I was surprised to see this story in The Australian today about a decision by the board of the Australian Newsagents Federation (ANF) to reject a proposal which could have unified newsagents into one national association by 2009. The proposal came out of a meeting held on March 14 and organised by the ANF.
The Australian story seems to me to have been ‘placed’ – some digging by Sally Jackson would have unearthed a more complete story.
I was invited by the ANF to participate in the March 14 meeting along with representatives of the Boards of the ANF and state based newsagent associations in NSW (NANA) and QLD (QNF) as well as the Chairman of the Victorian association (VANA).
The ANF goal was to seek out common ground with a view to ending years of fighting between the associations.
The six hour meeting involved frank discussion about issues which have seen the ANF fighting the states and vice versa for many years including the challenged of domineering personalities who have ‘led’ newsagents through this time. All participants talked openly and passionately about what they felt was best for newsagents. They remained focused on the goal of what is best for newsagents and the acceptance that bickering serves no purpose.
A common and unanimous position was reached at the meeting and documented in a letter of intent. All attending were confident that their Boards would agree and that at last fighting between the national and state associations would end.
The NANA and QNF Boards supported the letter of intent. The ANF Board decided to not support it, dashing the hopes of achieving unity among newsagents in the short to medium term.
The ANF must now actively compete with newsagent associations in NSW and QLD for members. To win, they must financially harm these newsagent owned bodies. Such a fight does not serve newsagents well. It will result in the loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars of newsagent funds.
The ANF Board, in rejecting unanimous position which was reached at the meeting it convened on March 14, has, in my view, demonstrated that personality politics is alive and well at its Board table as there is no other explanation for the rejection of the letter of intent. It has also demonstrated who controls the national body and it’s not the Directors who participated in the peace discussions.
Between them, NANA and QNF have 1,000 members. The ANF has around 1,750 members. Bringing the NSW and QLD members into that group immediately would provide the ANF with greater strength in negotiations with suppliers. The cost of this weakness will be felt by newsagents for years to come.
This is the story I would have liked to see run in The Australian today.
Shame on Sally Jackson and shame on The Australian. I would expect better from such a publication.
What can we say? It appears that this is the mess newsagents are left with.
It will now be up to each individual newsagent to choose who represents them. I only hope newsagents get to make their decision based on the facts and are not bombarded with propaganda from either ‘side’ (if that is the right word).
Mark, regrettably this posting contains errors, which a phone call to me would have easily prevented. Most importantly, it is utterly wrong to say my April 2 article on the ANF was “placed”. The ANF released a statement, which I saw on its newsletter and followed up with a phone call, which was returned. I also – as I always do – placed calls to the NANA and the QNF, which unfortunately were not returned. I can only report what people say and I can’t force people to talk. Ken Murphy of the QNF subsequently submitted a letter to the Media section which was published on April 5. My article contained no errors.
Sincerely,
Sally Jackson
Sally,
Thanks for clarifying that the story was not placed. I apologise for inferring this. Your comment does not document any other inaccuracies so I’ll take this as the only one from your perspective. As I mentioned at the end of the blog post, I wish the more complete story ran in The Australian as it goes beyond the spin of both sides.
FYI my blog entry does not say your article contained errors.
mark