Agmates

Here’s some news I personally have been waiting for:

Six former top executives of wheat exporter AWB (Australian Wheat Board) have moved closer to court over their alleged roles in the $300 million Iraqi kickback scandal.

Former AWB Managing Director Andrew Lindberg and AWB group General Manager Trading Peter Geary are each charged with 10 breaches of the Corporations Act.

Former AWB Chaiman Trevor Flugge is charged with seven breaches, former general manager of International Sales and Marketing Michael Long (pictured left in Iraq in 2003) with 17, former Chief Financial Officer Paul Ingleby 16 and former General Manager of International Sales and Marketing (Middle East) Charles Stott 12.

Read the whole story By clicking Here

————————————————————-

Update 1 - 20th April @ 11.20am

The above civil action is being brought by the Australian Securities & Investments Commission.

Federal & State Police are also looking at proceeding with Criminal charges against the former executives.

Former Chairman Trevor Flugge (pictured in Iraq in 2003) and the above executives have applied for the court case mentioned above (a civil case) to be suspended until Victoria and Federal police have decided whether to go ahead with the criminal proceeding against the men.

—————————————————–

Update No1: 26th April @ 10pm

USDA has imposed a 2 -year ban on AWB as punishment for kickbacks to Saddam Hussein.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has announced that AWB has been barred from using USDA export promotion programs to export agricultural goods for the next two years.

In December 2006, the USDA suspended the board from using any U.S. government commodity procurements or other program such as loan-guarantees and proposed a ban. The debarment of AWB became effective this week for two years.

USDA spokesperson Keith Williams said:

“We took a careful look at the evidence, afforded AWB due process and came to a decision that it was in the best interest of the U.S government and taxpayers to debar this organization for a period of time, The administrative law judge took an independent look and affirmed that decision.”

——————————————————-

Have Your Say!

Leave your comment below or click on the blue word Comments and the reply box will appear.

Queensland Grain producer Rowell Walton in his “View from the header” writes:

The period from the early nineties till now has seen dramatic changes in grain marketing, from fully regulated domestically and internationally to the now entirely deregulated domestic market.

(My view from “the front of the header” during the 2007 Wheat harvest at Yulabilla Condamine QLD)

With the current push by certain groups to do away with he single desk of the Australian Wheat Board and complete the return to pre 1930,s marketing conditions grain producers need to consider carefully their future prospects.

While the world oil shortage and political need has seen the US move rapidly toward domestic production of fuel via ethanol from grain and following decades of low grain prices production has languished.

Now, a strong lift in prices has sent a signal to growers and observers that once again grain is king.

In the shadow of this profitable grain situation it is possible for political operatives to pursue with enthusiasm their agendas for change (code for deregulation) and utilize apathy as growers busy themselves to at last make profits.

(Delivering Wheat to the silo’s during last years harvest)

At any time grain production matches consumption and reserves are available grain price growth will be constrained, in this environment the vast majority of grain producers understand the need for a exporting system which gives them a semblance of ability to extract from the market a fair price. This has been the norm for the life of this producer.

(Header in action during last years Wheat harvest)

Just how the advocates of dismantling the single desk think Australian growers can benefit from the interchange of commerce when several sales people approach the same buyer in some far of place is beyond me, domestically however if a grower is weak and sells below a reasonable price then at least some local benefit may be appropriated, some feedlot or chicken producer who employs Australians, but to give away market power for nothing in return, is senseless.

Take the recent AWB board who have tried to make change and used name calling and innuendo to advance their call. Even the chairman a Queensland’er, asserts he has a mandate (more like a decree) while he fails to observe the rules that govern him, the constitution of the AWB requires that 75% majority be achieved for such changes.

Those are the rules the board must follow. It is this typical refusal to abide by rules, which has taken us to this sad place where even some growers think as a result of certain events we should dump the AWB.

(The men waiting for moisture levels to drop so we can get started again during the 2007 wheat harvest at Yulabilla Condamine QLD.)

Here’s a thought, those who refuse to abide by the rules should no longer hold the confidence of the shareholders and thus should resign forthwith and the shareholders should re elect a board that is prepared to follow the constitution and its rules.

No, I will not label them traitors; I will leave it for history to do that.

And who will benefit from the change advocated.growers? I think not.

Have your say. To leave your thoughts / or to tell Rowell what you think, click on the blue comments link below.