'Do nothing' a rare approach

There is probably no market ever invented that has been improved by government intervention.

AN amazing thing happened just before Christmas. A committee of inquiry recommended that the government do nothing. And the government accepted its recommendations.

This is almost unheard of in modern Australia. Our governments are totally addicted to “doing something”, even when a problem is more imagined than real. Doing nothing is a very rare event.

The subject was the inquiry into wheat stocks information undertaken by the Wheat Industry Advisory Taskforce. Its six recommendations were to the effect that there is no need for additional intervention by government to increase the provision of information about stocks and that if more information is needed, it is up to industry to provide it. It even suggested how to go about this.

Agriculture Minister Barnaby Joyce immediately accepted the committee’s recommendations.

The basis of the Taskforce decision was whether there was “market failure”, a concept in economic theory that describes when the allocation of goods and services by a free market is not efficient. That is, there exists another conceivable outcome where a market participant may be made better off without making someone else worse off.

At issue was whether a lack of information about wheat stocks was preventing the market from operating efficiently and, if so, whether the government ought to intervene.

This debate is not really about market information though. It is a legacy of the abolition of the export single desk. A dogged rear-guard action has been fought to retain government involvement in the wheat market by those who do not believe in free markets.

Their dream is to restore the single desk, but until that’s achieved they regard any government involvement as better than none.

And for once Labor is not the culprit. When the legislation deregulating the wheat market was examined by the Senate’s Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislative Committee, it was certain Liberal and Greens senators who wrote a dissenting report arguing that it was “too soon” for the wheat industry to be left to its own devices. To them, “too soon” is a euphemism for “not in my lifetime”.

What the Taskforce found was that there were quite divergent views as to what kind of information was considered necessary to make the market sufficiently transparent, with some inferring that you can never have too much.

However, it also noted that there was a lack of willingness to pay for this information. While there was support for the role of the previous ABS/ABARES reports, compiled at taxpayer expense, the industry could not agree to continue these once external funding was required.

The Taskforce also found that requiring stocks disclosure under a mandatory system would impose a significant regulatory burden and cost to industry that would outweigh the benefits generated to the market. It even suggested that, while additional information may be beneficial in times of low stocks, it may reduce prices when supplies are high.

WA’s Pastoralists and Graziers Association, which supported continued disclosure of stocks under existing port access undertakings, argued that prices for WA wheat had risen since the market was deregulated and disclosure of aggregated private up-country holdings was no longer required.

The Taskforce nonetheless recommended that grain handlers consider voluntarily sharing stocks information via an independent third party. Known as a pooled sales audit, this approach is used in certain industries where the participants agree that greater transparency would be valuable. Indeed, my company is the independent third party for three such audits.

But whether the information would be all that valuable is another matter. While economic theory says markets are most efficient when all participants have perfect information, there is no such market in reality. Moreover, that does not indicate market failure or justify government intervention. There is probably no market ever invented that has been improved by government intervention.

Notwithstanding the Taskforce’s findings and the government’s acceptance of its recommendations, those seeking to re-regulate the wheat market will not rest. The taskforce is still to consider the issue of wheat quality and whether the government can do a better job than the market at matching growers, varieties and processors. There will be plenty urging the government not to allow doing nothing to become a habit.

To read the Taskforce report visit: www.wheattaskforce.gov.au

David Leyonhjelm has been an agribusiness consultant for 25 years and was recently elected to the Senate for the Liberal Democrats. He may be contacted at reclaimfreedom@gmail.com

Page:
1
FarmOnline
David Leyonhjelm

David Leyonhjelm

has worked in agribusiness for 30 years and is a Senator for NSW representing the Liberal Democrats.
Date: Newest first | Oldest first

READER COMMENTS

Hydatid
6/01/2014 5:41:23 AM

Those who want to disclose their stocks should be free to do so in association with other like minded individuals...keep the results confidential amongst yourselves if you like...but who the hell should be telling others that they must divulge their private and commercial-in-confidence details when they don't want to?...what is the advantage to them ?
Farmer Joe
6/01/2014 6:16:28 AM

Your article is incorrect. The current level of stocks disclosure was fought for and won in 2012. The task force confirmed that level of stocks disclosure is appropriate. It is a condition of the mandatory code of conduct that the ACCC is supposed to implement. People who fought for this did so not to reintroduce SD, they did so because the bulk handlers like Graincorp use stocks intelligence they have exclusive access to, to their significant advantage ultimately at the expense of growers. This is by definition, an inefficient market. As usual your ignorance of the debate is astounding.
seethelight
6/01/2014 8:00:06 AM

How could any farmer find fault with Hydatid's view that stock warehoused in the system and yet unsold belongs exclusively to the individual who delivered it and that therefore its characteristics should not be disclosed without the owner's consent? Well then along comes Farmer Joe with a definition of ' market failure' that fits the occasion justifying the use of the government powers of coercion and compulsion to disclose Hydatid's private information,just as he would once have justified the compulsory acquisition of Hydatid's grain and he then claims its not an argument for the SD.Sure
JJ
7/01/2014 6:01:34 AM

Your premise is incorrect. Free markets without government intervention or regulation often fail -- remember the Global Financial Crisis?
Dickytiger
7/01/2014 6:37:54 AM

JJ, your premise is incorrect. Markets with government intervention always fail. Remember the Soviet Union?
Hydatid
7/01/2014 6:55:20 AM

JJ.. agree to some extent. Governments are there to maintain basic services and to provide infrastructure, and safety nets. As such policy settings are important. A good example of this may have been the Banks four pillars - went along way to protecting us from the GFC. This is an example of what Govt stops us from doing. This is a long way from Govt telling us what we must do. Telling us that we have to market collectively. Telling us that we have to disclose our own information. Telling us that we can't deal direct with our own customers....that is another matter altogether !!
Hydatid
7/01/2014 6:55:44 AM

JJ.. agree to some extent. Governments are there to maintain basic services and to provide infrastructure, and safety nets. As such policy settings are important. A good example of this may have been the Banks four pillars - went along way to protecting us from the GFC. This is an example of what Govt stops us from doing. This is a long way from Govt telling us what we must do. Telling us that we have to market collectively. Telling us that we have to disclose our own information. Telling us that we can't deal direct with our own customers....that is another matter altogether !!
GFA
7/01/2014 7:22:57 AM

Opponents of stock disclosure are getting all hot and bothered about nothing. Disclosing totals of stocks is not identifying anyone's private stock details. Governments do that sort of thing all the time. Have you heard of the ABS anyone? They collect personal details on all of us and disclose aggregate statistics without breaching privacy. What is the hidden agenda here?
jack tancock
7/01/2014 1:59:17 PM

Oh dear boris, looks like you have taken the sucker bait. bushie is no free market ideologue. He is just a rarified air hypocrite who believes in loading up business owners and particularly farmers, with every imaginable burden to protecting workers standards of living. Have you not read his posts about how laborers are entitled to get artificially inflated wages and conditions (and how it is their God given right regardless of how much cheaper that commodity could be sourced under a deregulated labor market)? He thinks business owners are a good old free feed trough to have ones snout in.
jingelic
7/01/2014 2:36:06 PM

'There is probably no market ever invented that has been improved by government intervention.' Really? I would've thought that the private health insurance 'market' in Australia would be dead and buried now if not for the repeated attempts by governments of all stripes to prop it up with complex tax rules, penalties for late adoption etc etc.
1 | 2 | 3  |  next >
Agribuzz with David LeyonhjelmCommentary, news and analysis with agribusiness consultant David Leyonhjelm. Email David at reclaimfreedom@gmail.com

COMMENTS

light grey arrow
I'm one of the people who want marijuana to be legalized, some city have been approved it but
light grey arrow
#blueysmegacarshowandcruise2019 10 years on Daniels Ute will be apart of another massive cause.
light grey arrow
Australia's live animal trade is nothing but a blood stained industry that suits those who