What we need is a milk war – me and the cows strongly đź’Şdisagree

In February 1985, Professor A. G. Lloyd contributed an article to the Sydney Morning Herald with the splendid headline, “What we need is a milk war”. I found it among the papers of the Nowra Dairy Co-operative. By then, the Australian dairy industry had been fighting itself for the best part of a century. Apparently, nobody thought it had quite finished the job.

Every farming family knows something about a long-running dispute. The cousin who borrowed the trailer in 1974 and never brought it back. The father whose succession plan left the farm to the son who gambled it away. The siblings who haven’t spoken for twenty years and can no longer remember what they were fighting about. The dairy industry had all of these characteristics, plus several thousand cows, a collection of governments and an astonishing capacity to hold a grudge.

Our story begins in 1908, when Sydney milk buyers cut the price paid to farmers from 10 pence a gallon to six, in the middle of a drought. Farmers went on strike. The young Dairy Farmers Co-operative offered seven and a half pence, helped Jamberoo clear its debts and financed a new factory. Everyone shook hands, or something approximating it. Peace lasted 23 years.

In 1931, with the Depression biting, a Sydney distributor offered Jamberoo a better price for its milk. Jamberoo had recently opened a new brick factory and owed ÂŁ17,000. Dairy Farmers considered this a betrayal. It expelled 100 members, many of them Jamberoo farmers, and cancelled their shares. Jamberoo remembered. In the dairy industry, a grudge had an exceptionally long shelf life.

The NSW Government created a Milk Board to restore order. Unfortunately, the Board could declare prices but couldn’t enforce them. Historian Jan Todd called it a “toothless tiger”. Farmers received less than half the declared price. The government tried again, gave the new Board some teeth, and regulated the fresh milk industry for the next half century. Everyone complained about regulation, but at least they had something in common.

Then came 1984. George Orwell had warned us about surveillance, propaganda and perpetual war. He had overlooked the NSW milk industry.

On 9 April, supermarket owner Jim Fleming put Victorian milk on the shelves of his Jewel stores in Sydney. It came in two-litre plastic bottles and cost nine cents less. The Victorian milk represented about one per cent of the NSW market. Bill Crothers of Midland Milk described it as “only a hatful of milk”. NSW reacted as though Victoria had crossed the Murray with tanks.

Milk vendors blocked Macquarie Street with their trucks. Premier Neville Wran came out to negotiate. More than 800 farmers launched Operation Padlock, picketing Jewel supermarkets and standing outside the Midland Milk factory in Shepparton. Ten days later, Fleming conceded defeat. “We are pretty good, but not that good,” he said.

By February 1985, Professor Lloyd was calling for another milk war, arguing that competition could expose inefficiencies and help Sydney consumers paying high milk prices. The farmers, processors, retailers and vendors had rather different ideas about who was inefficient and who should pay.

Federal Primary Industry Minister John Kerin tried to bring the states together under a national plan. In March 1986, he spent an entire day locked in a room with three farmer leaders. They emerged with the comfort clause, an arrangement allowing a state to withdraw from the national scheme if another state’s milk undercut its market. NSW used it twice within a year. I suppose we should be grateful they agreed on anything.

Back on the South Coast, two cousins who had grown up together in Jamberoo were taking a much less complicated approach. Russell Fredericks managed Nowra’s dairy factory. Geoff Boxsell managed Jamberoo. During a drive to Sydney in late 1982, they joked about putting “the cat among the pigeons” by proposing a merger. They eventually brought the two co-operatives together.

Dairy Farmers tried to persuade Nowra to join it instead. Nowra’s farmers rejected the offer. It had been more than fifty years since the Depression-era expulsions. Apparently that was too soon. Six years later, Shoalhaven, the co-operative formed by Jamberoo and Nowra, joined Dairy Farmers anyway.

Then came the Italians. In 1999, Parmalat offered Dairy Farmers members $4.02 a share for part of their holdings, under a proposal that would give the Italian company control. Farmers gathered at the Burrawang Hotel, passed motions of no confidence and eventually took the dispute to the Supreme Court.

Dairy Farmers responded with advertisements declaring, “Beautiful one day, foreign-owned the next.” Geoff Boxsell wrote a song to the tune of “I Am Australian”. He called it “We Ain’t Italian”.

The court found that material distributed by the board was misleading and deceptive, although the judge made no finding of dishonesty or bad faith. The directors were ordered to pay legal costs personally. In April 2000, around 3,000 farmers voted at a special meeting. The three directors facing removal retained their seats with overwhelming support. Managing director Alan Tooth offered a memorable observation. “Any jackass can knock down a barn but it takes a team of skilled carpenters to build one.”

While everyone was fighting, Victoria decided it no longer wanted the regulated system. As the country’s largest milk-producing state, its decision left the others with little room to move. On 1 July 2000, the regulated fresh milk markets disappeared.

Within a year, average NSW dairy farm income had fallen from $82,000 to an estimated $37,000. Around 200 NSW dairy farms closed in the first six months. There were winners, there were losers, and there were families whose futures changed forever.

I’ve been looking back over these events while also reflecting on something I discovered preparing for a World Peace Day presentation to school students in Cowra. In studying the history of war, I was confronted by how persistently organised violence has appeared across human generations.

Of course, a milk war is a very different proposition from an armed conflict. Nobody should confuse a blockade of supermarket milk deliveries with the devastation of military warfare. But the language interests me. For a century, the dairy industry talked about wars, battles, invasions, threats, surrender and enemies.

Farmers fought processors. Farmers fought retailers. Processors fought retailers. States fought states. Co-operatives fought other co-operatives. Farmers fought farmer. Farmers fought their own co-operatives.

Governments regulated everybody, then deregulated everybody. And all of them believed they had something important to defend. Often they did.

A farmer fighting for a price that covers the cost of production has a legitimate grievance. So does a consumer struggling to afford food. A milk vendor protecting a family business and a processor trying to keep a factory operating both have reasons to be concerned about their future. Their interests sometimes conflict. Finding an arrangement that allows them to live alongside one another is the challenge.

Looking back, the most interesting moments in the dairy industry’s history may be the occasions when people stopped fighting long enough to negotiate. Kerin and the farmer leaders in that locked room. Russell Fredericks and Geoff Boxsell talking during their drive to Sydney. Farmers, vendors and processors sitting around George Davey’s pricing committee, part of the negotiations associated with the group the industry nicknamed the “milk mafia”.

Those conversations didn’t solve every problem. Some produced compromises that quickly unravelled. Others helped organisations and communities survive. I wonder how much of our energy, in agriculture and beyond, goes into proving that the other side is wrong. And how much we invest in understanding what they are trying to protect.

We teach children about the great wars of history, the victories, the defeats, the treaties and the terrible human cost. Perhaps we could spend a little more time teaching them how to negotiate before a disagreement becomes a conflict, and how to recognise when compromise is possible without abandoning what is fair.

As for the dairy industry, through every strike, blockade, court case, merger, price war and family grudge, the cows remained magnificently indifferent. Morning and afternoon, they turned up to be milked. They had no interest in who won.

And perhaps, after more than a century of dairy industry warfare, the question is whether the rest of us can learn to live with an outcome in which nobody has to lose.

Dear reader  FYI Dairy Farmers, with a capital D and F, refers to the Dairy Farmers Co-operative and the company that followed. Little bit of history – Dairy Farmers Milk Cooperative was formed on 15 January 1900. Sixty five stakeholders from the New South Wales Illawarra region, came together and agreed to run the organisation on true co-operative lines.

Dairy farmers, with a little d and f, are the people milking the cows. They were not always on the same side.

A Creative Eye on Kiama’s Housing Crisis. Kate Dezarnaulds’ Ideas for Change

Kate Dezarnaulds has built a reputation for turning ideas into action. From grassroots initiatives to high-profile advocacy, she has long worked at the intersection of creativity, community and strategy. Now, as  the Independent candidate for the Kiama by-election, she is applying that same approach to one of the region’s most pressing issues: housing.

Kate believes housing policy should balance social need with individual investment. A roof over one’s head should be treated as part of the basic social safety net. She argues that solutions must be practical, grounded in the realities of community life, and bold enough to bridge generational perspectives

“We all want a roof over our heads, we want to make sure our kids can aspire to do the same, and we want to know that people are not being left homeless in our towns,” she says.

Kitchen table conversations

Kate’s approach to politics begins with listening. She hosts coffee mornings that feel more like kitchen table conversations, where people can sit down with her, share their experiences, and know they are being heard. The most important part, she says, is not to talk but to listen.

She uses what she calls powerful questions to guide those conversations.

“What change do you want to see for yourself, for other people, and for your place?”

By framing it this way, she helps shift people out of the complaints department and into constructive dialogue. It creates space for people to identify what matters most to them, whether that is housing security, opportunities for their children, or the character of their towns. For Kate, these conversations are the foundation of building trust and shaping policy that reflects real community priorities.

Building social licence

For Kate, one of the missing pieces in the housing debate is social licence. She describes this as community consensus, the willingness to accept change because people can see that short-term pain leads to long-term gain. Without social licence, every proposal is met with opposition.

She draws on her experience in bushfire recovery, where she learned the importance of hosting conversations in times of complexity. She believes the same skills are urgently needed for both housing and energy transition.

“Our political system has become very good at saying no. We need to get better at building licence to say yes, so we can move forward together,” she says.

Rethinking affordability

Kate is blunt about the limits of the way “affordable housing” is often used in policy. She sees it as a distraction from the real issue.

“What has been missing is the willingness to integrate social housing into our communities. If we build support and funding for social housing solutions, the rest of the housing system will not be under as much stress.”

She welcomed Kiama Council’s recent Housing Strategy, which acknowledged the transition ahead and the need to build community consensus.

“For the first time, I heard recognition that change must be accepted and managed. It was not developer led, it was led by demography and social inclusion, and that gave me hope.”

Generational fairness

Younger residents are desperate to get into the housing market. Older residents worry about security and affordability. Kate believes the way forward is to make the conversation real, not abstract.

“Start with where people are at. For some that means daily survival, for others it is about their children or their town. But everyone should be asked what change they want for themselves, for other people, and for their place. That is how you build a bigger picture and common ground.”

Fixing the system

Kate is clear that investor incentives like negative gearing and capital gains tax exemptions have distorted the market, but she argues the deeper problem is the massive backlog of social housing.

“We have a one million home shortfall in social housing nationally. People have been on waiting lists for ten years or more. Unless we are brave enough to build social licence for public housing, the rest of the debate is just smoke and mirrors.”

She adds that pouring Commonwealth rent assistance into the private market only worsens the problem. “That money should be building new public housing, not propping up unaffordable rents,” she says.

A new way forward

For Kate Dezarnaulds, housing is not just about supply or tax tweaks. It is about trust, inclusion, and the courage to lead the community through change.

“Proper planning leads to happy, resilient communities. We need to stop fighting over the scraps and start planning for the future together.”

#KiamaVotes #KiamaByElection #HousingCrisis #SocialHousing #CommunityVoice #KitchenTableConversations #KiamaCommunity #Shoalhaven #SouthCoastNSW #LocalLeadership

Why a Simple Train Idea for Travel Between Kiama and Nowra sent Facebook Into Meltdown

Every time a new idea lands in Kiama, the comments light up. When Greens candidate for the Kiama By-election Dr Tonia Gray suggested battery powered trains as an alternative to the ageing diesel service between Kiama and Bomaderry, the response on Facebook was swift and, in many cases, nasty.

It was not just about trains. For some, anything linked to The Greens is dismissed out of hand. For others, it was the fear of change, the suspicion that new technology will cost too much or never work. There is also the cynicism that comes from years of broken transport promises. And of course, Facebook has its own way of fanning the flames, where debate quickly shifts from issues to personalities and tempers run hotter than they would face to face.

But if you strip away the noise, the question remains: what is the smartest, cleanest and most affordable way to connect our communities into the future? Battery powered trains deserve to be part of that conversation.

I slipped up a little on terminology (we don’t need the electric word there) as there are no electric wires associated.

As Dr Gray says

“Shoalhaven is one of the growth areas of New South Wales. Why not put the infrastructure in before the boom happens. We are not your country cousins. We are professionals who want the cleanest, fastest and most efficient way to move between Kiama and Sydney.”

Why Battery Trains Make Sense for Kiama to Bomaderry

✨ Social benefits
Battery powered trains would connect our communities with transport that is cleaner, quieter and more reliable. They make it easier to get to work, school, health services and social activities. Replacing diesel means better air quality for children, older residents and anyone with health conditions. Projects like this also build community pride by showing we are investing in the future.

“We can run more frequent, reliable services — no one should be stranded two hours at Kiama station with their suitcases in the cold. Let’s bring our region into the 21st century with Wi-Fi and charging stations, so commuting fits the hybrid lifestyle so many of us now live.”

🌿 Environmental benefits
Battery trains mean zero local emissions and can recharge through regenerative braking. They need far less infrastructure than full electrification, which means fewer impacts on our landscapes. Every battery powered trip replaces a diesel service, cutting greenhouse gases and reducing noise for the towns along the line.

“This idea is an absolute winner. We lower our carbon footprint, we decarbonise, and we modernise.”

đź’° Economic benefits
Electrifying entire lines with overhead wires is costly. Battery trains are a smarter, more cost effective option because they can run on existing tracks with only small upgrades. While the upfront cost is higher, they save money in the long run through lower fuel use, reduced maintenance and higher efficiency. This benefits the whole economy. Essential workers and visitors can move more easily, local businesses thrive, and tourism gets a boost from fast, modern, green transport.

“All we need is a new train, no wires, no massive digging, just a simple, smart change. Proper planning leads to happy, resilient communities.”

🔋 Batteries to power freight trains
Batteries are not just for passenger trains. The Albanese Government has backed a ground breaking 9.4 million dollar project with Aurizon to retrofit a freight locomotive with a 1.8 MWh battery electric tender. The goal is to prove battery technology can haul heavy freight as well as power regional passenger services. . Read more here ➡️

There is no need for infrastructure like overhead electric wires and substation, all we need is a passing loop.“

đźš„ Proven technology

Battery trains are already a reality, not just a futuristic idea. Europe is now seeing regular deployment of battery-powered trains on regional lines. For instance, France is converting five regional train sets from diesel to battery power, aiming to launch fully electric services on routes that lack overhead wires

Dr Gray points out that these trains also have the capability of 1500V DC electric trains, the same system used by Sydney Trains, to charge their batteries and then continue running on non-electrified lines. That would eliminate the need for passengers to change trains at Kiama, delivering a seamless journey. “It is the perfect solution for 21st-century transport,” she says.

“I am calling on all candidates to back me in this proposal, because it is good for the Kiama electorate.”

You can read my coverage of the Kiama By-election candidates here   

#KiamaVotes #KiamaByElection #FutureTransport #BatteryTrains #CleanEnergy #RegionalRail #KiamaCommunity #Shoalhaven #SouthCoastNSW #SustainableTransport #DieselFreeFuture