Recent comments by: boris
Agribuzz with David Leyonhjelm
We have a grain logistics co-op in WA that does not provide a framework for growers to have equity. Jock, you need to occasionally reflect on what you write, you are regularly contradicting yourself.
It rings true across all agricultural industries - farmers say one thing and then do the complete opposite. It might be less costly for society and industry to just ignore them!
Great article David! My observations are those groups opposed to productive agriculture focus their attack on the sectors of agriculture that display the least resistance. The blame should be squarely layed at communication people employed by agriculture. These non-producers are far too eager to negotiate with groups trying to stop production and believe this strategy is the only one politically suitable...lets show our reasonableness to the public!! The GM case in WA is an interesting study affirming my point, when an honest producer (GM) just says no, they win whatever the judgement.
Brilliant article David!
It appears in WA that agrarian socialism is alive and well, most don't realise they have the condition but those that oppose its destructive force see it all so clearly.
You rightly point out that demutualising CBH is the only option to reduce the toxic debt in the WA grain belt.
The million dollar question is 'will the penny drop with the apparatchiks of CBH or will they be forced off the land with $2.00?'
Forced branding fails because every end user knows the quality of Australian commodities within a range. Many people are lured by the proponents who spin branding as a utopian outcome. It ends up costing producers their profit and provides a welfare stream for the blood suckers it attracts. Silly piece Sam, you are better than this!
Brendon your analysis is just envy, plain and simple. I am a farmer who enthusiasim for living a pitching wedge from the ocean in the Western Suburbs of Perth grows stronger every year. The difference betweeen yourself and me is I don't think that is unfair because I am battling to achieve that outcome. That is life! Socializing land on a populous platform would be agriculture's destruction. Why should land be de-valued for those who have not invested capital into it. Which would make most farmers life work to be in vain.
Well said Sam! I am tired of hearing the dramatic rhetoric around the lack of people, especially the youth, not returning to agriculture. Last week a journalist rang me wanting supporting comments for her alarmist piece that ag companies are struggling to fill vacancies but she also believed farmers needed to pay for a program to bring the youth to the bush. I just don't see it, my town is full of young farmers, they are ambitious and don't see ag as a life style but an interesting way to pursue a profit. It is highly competitive! As for the ag co's nothing could be further from the truth.
Good article Sam.
We tend to tear our hair out trying to understand the divide. It works both ways. Some farmers have little understanding of city life but the difference being is they generally don't but in. If school kids were taught property rights and disciplined economics
instead of environmentalism and animal liberation plus shown where food actually comes from, then the divide wouldn't really matter. Have an interest in but stay out of each others business will ensure good relations between city and country.
A matter of opinion
The problem with the representation of members and constituents who farm is generally those that are the loudest are ones with their hands out for taxpayer assistance. How can any organisation or parlimentarian that wants to preserve a skeric of credibility represent this view. We need politicians and farm organisations to educate the ag community that the nation is broke and propping up inefficient farmers will land Australia in a Greekish quagmire. Government needs to get out of agriculture, we do not need their meddling or intervention.
Burrs under my saddle
Mailler is too pre-occupied with playing the man and indulging in gossip and innuendo to credibly run an alternative rural party. He said we will be different but he has slipped straight into muck raking. Why wouldn't you first develop a few policies, so discerning rural people can at least try too understand your core beliefs. Continually screaming, help the bush, help the bush is a bit mediocre. My guess is this cadre of disaffected Nationals will not have one scintilla of influence in the year ahead.
Pete's claptrap surely can't last at Rural Press. Once again his writings mimic Keynes and no-one is surprised. The market economy has exposed his inability to produce goods competitively so he demonises what he perceives to be the problem. The free market is creatively destructive simply because consumers continually change their minds, a concept so foreign to Pete but one he should learn. Instead he dictates to consumers what they should pay for produce even when their is a glut of a commodity and if they won't listen he knocks on governments door...or does he want to be the government??
Dempsters career is on the line, not because anyone doubts his experience, its because members are doubting his commercial acumen. Adding to his major weakness is his poor knowledge on grain logistics and the modern solutions needed to satisfy members. His interest in CBH appears to stop once his directors fee is received.
This is the consequence of the rise of the soft totalitarian on the CBH board over a decade or more. The members no longer have a democratic say, the board and upper management own CBH to their benefit. The grower is just the peasant providing the throughput for the elites to feast.
This poor fellow is not fit for public office. Its ridiculous to suggest that the PGA and WA Farmers should (because it suits Mick) have the same view of the world. Why not merge Labor, Liberal and National Party's for the benefit of society? If everyone is thinking alike then somebody is not thinking. George S. Patton
No bias in their structural review, oh yeh, what rubbish! CBH should let members vote on the AGC proposal, then I would agree with the no bias statement. Until then they are as they have always been. A board that has no skill, with a socialist philosophy, and most members using their seat at the table to prop up their fledgling farming concerns. This review only occurred because AGC arrived and will be relegated to the dustbin if AGC disappeared. History is already judging AGC kindly, they are a white night for CBH members even though 50% don't realize it yet.
Well done Brad and AGC, your proposal eliminates all the politics that CBH is infested with. We desperately need a commercially focused CBH not one that provides a seat at a table for an agri-politician that isn't really interested in farming anyway. Whilst AGC are up against a hugely resourced propaganda machine, at the coal face, growers are beginning to listen. I'm glad AGC are here for the long haul, its just unethical for the board to deny growers a vote on such a fantastic proposal.
Please sign the long-term agreement CBH. Brookfield does not need to be your enemy anymore now that AGC is part of the landscape. The cost increase per tonne for the long-term agreement is small compared to all the other supply chain costs you charge growers and marketers.
Open your eyes Simon. CBH gets the top award for monopoly behaviour to the detriment of its own growers. Take a look at the Grain Express rules, take a look at site based pricing, take a look at longterm agreements, take a look at the financials, take a look at the propaganda without your rose colored glasses on, take a look at the supply chain costs, take a look at the malinvestments on the east coast, ask whether the Pacific North West trading office is still open after all the fan-fare. Think Simon just think!
Agri-politicians or CBH directors will exploit the CBH resource for self interest until there is not much left. Running a multi-billion dollar company on politics is fine when growers have to use CBH. But the mix of socialism and business is a recipe for failure against new competitive forces. The Chairman knows the future is not bright for CBH unless they can forcefully lock growers into the static CBH supply chain. Well done to AGC, you will have your detractors but only because CBH has indoctrinated obedience into some growers. Lets vote on a value proposition and see where the numbers lay.
Its just welfare for researchers, what a waste. Government just needs to lower taxes and regulation, that all an entrepreneur needs.
Wow, it's about time you told the full story Neil! But it does look a little like Joe Hockey, on the way out the door, encouraging the parliament to undertake tax reform. When he couldn't actually achieve it himself, when he had the opportunity. Maybe Neil and Jo will become friends? Its all too little and too late for CBH!
Why make a pool more costly to administer? This suggestion is counter productive but typical of farmers who defer to a 1930's dogma. And continually want to abrogate their marketing responsibilities to a higher authority. Free the market further not regress to the past. Grow up lads!
Gee it doesn't take long for the know all bull frogs to pontificate about their day dream predictions. The facts are that CBH is a socialist organization bought about via legislation that forced growers to use the service because other emerging bulk handlers were legislated out of business. The network in WA will leak more tonnage to competitors as growers in efficient areas seek out a lesser cost pathway to port. The efficient areas pay a higher fee to lessen the real costs for those growers located in inefficient areas. This is the high water mark of value. Tick yes to ensure CBH's future!
The totalitarians dislike producers who use the free market to their advantage. What Jock and Hyden are really saying is that I cant take responsibility for my own marketing so the government should. And because its too hard for me, my neighbor, who revels in marketing, should have his freedom to do so taken away. Then we can all be dumbed down together, which in the end is fair!
Come on Rural Realist, are you saying CBH operations and CBH marketing don't meet in the cafeteria occasionally to discuss things that might mutually benefit each section?
I doubt your realism Realist but i don't question your naivety!
Na, you got it wrong Mug. Baxter won and convincingly! It's just people like you are unable to accept that, when they claim no-one won. And fancy believing a politician can solve this when it was politicians that rightfully approved gm canola but it's determined anti-gm, anti-farming groups that want it banned. The Supreme Court solved the problem, as the high court will in favour of Baxter again, in my opinion. If you read the verdicts you might progress your limited understanding of the issue...just maybe.
I'm a non-believer in compulsory acquisition which the single desk was. I am a believer that the glut of wheat in the world will only be remied by knocking out some series production. This will mean the bottom 25% of producers in Australia will come under increased financial pressure and will probably leave the industry. The price decline ensures wheat use into the future, as end users get addicted to cheaper product, similar to the iron ore industry. The consumer is expected to pay high when shortages occur and they should benifit in times of abundance...simple!
There is strong demand for my GM canola evidenced by the daily bids i receive. The net result is more profit from the GM system, no commercial farmer i know gives two hoots about the discount because it is meaningless economically. The anti-gmers lost the Marsh/Baxter case and that is why the evidence based Barnett Govt is repealing an outdated interventionist act.
I applaud CBH for protecting my personal information. If GPA push for mandated stocks reporting it will end up in a debate like the WEA issue did. Any stocks reporting has to be voluntary or keep your interventionist ideas on the East coast!
Its called 'economic freedom' tractor driver. It has trumped coercion and collectivism throughout civilization and provided prosperity that socialists could only dream of. People wanted and needed halls back then, why would anyone want to build a dreary town hall to socialize in when there are abundant, better things to do, with ones spare time. Seems you just yearn for yesteryear!!
Jock, surely you couldn't still be in business? If you are all your comments can only be seen as hyperbolic.
Every end user of wheat on the planet knows the quality of Australian wheat. The last think we need is a marketing bureaucracy, feeding off producers, telling the world what it already knows.
MPCI will never be affordable. The premium will have to be substantial to cover frost and drought. Farmers who manage risk on farm will always survive, those that stretch themselves will inevitably come undone. Whilst doppler radar is a nice toy it is unlikely to provide a security blanket to those who roll the dice too often.
The solution is for the organic certifying bodies to NOT de-certify an organic grower for an accidental incursion of a safe product. Simple and no framework needed!
Hassell can get away without understanding economics on the CBH board but in the real world he has been found out. I hope this lesson teaches him to get across his brief when he returns to CBH after the election.
Phillip another analogy would be looking at a wheat bin when the AWB had the monopoly. Nothing much to see there because all the unethical behavior existed in head office.
Jock, I get a lot of enjoyment from reading your partisan support of the National Party even though Grylls and Crook killed off your beloved wheat export authority. Obviously you did not know this otherwise you would scorn their treachery like you do to every other politician who believes in the market. Maybe you could educate Grylls and Crook on the benefits of compulsory acquisition of wheat, they might come around given they used to be in your camp?
Rob, I think Barnaby, in the instance you explained, was wise not to call you back. Forcing farmers, via legislation, to use your platform will never happen so why would Barnaby waste his time. Your beloved utopia is a dangerous totalitarian idea which strips the freedom that we have in Australia to market produce the way we wish. You're a typical farmer who demonises the middle man whether it be in the wheat, wool, lamb, beef, in fact in any primary production and the solution demanded is always worse then your imagined problem.
Barnaby is being targetted by the opposition, his every word (if they can understand them) will be scrutinized to expose the multitude of faults. Barnaby might be deputy PM one day but he is the coalitions weakest link by a country mile The opposition will have a field day because Barnaby on most days is incoherant.
I fully concur with your comments John, well said!
Yet again Jock you are the least observant, or read commentator, on farm online. Dr Chris Back was a signatory to a dissenting report on the WEMA act enquiry in 2012. The dissenting members were trying to re build the single desk, lead by the Nationals. Jock instead of criticizing Dr Back maybe you should try and meet him. You just might find he burns the candle as well.
The problem the coalition has is that the anti-dam building movement is vastly larger than the Greens constituancy. The mythical man-made global warming phenonemon is a good analogy for dam building. Many Liberals are opposed to dam building and strongly support man-made global warming but would never vote for the Greens. Barnaby does not have the skill or presence to explain the need for dams. Every politician, including his own team are lining up to either criticise or take parts of his portfolio.
What a fine example of a young totalitarian. How arrogant of him to think he has the right to shut down businesses that aren't his. Livestock production is on the way up in Australia as new markets are opened to the insatiable consumers of protein in Asia. The best way to frustrate these young upstarts is to keep taking risks and keep producing but most importantly take them head on!
If all this unity advocated for the scrapping of ESCAS what would the government do?
I suspect the industry will look back, when Abbotts first term of government is in its final weeks and see little change to the ESCAS system.
I suppose its more important than anything to never rock the boat!
This is a good example of the nanny state at work. It never lets people take responsibility for themselves, instead bureaucrats, who has never been outside, dictate how a motor bike should be built. Imagine trying to build this country with bureaucrats in charge, it just would not have happened! So sad.