CWB Theory

[lakenheath]

Is the whole idea behind the CWB's existence flawed?

To me, in theory, it makes sense. Power in the numbers. The cooperative spirit, working together, etc.

I am also a believer in democracy (unlike Chuck Strahl). I do believe it is ultimately the farmers decision as to the fate of the CWB.

That being said, I am rather upset with the CWB. I believe they robbed us blind with the FPC pricing option this year and that the PRO is currently a laughing matter. Something is not working right and that is a fact.

So that gets me back to CWB theory. Can the CWB work if it is operated properly? We have heard a million times over from the likes of AdamSmith and TOM4CWB why the CWB should be done away with.....but what if farmers decide to keep it in place. What then?

Do we elect the Tom Jacksons of this world? Radicals or assets? Would they raise hell or help improve. If find it hard to believe that they would improve the functions of the board. But maybe I am wrong, voting is going to be very difficult for me this year.

Sitting on fence is getting harder as the days go by.

[AdamSmith]

lakenheath, I don't think I ever said the CWB should be done away with, but if I did, I guess I would be speaking about doing away with this particular incarnation but replacing it with a new voluntary incarnation. And this was the conclusion of the Task Force as well.

But this democracy thing has me puzzeled. Why are the conservitives dictators for campaigning on an issue which is a federal government responsibility and once elected DEMOCRATICLY they go ahead and try to implement that policy.

But the conservitives submit to opposition demands in the end and say the will hold a vote on barley now and presumably wheat later, but Strahl is still a dictator. The Act clearly says its at his discretion how and when to hold a vote. And that vote is considered consultative not binding.

The Act still gives the Minister numerous powers over the CWB and he is completly within his field of responsibility to oversee the CWB as he chooses.

Nowhere in the Act does it say that the CWB is a completly self governing and self supporting entity.


I guess the question that you need to answer in your own mind would be;

Can a CWBII operate within an open market or not. And can it offer that sense of security that some farmers desire.

Just to note, CWBII would be something completly different and much smaller that monopoly CWB.

As I said before I think it could.

[TOM4CWB]

Lakenheath;

That "Tom Jackson" fellow works daily asking EXACTLY the same things you are asking.

THe question is this;

How do we effectively control an organisation with a monopoly, when it is offside.

Before Tom Jackson started the battle... he believed the CWB monopoly could be used for a positive purpose.

Tom Jackson started his fight, when on the an upper floor of the CWB building... in the sales dept... he was told to sign a statutory declaration and falsely declare seed for seeding purposes... when exported.

Jackson took one look at the CWB salesman and was stunned.

When the salesman saw it was going to be a problem... he offered a sweet buyback.

Jackson took one look at the CWB salesman and said;"YOU GUYS!"

ANd the war was on.

This has always been a matter of a lack of accountability by the system the CWB operates under...

and NEVER that if proper management of the sales dept with integrety... that better profits were not possible.

Jackson asks the question; "How do we control and dicipline such a powerful entity... especially when there is no personal interest in the products the sales dept. is selling."

"How does the economic market based system drive the CWB sales dept... when those who they sell for (the grower) have no say in the sales decision."

The experience has been that the "buyer" has the market power over the CWB... because the buyer can play the CWB off against anyone else anywhere... even playing the CWB off against themselves as a multi-national who purchases product globally.

The "seller" (designated area grower) has no say in the negotiation... except perhaps in doing buybacks.

And Jacksons experience was at the first possible instance the CWB did not have any self dicipline.

Can you blame him for striving for a more accountable system... that respects the growers more than the "buyer"?