ADF answers questions about the dairy code

Australia’s peak dairy representative body, Australian Dairy Farmers (ADF), has not yet joined the ACCC and all but one of the state dairy bodies in calling for a mandatory code that would govern the interactions between farmers and processors.

I’m grateful to ADF’s President, Terry Richardson, for answering four questions about the ADF’s approach for Milk Maid Marian.

Terry Richardson2lores

Terry Richardson, ADF president

1. Does the ADF accept the ACCC’s finding that the voluntary code was not effective enough?
TR: ADF accepts the ACCC findings that the current industry Code had a positive impact on contracting practices but has been unable to secure participation by all processors, reduce risk and strengthen bargaining power for farmers, independently arbitrate complaints or penalise breaches.

When the Code was introduced, it was agreed that a review would occur twelve months of operation. This included an assessment of its strengths and weaknesses in the context of the ACCC report and industry feedback.

We were aware at the start of the code review process that the next version of the industry Code must have such procedures in place.

It is important to recognise that prior to 1 July 2017, there was no Code of Practice for Contractual Arrangements in the dairy industry, and Australian Dairy Farmers was pivotal in making this difficult yet important first step.

2. If you are still committed to the review of the voluntary code, what resources does ADF have that were unavailable to the ACCC and may have hindered its review?
TR: It is incorrect to assume that the ADIC is conducting its own review with the aim of coming to a different conclusion to the ACCC. The ACCC and ADIC reviews have different objectives.

The ADIC review is focused entirely on how the voluntary code operated, what elements were successful and what needs improving in a new Code of Practice.

We found that relatively little of the ACCC report considered the operation of the current dairy industry Code of Practice despite the shortcomings.

Our concern with the ACCC report was that in recommending a mandatory code of practice, the ACCC did not conduct an assessment against the Australian Government’s threshold test nor did it provide adequate analysis on how this new code would operate.

It is our understanding that it is difficult to amend or alter a mandatory code once it is enacted if farmers determine at some future time that they are unhappy with its operation.

It has been incorrectly assumed that continuing with the ADIC review is an indication that the Council or ADF is opposed to a mandatory code of practice. That is not true.

The ACCC report broadly discussed the different types of codes but we need to review all options and communicate to farmers the benefits and shortcomings of each.

These are significant decisions for the dairy industry and farmers should expect that ADF forms a view that is underpinned by detailed analysis

3. What steps has the ADF taken in response to the ACCC report?
TR: ADF, in conjunction with the Australian Dairy Industry Council, is using the ACCC report as a springboard to revise and strengthen the Code of Practice and act on the other recommendations contained in the report.

We are working with a legal firm who has considerable experience in working with industry codes. While this legal advice is in its early stages, we will work through number of key amendments that should be included in a new dairy industry code, including a dispute resolution mechanism and penalties procedure that would ensure compliance.

We are also using the ACCC Guide to Industry Codes of Practice to ensure a strengthened code is consistent with best practice.

4. What are the next steps and their timeframes?
TR: The introduction of a Mandatory Code would take 15-18 months, and with a federal election scheduled for the first half of 2019, this timeline could be extended as government moves into caretaker mode during an election.

Preparing a strengthened industry Code including dispute resolution procedures is the next step, and we expect this to be complete in the next couple of months.

This work is complex and ADF is proceeding one step at a time, recognising the urgency of moving this work forward.

Thank you, Terry Richardson, for explaining ADF’s approach to a dairy code!

ACCC: the cost of a mandatory code

Suddenly, we’re not talking about whether the voluntary code has worked but how much a mandatory code might cost.

Everyone (including lobby body, the Australian Dairy Farmers) was taken by surprise when the CEO of Australia’s largest dairy processor, Lino Saputo told ABC Radio his company would support a mandatory code provided that it wasn’t too expensive.

So, how much would a mandatory code cost? To hear directly from the horse’s mouth, Milk Maid Marian asked ACCC Deputy Chair Mick Keogh a few questions to help explain the costs.

MickKeogh2

ACCC Deputy Chair Mick Keogh

MMM: What are the mechanisms that a mandatory code might use to resolve disputes or breaches and how do they differ?

MK: In its Dairy Inquiry final report, the ACCC recommended the industry should establish a process for an independent body to mediate and arbitrate contractual disputes between farmers and processors (or collective bargaining groups and processors).

The ACCC recommended ADIC should be responsible for establishing the body, and as part of this process should consult closely with farmer representative groups to determine how the dispute resolution process would work.

There are examples in other agriculture industries where an industry body has successfully developed dispute resolution process. For example, Grain Trade Australia administers a dispute resolution process where decisions are made by independent arbiters (that both growers and traders agree on) and disputes can only be brought if there is an arbitration agreement in writing.

GTA publishes detailed Dispute Resolution Guidelines that set out the procedure when parties are seeking to have a dispute resolved. GTA also publishes the decisions of arbitrators on its website (removing the parties’ identities) to allow industry participants to share in the findings and possibly modify their commercial behaviours.

The establishment of an independent mediation and arbitration body is not contingent on legislating a mandatory code for the dairy industry; however the ACCC considers a mandatory code should require that contracts contain terms that provide for an effective independent dispute resolution process.

MMM: Which of these is preferred by the ACCC in the dairy industry’s case and why?

MK: The ACCC’s preference is that ADIC establish an independent body to mediate and arbitrate contractual disputes between farmers (or collective bargaining groups) and processors.

The feedback received by the ACCC indicates there is not an appropriate existing body that could facilitate an effective dispute resolution process in the dairy industry, which is why a new body should be established.

MMM: What costs would the implementation of a mandatory code potentially bring? How large are these costs? Who would bear these costs?

MK: In our final report we outlined several ways a potential code could help address the contracting and bargaining power issues we identified through the Dairy Inquiry. These include:

  • obligations on processors to give timely and transparent information about the terms on which they propose to acquire milk from farmers (including through provision of written contracts and price guidance)
  • obligations on processors not to include contract terms which unreasonably restrict farmers’ ability to switch processors
  • restrictions on processors’ ability to change key trading terms (including prohibition of retrospective price step-downs and unilateral variation of agreement terms)
  • as noted above, requirement that contracts contain an effective independent dispute resolution process.

The ACCC recognises that there is industry and farmer concern about potential cost burdens associated with a mandatory code. However, the ACCC considers the compliance costs associated with the recommended mandatory code, particularly for farmers, would not be substantial.

The ACCC would be consulted on a code proposal and would not support an excessive regulatory burden being placed on farmers.

Farmers’ regulatory responsibilities would only require them to retain signed or acknowledged copies of milk supply agreements and act in good faith in their dealings with processors (similar requirements would be placed on processors too).

For processors, the potential compliance costs could include:

  • updating their contracts so they comply with the code
  • keeping a copy of contracts signed with farmers for a minimum time period, similar to requirements in other industry codes.
  • a requirement to participate in any compliance checks the ACCC undertakes
  • that they inform themselves of the code’s requirements and update their practices to ensure they are compliant.

Records of transactions and contracts currently need to be retained for taxation purposes for seven years, so any code record keeping requirements are unlikely to add any additional administrative cost for processors.

Thank you very much, Mick Keogh, for clarifying the costs surrounding the implementation of a mandatory code.

Dairy crisis in dates disgraces ADF and minister

Here’s a potted history of the dairy crisis. It’s worth remembering:

April 2016                   MG stuns the dairy community with the clawback

May 2016                    Fonterra follows suit, crashing its price

May 2016                    Milk price index announced

August 2016                Ag minister Barnaby Joyce says he will put an end to $1 milk

September 2016          Senate inquiry into dairy industry announced

October 2016             Treasurer Scott Morrison instructed the ACCC to hold an inquiry into the competitiveness of prices, trading practices and the supply chain in the Australian dairy industry.

August 2017                Senate committee report released

November 2017          Consultant chosen to deliver milk price index

November 2017          ACCC Interim report

December 2017           Milk price index consultant sacked

March 2018                 UDV opposes mandatory code

April 2018                   ACCC final report

May 2018                    Milk price index due “mid year”

May 2018                     ADF: “we cannot make a snap decision” on mandatory code

June 2018                     Minister Littleproud: no timeframe for decision on mandatory code “will investigate thoroughly”

So, after all this, where are we today, just two weeks from a new set of pricing for our milk?:

  • No action on ACCC recommendations
  • No milk price index
  • No opening price from either of the big two processors
  • $1 milk AND $6 cheese, with promise of even lower retail milk prices

No wonder farmers are angry. The can has already been well and truly kicked down the road. The independent umpire has spoken.

After two years of investigation and analysis, what justification do the ADF and Minister Littleproud have for waiting any longer to do their jobs and take decisive action to protect dairy farmers?

Explainer: What the ACCC means by…

ACCClogo
After the ACCC announced today that it was taking MG and two of its former big bananas – MD, Gary Helou, and CFO, Brad Hingle – to court, Milk Maid Marian asked the competition watchdog to explain a few things. I’m very grateful to the ACCC for responding so swiftly. 

MMM: The ACCC is seeking orders against Murray Goulburn that include declarations, compliance program orders, corrective notices and costs. What do all these terms mean and can you offer any examples of what the declarations, orders and notices might look like or the form they could take?

ACCC: A declaration is an order from the Court stating that the conduct breaches the law, in this case -the Australian Consumer Law (ACL). This provides guidance to the ACCC and to businesses about what future conduct may be found in breach of the law.

Compliance programs can include requiring company directors to undergo training in the requirements of the CCA and the Australian Consumer Law.

Corrective notices can include notices printed online or in local newspapers alerting affected parties as to the Court’s findings of a breach of the law.

The Court can order that one party pay costs, or split costs, (such as the fees and other expenses a solicitor charges for providing of legal services, such as court fees.), if the court considers that party to be at fault.

The ACCC is also seeking disqualification orders against Mr Helou and Mr Hingle. A disqualification order can prevent a person from managing corporations for a period the court considers appropriate

MMM: Why is MG’s board of directors not included in the ACCC’s action?

The ACCC has taken action against former managing director Gary Helou and former chief financial officer Bradley Hingle, as it considers that they were knowingly concerned in Murray Goulburn’s conduct.

MMM: How long do these proceedings of this kind usually take?

Court proceedings can become lengthy, and matters can run in excess of 12 months. The ACCC cannot speculate how long this proceeding take to conclude.

MMM: What does the ACCC consider would be the magnitude of an appropriate pecuniary penalty for Helou and Hingle?

The ACL allows for pecuniary penalties for individuals of up to $220,000 per contravention. It is up to the court to determine the penalty to be imposed on the parties.

MMM: The ACCC is not seeking pecuniary penalties against MG but what is the likely scale of the costs it might face if the ACCC is successful?

The ACCC cannot speculate. It is determined, in part, by the length of the case.

MMM: Trade practices lawyer Michael Terceiro tweeted today that “ACCC sues Murray Goulburn – looks risky trying to dress-up a misleading & deceptive case as unconscionable conduct”. What is the difference between the two and why is the ACCC opting for unconscionable conduct rather than misleading and deceptive conduct?

It is noted that the ACCC is alleging Murray Goulburn engaged in unconscionable and misleading or deceptive conduct, and made false representations.

The ACL prohibits misleading or deceptive conduct, and making false or misleading claims.

The ACL also prohibits unconscionable conduct such as particularly harsh or oppressive behaviour that goes against conscience as judged against business and social norms and standards.

There are a number of factors a court will consider when assessing whether is unconscionable.

These include:

  • the relative bargaining strength of the parties
  • whether any conditions were imposed on the weaker party that were not reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate interests of the stronger party
  • whether the weaker party could understand the documentation used
  • the use of undue influence, pressure or unfair tactics by the stronger party
  • the requirements of applicable industry codes
  • the willingness of the stronger party to negotiate
  • the extent to which the parties acted in good faith.

This is not an exhaustive list and it should be noted that the court may also consider any other factor it thinks relevant.

MMM: Fonterra Australia will not be pursued by the ACCC because it signalled the possibility of price falls early. Did it consider the retrospective nature of the drop, the lack of notice and the levying of interest on farmers who did not opt to take loans?

The ACCC considered all issues raised during its investigation.  After assessing all of the information provided, the ACCC considers Fonterra Australia was more transparent about the risks and potential for a reduction in the farmgate milk price from quite early in the season.

Thanks again to the ACCC for this explainer.

ACCC takes Helou, Hingle and MG to court but lets Fonterra off the hook

eleanor-roosevelt

Pic credit: The Solution News at TSNnews.com

Today, the ACCC announced that it is taking Murray Goulburn to the Federal Court for unconscionable conduct. It will also pursue MG’s former MD, Gary Helou, and CFO, Brad Hingle.

That’s a bit of a relief after Gary Helou told the Senate Inquiry in February that he had not been questioned by investigators. If there’s a villain in the whole dairy disaster we can all agree on, it is Gary Helou. I, for one, am glad he will have his day in court.

I am also relieved the ACCC has shown the wisdom of Job when dealing with MG. As the ACCC said in its statement:

“The ACCC has decided not to seek a pecuniary penalty against Murray Goulburn because, as a co-operative, any penalty imposed could directly impact on the affected farmers.”

On the other hand, many farmers will be disappointed the ACCC has chosen not to take any action against Fonterra. The watchdog explained that decision in a quote from ACCC chairman, Rod Sims:

“A major consideration for the ACCC in deciding not to take action was that Fonterra was more transparent about the risks and potential for a reduction in the farmgate milk price from quite early in the season,” Mr Sims said.

Rod Sims is right. Fonterra did say, more than once and from early on in the season, that the milk price was unsustainably high. Why, I was one of the farmers upset with Fonterra big banana, Theo Spierings, for broadcasting this via the newspapers eight months before the price collapse. That much, I do understand and, with the benefit of hindsight, Fonterra was doing the right thing.

Theo

Fonterra was in an impossible position. While, technically, Fonterra could have cut its price earlier and, therefore, less savagely, the reality was that it had little choice. It would have haemorrhaged supply to MG and, if the co-op had delivered on its promises, the Bonlac Supply Agreement would have forced Fonterra to match MG’s price – no matter how unrealistic – anyway.

What it does not excuse, however, is the way Fonterra responded once MG announced its price cut.

At first, Fonterra sat on its hands, apparently caught by surprise like the rest of us. Then announced a slashing of the milk price from $5.60 to $1.91kg MS – the equivalent to 14 or 15 cents per litre. It gave no notice – actually, it revised the price for May and June on May 5. There was no time for farmers to plan and we were all faced with a frenzy of late-night nightmarish decision making.

On top of that, the Fonterra response failed to consider the devastating effect it would have on farmers with autumn-calving herds. Fonterra moved the goalposts a week later to spread the pain more evenly across its farmer suppliers but, for those who’d been most responsive, it was too late. Cows had been culled and the decision to send milkers to market is absolutely final.

Even now, farmers who chose not to accept the low-interest loans Fonterra offered to partially fill the void are still paying a mandatory levy to fund the scheme.

The weeks of insanity in May and the pain it continues to wreak on farmers cost Fonterra Australia loyalty that took it decades to build, as Australian GM of Milk Supply, Matt Watt acknowledged in this excerpt of an email to suppliers just minutes ago:

  • “You will have seen today that the ACCC released its findings into their investigation into MG and Fonterra over last season’s step down. The ACCC advised that they have decided not to take action against Fonterra.”

  • “I know the last 12 months have been incredibly challenging for you and your families, your communities and our industry.

  • “We’ve listened to you, and we’ve learned a lot over the past year. What you’ve told us has informed the steps we’re taking to ensure a stronger dairy industry.

  • “As you know, we’re working with BSC Board on greater transparency on price and as mentioned earlier I look forward to sharing more on that at the upcoming cluster meetings. We’re also fully engaged in the Dairy Industry Code of Conduct.

  • “We understand it will take time to rebuild confidence, and this is something we are firmly committed to.”

Neither of the two big Australian processors covered themselves in glory a year ago.  At least we now have some prospect of justice, if not recompense, for all the farmers affected by the reckless behaviour of the man at MG’s helm that sent so many to the rocks.

It’s a sign – a good sign – that the dairy community will chart a better course and keep a closer watch in the years to come.

Helou tells the Senate he’s a hero

While he might not have used the word “hero” exactly, former Murray Goulburn managing director Gary Helou was in complete denial when he fronted the Senate inquiry today.

Helou told senators he had the right plan, a plan that had delivered for two-and-a-half years. “The strategy was working and we were getting the right results,” he railed. Only one “unforeseeable” thing had derailed MG’s plans. That thing?

Not the global dairy commodity prices that had been falling steadily for month after month or the inattention of the board to the reportedly growing alarm of senior management. It was a Chinese regulatory change regarding cross-border trade via e-commerce. I gather this is code for selling milk powder and UHT milk on the equivalent of eBay into China.

As Gary explained it, he and the board were aware of the falling global commodity prices but selling these dairy foods – which he described as “our biggest sellers” – had been mitigating those losses.

The Chinese seemed to be tightening up on that, err, “cross-border e-commerce” and MG made two ASX announcements in response to media reports, the first on April 12, followed by this update on April 18.

mgcasxapril18

Both announcements concluded that the regulation did “not have a material impact on MG’s business”. Totally in contradiction to everything Gary Helou said today.

Just four days later, MG entered a trading halt. When it emerged from that trading halt on April 27, here’s what the announcement said about those big sellers:

asxmgcapril27

MG was still saying the Chinese announcement had no material impact on MG’s business. So, where does the truth lie?

With MG facing at least one class action, the Senate inquiry and under investigation by both the ACCC and ASIC, farmers have been hopeful of finding answers to the debacle that cost some their livelihoods.

But asked twice by senators whether he had been questioned by authorities investigating if MG had misled investors, Gary Helou said “no”. Both times he paused for several seconds before answering that one very simple question and, incredibly, each time it was an unequivocal “no”.

This is one witness to the Senate Inquiry who raised more questions than were answered.

United Dairy Farmers of Victoria president, Adam Jenkins summed up the sense of disbelief that followed perfectly. If it was possible, the ACCC farmer consultation forums that roll into town over the next couple of weeks just got that bit more important to attend.

adamjenkinsheloutweet

 

 

Dairy pawn

Image from http://enos.deviantart.com/art/Cow-Chess-1353853 by enos of Deviant Art

These days, I feel a little like a chess piece; more pawn than queen.

The Australian federal government has rushed into a free trade agreement with Japan that does next-to-nothing to help Aussie dairy break through tariff barriers, even though Japan is hardly known for a growing dairy industry of its own that deserves protection. I don’t know why we were overlooked but a Sydney Morning Herald story quotes Warren Truss as citing “compromises”.

It’s been an interesting few days for dairy. Coincidentally, the ACCC forced supermarket superpower, Coles, to confess that it was lying when it claimed the $1 milk had not hurt dairy farmers.

At the same time, the media is littered with references to milk as “white gold” and so on, while our co-op, Murray Goulburn, contemplates a partial sell-off to raise capital.

And the milk maid? Yes, I’ve almost recovered financially from last year now but not emotionally.

A Kiwi who’s now dairy farming here in Victoria tells me that one of the differences he’s noticed is that there’s just not the “buzz” around our farmers in a good year that you get in NZ.

Why? First, we’re more battle-weary and risk averse after a decade of drought knocked us around. Second, we’re rightly a little more cynical. In NZ, dairying gets a lot of encouragement from a government that understands dairy’s huge economic impact on the entire nation. The sector accounts for about 3% of NZ’s GDP. Have a look at this economic statement:

“Rebounding dairy production drove a 1.4 percent increase in gross domestic product (GDP) for the September 2013 quarter — the biggest quarterly increase since December 2009, Statistics NZ (SNZ) said.”
The New Zealand Herald, 19 December 2013

Here in Australia, the dairy sector contributes $13 billion to our economy but that’s considered small fry, accounting for less than 1% of our GDP, which totalled $1451.1 billion in 2011–12.

If we are to realise our potential, we need a government that helps dairy grow rather than considering it as a tradeable concession. All eyes are now on the FTA negotiations with China.

MG makes its move

I used to think of our co-op as a bit like the ABC: your favourite aunty. Comfortable, dowdy, trustworthy and a little quirky.

But Aunty MG has undergone a transformation.

Since it acquired a new CEO, Gary Helou, in October 2011, Murray Goulburn has embarked on lancing $100 million of costs, opened up in Dubai, restructured the way farmers are paid for milk, revamped its retail trading store network, developed assistance packages for the next generation of farmers and forged the spectacular Coles fresh milk deal. At least, these are the “headline acts” that come to mind.

Now, MG is making a $420 million bid for its rival, Warrnambool Cheese & Butter, gazumping Bega Cheese and Canadian dairy giant, Saputo.

According to MG, (if the bid is successful) the new Murray Goulburn Warrnambool:

“Creates a new 100% Australian farmer-controlled dairy food company with over 3,000 supplier shareholders delivering more than 4 billion litres of milk to nine processing sites annually. The business will be positioned for strong growth in both domestic and international dairy markets with forecast revenues in financial year 2014 of $3.2 billion including export sales of $1.4 billion to over 60 countries.”

This, Gary Helou wrote in a letter to MG’s farmer shareholders yesterday, would bring the coop, “…the necessary scale, market reach and competitive strength to capture the benefits of the historic growth opportunity resulting from the consumer affluence of developing Asian economies.”

MG’s triple-jump

The bid is in, it’s the most lucrative on offer and it’s Australian, yes, but there are three serious hurdles for MG:

1. A bidding war

What will Saputo and Bega do next? WCB traded higher yesterday, closing at $7.89, a sign that markets believe MG’s $7.50 isn’t enough to win the bidding war.

2. Shareholder seduction

WCB rejected a takeover offer from MG in 2010. At the time, there was quite a bit of anti-MG sentiment. It’ll be interesting to see if the reinvention of Aunty and a bigger bucket of cash will make a difference.

The Sydney Morning Herald reported Mr Helou said yesterday that farmers supplying WCB needed to consider the future of the Australian dairy industry when deciding on the take-over bid.

“For farmers generally, they are at a fork in the road today.”

“If they sell out to a private company, that they have no control over … they will be spectators.”

“What we are putting on the table is an offer for them to take a stake in every step in the value chain.”

“It’s a fundamental, philosophical different point of view.”

3. The competition watchdog

Back in 2010, the ACCC was loathe to allow MG to acquire WCB. As reported in the SMH at the time:

THE competition regulator says its preliminary view is to oppose Murray Goulburn’s proposed acquisition of Warrnambool Cheese & Butter on the grounds it would cut competition in some markets for raw milk.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission said yesterday it was concerned the proposed deal “would substantially lessen competition for the acquisition of raw milk from farmers in the relevant markets within South Australia and Victoria”.

“The potential effects in the relevant markets include a significant reduction in farm-gate prices paid to farmers for raw milk; and reduced competition in the offer of non-price terms such as finance, field advice services and discounted hardware and grain supplies.”

The irony of the ACCC’s 2010 statement is that Murray Goulburn’s mission, as a 100% farmer-owned co-operative, is precisely to return the maximum price to farmers — something to which the listed Bega Cheese nor the privately owned Canadian giant Saputo cannot lay claim.

I hope it takes a broader perspective this time. A serious exporter battling subsidies and tariffs around the world, MG needs scale so that its processing can be as efficient as its farmers. The Australian government does not afford our dairy farmers the protections enjoyed by most of our competitors. The least it can do is allow us to grow.

UPDATE: See this article and extended AFR interview with MG CEO Gary Helou: http://www.afr.com/p/national/the_battle_for_warrnambool_kxxm78XXLgfsAJ6y7ARaVJ

Quad bike manufacturers look like Big Tobacco

Quadbar

Crush protection devices will save farmers' lives

Just like Big Tobacco before it, the quad bike industry has been adamant its machinery is not responsible for the deaths of Australian farmers – rather that they got themselves killed.

The Weekly Times and SafetyOzBlog have reported the gyrations of the manufacturers and their representatives, the FCAI, which even included forcing some sponsored riders to remove crush protection devices. They claimed that the only answer was more rider education and that rider error was almost invariably the cause of the 23 deaths on farm ATVs in 2011 so far.

I thought it was all over bar the shouting match when The Weekly Times reported that the FCAI had dropped its opposition to Australia’s crush protection device, the Quadbar. Then I heard that at least one manufacturer has advised its dealers that its position is unchanged.

Now, the SafetyOzBlog carries this media release from the respected and independent Australian Centre for Agricultural Health and Safety tearing strips off the FCAI for failing to correct what the ACCC described as misleading and deceptive conduct.

“Embarrassing or not, the families of those people killed and permanently injured in such rollover events have a right to know why the FCAI, as suggested by the ACCC, has not only misrepresented the evidence but why they have not addressed this issue in a timely manner. The inaction and questionable approach of both the FCAI and manufacturers is showing complete disregard for the safety of their customers.”

People on our farms are dying. No matter who is responsible for the rollovers, the Quadbar is estimated to protect between one in four and one in three people. It’s worth it.

For more information on quad bike safety, call the Australian Centre for Agricultural Health and Safety (02 6752 8210) or visiting the website at www.aghealth.org.au