Agmates

In recent times the single desk has achieved no more than enable grown men get to sleep without sucking their thumb.

All I can say as an ex wheat cocky is that I cannot believe that such a tough resilient independent mob can be shafted from within and then get in the coffin,pull the lid across and let somebody else whack in the last few nails into what was the most market organised industry in the country.

The farm magazines are full of property clearing sales again this year mostly from being leased.

One bloke I know said that he just couldnt add the pressure of crazy grain markets to his already drought stressed load so he leased his place out for enough to cover the loans and shot through.That family has been on that property since 1920.

What is all this telling the boneheads that are finally having their way.

Is it saying they reckon that it serves the weak right They cant hack the pace They are sooks that do suck their thumb what is it do you reckon

Surely it wouldnt be that they have a total gutfull of increasing risk and debt or perhaps its because they are all bloody good professional farmers and nothing more nothing less.

Farm/ Farmer in the dictionary means “A tract of land used for agriculture or other industry; to cultivate ; to raise livestock,fish etc on a farm ”

Nothing about being a bloody hot shot grain trader trying to outsmart the rest of the world and coming a gutser every second time while the grubs ate the back padock out because he was at the computer all day!

This is a treacherous piece of legislation that hands over the marketing of the Australian wheat crop to foreign multi national interests.

Our single desk marketing system is a credit to our Nation and the three generations of wheat growers who have developed it over 60 years.

If we lose the National pool and buyer of last resort there will be catastrophic consequences with thousands of wheat growers forced to either leave the land or transfer into other enterprises.The uncertainty and added risk will lead to a massive down turn in production.

It is difficult for most producers in the wheat belt to move into other industries because of environmental constraints. In addition the increased production in non wheat enterprises will create a domino effect of over supply and low prices. The single desk underwrites a large part of the Rural sector.

Minister Burke will go down in history as the man who destroyed the Australian wheat industry.

The thumb sucker is one of a small minority of people who think some ivisible hand is smarter than the best minds humanity has available to it, He is a minority as every farmer knows, every meeting I have ever attended has had hundreds vote to retain our model of marketing, just one percent or less against and here we are with the Labor party about to give us the kinfe, farmers asume the Labor party will, but it was the Labor party which gave us this model, It has been the awful Liberal party which has so underhandedly bought us to this place with their philosophical extemism. I wonder if the thumb sucker is a grain trader?

Greg Crook is right, this is an extrao0rdiary thing to watch, the yanks will be rubbing their hand together.

If the farmers of WA have any interest in turning the tide they need to add their comment to the above, make contact with the Senators mentioned and make sure the Senate committee know their thoughts, they do not have to travel, but if they can possibly find the time personal contact is the very best way to see your views are heard.

I’ll bet the Labor party would be impressed to find the organisations which gave them advice before the election, do not represent their membership at all, like the Graingrowers organization which tells the committee that its members support the retention of the single desk but it is reasonably happy with the legislation which does away with it.

You can bet the minister will not want to be seen for the rest of time as the minister who knifed the wheat industry!

Rowell and all,

Tony Burke will become known as the smiling assassin.

If ever proof was needed of his ignorance it is contained in a letter to my local federal member and a staunch supporter of wheat grower’s marketing rights Kay Hull (Riverina).

In the correspondence which is published in the Rural 28/03/08, Burke rejected a request for provision of a low interest planting loan to cash strapped wheat growers because ‘the seasonal variability of farmer’ incomes could make it difficult to repay their loans, creating a significant financial risk for the government.’ The minister then went on ‘in addition,such a scheme may encourage farmers to restock or plant a crop without undertaking appropriate risk management’.

This is the man who wants to strip Australian wheat growers who farm in one of the riskiest environments on earth of the best risk management tool that they have at their disposal -the single desk.

This system which is overwhelmingly supported, gives growers the confidence to plant a crop in a marketing environment that includes subsidies by the worlds largest treasuries, inducements such as loans, gifts, military hardware to our markets and domination by multi national grain traders.

Growers also have to contend with long lead times where the period period between initial preparation and harvest can be 18 months, not to mention the fact that we are out of sync with our major competitors in the Northern Hemisphere which can mean rapidly changing market dynamics. This comes at no risk to the Government and tax payers and the benefits to National good are immense.

Mr Bill Thompson, Solicitor,and Chairman of the North East Riverina Rural Counseling Service described the Sydney sider as a ‘climate change hysteric’, who ‘did not have his finger on the pulse and that his comments about Agriculture were very naive’.

Tony Burke will one day realize that he has been ‘duped’ by trader middlemen and the Liberal Party. Lets hope for wheat growers sake it is in the very near future and he withdraws his treacherous Bill.

I am not a grain trader but a shearer until a few years ago, who 23 years ago got cleaned out to $5,000- and 2 kids to rear.

While working in Canberra I met a fellow who borrowed $5,000- towards the initial 160 acres. A ridiculous situation is that we could sell for over half a million each and I barely scratch an existence.

It has been reported 27% of farmers are on drought aid at close to a billion per annum. Over 70% including me don’t receive interest rate subsidies. Since the income threshold was raised for farmers I receive partial house help. About half the dole rate for which I am very grateful.

The wool reserve price scheme has been and gone.

The beginning of the end for the single desk was when A.W.B. was made a Public Company with loyalties to shareholders. I sold my shares as soon as I got my hands on them.

The Nationals would have to amuse you squawking “save the single desk” when they have sold out pork producers to subsidized imports and set up Meat and Livestock Australia, an undemocratic fiefdom bleeding 200 million per annum for ZERO return.

History alone would tell you to steer clear of anything the Nationals thought was a good idea.

The Weddin Shire has gone from 39 piggery’s to 2 with just a hatful of pigs. Even in the drought there was plenty of grain to sustain these piggery’s, they couldn’t afford it.

Historical rainfall indicates to me there is less than 5% chance of crops reaching 100% of potential. Only 30% chance of crops reaching over 50% of their potential. ABARE squawking about how much grain we are going to get IF ONLY IT RAINS. It is not even planted.

I no longer grow wheat, 500 acre barley (30% of cropping land) and have cattle, merino sheep and Border Leicester stud.

The single desk has degenerated into an expensive security blanket, that will stifle the ability of innovative business practices, especially for those who don’t want or need it. Most operators in this district are successful, a few who were wealthy when I came here receive interest rate subsidies and are really only a conduit to keeping banks highly profitable.

I would like to think there could be some rewards for those who Don’t sit on their arse, sucking their thumb waiting for the fairies to turn up.

The removal of the single desk is the final drive by the 1980’s structuralist to move free market ideology into the rural sector.

In the real world market power determines distribution of returns to growers. To the structuralists, competition delivers better prices than monopoly power. It is worthwhile therefore taking the time to view some statistics on rural viability since the advent of deregulation in rural commodities. The sector is in sharp decline and it is not all due to drought.

From the RBA Bulletin for January 2008, rural production measured by an index of real output has declined from a peak value of 115 in 2002 to 85.5 in 2007. That is an absolute decline of 25.7% or an annual average compound decline of 5.8%. Meanwhile rural debt escalated from $30.2b to $52.8 over the same time frame. That is an absolute increase of 75% or an average annual compound growth rate of 11.8% Clearly , the rural sector is in dire trouble.

Move closer to the point at issue:the wheat industry, and ABARE statistics for wheat production data shows similar concerns. In 2002, production was 24.3kt. The drought devastated production in 2006/07 when it fell to 9.9kt. Nevertheless if the 2005/06 figure is used, total production was 25.4kt . Just 4.5% overall increase in output over four years or 1.1% annual compound increase.

The important point here is that despite a contraction of 60% in production in 2006/07 compared to 2001/02, unit value only increased from $261.6 $/t to $265.57 $/t. First year economics would require a domestic free market to increase price by more than 1.6% with a 60% contraction in production.

Furthermore,ABARE international data poses further interesting economic points over ideology. The unit value of exports in 2002 was $277.9 $/t This was $16.30 higher that the overall unit value of production. In 2006/07 , the export value was $266.50 . The unit value of production in 2007 was $265.70 which falls 80c short of the export unit value. It is assumed here that the unit value of production is an average of prices paid across all markets.

By deduction it follows that the deregulated domestic market is not delivering a broad price base above the single desk price otherwise overall price should be above export unit value.

The advocates of single desk abolition need to explain these anomalies. More importantly, they need to show in substantive form how real world prices determined in corrupted world markets will differ from theoretical general equilibrium modeling outcomes. Unrealistic underlying assumptions are necessary for general equilibrium models to show that all markets clear. These assumption deliberately exclude market failure.

The real question free marketers must explain is why major production contraction in 2006/07 compared to 2001/02 could only deliver $4.10 increase in domestic valuation of the unit price for wheat. A deregulated domestic market should have delivered a much higher premium.

It can be inferred from this data that the deregulated domestic market carries all the characteristics necessary for classifications as either market failure or excess capacity in the marketing sector. This needs to be identified and explained by supporters of the deregulation.

Dear Mr Niven

You said it all “Scratching an existence” but you seem to be happy with that so good on you but if you were growing thousands of acres of wheat and working your arse off for a kick in the pants every second year then I would suggest that the debate would mean a little more to you.

I am not sure where you are coming from I have got to be honest with you but do I detect some sort of sour grapes about where is my bit of the local subsidy scene or whatever.

The debate is not about subsidies to do with the marketing and exporting of wheat.

There are no subsidies and never has been only a whole lot of attempts to stabilize the price of wheat to effect a stabilizing influence on farm incomes.
Even back in the days of the GMP which was designed as a budgeting figure there was never any top ups in fact there used to be some downsides if necessary depending on how the pool turned out and yes it was designed to allow farmers to go to bed with or without sucking their thumbs.

Subsidies payed overseas however are a different story altogether and are one of the competitive problems that the single desk aimed at counteracting in the past.

So the issue is about organized marketing versus disorganized marketing and the resultant market control.

Have a look at a few things that have occurred recently.

1 Two years ago was a pretty good year with a huge crop in WA and what happened, the world wheat price was as flat as a tack and the whole crop was sold for nothing. Nobody could have done a bloody thing about that so it can happen and in that scenario you need the AWB working for you not against you which will be the case next time around.

2 A whole swag of cockies got the backsides kicked big time last year playing around in the big boys grain marketing park putting their family farms at incredible risk and many have payed the ultimate price.
Is this what was intended by the PGA’s of the world or do they lump those cockies in with the dumbies and weakies that have leased or sold out and we just get up with whose left and go again to try and prove their point. Sounds like Gallipolli to me.

3 Huge wheat prices this year are now drawing cockies into it again as they cant afford to miss the top of the market especially if you came off second best last year.Its madness.

Before long somebody will come up with a brilliant scheme aimed at taking the risk out of the marketing of grain!

Others are already slipping in under the cockies guard I believe with smart city bods slipping into risk pooling schemes and skimming a bit off the poor old cocky. Ah well the cockies have chucked their own scheme out so its a free for all I suppose.

Politicians need to be very careful about who they are listening to and for what reason thats all I can say.

I think the final point made by Greg Crook is important, it is who the polies listen to?

For example the Graingroweres Association were prepared to tell the committee that their members still supported a Single Desk, while the organization was prepared to say they were reasonably happy with the bill to remove the single desk.

The point is they simply do not represent their membership! Frankly I think it goes much further that that, The so called Peak body, the GCA seems to be quiet happy with it the bill as well and I do not think any person represented Ag Force at the hearing.

Actually its a bit confusing, the Grain Growers claim their membership, some 17,000 support the single desk. If you can believe the number then their can not be too many who do not support the desk. This then begs the question who did Labor talk to when they say they consulted industry?

Any way I doubt the 17,000, I reckon it is a phantom number. Who is telling porkies. Did the graingroweres tell the Labor party prior to the election they would support the single desk removal later…I wonder.

Must say I agree with John Niven re the pork Industry, there’s another organization which now says it does not need protection, not from subsidized pork entry at any rate just on Quarantine grounds.

The problem with Senator Judith Adams is that if she has ever been to any of the meetings in WA discussing the retention of single desk then she must have been asleep.

The meetings I attended had an overwhelming majority in favor of retaining single desk (300 for / 6 against Minginew 2007). The Western Australian growers I talk to are not against single desk but are sick of politicians not listening to to what the overwhelming majority has to say.

Any fool can sell wheat in a market where there there is a world shortage and rising prices but try getting it right in a big production year when the competition of large tonnages is eroding the price away while we are out actually producing the wheat.

We need the stability in the marketing of our wheat crop that single desk gives us. There are plenty of opportunity’s for people who want to take all the risk in marketing their own crop within the present system.

Just ask ask anyone who contracted wheat tonnages in 2007 at $300 per tonne and either couldn’t produce the tonnes due to drought or watched the price rise to the present pool price of $450 per tonne . Its not so easy to get it right on your own.

Judith Adams needs to listen to the majority who want the retention of single desk not the vocal minority who believe that in all situations they will be the victors in a dog eat dog world wheat market.

G’day All,

This may seem like a ’stupid’ question…….but if the majority of wheat growers want the ’single desk’ retained…… who or what is the driving force behind new legislation to remove it and why?

How did it get to this, and if it works so well (Barring publicly listed company AWB’s corporately corrupt behavior as the custodian of the single desk), why is the Labor government looking to legislate the ’single desk’ out of existence?

I’d appreciate any of your thoughts on the above.

Of course there is an element of sour grapes when a shearer pays tax to keep pathetic remnants od squatrocracy in the manner they are accustomed. Fortunately there are not many left.
A single desk would have to be somewhat conservative and deliver a price some dollars below an average free market, and of course there would be winners and losers.
It would be better for farmers to take control of their own marketing, whether by wharehousing, co-operatives, forward selling or whatever.
The 5 year total rainfall from 1940 to 1944 at Quandialla was 1785 mm. The last 5 years are 2065, with most additional rain in summer.
The failed wool reserve price scheme is a monument to unrealistic expectations. The hysteria surrounding the single desk seems to suggest it is some panacea to solve the wheat industry problems.
Former Minister McGauran early July 2007 slammed A.W.B. for not hedging the wheat crop, by Sept he would have lost $100- per tonne. He then played favourites with export permits and signalled an end to the single desk.
Mark Vaile told us how well off we were signing a FTA agreement where our competitors are subsidised.
John Anderson set up M.L.A. a greater parasite than the tick, weevil and louse combined, then suggested to keep farming, farmers should marry a nurse or a school teacher.
John Cobb seems unable and unwilling to try to comprehend the N.L.I.S. fiasco.
The Nationals are riddled with fools, yet lemmings return them to Parliament and expect Labor to fix the problems.
The last few years especially have seem Australian Agriculture profitability and infrastructure plundered under the stewardship of Nationals and their peak bodies.
Retaining a single desk will not make it rain or improve prices in the face of this onslaught.
The sheep industry has gone from 180 million to 80 million and cattle approx 20% below long term predictions by the fortune tellers at
ABARE
Unless there is across the board help with input costs, ALL Australian Agriculture will grind to a halt as a result of subsidised imports.
When other countries get sick of feeding Australians for nothing, it will really hit the fan, and the single desk a distant memory.

The single desk is gone, regardless of how good a system it was or it wasn’t.

It has been on the way out since the recommendations were first made for the government to stop paying a home consumption price, the sole reason they needed to acquire compulsorily in the first place.

The privitisation of the AWB was the last nail in the coffin.

Now it has finally gone the way of compulsory unionism, and I wouldn’t find many farmers (National’s supporters or otherwise) who would be lamenting that.

Rather than wasting our time with gripes about who is to blame, people’s efforts would be better directed at making a success of future.

Personally I think that in about five years time most people will wonder what all the fuss was about.

The big traders and grain handlers are pushing and pushing deregulation.They have never let up.

At the last election the opposition wanted a position that differed from the coalition so they chose a deregulated multi license system but called it a single desk because they proposed that a single body would issue licenses.(over a desk!). They (the opposition) also wanted to split the Liberals and the Nationals.

Jim Bob-if you believe that removing the Pool and buyer of last resort will not make any difference I am afraid you will be very disappointed with the outcome.

The system we have now is designed for growers by growers and run by growers.The proposed Bill hands our industry to the foreign traders-it is just not logical to argue that this is not a significantly retrograde step for producers.

Reference is to the countervailing market power model, which recognizes situations in which the buyer has more market power than the seller.

If the buyer is outside the jurisdiction of the ACCC, but the seller is subject to it, it is clear that levels of competition in the sellers’ markets will differ from those in the buyers’ markets.

Technically, the problem is created by the constraint imposed by inability to regulate markets other than Australia’s. The only feasible solution is to provide countervailing market power. The single desk does that.

It is in the national as well as in farmers’ interests to maintain it. I have seen no economically valid argument which supports its removal.

I have been to a lot of grower meetings called to support the Single desk and have heard of many more where the overwhelming support for it was voted for.
Strange I have not heard of ONE anti single desk meeting held anywhere in Australia.

If there was it could be held in a Portaloo and the result from the meeting could be deposited at the same venue.

Wake up Australia this is big business and multi national companies supported by the US doing to us what they know best. Strangle the compitition and return huge benefits to shareholders.

I and others have looked carefully at the draft legislation and it scares the hell out of me. The monopolies will destroy any competition at the upcountry storages and at the Ports. Forget about all the other cost we will carry as growers.

Read a few of the transcripts of the senate inquiry? Read the written submissions when they are available? Even mine.Compare those who support the change with those questioning the legislation. It is chalk and cheese. The deregulation movement can not back their argument.

Please don’t stick your head in the sand on this people because there is a bunch of thugs coming to do nasty little things to what you have exposed.