The rice and fall of socialism

ONE of the remaining remnants of agricultural socialism in NSW is currently under review. While socialism lives on in WA if you grow potatoes (as I have written previously), in NSW it’s all about rice.

Under NSW legislation, all rice grown in the state is vested in the Rice Marketing Board. Growers face prosecution if they attempt to sell it to anyone not licensed by the Board. Across the border in free market Victoria, they can sell their rice to whoever they like.

Until 2006 the only organisation authorised to buy NSW rice was Ricegrowers Ltd (trading as Sunrice), originally a grower-owned co-operative but now a company listed on the National Stock Exchange (not to be confused with the much larger ASX). A number of companies are now authorised to trade rice within the domestic market, but Ricegrowers still has a monopoly on exports. Up to 80 per cent of the crop is normally exported.

Ricegrowers nonetheless retains key aspects of its co-operative origins, with separate shares representing voting and economic interests. A-class shares are voting but holders are limited to a maximum of 5 and just one vote no matter how many they own. The shares do not attract dividends and cannot be traded.

B class shares are non-voting but can be traded (to active and former growers only) and pay dividends. There is no specific board representation for B class shareholders.

Reports suggest a large majority of NSW ricegrowers oppose either an end to vesting or relinquishing control of Ricegrowers. Apparently they cling to the belief that they will be deprived of their rightful profits if they don’t retain collective control over the marketing of their rice. Or as Marx would have put it, they prefer social ownership of the means of distribution.

In reality, they are probably only depriving themselves. Just as there has never been a rich socialist country, the rice industry can never fully realise its potential so long as it clings to a socialist marketing system.

There are at least three ways in which rice growers lose as a result of the current arrangements.

First, they fund the Rice Marketing Board and its operating costs, now approaching $1 million a year. If it was abolished along with vesting, those costs would not be incurred.

Second, with just the domestic traders and Ricegrowers in the market, there is not much competition to buy rice from NSW growers. In a competitive market there would be multiple buyers vying to buy and export the rice, allowing growers to negotiate the best price and payment terms. As it stands, they are essentially stuck with a take-it or leave-it situation.

In fact, growers bear all the market risk. Ricegrowers operates a pool payment system in which the price growers receive is only known after the rice has been sold and the company has deducted its costs.

The widely quoted Bell Potter report suggests NSW growers received on average 19% less than their Californian counterparts, when both price and volume are factored in, over the period 1994-2009. Ricegrowers disagrees with that but hasn’t countered it. In any case, it’s pretty obvious that growers are receiving less than optimum returns.

The benefits of a competitive market are now being seen by wheat growers, notwithstanding the denials of a few obsessed individuals. It might similarly take up to three years for the same benefits to emerge with rice, but the end result would be no different – higher prices and more marketing options.

The third way in which growers miss out is by having their capital locked up in Ricegrowers. The opportunity cost is substantial as there are plenty of ways the money could be used to greater benefit than what they receive now.

The Bell Potter report argues that the value of Ricegrowers shares is considerably reduced because of its share structure. Holders of B class shares cannot be sure the directors will always act in their best interests, as would be expected of a normal company, due to their statutory obligation to act in the interests of growers. The report suggests the shares could be 35 per cent higher if listed on a major exchange without such constraints.

In a deregulated rice market, with Ricegrowers listed on the ASX, current shareholders would be free to sell down their shareholding at a premium price. Those who preferred to retain their shares would have an insider’s perspective on how well their company was performing based on whether it was competitive in seeking to market their crop.

But there is a fourth way in which growers lose, which is that they are deprived of choice. Whether they like it or not, and undoubtedly at least some would not like it, they have no choice when it comes to marketing their own crop.

Co-operatives in which membership is voluntary are fine, and Ricegrowers would do well without compulsory vesting or an export monopoly even if it remained a co-operative. But they are not fine when they are backed by the coercive power of legislation. There is nothing co-operative about compulsion.

NSW rice growers who object to being forced to sell their rice into a collective system should be free to choose their own marketing route, including, as some wheat growers are now doing, finding their own end-user customers.

And as is always the case when markets are allowed to operate freely, prosperity would increase.

David Leyonhjelm is an agribusiness consultant with Baron Strategic Services. He may be contacted at

Date: Newest first | Oldest first


17/09/2012 7:35:25 PM

The single desk and grower control of SunRice ensure growers receive a good return for their rice. I grow rice and wheat in the Riverina. Rice is much more profitable because of grower control and the single desk. We also receive a good return on our SunRice B class shares. We must keep the single desk and should not list on the ASX.
18/09/2012 5:40:50 AM

David there are so many greedy people in this world , we have so many starving people in this world because of so called free enterprise . Vesting powers keep production up & price consisteant . When will USA who is against vestings stop subsidising there farmers or europe who are worried free markets will create starvation inthere nations . Until Australia can subsidise there farmers , the farmers need to look after themselves & that is have marketing in there own hands not leave to the ruthless wolves & fake stockmarket which creates starvation !
John Newton
18/09/2012 6:28:43 AM

Sweden, Spain until it fell into free market madness, China, Vietnam and those countries, like Chile, that were doing pretty well until America 'interfered.'
18/09/2012 7:43:28 AM

And what does David have to gain by this story???? The Government loves people like david,he tellls them what they want to hear,and in return he gets extra work and money. Unfortunately there is plenty of people making a good living pushing this deregulation BS!!!,but lots of people losing money when a agriculture industry is deregulated!!
18/09/2012 7:44:35 AM

Ray, if there were others looting in the next street, would you consider that warranted you joining in?
18/09/2012 8:13:21 AM

Can't some people learn from history? We used to have a single desk for wheat supplying a superior product to the world but now this marketing is in the hands of a few multinationals who are using Australia not only as a supplier of last resort but are shandying our top quality wheat to make a product which just meets (not always) the specifications for a market. I am still waiting for the extra returns that eliminating the single desk was supposed to bring. I think hoki may have a good point too.
A Ag Socialist
18/09/2012 8:33:47 AM

David, get out of your office and down to Kongs Victoria Park Pty Ltd - Retail and then the hundreds of small retailers of Asian grocers that sell products from around the globe. Look at all the 25 kilo bags of rice being carried out the door and then rethink rice marketing.
19/09/2012 6:14:27 AM

Davids not even a farmer. Like Tony Bourke closest theve got to knowing about farming is owning a garden hose and a budgy. Consultants are supposed to consult well David get out of your airconditioned office and go and consult with the real people who will suffer from your medalling. I'm a wheat grower and I know what they face loosing but you don't!
Corpoate communist
20/09/2012 4:07:32 PM

Comrade Leyonhjelm, you and I as the new corporate communist proletariat (and grain trade shareholders) know that we can’t take wealth from the rice growing serfdom while they hold their marketing so close to their chest, the wheat serfdom have given us a third of their wealth why wont the rice growing serfdom do the same, after all we are the new revolution, the new face of the great struggle to dispossess the serfdom under whatever pretext is fashionable, socialism, Marxism Stalinism, Fascism, capitalism, who cares we want their money Long live the revolution
Jock Munro
24/09/2012 6:29:05 AM

The author would be very comfortable with the benefits that the regulated wages sytem gives him but that is different of course. Tony Abbot wants to bring in subsidised nannies for the rich-I daresy that David would be comfortable with that as well.
Agribuzz with David LeyonhjelmCommentary, news and analysis with agribusiness consultant David Leyonhjelm. Email David at


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