We arent alone..
THE farm sector's battle with crippling production and supply chain cost rises would be easier to cope with if governments started taking the nation's rail transport problems seriously.
According to GrainCorp executive chairman Don Taylor, the competitiveness of our export grain sector is being fast undermined on a big scale by compounding transport inefficiencies - a legacy of decades of neglect that should not be left for producers to pay for at their farm gate.
Government restrictions and regulations at many grain ports were also adding millions to the handling costs.
"I'm very pleased there's some determination to link the northern and southern inland of eastern Australia with a standard gauge rail link - it has potential to take a lot of costly and damaging truck movements off the roads," he said.
"But we need greater recognition of the rail investment problem within the existing network."
Mr Taylor said it was "a nonsense" that far more rural rail lines were not standard gauge by now.
He noted how our grain sector competitors in North America could load huge freight trains in eastern Canada and "haul them all the way across the continent down to Vancouver or the US, and the grain never leaves that line".
"That compares with the ridiculous situation where we have trains resting peacefully in Queensland at the moment because there's no grain crop for them to move.
"We can't utilise those locomotives or rolling stock in the south because the each State has different gauges."
It was also wrong to expect railway lines and grain sidings built 50 or 100 years ago to provide the valuable freight service expected of them in regional areas without major upgrades to make loading and operating trains more efficient.
The fact that about half the grain delivered to the port of Brisbane now arrived via a succession of semi-trailers weaving through metropolitan streets, rather than by rail, was just one example of how the ageing track network was failing to cope with trade demands and forced costs onto others.
This is quite different to SPC's request for government help for one business," he said.
"Spending money on rail infrastructure in NSW, Victoria or Queensland benefits all farmers and rural communities generally - it's reflected in the competitive nature of the costs borne by the grain industry and others."
Mr Taylor said extra costs caused by grain movement inefficiencies in the bush or at port were not absorbed by grain buyers or marketers, but rather ended up being shaved off the prices producers' received at the farm gate.
"I not asking (the federal government) to hand over money to GrainCorp - these lines are owned by governments and used by the whole grain industry, and they'd get much more use if they were efficient to operate."
A "most disappointing" consequence of Canberra's decision to block the $3 billion takeover of GrainCorp by Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) late last year was losing $250 million in "free capital" which the US giant had promised to spend to help upgrade rail infrastructure at silos and ports.
"I'm not saying the government is now likely to have to help out (because it quashed the deal), but it would have been an amazing opportunity for grain growers generally to have that sort of money from ADM available right now," Mr Taylor said.
He is also critical of the federal government's tight control of port access agreements which aim to give traders equal opportunities to move grain offshore in the peak post harvest season.
He said peak export times should be subject to a more demand-driven pricing structure which would encourage a more even and efficient grain flow year-around, and set the scene for lower export costs.
"At the moment our ports are working flat out for three or four months driven by the expectation of a flat pricing structure, but for the remainder of the year utilisation of grain loading infrastructure can be quite low," Mr Taylor said.
"I think with less regulation the system would be more efficient - economics will make the market behave rationally.
"At the moment were just adding a cost on the system that ends up being picked up by farmers, not the exporters or overseas buyers."
THE farm sector's battle with crippling production and supply chain cost rises would be easier to cope with if governments started taking the nation's rail transport problems seriously.
According to GrainCorp executive chairman Don Taylor, the competitiveness of our export grain sector is being fast undermined on a big scale by compounding transport inefficiencies - a legacy of decades of neglect that should not be left for producers to pay for at their farm gate.
Government restrictions and regulations at many grain ports were also adding millions to the handling costs.
"I'm very pleased there's some determination to link the northern and southern inland of eastern Australia with a standard gauge rail link - it has potential to take a lot of costly and damaging truck movements off the roads," he said.
"But we need greater recognition of the rail investment problem within the existing network."
Mr Taylor said it was "a nonsense" that far more rural rail lines were not standard gauge by now.
He noted how our grain sector competitors in North America could load huge freight trains in eastern Canada and "haul them all the way across the continent down to Vancouver or the US, and the grain never leaves that line".
"That compares with the ridiculous situation where we have trains resting peacefully in Queensland at the moment because there's no grain crop for them to move.
"We can't utilise those locomotives or rolling stock in the south because the each State has different gauges."
It was also wrong to expect railway lines and grain sidings built 50 or 100 years ago to provide the valuable freight service expected of them in regional areas without major upgrades to make loading and operating trains more efficient.
The fact that about half the grain delivered to the port of Brisbane now arrived via a succession of semi-trailers weaving through metropolitan streets, rather than by rail, was just one example of how the ageing track network was failing to cope with trade demands and forced costs onto others.
This is quite different to SPC's request for government help for one business," he said.
"Spending money on rail infrastructure in NSW, Victoria or Queensland benefits all farmers and rural communities generally - it's reflected in the competitive nature of the costs borne by the grain industry and others."
Mr Taylor said extra costs caused by grain movement inefficiencies in the bush or at port were not absorbed by grain buyers or marketers, but rather ended up being shaved off the prices producers' received at the farm gate.
"I not asking (the federal government) to hand over money to GrainCorp - these lines are owned by governments and used by the whole grain industry, and they'd get much more use if they were efficient to operate."
A "most disappointing" consequence of Canberra's decision to block the $3 billion takeover of GrainCorp by Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) late last year was losing $250 million in "free capital" which the US giant had promised to spend to help upgrade rail infrastructure at silos and ports.
"I'm not saying the government is now likely to have to help out (because it quashed the deal), but it would have been an amazing opportunity for grain growers generally to have that sort of money from ADM available right now," Mr Taylor said.
He is also critical of the federal government's tight control of port access agreements which aim to give traders equal opportunities to move grain offshore in the peak post harvest season.
He said peak export times should be subject to a more demand-driven pricing structure which would encourage a more even and efficient grain flow year-around, and set the scene for lower export costs.
"At the moment our ports are working flat out for three or four months driven by the expectation of a flat pricing structure, but for the remainder of the year utilisation of grain loading infrastructure can be quite low," Mr Taylor said.
"I think with less regulation the system would be more efficient - economics will make the market behave rationally.
"At the moment were just adding a cost on the system that ends up being picked up by farmers, not the exporters or overseas buyers."