STE's; do they increase farmer profits?

[TOM4CWB]

Parsley;

Did you see this?

http://www.unitedgrowerholdings.com.au/media_releases/Releases/Kronos%20Report%20No%203.htm
29 November 2002
WEA struggles for transparency and accountability

The Wheat Export Authority (WEA), which released its second report on the performance of AWB International (AWBI) last week, was hampered in its capacity to deliver transparency and accountability in the management of export monopoly marketing arrangements according to Kronos Corporate Pty Ltd managing director Alan Winney.
Mr Winney said one of the key recommendations of the Kronos Report, A review of the structure of the Australian grain market, was for the WEA to be granted greater power and resources to provide adequate oversight of wheat export monopoly marketing arrangements. Released on November 13 in Canberra, the Kronos Report was commissioned by grain grower groups NETCO Cooperative Ltd and United Grower Holdings (UGH) Ltd to examine ways to improve farm gate returns for growers.

“For example, while the WEA was unable to be conclusive about changes in supply chain costs because of late information provided by AWBI in a different format, the Kronos Report found national wheat pool participants were incurring at least $9.33 in additional costs. They were not incurring these costs prior to 1999 and the privatisation of AWB. Additional costs were incurred in finance, underwriting, logistics services and pool management fees. This is an annual cost of more than $100 million per annum, which could be significantly reduced if AWBI allowed contestability in services to the pool. Instead it receives these services almost exclusively from AWB Ltd at a rate which the Kronos Report found could be significantly reduced in a contestable environment.”

“In three years WEA does not appear to have reviewed the restrictive business rules imposed by AWBI to determine whether they add value to the wheat export pools or whether they simply put AWB Ltd, the service provider, in a stronger position,” he said. “Export monopoly holders are obliged to maximise farm gate returns for growers, yet the Kronos Report indicates the business rules they impose prevent them from doing so.”


I wonder;

It really looks like the Australian farmers are being led astray... when the AWB "claims" to be maximising farmer's returns... when no such proof appears to exist.

Now in Canada, we have no such agencies working to expose CWB inefficiencies... yet we are to believe the CWB is doing better than the AWB?

[TOM4CWB]

Parsley;

I see this report;

WEA costs for Govt: Labor


The Federal Government should cover some of the cost of the Wheat Export Authority (WEA) rather than force farmers to fund it entirely, Labor said today.

Opposition primary industries spokesman Kerry O'Brien said as the Government was getting benefits from the WEA, it should also pay for some of its operation.

The WEA is the authority which oversees the monopoly wheat export rights of AWB Ltd and virtually controls all wheat exports out of Australia.

When it was set up in 1999 it received $6 million in government funding, but this is about to run out.

It appears growers will have to cover the WEA's operations.









Senator O'Brien said evidence from authority chairman John Walters to a Senate committee today showed the Government was relying on the WEA's operations and so should financially contribute.

"It is clear from the chairman's evidence that the federal government is a major beneficiary of the work of the authority," he said in a statement.

"It therefore does not seem unreasonable that the Government meet some of the authority's costs as payment for the services it receives.

"(Agriculture Minister Warren) Truss should now reconsider his decision to force growers to meet the entire cost."

Senator O'Brien said it was also a concern the WEA was not legally obliged to provide growers with information about the performance of AWB, although it had to tell Mr Truss.

"Given that wheat growers are currently funding the operations of the authority, it is entirely inappropriate for the authority to suggest that it is not obliged to keep growers informed as to the performance of AWB," he said.

Isn't it about time Canadian farmers demanded the statutory obligation be fulfilled, that requires the Feds to pay for Admin. and costs of Part IV CWB Act activities?

Since it costs AWB farmers $6 million over 3 years, do we really think the CWB Part IV costs are less than the AWB costs, when the CWB is significantly more complex, and handles both domestic and export grain, when the AWB doe not?

In Canada the CWB Act requires the gov. of Canada pay these costs, yet they refuse to follow the CWB Act. WHY?

What reasonable purpose could there be in the CWB directors in refusing to obey the CWB Act, and cause these losses in our pooling accounts be paid by Ottawa?