structural imbalance that already exists in the trading relationship.

Australia imports almost $1 billion worth of heavily subsidised dairy from the European Union (EU), while exporting just $29 million of unsubsidised product back to the EU. In volume terms, for 2025 that is around 76,800 tonnes imported versus just 134 tonnes exported.

That is not a marginal gap; it is a deeply negative balance of trade. It is further exacerbated by the imbalance in EU agricultural subsidies while Australia remains subsidy-free.

This agreement risks widening the gap further.

Under the deal, Australia has agreed to eliminate its remaining tariff on imported cheese – currently $1.22 per kilogram – over three years.

That tariff has been one of the last meaningful protections supporting domestic cheese manufacturing against subsidised imports. Its removal will directly benefit European exporters, particularly in high-volume categories that compete head-on with Australian products in what will be an uneven playing field.

At the same time, the European Union has maintained tight controls over its own market.

While Minister Farrell highlights that tariffs will be removed on a large proportion of dairy lines, actual access is still governed by strict quota limits. The agreement provides annual duty-free quotas of just:

  • 5,000 tonnes for butter;
  • 8,000 tonnes for skim milk powder; and
  • 2,000 tonnes for whey.

Beyond those quotas, tariffs remain prohibitively high – around €1,900 per tonne for butter, €1,250 for skim milk powder, and €1,350 for whey.

These are not open market settings. They are controlled access arrangements that cap growth. This is the fundamental issue.

Australia is providing open market access, while Europe  provides limited access.

On top of that, the agreement introduces a significant new constraint through an EU ‘geographical indications’ compliance regime.

Australia has agreed to recognise 396 EU product names, including 56 dairy-specific GIs.

While some existing producers will retain rights through grandfathering provisions, future use of common terms such as feta, gruyere and romano will be restricted or phased out.

This is not just a labelling issue – it directly affects how Australian dairy products are marketed, branded and understood by consumers.

So, when you step back and look at the full picture, the imbalance becomes even clearer:

  • A $1 billion import flow into Australia versus minimal export access;
  • Tariff removal in Australia, versus quota-limited access in Europe; and
  • New regulatory constraints on Australian producers, with little in return.

Even within the domestic market, the pressure is already building. The EU is now Australia’s largest source of cheese imports by value, with imports worth $494 million.

Removing tariffs in that environment does not create opportunity.

This deal also comes at a time when dairy farmers and processors are facing rising input costs, including fuel and fertiliser, increasing regulatory pressure, and tightening margins.

Adding further import exposure without delivering meaningful export gains only compounds those challenges.

Safeguard industry before it’s too late

The focus now must be on how we respond.

ADF has been clear and consistent in calling out the risks in this trade deal.

We’ve appeared on the commercial and public broadcasters, in metropolitan and rural print media, ensuring the realities facing dairy farmers are understood beyond Canberra and the negotiating table.

This is about transparency, accountability and making sure farmers’ voices are heard.

Trade policy should not be something done to farmers. It must be shaped with them.

Strengthening domestic demand, improving labelling clarity, and backing Australian dairy in the marketplace will be critical in supporting the industry.

If this agreement proceeds, the focus must turn to how we protect confidence in Australian dairy at home.

That is why ADF is strongly backing the case for a national “Buy Australian Dairy” campaign and clear country-of-origin labelling.

A campaign like this is no longer a ‘nice-to-have’ option when it comes to protection from competition.

It’s urgently needed to drive home the message that if consumers value sustainable, nutritious Australian dairy produce, they need to make informed choices at the supermarket.

We know consumers overwhelmingly support local farmers when they’re given clear information.

Let’s not forget the responsibility doesn’t solely fall on the shoulders of consumers.

Food service businesses and procurement managers also have a role to play in supporting the ongoing availability of Australian dairy.

A coordinated campaign would help ensure shoppers can identify and choose local dairy, supporting local jobs, regional communities and a sustainable domestic industry.

Australian dairy farmers are not asking for protection from competition.

We are asking for fairness and policy settings that recognise the value of producing food locally, to world‑class standards, in an increasingly uncertain global environment. Trade agreements should create opportunity, not deepen imbalance.

Uncategorized

Fair milk pricing is about Australia’s future food security

May 6, 2026

By Ben Bennett, President, Australian Dairy Farmers

Fresh Australian milk is part of everyday life right across the country.

Australia’s seven dairy farming organisations have united to call for better, fairer pricing.

Milk is poured on breakfast cereal, frothed into coffee and relied on as a nutritious, affordable staple.

But while milk may look cheap and abundant on supermarket shelves, the system that produces it is under increasing strain.

For many years, Australia has seen very low retail milk prices. Remember when supermarkets cut the retail price of milk by 30% overnight, launching their $1/litre milk war?

In fact, Australians enjoy some of the cheapest fresh milk in the developed world.

Previous analysis by The Weekly Times showed consumers in New Zealand were paying $A2.64 for a litre of home brand milk, while prices averaged $A2.20/litre in Canada, $2.44/litre in France and $A2.05/litre in South Africa and $A2.05/litre the US.

Australian consumers might see this as a positive during a cost-of-living crisis, but it masks a growing disconnect between what consumers pay and the price at which farmers can viably produce the milk.

Ever since the launch of dollar-a-litre milk, dairy farmer numbers and production in Australia have been declining.

Dairy farmers are facing sustained and significant cost pressures.

Fuel, fertiliser, feed, energy and freight costs have all increased sharply, often with little warning.

Seasonal variability is adding further uncertainty, and global instability continues to ripple through supply chains.

Unlike many businesses, dairy farmers cannot pass these costs on. They are price‑takers, not price‑setters.

Recent price increases from some processors and retailers are welcome, however they do not flow back to all dairy farmers, and they are only temporary.

That means that despite the increases, most farmers are still not receiving the long‑term pricing certainty they need to invest, plan and continue producing milk.

This is why dairy farmers across Australia are calling for a clear, transparent reset in retail milk pricing.

Prices must genuinely reflect the cost of production and deliver value back through the supply chain – not only to farmers, but to our processors as well.

A modest increase of a minimum of  30 cents per litre, with guaranteed pass-through to farmers, would make a real difference.

Importantly, this increase would keep fresh milk under $2 a litre at the supermarket checkout.

This is not about windfall profits. It is about ensuring the people producing this essential food can afford to keep doing so into the future.

Milk is not just another grocery item. It is a perishable product produced every day, transported every day, and reliant on a tightly balanced system that cannot simply pause and restart on a whim.

When farmers are forced to scale back or exit the industry because prices do not cover costs, the consequences are long‑lasting.

Without correction, Australia risks reduced domestic production and increased reliance on imported dairy products. Once local production capacity is lost, it is extremely difficult, and costly, to rebuild.

As we’ve seen recently in so many aspects of our lives, greater reliance on imports also exposes Australian families to global price shocks, supply disruptions and comes with less certainty about food standards and availability.

This is ultimately a food‑security issue. A viable dairy industry underpins national nutrition, regional jobs and resilience during geopolitical or supply‑chain shocks.

Fair milk pricing today is what keeps Australian dairy on Australian tables tomorrow.

Farmers understand that no part of the supply chain can absorb rising costs alone.

Sustainable milk production requires shared responsibility across retailers, processors and farmers alike.

Any retail price increase must flow transparently through contracts and be reflected consistently across the dairy category, not absorbed before it reaches the farmgate.

That transparency is critical to rebuilding farmer confidence. It also underscores the importance of stronger clarity and compliance under the Dairy Code of Conduct, so pricing signals are meaningful and enforceable rather than discretionary.

The dairy industry does not want to be having this conversation. Farmers would much rather be focused on producing high‑quality food and caring for their land and animals.

This is not about asking consumers to shoulder an unreasonable burden.

It’s asking for a modest, fair increase in milk pricing that spreads the cost across the system, protects households from future shortages and preserves an industry that is essential to Australia’s food security.

Photo by Eduardo Soares on Unsplash

Uncategorized

ADIC seeking Independent Chair for Dairy Animal Care Assurance Program

April 24, 2026

The Australian Dairy Industry Council (ADIC) seeks an independent Chair for the development phase of its new industry‑led, science‑based Animal Care Assurance Program (ACAP).

The program is being designed to meet regulatory expectations, reflect current science and on‑farm practice, support ongoing improvement, and build trust across the value chain, from dairy farmers to consumers.

Expressions of interest are now being accepted for this important position.

The Chair will provide impartial, strategic leadership, guide constructive and outcome‑focused discussions, and support the Steering Committee to deliver clear, evidence‑based recommendations to ADIC. For more information, please read the position description below, or download it here.

Position Description: Independent Chair – Dairy Animal Care Assurance Program (ACAP) Steering Committee 

Context 

The Australian Dairy Industry Council (ADIC) is developing an industry-led, science-based Animal Care Assurance Program (ACAP) for the Australian dairy sector. ACAP is designed to meet regulatory expectations, reflect current science, commercial practice, support ongoing improvement, and build trust across the value chain—from farmer to consumer. Development commenced in September 2025, with key stages progressing through 2026, and is supported by dairy farmers, animal welfare experts, veterinarians, processors, and key supply chain partners.  

Role Purpose 

ADIC seeks an independent Chair to lead the ACAP Steering Committee through the program’s development phase. The Chair will provide impartial, strategic leadership to guide and facilitate the Steering Committee’s deliberations in achieving the Steering Committee and ADIC goals and objectives. The Chair will foster constructive discussion and debate with the purpose of bringing diverse stakeholder views and perspectives together to deliver clear, consensus-based recommendations for ADIC’s decision-making. 

Key Responsibilities 

  • Facilitate the ACAP Steering Committee in setting its strategic objectives and plans to enable ACAP to achieve its ultimate goals   
  • Set agendas and priorities for Steering Committee meetings 
  • Facilitate focused, outcome-driven discussions and guide the Committee toward consensus-based recommendations 
  • Identify matters requiring escalation to ADIC and clearly articulate options, risks, and implications 
  • Ensure advice provided to ADIC is robust and balanced 
  • Support adherence to agreed governance processes, timelines, and stage-gate requirements 
  • Contribute to stakeholder engagement and relationship management 
  • Act as a spokesperson for ACAP during the development phase, as agreed with ADIC     

Outcomes by End of Appointment 

At the conclusion of the engagement, the independent Chair will have: 

  • Led the Steering Committee through the development of ACAP Version 1, resolving key strategic and technical issues and delivering a clear set of recommendations ready for ADIC endorsement 
  • Established effective committee ways of working that enable constructive challenge, timely progress, and stakeholder confidence 
  • Supported alignment across farmers, processors, veterinarians, and animal welfare experts 
  • Contributed to positioning ACAP as a credible, science-based, and trusted assurance framework 

Authority 

The independent Chair does not hold formal decision-making authority for ACAP but is empowered to shape the Committee’s workplan, guide its deliberations, and ensure high-quality advice is presented to ADIC for decision. 

Current governance arrangements 

The development of ACAP is overseen by a Steering Committee and supported by a Technical Advisory Group (TAG).  

  • The Steering Committee provides strategic direction, governance, and oversight for the national Animal Care Assurance Program, leading the co-development of program standards and the assessment framework, with final approval held by ADIC; it comprises representatives from ADF, ADPF, Australian Cattle Veterinarians, independent farmers, and processors. 
  • The TAG provides independent, science-informed and practical technical advice for Steering Committee consideration and is made up of animal welfare and health scientists, a practicing veterinarian, a milk processor representative, and dairy producers. 

Secretariat support to both committees is provided by Dairy Australia, who have commissioned ACER Consulting to provide expert technical advisory services. The independent Chair will work closely with the TAG Chair and Secretariat to ensure appropriate flow of information, clear delineation of roles, and alignment between technical advice and Steering Committee deliberations. 

Australian Dairy Industry Council, and their two constituent bodies Australian Dairy Farmers and Australian Dairy Products Federation, are the owners of any future ACAP and final decision makers.  

Independent Chair Role 

ADIC are seeking an independent chair to lead the Steering Committee. The Chair will be responsible for guiding the Steering Committee toward clear recommendations, ensuring readiness for stage gate decisions, and supporting ADIC with balanced, evidence based advice. In addition to chairing meetings, this role will include stakeholder engagement and may involve being a key spokesperson for an ACAP during this early development phase, where representation is required and authorised by ADIC.  

Estimated days: 10 across the remainer of 2026 with possible extension into 2027.  

This is a remunerated role in accordance with Dairy Australia committee sitting-fee policy. Respondents are asked to submit their reasonable expectation for a daily rate noting it is not assured this will be the rate offered. 

Meetings will be held at least monthly but ad hoc meetings may be required, meetings will be a combination of face-to-face and remote. 

The Chair must be independent of Dairy Australia and dairy industry representative organisations (i.e., not a current employee, Executive member or Director). 

Competencies sought for the Chair include: 

  • Strong leadership, facilitation and stakeholder communication and engagement skills. 
  • Proven experience chairing committees or boards. 
  • Experience leading or overseeing assurance, certification, or standards based programs in regulated or high trust environments would be well regarded. 
  • Experience navigating community trust, social licence, or NGO scrutiny. 
  • Broad understanding of the agricultural supply chain. 
  • Strategic, innovative and solutions-focused thinking. 
  • Availability and commitment to the role. 

Selection criteria 

Along with the competencies listed above, applicants should demonstrate: 

  • Relevant sector expertise (dairy or agricultural supply chain). 
  • Strategic leadership and governance capabilities. 
  • Strong communication, collaboration and decision-making skills. 
  • Commitment to the objectives of ACAP. 

An ADIC selection committee will be established to assess candidates against prescribed criteria and will make a recommendation to ADIC for ratification.  

Conflicts of interest 

Respondents are asked to disclose any actual, potential or perceived conflicts of interest as part of their application.  

How to apply 

Interested parties are invited to submit: 

  • A brief cover letter (no more than two pages) outlining their interest and addressing the selection criteria. 
  • A curriculum vitae (CV). 
  • Expectation for a daily rate noting it is not assured this will be the rate offered. 
  • Any actual, potential or perceived conflicts of interest. 
  • Contact details for at least two referees. 

Successful applicants will be required to enter into a contract for their roles with Dairy Australia. 

Timeline 

Closing date for applications: 8 May 2026 

Role commences: 10 June 2026  

Further information 

For further information or to apply, please contact Andy Hancock – Dairy Australia – andrew.hancock@dairyaustralia.com.au 

Uncategorized

Unfair trade deal doesn’t stack up for dairy

April 2, 2026

By Ben Bennett – President, Australian Dairy Farmers

When I’m not travelling on ADF business, I spend my days on a dairy farm and like most farmers I assess things against a simple measure – does it make our industry stronger, more competitive, and more secure into the future?

As I sit down to write this piece, the full details of the agreement have not yet been made public, but I cannot see how it will benefit our industry in any of those ways.

Dairy farmers backed the idea of a deal with Europe. We understood the opportunity.

It’s one of the most protected markets in the world, and if we could get fair access, there was real upside for Australian dairy.

But that was always the condition. It had to be fair, and it had to be reciprocal.

What’s been delivered doesn’t meet that test.

Australia walked away from a deal in Osaka in 2023 because it didn’t stack up.

What’s on the table now doesn’t materially improve on that position. After eight years of negotiations, farmers were expecting something better; not the same deal dressed up differently.

On paper, there’s tariff reductions into Europe, and that sounds positive. But when you dig into it, the reality is those opportunities are still heavily constrained.

The quotas are small, and outside those quotas the tariffs remain so high they effectively shut the door.

So, for most Australian dairy farmers, access to Europe doesn’t change in any meaningful way.

At the same time, Australia is opening its doors, removing tariffs on key products like cheese over just three years.

That’s not a level playing field.

European farmers are supported by tens of billions of euros in subsidies every year.

On average, those subsidies make up a significant portion of farm income. That support shapes how much they produce, what they export, and at what price.

Australian farmers don’t have that.

So what we’re doing here is exposing one of the least subsidised industries in the world to one of the most supported, without getting equal opportunity in return.

That’s not free trade. That’s uneven competition.

Then there’s geographical indications, something farmers have been raising concerns about from the start.

Australia has agreed to protect nearly 400 European product names. Yes, we’ve held onto ‘parmesan’, and existing users of terms like feta and gruyere will be able to continue.

But the direction is clear,  future Australian producers will be restricted in how they describe their products.

That creates cost, complexity, and confusion.

For farmers, it’s another example of giving something up without getting enough back.

One of the biggest concerns for me is what this means for our domestic industry.

Cheese is a cornerstone of Australian dairy processing. It supports regional jobs, investment, and ultimately farmgate milk prices.

The tariff on cheese imports has been one of the last meaningful protections we’ve had. This deal removes it.

We’re already seeing strong growth in imports from Europe. They now send us significantly more dairy than we send back, both in value and volume. This agreement risks accelerating that trend.

And once that happens, once processing capacity shrinks and supply chains shift, it’s very hard to rebuild.

There are safeguard provisions in the deal, but they rely on proving serious harm after it’s already happened. For a perishable product like milk, that’s too late.

Farmers can’t turn production on and off overnight. You don’t recover lost capacity quickly.

That’s why dairy farmers are deeply disappointed.

This deal delivers cheaper luxury cars into Australia, but it doesn’t deliver meaningful new opportunities for the people producing one of the country’s most important staple foods.

Where to from here?

If this agreement is going ahead, we need to make sure Australian dairy isn’t left carrying the cost.

We need stronger support for domestic demand, backing Australian product on Australian shelves.

We need better monitoring of imports and pricing behaviour. And we need to make sure trade policy and domestic policy are working together, not against each other.

Because at the end of the day, this isn’t just about trade deals.

It’s about making sure Australia can keep producing its own food, supporting regional communities, and backing the farmers who do it.

On that measure, this deal doesn’t go far enough.

Uncategorized

Time to get real on dairy terms

March 5, 2026

By Ben Bennett – President, Australian Dairy Farmers

Have you ever seen anyone attach milking cups to a coconut, or herd almonds into a dairy shed?

It might sound flippant, but the question cuts to the heart of a serious issue Australia continues to ignore – one the rest of the world has resolved and committed to.

Last month, the United Kingdom’s Supreme Court confirmed that products made from plants cannot be called “milk”, “butter” or “yoghurt” if they are not derived from animals.

The ruling reinforces long‑standing laws across the UK, the European Union (EU) and the United States (US) that reserve dairy terms for dairy products.

Yet in Australia, our government has chosen a different path. Instead of clear, enforceable rules, it has endorsed a voluntary labelling code for plant‑based products – one to be written by the plant‑based industry itself.

That decision leaves Australia increasingly out of step with global standards.

This is about honesty, not choice.

Australian Dairy Farmers (ADF) is not calling for plant‑based products to be removed from supermarket shelves. Consumers should have choice.

But choice only works when information is clear and honest.

Milk, cheese and yoghurt are whole foods. They come from a single, natural source and have earned consumer trust over generations.

They also have a well‑understood nutritional profile that matters, particularly for children, older Australians and vulnerable groups.

Plant‑based engineered  products are different. They are formulated to mimic the taste and appearance of dairy. While many are fortified with vitamins and minerals, they are not nutritionally equivalent.

Some are highly processed and engineered through additives to approximate what dairy provides naturally.

When these products use dairy terms, they trade on dairy’s reputation and trust while offering something fundamentally different.

Consumers may know that a product labelled “oat milk” comes from oats. But that is not the same as understanding it does not deliver the same nutrition as milk.

That distinction matters.

The Federal Government recently spent $1.5 million on a labelling review led by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, with Food Standards Australia New Zealand commissioned to survey consumers.

The review concluded there was limited consumer confusion. Australian Dairy Farmers strongly disputes that finding.

The survey focused largely on whether consumers could identify whether a product was plant‑based.

It did not meaningfully test whether people understand the nutritional differences between dairy and imitation products, or whether they believe these products offer the same health benefits.

Industry was not given the opportunity to provide input into key questions posed to consumers.

Reporting was later drafted in ways that downplayed earlier findings indicating confusion around nutrition.

If you don’t ask honest questions, you won’t get honest answers.

Instead of addressing these shortcomings, the government endorsed the development of a voluntary code of practice led by the Alternative Proteins Council.

This approach is fundamentally flawed.

You cannot ask an industry that imitates genuine products to write the rules governing how dairy language should be used.

That is a clear conflict of interest.

A voluntary code is not regulation. It provides no certainty and no protection for consumers or farmers. Companies that choose not to sign up can continue as they always have.

Yet again, the fox is being asked to build the hen house.

What makes this situation even more baffling is that Australia helped shape the international Codex standards, which define milk as “the normal mammary secretion obtained from the milking of animals”.

We accept those standards in international trade negotiations. We rely on them when exporting Australian dairy into markets that fiercely protect dairy terms.

But at home, we refuse to apply the same logic.

Australia is a major dairy exporter. Failing to protect dairy terms domestically undermines our credibility and weakens the standing of Australian dairy in global markets where those words are legally protected.

Our trading partners understand the value of dairy terms. Why doesn’t our own government?

Across the EU, the UK and the US, plant‑based products can be sold freely – but they cannot be called milk or yoghurt. They may use descriptors like “alternative” or “style”, but the core dairy terms remain reserved for dairy.

This is not radical. It is common sense.

Words matter. When consumers pick up a product labelled “milk”, it should come from a cow – not a marketing department.

The rest of the world recognises that dairy words have meaning. Australia should too.

Farming operations

The H5N1 unicorn… for now

February 4, 2026

By Justin Toohey – Animal Health, Welfare and Biosecurity Advisor, Australian Dairy Farmers

For several years now, Australia has watched Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (H5N1) sweep through bird populations across nearly every continent.

Remarkably, to date we remain the only continent free of the virus.

That absence is good news, but it’s also the core reason dairy farmers must stay alert.

Although H5N1 has never been detected in Australia’s wildlife, poultry or cattle, the global pattern is clear.

The unprecedented outbreak in the US dairy herds in 2024 has given us a valuable insight into how the virus behaves in cattle, and how we can best prepare should it eventually arrive here.

While there is a relatively low risk of the disease entering the Australian dairy herd, we must heed the US experience that saw it as the only continent where H5 bird flu directly impacted dairy cattle and their handlers.

US dairy herds have proved particularly vulnerable to the spread of this disease for several reasons.

Compared with Australian dairy farms, they tend to involve shed-based rather than pasture-based systems, with significantly higher movements of people and cattle, including lactating cattle, between operations.

While the risk profile of Australia’s dairy industry is fundamentally different, we must still be vigilant.

This very topic was the focus of a recent industry breakfast held by Australian Dairy Farmers (ADF) at International Dairy Week.

Guest speaker, Dairy Australia’s Dr Andy Hancock, outlined how the US was caught off guard and what we can learn from the US for application here.

This ties in with work last year by Dairy Australia and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, studying the risks of H5 bird flu to the domestic dairy herd.

It was evident from this presentation that, in the event of H5N1 arriving in Australia, much can be done by dairy farmers to reduce the risk of infection and/or spread among their herds and farm workers. Key recommendations were:

Prevent entry (spillover) by:

  1. Keeping poultry away from milking bails
  2. Monitoring wild bird populations on farm and requesting tests if any suspicion
  3. Where possible, minimising access of wild birds, poultry and other animals to dairy cattle feed and water sources
  4. Updating and applying on-farm biosecurity plans
  5. Being alert and reporting promptly any illness in cattle, workers or pets

Reduce within-farm spread by:

  1. Observing strict hygiene practices, especially on entry and exit of sheds and during milking
  2. Not feeding mastitis-affected milk to calves or pets
  3. Preferably treating all milk before feeding it to calves or pets
  4. Implementing early detection and isolation of infected animals

Reduce between-farm spread by:

  1. Minimising animal and people movements
  2. Observing strict biosecurity measures, including self-quarantining where possible
  3. Avoiding the movement of raw milk between farms

Reduce the impact by:

  1. Preparing early for the treatment of sick animals
  2. Seriously considering the use of appropriate personal protective equipment
  3. Ensuring no human consumption of raw milk
  4. Maximising the chance of early detection by increasing surveillance and testing

None of these points is particularly difficult to action, and it’s important to practise them now.

While it is not expected the virus will enter the dairy herd in Australia, we must prepare regardless.

It’s important we remember that in the US it predominantly spread between dairy herds through milk and the movement of infected cattle.

The virus is killed by the pasteurisation process, making processed milk safe for consumption.

By implementing the simple techniques listed above, farmers can be confident they’ll be pulling their weight if the need arises to control the spread of H5N1 in the Australian dairy herd.

What to watch for

If H5N1 were ever detected in Australia, it would be national news.  But the first line of defence on farm is early recognition of symptoms.

The signs of H5N1 in cattle include:

  • Sudden, sharp drops in milk production
  • Thickened or mastitis-like milk, often multi quarter
  • Cows not responding to normal intramammary treatment
  • Non-specific illness: fever, dehydration, low rumination
  • Clusters of cases rather than isolated events

The process for testing milk samples is straightforward, but only once dairy farmers or field officers suspect something unusual. Remember, the risk is low, but early detection is key!

Economics & Trade

Protectionism? You feta believe it

December 19, 2025

By Ben Bennett, President, Australian Dairy Farmers

After more than seven years of negotiations, Australian dairy producers face a looming threat: a flood of cheap, government-subsidised European cheese.

This is not alarmism – it’s a very real concern for Australian Dairy Farmers (ADF), the peak body representing our nation’s dairy farmers, and should also be of concern to Australian consumers.

With the major trade agreement between Australia and the European Union (EU) expected to be finalised in 2026, we urge the Federal Government to hold its nerve and protect the interests of Australian agriculture and Australian industry.

If the government fails to stand firm, this deal could fail both Australian farmers and the national interest.

While the dairy sector welcomes renewed efforts to secure a fair Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the EU, the current proposals are anything but fair or free.

Last month we saw reports suggesting France was pushing the case to have negotiations on another FTA between the EU and South American countries delayed to allow time to “continue work on getting the legitimate measures of protection for … European agriculture” in place.

In other words, we’re seeing blatant protectionism from the EU – alongside demands these South American countries open their doors and allow the EU unfettered access.

Is this any different to what the EU will do with access the Australian market? The simple answer is no.

The European dairy industry enjoys massive subsidies – a luxury Australian farmers do not enjoy. As a result, the EU produces over 160 billion litres of milk annually – 19 times more than Australia – and is by far the world’s largest exporter of dairy products.

These subsidies allow European producers to sell cheese at artificially low prices, creating an uneven playing field that could devastate our local industry.

Australia already imports more than 70,000 tonnes of European cheese annually – about 2.6 kilograms for every Australian.

In stark contrast, we export just 1,500 tonnes of cheese to the EU each year. Spread across a population of 450 million, that’s a mere 3.3 grams per person.

The EU claims its market is at risk if Australian producers continue using names like feta or parmesan – terms that have been part of our food culture for generations.

But the real risk lies in cheap, subsidised cheese flooding into Australia, driving local producers out of business and hollowing out regional communities.

The EU is the world’s largest cheese producer by a country mile, and our market is a drop in the ocean compared to theirs. Even a modest increase in EU imports could open the floodgates and drown our industry in imported product.

Meanwhile, the EU refuses to grant Australia the same market access to EU markets as they in-turn expect access to in Australia.

If Europe wants full access to our market, it must offer the same in return. Anything less is not fair or ‘free’ trade; it is exploitation.

Australian dairy is more than an industry; it’s a cornerstone of rural life.

It supports thousands of jobs, sustains regional economies, and delivers high-quality, nutritious food to millions of Australians.

Undermining this sector would have ripple effects far beyond the farm gate, impacting transporters, processors, retail, and the communities that depend on them.

Our farmers operate in one of the toughest environments in the world.

They innovate, invest in sustainability, and uphold world-class standards in animal welfare and environmental stewardship – all without the cushion of government subsidies.

These values matter to Australian consumers, and they should not be sacrificed for the sake of an unfair trade deal.

If this agreement goes ahead on the EU’s terms, the consequences could be irreversible.

Once farms close or move away from dairy, they don’t come back. Once processing factories close, they don’t re-open. And once communities decline, rebuilding them is near impossible.

We’re not asking for special treatment. We’re asking for fairness – a level playing field.

A deal that recognises the value of Australian dairy and gives our farmers the chance to compete on merit, not subsidies.

As we enter what is likely the last year of negotiations, the Federal Government must stand firm.

Reject demands that disadvantage Australian farmers and insist on terms that create real opportunities for growth.

Let’s remember, after all – no deal is better than a dud deal.

Photo by Katrin Leinfellner on Unsplash

Policy & Advocacy

Farmers on path to more equitable RDC arrangements

December 2, 2025

By Ben Bennett, President, Australian Dairy Farmers

Last week’s Dairy Australia Annual General Meeting (AGM) marked a pivotal moment for our industry.

While a resolution to remove the Australian Dairy Products Federation’s (ADPF) Group B membership from Dairy Australia was ultimately voted down, it succeeded in achieving something far more important.

It brought processors to the negotiating table and reignited a long-overdue conversation about the governance and funding of our industry’s research and development corporation (RDC).

For too long, dairy farmers – the primary funders of Dairy Australia through tens of millions in levy contributions – have watched as processors, through ADPF, wield disproportionate influence over how farmers’ RDC levies are spent.

As a Group B member, ADPF influences Dairy Australia’s strategic direction, board selections, and operating plans.

The resolution, put forward by Australian Dairy Farmers (ADF), was designed to rebalance this equation, giving farmers a greater say in how their hard-earned levy funds are governed.

I am not at all opposed to ADPF being consulted by Dairy Australia on matters to improve industry productivity and profitability. But I do think it’s fair that processors contribute to core operational funding in return for the privilege to, in effect, direct how DA operates and where it should invest farmer’s funds.

Despite the resolution being voted down, I believe it was partially successful.

For the first time, as we heard at the AGM from the Dairy Australia Chair Paul Roderick, at the eleventh-hour, ADPF brought a funding proposal forward for DA’s consideration.

The details of ADPF’s offer are scant and we’re yet to learn what this proposal looks like. But it’s positive progress all the same.

Mr Roderick acknowledged: “We’ve made progress and reached agreement on some funding, but it’s not yet at a level that we can call true co-investment.” 

As Mr Roderick said, the path to a true, sustainable co-investment model still appears some way off, but we’re now headed in the right direction.

We watch in anticipation for the outcomes of this negotiation.

Independence and transparency

ADF also worked closely with Dairy Australia on another key resolution: paving the way for greater independence in its Board Selection Committee.

The resolution, which was approved by members, will see the company’s constitution amended to enable:

  • Increased independence for the committee, including an independent chair and at least one independent member;
  • A ‘farmer voice’ constitutionally enshrined in the selection process;
  • Broadening committee membership to ensure an increased range of perspectives;
  • No single organisation (Dairy Australia or a Group B member) will be able to appoint a majority of committee members;
  • Providing for expert members to be appointed to the committee;
  • Making it easier for dairy farmers to nominate board director candidates.

This measure, which was approved by dairy farmer members, is a significant step towards improved governance, greater independence, and ensuring increased dairy farmer engagement.

Path ahead

I am proud of the progress we have made.

Although we await the outcomes of deliberations between processors and Dairy Australia, this work to achieve greater funding and greater independence in its governance is positive. I hope we’ll see good outcomes for Dairy Australia, for dairy farmers, and the industry as a whole.

I may not have articulated the case for change as well as I should, but I am confident that the outcomes of Dairy Australia and ADPF’s negotiations will be closely watched by dairy farmers across Australia.

The results in themselves demonstrate that the resolutions put by ADF, and Dairy Australia, were fair and reasonable, that we should be able to have an open, honest and professional debate, and the dairy farmers should be entitled to vote on these issues.   Let’s move forward together, united in our commitment to a fair, sustainable, and productive RDC and dairy industry.

1 2 3 … 24 25
About ADF