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 

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.

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.