Agmates

.

.

.

With a record 14 million hectares planted under wheat and excellent spring rain in central/southern QLD and Northern NSW some analyst are predicting a record Australian wheat harvest. This would be in line with the predictions of a record global grain harvest.

With just average rainfall until harvest given the record area planted Australia could produce a record wheat crop of over 26.1 million metric tons which was produced in off 13.1 million hectares in 2003.

Justin Smirk, a senior agribusiness economist at Westpac Banking Corp. (WBC.AU), had earlier suggested Australia could produce a record wheat crop given the large area planted.

Early spring rainfall of 25-80mm in southern & central Queensland means a bumper crop is virtually assured. The cold August put it a little behind but growers are quietly confident.

Neighboring northern & central New South Wales also received great rainfall with large areas receiving 50 mm-100 mm, according to official data.

The rainfall has also boosted the outlook for summer crops. It is expected that a lot of sorghum will be planted on the excellent early spring rain as generally speaking the early crops are generally the best sorghum crops.

The southern half of New South Wales is still looking for a good drink.

Wide spread good rainfall in Victoria over the last 10 days see wheat and other winter crops looking pretty healthy going into the spring the Victoria state’s Department of Primary Industries reported (DPI) in its monthly roundup issued last Friday.

The report said the rain had freshened the crops, but the outlook is uncertain as rain will be needed each week to keep up with increasing crop water use in the high-growth spring period.

The South Australian Department of Primary Industries (DPI) in its report released last Thursday said crops in South Australia had been kicked along by good rains in July and August.

South Australian analysts have upped the states forecast wheat production by 13% from a month ago to 3.26 million tons. This would be a 39% on actual output last year, according to the DPI report.

Hmmm …. interesting - looking at the possibility of a record wheat harvest when climate change is suppose to be devastating our agricultural industry. Remember all the talk that we’d have to abandon agriculture in the Southern part of Australia and move it too the wet tropics because of crippling droughts?

.

…………………………………………………………………………………

.

Have your Say!

.

It’s happened and I still can’t quiet believe it. Australian wheat growers have democratically voted away control of the billion dollar export wheat marketer AWB.

.

At a meeting of A class shareholders in Melbourne yesterday, 77% of shareholders [A Class - wheat growers] voted in favour of ending the A and B class share structure. Total shareholder participation increased from 27 to 44% during the adjournment period, and just over 50% of all eligible votes were cast”

.

Wheat Grower Mark Dywer was at the meeting:

“I attended the final showdown in Melbourne on September 3, strange irony that the day growers gave away their company was the anniversary of the declaration that Australia was at war with Germany in 1939.

I was not at the first meeting that was adjourned ,but was informed that the treatment doled out to the four dissenting Directors yesterday was nothing compared to that of the first meeting of A class shareholders.

I would like to say that those four directors have done a fantastic job in trying to defend the interests of growers against the greed and selfishness of those that supported the “normalisation” of the company.

Xavier Martin, Roger Schirmer, Colin Nichol and Russell Mckenzie. People should remember they’re stand when they are wondering where, in a few years , the critical mass of the industry has gone.

One WA attendee yesterday got up and said, after the final vote was revealed, that he congratulated the board but was wondering if AWB would be able to act as a receiver of last resort in WA as he didn’t think there would be enough cash around to buy the crop!!!

This is the sort of blind stupid ignorance those of us who have opposed the deregulation of export marketing of Wheat have been up against all through this debate, only now when everything is gone are people waking up to the situation we are facing.”

.

No doubt Crikey’s anti-farmer journalist Stephen Mayne, chief protagonist for the change will be chuffed with the result.

Who can forget his rantings at the first AWB EGM when urging all A Class shareholders to listen too him and not those farmers who opposed the move.

.

“Sadly, agrarian socialism, hairbrained nostalgia and misty eyed agri-politics remains alive and well on some farms if the pathetic contributions from growers such as Jock Munro and Bob Iffla are any guide.”

.

But in the end 77% of Australian wheat growers agreed with him.

.

……………………………………………………………………………

.

Have your say!

.

Paula Fitzgerald (pictured) Executive Director Agrifood Awareness Australia Ltd writes:

Opponents of genetically modified (GM) crops, including multinational Greenpeace, are busily circulating petitions seeking ‘full’ GM labelling. However, several facts need to be made.

Australia already has a GM labelling system, implemented in 2001. Health ministers were clear at the time that this was to facilitate choice.

It is not about safety as foods sold in Australia, including GM foods and ingredients, undergo thorough scientific safety assessment. Claims to suggest otherwise are misleading.

Oils are not required to be labeled ‘GM’ simply because the genetic material is removed during the refining process. This means that oils from conventional and GM crops cannot be differentiated.

Changes to GM labeling laws would not enhance choice but could serve to reduce it, through all products carrying a ‘may contain GM’ label. Alternatively, new costs could be added with the forced introduction of a traceability system spanning the entire supply chain. This cost would be passed onto all consumers.

Farmers in New South Wales and Victoria have chosen to grow GM canola this year because these new varieties enable better weed control, higher yields, improved oil quality and less herbicide.

The introduction of these varieties has actually facilitated choice, with a number of restaurants, retailers and food manufacturers now voluntarily making GM claims to suit their own purposes.

Ironically, in States where GM canola is not permitted, farmers have been forced to persist with conventional varieties which require greater inputs.

Such decisions have denied access to cleaner, greener alternatives.

Many consumers may not be aware that Australia has been growing canola, including herbicide tolerant varieties, since the 1980s.

Perhaps it is time to poll consumers on a real question -

.

“Do you support Australian farmers utilising all the tools and proven technologies available to produce safe, affordable, nutritious food as efficiently and sustainably as possible?”

.

Gene technology is one tool that will help to deliver this outcome.

.

……………………………………………………………………..

.

Have Your Say! Tell Paula what you think. Or ask a question?

.

Western Australian Farmers Federation calls for AWB - No Vote:

.

CONTROL VALUE OF AWB A-CLASS (GROWER) SHARES COULD BE WORTH IN EXCESS OF $100,000,000.

The right to control a company has value, and, in the case of an Australian Securities Exchange Top 200 company, this value is considerable, and in the instance of AWB, is estimated to be worth in excess of $100,000,000 by way of a control premium.

AWB is seeking to convince grower shareholders to give up the value of control for nothing. The cost to AWB B-Class shareholders to gain control will only amount to the cost of the company’s aggressive publicity campaign.

If growers are going to give up control, then they should be adequately rewarded for that loss of control. This should be achieved by negotiating a cash value for their right to control.

The Board of AWB realises that the dual-class shareholding does constrain the company in terms of takeover value and is therefore attempting to consolidate control to a single class of shareholder at minimum cost to the company and its B-Class Shareholders.

WAFarmers members who are AWB A-Class (grower) Shareholders and have not yet voted at AWB’s adjourned Extraordinary General Meeting, now have another opportunity to have their say.

By voting, these members have the opportunity to capture the real value of their A-Class shares.

A-Class (grower) Shareholders who have already voted, need do nothing. A-Class (grower) shareholders have the right to elect the majority of Directors to the Board of AWB Ltd. This bestows the right of control in theoretical terms to growers shareholders.

A-Class (grower) Shareholders should oppose this opportunistic control grab and ensure they ultimately get the real value for their A-Class shares by voting AGAINST the resolution to remove Article 2 from the Constitution.

.

All articles on the battle for control of AWB.

.

………………………………………………………………………….

.

Have Your say!

.

Western Australian wheat grower Mic Fels “Halcyon Downs” Esperance, WA writes:

I encourage wheat growers who haven’t yet voted in AWB’s EGM to do so as a priority.

The No vote was about to prevail by a margin of 0.3%, with 27% participation last week, which means there must have literally been only a handful of votes in it.

YOUR VOTE DOES AND SHOULD COUNT.

Rupert Murdoch’s News corp is often referred to as another dual class shareholder company similar to AWB. Obviously there are some big differences but consider this.

If Rupert wanted to retire and give up his control of Newscorp, would he just tell the board they can take over now and thanks for the memories? I’m pretty sure he would say: here’s control of the company, how about say a million or so shares to compensate me for handing it over?

The farming industry has a sorry track record of giving away what it should trade, are we the only ones playing nice guys in the cold hard commercial world?

We are being ripped off if we just give away control of one of Australia’s top 200 companies. It has a real value, Rupert knows that, Brendan and Gordon definitely know that and we are crazy if we don’t expect that in return for our constitutional right to control AWB.

If the No vote gets up this (the 2nd) time, the AWB board will have to get real and come to us with a decent offer next time. They can’t just keep serving up the same rehashed dud deal. This should be a win-win not a win-lose deal. The B class shareholders will be getting a bit towey about what this is all costing, it is in their (our) interests to wrap this up too.

Some would say it is too hard to work out what it is worth, but it should be a straight negotiation as with any commodity.

We put what we expect on the table, lets say 2000 shares per A class entitlement, and no doubt the board, representing B class shareholders, will come back with an offer reflecting the price they are prepared to pay for the gain they expect to get.

If it is good enough we support the yes vote with over 75% and they get to walk away with control, if not they need to meet the market with a better deal.

The board is not going to like this idea but that’s purely because they will have to buy something they had hoped to steal.

The loyalty “vote no” argument never convinced me, and ironically it seems to be some kind of bizarre loyalty driving A class shareholders to do ” what’s right” for AWB by voting yes, even if they stand to gain nothing from it.

Make no bones about it, if we normalise AWB it will not have any allegiance to us and that is just the real commercial world.

If we want to mix it with the big players we need to grow up a bit and defend our right to a fair share of the pie.

This is no trifle matter, please vote if you haven’t yet done so and I hope I have given you enough reason to vote NO. Feel free to vote Yes next time if we are made a decent offer.

Please forward this to anyone who you think might be interested, our networks are our only ally against the massive publicity machine at AWB.

You need to vote before 2pm Monday 1st September.

.

Mic Fels is a delegate on the WAfarmers grains council.
.
All articles on battle for control of AWB
.
…………………………………………………………………………………….
.
Have your Say!

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

In an extraordinary move AWB directors today extended the time AWB A class shareholders have to vote on the resolution to remove the dual class shareholding and with it grower control of the board.

.

“AWB Chairman Brendan Stewart ( pictured above ) said 74.7 per cent of A class shareholders who had voted prior to the meeting were in favour of Constitutional reform at this stage but only 27 per cent of A class shareholders had voted.

The AWB Constitution requires at least 75 per cent of A class shareholders who vote to vote in favour before any change can occur.

Given the importance of this vote, the time for A class shareholders to vote has been extended to ensure that there is sufficient time and opportunity to raise participation and secure a decisive result.”

.

Thats right folks, you read it right just 27% of A Class shareholders (wheat growers) bothered too vote on the critical issue of who should control they’re $1Billion dollar company.

This is despite the board of AWB conducting a series of grower information seminars in regional areas across Australia. The Wheat Growers Action Group had also been extremely active in lobbying their fellow wheat growers to vote against the changes.

.

…………………………………………………………………………………………….

Update 22/08/2008 @ 11.30am -

From a disgruntled A Class Shareholder:

“What a disgraceful meeting, culminating with lies and distortions.

The main resolution was to get rid of A class or grower shares, and the constitution requires 75% to carry the resolution.

10346 votes cast for the resolution
3968 against
1495 open proxies were cast,

If you assume all open proxies are in favour of the resolution and do not take the A class votes at the meeting, convened for the purpose of voting then you can obtain the spin necessary to assert 74.7% in favour. This still looses the resolution.

None of the A class shares in the room were counted even though people had traveled from all over Australia with hands full of them.

Then as if to say we have lost the vote ( the second time) but we will not accept the outcome the Chairman adjourns the meeting, one can only assume to see if he can find a way to circumvent the legal constitution.

What remains is to see what legal advice has to say about the behaviour of the Chairman. Perhaps he has broken the law/constitution and we will see the authorities pursue him so the company’s voters can receive justice.

And to suggest the 4 board members who support the position verified by the votes on the day as per the constitution are not at risk is to confirm the chairman’s ability to distort the truth, he has in fact seen the written material which is the reason for the caution reflected in the answers given at the meeting.

.

………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Update 22/08/2008 @ 7.30pm

Mum & Dad Farmers will Decide who Controls AWB

.

…………………………………………………………………………………

.

See all articles on the fight for control of AWB

.

Have your say!

AWB VOTE TO CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION.

Your WGAG committee has studied what the proposed changes to AWB Limited Constitution will mean to you as a wheat grower.

The committee unanimously agrees that removing ARTICLE 2 in their opinion will not be in the grower’s best interest.

Removing ARTICLE 2 sets off a chain reaction that will extinguish your A Class share holder rights resulting in:

.

• Total loss of A Class shares for no gain.
• Will take away grower control.
• The company will be highly susceptible to take over by other companies.
• The intellectual property built up over 60 years, will be used to benefit the companies dividends and not necessarily grower returns.
• Under AWB LTD’s new constitution AWB will no longer be required to maximize grower returns or minimize costs.

.

You may have noted that Grain Corp, in February this year redeemed it’s dual Class share holding. Within two days of this meeting, Grain Corp shares reached $13.75, and have now plummeted to about $8.00.

On the other hand, the majority of A Class Directors have opposed the restructure hence, more than a 40% increase in AWB share value.

We believe it is in:

your best interest to vote against the resolutions.

.

FAX YOUR VOTES TO 1800 800 053 BY 2pm (EST), TUESDAY THE 19TH OF AUGUST 2008 TO BE ELIGIBLE!

End.

.

AURTHORIZED BY WHEAT GROWERS ACTION GROUP.
Peter Cannon WGAG Chairman.
0268697634 / 0428697634.

.

With only 2 weeks to go before AWB A class shareholders vote on the boards proposal to scuttle the companies dual class shareholding it is timely to look at how Grain Corp has faired since it “normalized” its shareholding in February this year.

Incidentally this comes straight of the AWB web site under Compelling case for AWB Constitutional amendment

Independent Advise to Grain Corp on why they should Normalize their shareholding Structure

Ernst & Young’s almost 50-page report concluded that such a removal was “in the best interests of members of the company” and cited a range of factors, in particular:

• The GGA had effective control over the company’s operations although it owned less than 14% of the ordinary shares: the analogous situation is that the A-class shareholders have effective control over AWB with no ordinary share ownership.
• The voting structure was not consistent with the ASX Principles of Good Corporate Governance.
• Reflecting the above factors, institutional ownership was low and the share liquidity was less than would otherwise be the case. Increases in the liquidity of a company’s shares have potential advantages including:
Research & Analysis: Capital market implications of changes to the AWB Constitution 5
- Greater willingness to invest in a stock, there being few institutional investors in Graincorp
- Greater likelihood that broker analysts will be interested in following and reporting on the stock
- Potentially greater representation in key market indices resulting in index and other investors being more likely to buy shares
- Positive impact on share valuation: “General share valuation theory suggests that the value of a share is influenced by a range of factors including the liquidity of shares and control rights attached to the share”. Removal of restrictions “is likely to make the ordinary shares more attractive to the market”.

All of that mirrors pretty well what AWB A class shareholders have been told (I guess that is why they put it in there because it collaborates there own independent research) .

So lets look at what has actually happened to Grain Corp shares since then.

* In February 2008 the 64,340,000 Grain Corp shares traded at $13.50 a share giving a total market cap of $868 million.

* As of Friday the 8th of August 2008 (6 months later) the shares are trading at $8.50 giving a total market cap of $550 million.

* Thats a loss of $318 million in shareholder equity or a 24% of its value. Grain Corp shares have substantially underperformed the ASX200 which lost just 10% for the same period.

Now lets compare AWB’s performance for the same period.

* In February 2008 the 351,810,000 AWB shares traded at $2.50 a share giving a total market cap of $880 million or just $12 million more than Grain Corp.

* As of Friday the 8th of August 2008 (6 months later) the shares are trading at $2.95 giving a total market cap of $1.03 billion.

* Thats a gain of $123 million in shareholder equity or up 14%. AWB shares have substantially out performed the ASX200 which lost just 10% for the same period whilst AWB shares gained 36% for the same period.

Conclusion -

AWB & Grain Corp’s market capitalization was the same before Grain Corp did away with its dual class shareholding.

Despite the rosy forecast of Ernst Young about Grain Corps shares being more attractive to investors - 6 months later Grain Corp shareholders find their company is now worth about half of what they’re fellow shareholders company AWB is worth.

Has anybody bothered to ask Grain Corp Shareholders how they are feeling about the Ernst Young findings and how poorly they’re shares have performed since then.

……………………………………………………………………………………..

Have Your Say!

(Australian Wheat Board) shareholders will vote on a change to the constitution at the end of next month. Under current arrangements, A-class shareholders (growers) elect 7 positions on the 12-member company board, while B-class shareholders, elect the other Four directors. The directors then Appoint a Managing director who is a director and has the same powers.

The board is asking growers to give away control of the billion dollar public company through the abolition of the A classs shares. A similar resolution in January failed when 62% of A-class shareholders voted against it; with 88% of B-class shareholders voting in favour.

A minimum 75% of A class shareholders must approve the resolution for it to be passed.

As it stands 7 of the 12 AWB directors are wheat growers. Four wheat grower directors, Xavier Martin, Colin Nicholl, Russell Mckenzie and Rodger Schirmer are against the changes with the other 8 (including 3 growers) supporting them.

Those A class share holders (current growers) who do not want to loose control of your board and hence the company must vote No to the proposed changes.

WA Farmers rightly ask:

“Why should we give up our right to control a company that most of us have dealt with for decades, and we consider to be integral to our future”

The AWB executive seem hell bent on attaining their goal of removing grower control through changes to Article 2 of the constitution.

The board argues that removing the Dual shareholding would result in:

Higher B class share values will be obtained in the long run

Better access to capital can be obtained

There will be more investment in AWB shares

More investor confidence in AWB

Broader community confidence

The proposed constitutional changes intend to do away with the dual shareholder status as if it is some anomaly in the market that makes AWB less attractive for investors.

Rupert Murdock’s Newscorp as an example has a dual shareholder class, he seems to have done well and so might I add have his shareholders.

In the USA Warren Buffet’s public company Berkshire Hathaway also has a dual shareholder class. A $10,000 investment in Berkshire 42 years ago would be worth $34,449,000 today; the same $10,000 invested in the Standard & Poor’s 500 would be worth $638,000.

Interestingly both Murdock & Buffet have been criticized for years my sections of the market for their companies dual shareholder class. You judge for your self, if it is OK for Murdock and Buffet (and their very happy investors), surely its not too silly for Australia’s wheat growers?

The value of B class shares will be much more to do with the earnings of the shares than who owns them, unless speculators think it will become a take over target. Growers would not want that.

The AWB have proved very capable of obtaining capital as evidenced by the AWBs ownership of Landmark , a great commercial business, providing financial services and other services to the market place. It has an interest in a fertiliser company, and is said to be expanding its South American operations.

It is a good example to consider the fate of other organizations, privatised, then so called normalised. Take Grain corp. Once a NSW company which swallowed the Qld Grainco a Queensland only company, lovingly owned by Queenslands grain producers. Now Graincorps share price since normalisation (very recently) is said to be approximating half its prior value.

Won’t B class shareholders be pleased with that if it occurs to AWB. And don’t think Cargills relationship with Graincorp isn’t strategic, but thats an issue for another day.

The ownership of intellectual property, markets and contacts and credibility developed over the comapnies 78 year history must surely belong to growers, the very people who raised the money to fund the initial shareholding through their Wheat Industry Fund contributions.

B class shareholders should not be afraid of the AWB structure. It likely will be held much more conservatively by a grower controlled board.

A class share holders who are entirely growers should vote No to the changes and look to replace non representative directors whose integrity must surely be damaged as a result of their assertion that growers would be better off doing away with grower control of the company.

Rowell Walton is an AWB A class shareholder and grain grower.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Update 4th August 2008 @ 7.50pm

For a Link to Wheat Growers Action Group how to vote NO card. Click Here

……………………………………………………………………………………………..

Have Your say.

NSW - Peak Hill Wheat Grower (Location) and Chairman of the Wheat Growers Action Group (WAG) Peter Cannon writes:

Federal Minister for Agriculture Tony Burke (pictured) today declared that he is more than comfortable with the delivery of the marketing of Australia’s wheat crop to multi-nationals and regional monopolies.

I and members of Wheat Growers’ Action Group met with Mr Burke for 45 minutes yesterday in Canberra and were aghast as he lectured us on the benefits of the Rudd Government’s system.

As a result of that meeting and the second reading of the Bill in Parliament yesterday we are demanding the federal government compensate wheat growers for loss of income and transfer of risk if its Wheat Export Marketing legislation is passed by parliament.

The legislation which was introduced to parliament last Thursday threatens the livelihood of thousands of growers and rural communities and removes the only advantage that Australian farmers have over heavily subsidized international competitors.

The legislation will abolish the National Pool, which has been an effective and orderly marketing system for the past 60 years. It also meant farmers were guaranteed a buyer of their wheat which will no longer be the case under the government’s changes.

The new laws favour big business and multi-nationals by granting them licences to export Australian wheat. Growers are worried the export companies will drive down prices as they compete to secure overseas markets.

There’s also grave concerns about regional monopolies controlling the movement of wheat, and bulk handling companies restricting grower access to up-country storage and port facilities.

There’s a likelihood that the bulk handlers may not apply for export permits but will accumulate wheat and act as a front for the multi-nationals. This will allow a situation where the mega-traders will avoid scrutiny by taking control of the wheat as it leaves the port.

Photo: Grain Silos and Loading Terminal at Port Lincoln South Australia:

The American multi-national, Cargill, would under Rudd’s system, through its link with the cash-strapped Graincorp, control the crop from paddock to customer. The champagne corks will be popping in Cargill’s head office.

The federal government has been hypocritical in its response the USA last week passing its Farm Bill to continue to pay $US307 billion in subsidies to its farm sector, which is in direct conflict to the objectives in the Doha Round of multilateral trade negotiations.

Mr Burke has said the Rudd Government worked hard to seek a level playing field for Australian producers, yet it is moving to punish growers for the perceived misdemeanours in Iraq of the Australian Wheat Board (AWB).

We ask, how this level playing field work with the proposed new wheat export marketing legislation ending the only advantage Australian wheat growers have had over subsidized growers in other countries - that is our single desk marketing system that has served Australia for well over 60 years?

The Trade Minister, Simon Crean, (pictured) has expressed his dismay at the increase in farm support in the US Farm Bill. How does he think the Australian wheat growers feel at our own government proposing to remove our only step on to this “level playing field,” and thus adding further to the delight of the US wheat growers!

The Federal Labor Government will need to provide an industry adjustment package in excess of $10 billion to allow growers any chance to operate and remain viable under the new legislation.

To add to the insult, growers are likely to be hit with a levy to pay for the $4 million dollars the government has pledged for the annual budget of Wheat Exports Australia - the industry’s new regulator.

There will also be a tax-payer funded education scheme to teach growers how to market their grain under the changes. It’s more unnecessary waste of tax-payer funds when there’s already a proven marketing system in place, a system that more than 80 per cent of growers want to remain.

WAG members (logo pictured) are deeply worried the new wheat export bill has the potential to send growers broke and family farms will disappear along with those communities that rely on them.

So too does the Country Women’s Association (CWA), which at its recent annual conference called on the federal government to retain the present wheat marketing system for the 2008/09 cropping season. They also called for growers to be surveyed on whether they want the current system retained, just as Kevin Rudd had always demanded of John Howard.

The WA Farmers Federation and the Wheat Growers Association (a national body) has also confirmed its support for WGAG.

We are calling on Minister Burke to withdraw the bill immediately and allow the current national pool system to remain in place for the 08/09 harvest, to avoid a debacle which will see the collapse of the Australian grains industry.

Growers will take direct action to ensure that their message gets across if this Government insists on pushing the Bill through and there is no doubt that it will suffer acute embarrassment as it attempts to justify this sell out of Australian interests.

WGAG has launched a petition opposing the Wheat Export Marketing Legislation - go to our website: www.concernedwheatgrowers.com

We are urging wheat growers to get involved. To find out what you can do to help please contact me Peter Cannon on mobile 0428 697 634 or my phone fax is 02 6869 7634.

________________________________________________________________

Agmates Says:

Rudd has Conned Us.

Kevin Rudd promised Australian wheat farmers that if Labor came to power and growers wanted the Single Desk, Labor would retain it.

It now appears Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was prepared to promise farmers anything without any intention of fulfilling those commitments just to get elected. All of those in Rural and regional Australia who voted Labor for the first time have been conned.

See evidence of Kevin Rudd’s Broken Promises in the links below. Click on them to read.

Kevin Rudd then Opposition Leader Letter to NSW Wheat Grower Darryl Kitto

Senator Ron Boswell - Rudd Letter reveals support for Single Desk

Tony Windsor Ind Fed MP - Rudd assured me Single Desk would be Retained

Senator Ron Boswell

“Kevin 07 curried favour with growers by telling them their single desk would stay.

Kevin 08 gets rid of the single desk. How can anybody respect anything he says?”

.

Nationals & Liberals Split Over Wheat Marketing
________________________________________
Have your Say!