From this weeks Agriweek...
<b>Not much to it
Australia got rid of its single-desk wheat monopoly with no trouble</b>
Australia’s Wheat Export Marketing Act ended the single-desk marketing system for wheat on July 1 2008. The Australian wheat board, fresh from the Iraq kickback scandal, was allowed to continue as a voluntary marketer and as
an investor-owned publicly-traded corporation. A transitional regulatory regime was implemented to foster and monitor competition in grain exports.
An export licensing system was designed to ensure that only financially stable and viable firms were allowed to export Australian wheat. <b>As long ago as 2000, an exhaustive study by the National Competition Policy Review Commission concluded that the single-desk monopoly offered no clear benefits to anyone except AWB International</b>, as the board was then called.
In 2006 an enquiry into its activities as almost the sole exporter of wheat to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq found evidence of massive corruption and fraud. <b>As part of the deregulation process, the government’s Productivity Commission was directed to study the postmonopoly workings of the wheat export system and last week it reported, with nothing but positive conclusions.</b> The transition to a competitive environment went relatively smoothly, despite the world financial crisis, Australian dollar
appreciation, drought and volatile commodity markets.
<b>The report says that deregulation increased competition across the entire supply chain to the benefit of growers.</b> It advised that all remaining regulations be ended as of next Sept. 30, including the trader accreditation scheme and the $22-a-tonne wheat export charge which finances the Wheat Export Authority. Accreditation of traders is not worth the cost beyond the transition period. Any continuing regulation can be accommodated under existing competition laws.
The highly controversial issue of access to export port facilities owned by four companies (Viterra, GrainCorp,
CBH and AWB) is not necessarily related
to deregulation and the Commission did
not recommend any new legislation.
Except for the port access matter, which some farm groups felt was not properly addressed, <b>the report had general approval and there is no basis on which to return to the former monopoly.</b>
<b>Not much to it
Australia got rid of its single-desk wheat monopoly with no trouble</b>
Australia’s Wheat Export Marketing Act ended the single-desk marketing system for wheat on July 1 2008. The Australian wheat board, fresh from the Iraq kickback scandal, was allowed to continue as a voluntary marketer and as
an investor-owned publicly-traded corporation. A transitional regulatory regime was implemented to foster and monitor competition in grain exports.
An export licensing system was designed to ensure that only financially stable and viable firms were allowed to export Australian wheat. <b>As long ago as 2000, an exhaustive study by the National Competition Policy Review Commission concluded that the single-desk monopoly offered no clear benefits to anyone except AWB International</b>, as the board was then called.
In 2006 an enquiry into its activities as almost the sole exporter of wheat to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq found evidence of massive corruption and fraud. <b>As part of the deregulation process, the government’s Productivity Commission was directed to study the postmonopoly workings of the wheat export system and last week it reported, with nothing but positive conclusions.</b> The transition to a competitive environment went relatively smoothly, despite the world financial crisis, Australian dollar
appreciation, drought and volatile commodity markets.
<b>The report says that deregulation increased competition across the entire supply chain to the benefit of growers.</b> It advised that all remaining regulations be ended as of next Sept. 30, including the trader accreditation scheme and the $22-a-tonne wheat export charge which finances the Wheat Export Authority. Accreditation of traders is not worth the cost beyond the transition period. Any continuing regulation can be accommodated under existing competition laws.
The highly controversial issue of access to export port facilities owned by four companies (Viterra, GrainCorp,
CBH and AWB) is not necessarily related
to deregulation and the Commission did
not recommend any new legislation.
Except for the port access matter, which some farm groups felt was not properly addressed, <b>the report had general approval and there is no basis on which to return to the former monopoly.</b>
Comment