The National Farmers Federation (NFF) is a peak producer organisation. Its executive has purported to represent all Australian farmers with a unified voice. This thesis argues that primary producers are too heterogeneous a group ever to have developed much solidarity in articulation of or action for the furtherance of common interests and that this fact is reflected in the NFF. Heterogeneity results from farm size, product specialisation, level of technology adopted, geographical location and special needs. Successive farm organisations and the National Party (and predecessors) have attempted to encompass these differences since the 1890s. Producer differences either have led to secession or to unification when political and economic circumstances have warranted it. This diversity has prevented farm groups becoming united. The lack of unity at first prevented all farmers joining in one organisation, and when they did, they kept on splitting up. The charisma of Ian McLachlan allowed farmers to get together, but the diversity meant that the getting together benefited some not only without the others, but sometimes at the expense of others. This thesis explores the heterogeneity of the agricultural sector within the political and economic context of Australian agriculture and discusses its consequences, in the constant re-forming of farm organisations and the institutional framework of the NFF in the context of politicisation of agricultural interest groups. This thesis concludes that producer differences in terms of size and product specialisation determine how effectively they are represented. Corporate farmers have fared much better than family and family-plus farmers, who would probably be better represented by a small business organisation, with which they have more in common, rather than a farming organisation.

ABSTRACT This thesis studies the background of the largest single farmer organisation in Australia and its role in influencing practice change. The study seeks to address a number of questions starting with: how did a small Western Australian farmer group reach national prominence over a relatively short period and become a major influence on agriculture in Australia? This research uses quantitative and qualitative methods and is informed by a constructionist philosophy. The research process involved five phases. Phase one consisted of examining the possibilities of the research and its value. It also addressed the research problem and questions. Phase two involved a survey of Kondinin Group members and negotiating with the Kondinin Group for access to its database. The survey was faxed to 1501 members in the northern region of Australia and the data from 272 responses was entered and reported. From this, the researcher could validate that the study had merit and the Kondinin Group was making a substantial difference to its members. Phase three revolved around a literature review to see what information was available on the Kondinin Group and other farm organisations. The study also examined how the group related to management and organizational theory, social trends and the body of work on extension and farmer capacity building. Phase four sought to further examine the organisation through interviews with key informants including people from the Kondinin Group and other farm organisations. Phase five of the research involved bringing information and data together to more comprehensively address the research questions and draw conclusions from the study. It also examined the challenges facing the Kondinin Group and lessons that can be drawn for other organisations along with identifying further research that may be worthwhile.