Victoria’s peak faming body has revealed in the Federal Court that there is no mechanism to remove its president, as a long-running dispute with disgruntled members ramps up.
Key points:
- A dispute between disgruntled VFF members and its leaders was heard in Federal Court today
- Renegade members want the court to decide if VFF should hold an extraordinary general meeting, so they can dismiss leaders
- VFF lawyers argued there is no way to remove an elected president in its constitution
Today’s court hearing comes after renegade Victorian Farmers Federation (VFF) members started agitating back in June to dissolve the organisation’s board and remove the president and vice president, alleging poor financial management, communication and a decline in membership.
The request was twice rejected by VFF, with the support of president Emma Germano and vice president Danyel Cucinotta, claiming the requests were invalid.
On Tuesday a group of members led by plaintiff Andrew Weidemann, a Rupanyup farmer and former VFF grains president, launched a legal challenge against the farming body in the Federal Court.
Mr Weidemann sought an injunction and a binding decision about whether their previous requests to hold an extraordinary general meeting (EGM), and the proposed resolutions for this meeting, were valid.
Justice Jonathan Beach denied the injunction, and adjourned a decision until October 20 on whether the request for an extraordinary general meeting would be granted.
It was not before some surprising revelations were made about the VFF constitution, which governed the organisation of more than 6,000 farmer members.
VFF president cannot be removed
The court focused on the four resolutions that were part of the request by Mr Weidemann and his supporters to hold an EGM.
The first two resolutions dealt with the removal of Ms Germano as director and president and removal of Ms Cucinotta as director and vice president of the federation.
Under the VFF constitution, the president and vice president are directly elected by members and, when they win this election, are appointed as VFF board directors.
Resolutions three and four proposed appointing former VFF president and Victorian Nationals MP Paul Weller as interim VFF president should Ms Germano be dismissed, and Georgina Gubbins to be appointed as interim vice president.
VFF defence barrister Hamish Austin said that according to the constitution “no one can” remove the federation’s president or vice president.
“There’s no power vested to remove them,” he said.
Justice Beach responded by saying it sounded “pretty undemocratic.”
“Well, that’s what we are dealing with,” Mr Austin said, adding that the VFF’s election process for office holders was “prescribed in detail” in the constitution.
“The election process can’t be subverted by some implicit power … and members can’t pass a resolution that is a proxy for an election,” he said.
Mr Weidemann’s barrister Tim Walker said the democratic process had not been curtailed as any members could attend the EGM and stand for election.
“The argument that’s there’s been circumvention of that [election] process is not correct,” he said.
A blow for renegade members
The renegade members were dealt a blow by the court when Justice Beach concluded that two of the resolutions proposed for the EGM — to appoint Mr Weller and Ms Gubbins — were unlikely to be allowed under the federation’s rules.
Justice Beach said this resolution “can’t be passed by a general meeting”.
Mr Walker admitted only resolution one and two relating to the removal of the current president and vice president could “be put to an extraordinary general meeting” because of clause 10.8.4 in the VFF constitution.
“In the event of vacancy of the office of president and vice president, the power of appointing replacement officers lies with the board and a general meeting, so resolution three and four can’t be put,” he said.
This could be a pivotal point because VFF lawyers argued if two resolutions were struck out the other two should follow.
Mr Austin argued that all the resolutions should be invalid as the VFF members who signed and supported the request to hold an EGM did so while agreeing to all four resolutions as a “package deal”.
It was also revealed that VFF had between 6,036 and 6,044 registered members, with Mr Weidermann’s camp claiming 215 of these members had signed the request for the meeting, while the VFF lawyers had calculated 202.
Mr Walker pointed out that while this number was relatively low, Mr Weidemann’s group had spent “a great deal of trouble to try and get the signatures, and discuss the issues and go though the formal process” with members.
