Archive for September, 2009

NZ Farmers Vote Against Industry Levies

September 22, 2009 at 4:27 pm · Filed under Livestock issues, MLA, Rural business, election, farming, livestock, meat industry, rural australia, rural issues

Does this sound familiar? It’s a aged ABC Rural report but may be relevant given the forthcoming MLA vote on livestock taxes/levies.
As reported, “New Zealand lobby group Federated Farmers says wool growers voted against paying levies because they were fed up with wool prices and disenfranchised by the industry.”

“Wool research and development body Meat and Wool New Zealand will get no levies from wool growers, after a vote last week.” Read the ABC Rural report
“Federated Farmers says it’s concerned about the long term future of wool, now no-one is looking after the industry.”

Chairman Hugh Taylor says wool growers are upset with Meat and Wool New Zealand spending money in areas that didn’t help them. Heard that before?!
“I think the vote will take the shackles off [the industry] in some ways,” he says. It’s got to be market-led.
We’re going to get the industry all together and work together for the benefit of the grower.”
Hah! If only!
Do you see any parallel’s to this vote and that of the forthcoming MLA AGM and vote on Australian cattle taxes/levies?

What do you think?
Please leave your comment below.

Leave a Comment

Receivership For Elders?!

September 4, 2009 at 3:25 pm · Filed under Livestock issues, farming, livestock, meat industry, rural australia, rural issues

Gee, who would have thought it!
“If the share issue does not happen, Elders will hit the wall on September 30, its debt renegotiation deadline. Receivership will be difficult to avoid”.Clock running down for Elders.
To avoid receivership (in an attempt to renegotiate its debt), apparently Elders is having to savagely slash the value at which it’s offering its shares to large investors. To this extent it has so far pitched shares at, “…61 per cent below market (39c before shares were halted days ago), and a sobering 95 per cent below Elders’ peak price of $2.83 in July 2007, just before the global debt crisis erupted.” (‘The Age’, Malcolm Maiden)
The worrying aspect of this issue would seem to be that as Maiden says, “The institutions believed that Elders’ debt reconstruction deal was priced as if Elders would still be in a fight for its survival after the debt reconstruction and the share issue had put that issue beyond doubt.“

Then if Elders can/does survive to fight another day, can a business like this that depends upon 5.5%(?!) sales commissions and merchandise sales expect to survive in 2009/10+ (especially if it sells down its HiFert shares)?
Additionally, can much value really be added by a centralised administration (ASX listed) group to a large agency network that survives on the personal relationships of its staff/operatives? And if it’s the relationships that count, why aren’t these operatives out working as independents without being tied-down by Head Office? (Perhaps this is cause for wonder about the ability of a lot of Elders employees who think they need a red shirt to get their work).
Makes you consider whether some red shirts might be looking to change to a more positive color in the near future.

What do you think?

Please leave your comments below.

Comments (2)

Farmland Appropriation Without Compensation!

September 3, 2009 at 4:16 pm · Filed under farming, rural australia, rural issues ·Tagged ,

The Victorian government has stepped-over local councils to prevent landowners from developing their farmland without awarding any compensation to land owners or the councils for the loss of revenue each would receive if they were to develop the land.

While the argument for locking-up farmland in the US is about preventing land sprawl, in Australia it seems to be more about keeping a nice vista for holiday makers and city/townsfolk wishing to see some ‘real Australia’ as close to home as possible.

Whatever the merits of the Australian philosophy, this is plainly a case of farmers yet again having to bear the brunt for the rest of the community? If the community and its representative government wants to keep specific farmland as such, then the fairest method in a commercial democracy would seem to be to purchase the land at a commercial rate. We would then see just how valuable the philosophy is to all involved. Otherwise, farmers have been made to pay for land that is basically being appropriated by Big Brother!
At least the Californian govt provides tax breaks to farmers for a similar process, although they stop short at Communistic appropriation! Info on Californian tax breaks for farm land

What do you think?

Please leave a comment below.

Leave a Comment