THE two opposing models for a new peak Australian grain industry body boil down to three main issues.

Costs of running the organisation, membership and voting entitlements on policy.

The nation's grain growers now have a chance to compare the two alternatives for the failed Grains Council of Australia, after the NSW Farmers Association and WAFarmers released details on their National Grains Australia proposal a fortnight ago.

The alternative model is Grains Producers Australia, pushed by Grains Research Foundation Limited director Pete Mailler and backed by the grains sections of Victorian Farmers Federation, the South Australian Farmers Federation and AgForce Queensland, plus the Pastoralists and Graziers Association in Western Australia.

Presidents of the VFF, SAFF and AgForce have not come out comprehensively supporting the GPA proposal.

As reported in The Weekly Times in April, key people behind this proposal want to carve up the Grains Research and Development Corporation.

According to industry leaders, there is no doubt a replacement for the GCA is overdue.

Last week, The Weekly Times reported the GCA had been plunged into voluntary liquidation by its directors, although its board continued to operate.

GCA president Jamie Smith said the council supported the GPA model, which it helped develop.

One fundamental difference in the two models is that GPA would have a budget of about $1 million in the first year, rising to $2 million by the third year. It would employ a chief executive officer, three policy staff and a secretary at a cost of about $500,000.

By comparison, NGA company secretary Shaughn Morgan said the NSWFA-WAFarmers model was intended as a low-cost peak body, with most work carried out by grains sections of the state farming organisations. Mr Morgan said the NGA board would have to set some sort of indicative budget.

"But that is not to say that down the track, it won't have its own staff," he said.

Closely linked to the funding of the two alternative models is membership.

The NGA follows a similar structure to GCA, with membership made up of state farming organisations but leaves open the possibility of other individuals or groups joining.

The proposal allows policy development to pervade through branches of the state farming organisations, right through to the peak body.

One of the other key factors in NGA is that policy development on particular grains will be voted on by state farming organisations, with voting proportional to state production of that grain.

So, for a wheat policy, Western Australia and NSW would hold about 60 per cent of the vote, while for summer crops, Queensland and NSW would collectively have the greatest say. The GPA proposal, on the other hand, allows grass-roots farmers to become members of the peak body. They will have to pay a voluntary levy on production of grain and receive votes according to contributions.

One of the great ironies of this proposal is that it is supported by Western Australia's Pastoralists and Graziers Association, which has a policy of opposing any form of levies on grain growers. But there are a lot of big farmers in Western Australia and the GPA model means big contributors will proportionately have a far greater say in the organisation.

The weighting in ballots will become important if there are opposing views on policy.

Under the GPA, policy development is tendered out to third parties, which then form a working group. If the group reach consensus with the proposed policy, then it is set in concrete.

If there is dissent, the draft policy goes to the next general meeting of the company, where a ballot will be held to determine an industry position.

Growers could also seek proxy votes. Mr Morgan said open dialogue was continuing between proponents of both models.