Recent comments by: Bazza
Labor lost this election because of internal focus and division not because they were poor policy developers. They also received unprecidented adverse coverage from a media determined to be right.
Tony Abbott has been given an opportunity to earn the respect of the electors and will hopefully do so. Continuing unity of purpose will be critical to this as will people's feelings that they are better off under the coalition.
Division over various policy issues like the paid parental leave scheme, carbon real action and the budget crisis inertia will result in loss of opportunity and defeat.
Agribuzz with David Leyonhjelm
I notice David failed to do any comparisons on costs or prices with Graincorp or ABB. If he had he would have seen that the disparity in costs far exceeds the benefit of selling an assett that serves the growers well here in WA.
I know there are farmers who would like to access the equity in CBH but they are the ones who have lived on the equity generated by inflating the values of their properties over the years not legitimately operating their enterprises at a profit.
Removing grower control from CBH will undermine the last area where farmers have some control of their industry and cost.
Not sure of your figures, 96/97 to 2010/2011 represents a fourteen year period not four years. I hope your research and assumptions are a little more accurate than your first paragraph.
A matter of opinion
The gift to the RBA by the government accounted for about 50% of the increased budget blow out. With the drop in the exchange rate the RBA reserves are probably now enough for the coalition to get a big dividend say 10 billion. Also cutting the mining and carbon taxes without cutting the corresponding expenditure has increased the deficit by another 5 billion as is the case with the reinstated superannuation rorts for the rich. Its easy to say its Labor's fault but thinking voters know the truth.
We can all now expect the price of everything to now drop by at least 5% and new businesses to begin operating and for new jobs to be offered and for pigs to start flying. This is what the coalition promised. If it doesn't than we can all say the outrage over it impacts by the coalition were overstated.
CBH value is overestimated by those wishing to float it. If Graincorp with its ports from North Qlnd to South Australia, storage across the eastern states, maltsters across the world and around twice the annual tonnage of CBH is worth $3.4 billion, the value of CBH is maybe $2 billion. If equity is equal distribution basis than the value of equity to each share holder would be less than the annual interest payment of most wanting to access their equity. It is probably less than the increase in charges which would be required to deliver the shareholders an acceptable return on investment. Think
Producers who cannot get finance from their banks are probably not viable. It may be bad advice, bad decisions and bad seasons that have got them to this position. Irespective of how much compassion we feel towards these people we would be irresponsible to give them more debt to make the position worse.
I would have sympathy with the government giving these people industry exit funds if they had little equity after selling up. Land values need to fall back in line with their earning capacity and this may be th time for this to happen.
Its interesting that Don Randell in WA is complaining that Tony Windsor has had electorate spending of more than double that in other seats. I would say that the voters of New England should thank Tony Windsor for their members efforts on their behalf. Get rid of him and you will reap the reward of being taken for granted and not supported for your independance.
Colin, it's very obvious you have a right leaning and you use coalition press releases as the basis for many of your opinion pieces.
As a journalist you should be comparing honestly the policy actions of both sides of politics rather than espousing the virtues of your preferred party. This action reinforces the current situation where rural constituents are taken for granted and therefor get nothing.
Maybe we should all vote for the independents, at least they achieved for their electorates, including The Mad Catter.
If you think there will be an improvement in agricultural offerings under the coalition look back to what occured during their term of the coalition government. If you cant think back that far then write down the things that you think will improve under the coalition and then check three years after the next election to see if they have. My belief is that there will be further deterioration irrespective of who governs because they dont give a damm. Your vote is a certainty for the coalition and untill you are unpredictable you are not worth consideration.
If all the share holders in CBH were given an even distribution of equity as shares, their value would be equivalent to the lowest seller. Given the desperation of some commenting here that would be pretty low and their banks would immedately grab that to recover some of the debt. Selling the only assett that gives a return to farmer shareholders is not very sensible business strategy and indicates why so many commenting here are in the position they are.
Teir 3 may never be economically viable without increased patrionage by other users but the call to corpratise CBH is illogical.
Obviously the commentators above are in deep financial difficulties because they followed the desires of the banks and borrowed too much. Selling CBH so that the profits can be given to investors as has occured with Grain corp is not a solution. Farmers there have not been given a golden egg just ask them. Sell your non performing assetts to pay down your debt not the one assett that keeps on paying a dividend in low storage, freight and handling charges.
Aaron $ deregul8, Take a close look at the results of the listing of the former grower owned operations in the eastern states. Graincorp has handling and transport fees well in excess of those in the west, specifically to pay dividends to the corporate sheteholders. Graincorps investment in infrastructure has been almost non existant for many years other than to purchase over valued maltsters and the like. Remember they also wanted to buy Goodman fielder.
Ask most eastern states producers their opinion, then reassess your position. you may find you are uninformed or mis informed.
Aaron, for someone so well versed in the skills of competition and free markets, you obviously haven't observed / understood what has happened in the eastern states. On the eastern sea board there are numerous competing groups with port facilities. Each has tried to cherry pick the most lucrative markets and now due to competition they are claiming they are not making profits. To satisfy their shareholders they are now increasing charges in cartel-like fashon at the expense of farmers. Open your eyes and see, don't follow the propaganda of the multinationals.
Oliver, could you please reference the above mentioned paper/ papers. I have not been able to access it / them as the only ones I seem to be able to find have time frames of 90 days or less and with no intergenerational data.
Prof Peacock is the height of hypocracy. Most research he is claiming to be in favour of GM is done by vested interests with no or limited peer review.
We desperately need properly constructed research by independant researchers to determine who is the true villan in this debate.
Unfortunately governments appear to be beholden to the biotech companies.
forward selling or committing grain at slightly above the cost of production in an average year is a recipe for disaster. How many average years have we had in the last 10? No wonder there are so many desperate farmers. Hedge if you have to at this stage but dont committ.
Jim Chown has again made claims which are unfounded. To claim there has been no peer review of this study is both false and unfounded.
Jim knows the efforts made by pro GM organisations and proponents to discredit work which challenges the claims they make about the safety of GM products.
If there are no issues with the GM products why is funding for verification refused to scientific organisations requesting studies?
Oliver,PBR"s and royalties are very different to patents. No one can patent a hybrid or non hybrid variant to an existing species. Plant breeders have PBR's and royalty protections but not patent rights.
If there were not significant variants from "normal" plant functions then GM's could not be patented.
It is the apparent discrepancy between the claims made in the two separate areas of authorisation that is most worrying and that the two bodies dont appear to cross reference these claims before making decisions. FDA accepts the claim about no significant variation but the patents office ?
Kathy, the absurdity is not in the patenting process but in the avoidance of trials requirements for products eligible for patenting.
Many of the requirements for acceptance by health authorities were avoided by claiming correctly or incorrectly that the plant material was materially the same as non patented material? If so, then how was a patent obtained saying that there were significant genetic and metabolic differences achieving agronomic superiority. I can't understand the inconsistencies in the processes.
Humphrey, I didnt know that 90 days was considered long term. My research indicates that only 2 of the 24 research reports were multi generational. it also indicates that due to substantial inconsistencies and variability in sample weights etc that the results could not be statistically compliant. If these are the research papers you are refering to then they do not represent the research I believe is required.
You may also be aware that nearly all the "reseasch" was funded by various biotech companies and that the feed used, contained but was not exclusively GM.
Maybe Colin Bettles can do a report/ investigation where he references the research and its merits on behalf of both sides of the GM debate.
Journalism is supposed to be about the truth, not about promoting one side of the argument in a biased manner.
Having read a number of reports about Seralini's scientific shortcomings, I looked at a couple of reports on data supporting GM safety.
In each case there were major flaws in the methodology if the standards required of Saralinis research were applied.
Why do the requirements for those claiming safety concerns exceed those for corporations defending safety concerns?
Most seeking to sell CBH have through poor advice or poor decisions reached the point of desperation where they have no consideration of their actions on others.
Unfortunately floating CBH would not help any of them as their share value would rapidly be confiscated by their banks to meet overdue repayments. CBH value is grossly over stated, look at Graincorp bid value and the comparative assets and turnover.
A segment of the political elite genuinely believe they are entitled to this sort of largess. Most are blue bloods. Both Shorten and Thompson used their positions within the unions to advance their own opportunities at someone else's expense. A full register of disclosure should be publicly available to all voters so we can evaluate the value for money these leaches are. Only then will they take responsibility for their actions. Neither side of politics will act on this sort of rort unless we force them by our voting actions and lobbying.
Tony made an honest decision and his electorate benefited significantly. Given the performance of the current Abbott government and its broken promises, Windsor would have no problems in being re elected if he stood at the next election. He is one of the very few truthful politicians.
With farmers committed to the coalition, neither side of politics has any real necessity to address issues in the bush during an election campaign.
If the NFF and rural voters want attention then they need to be flexible in their voting intentions. If their vote was likely to be important to the outcome of the election just imagine the attention they could attract.
I dont think labour can convince a disenchanted electorate to vote it back in. They have heard Tony and believe him.
Tony Abbotts biggest challange is going to be living up to the expectations of his voters. If prices dont fall 10% immedately as promiced because he will remove the carbon tax on day one. Mines will reopen and new investment will begin immedately on day two as he removes the mining tax. New jobs will immedately materialise as he inspires the private sector to employ because he will give them back his industrial relations laws. What if he doesnt live up to his promices etc.
Given that the coalition didnt achieve its objectives during its period of control (13 years) I find it hard to see where John is coming from.
Surely he knows that it wont be finalised within the life of the current government.
This gives the coalition the opportunity to perfect the solution so it can introduce, consult and implement within its first term of government commencing after the next election in 2013. Dont be bitter just be better John. You will get your opportunity shortly when the dealing is done.
Imagine the situation where the independants had fallen into line behind the coalition only to have the Greens and Labour attack all the legislation put forward by the government . With their numbers in the senate they could have forced the legislation changes now considered Labours folly.
We would now have the media baying along with the Labour politions for the removal of the incompetent Coalition. Fair analysis is needed.
As a swinging voter who has defended the Labour government against false claims by the opposition, this decision to deny a real attempt at gambling reform is a game changer.
Capitulating to the gambling lobby is equivalent to the Liberals supporting the overseas owners of mining companies from paying a fair percentage of their profits towards Australias long term sustainability.
Its difficult to know where to allign your vote when both sides of politics are more about self interest than national interest.