The AGC debacle was a suitable point in CBH's recent life that indicates a few Pandora's boxes may need opening. Indeed that's what CBH's loudest critics claim to want, crack things open and let out a lot. Likewise the CBH Board has a small set of harsh and loud critics too, they too want things cracked open.
Some of course are high in noise volume, low in ground support and their lack of support seems to match their lack of understanding on some of the finer points. Some, driven by economic ideology, by personal advancement, founding father syndrome or just zeal for the short sighted prize in the dash for the quick cash stakes are all a threat to the CBH group.
The other side of the coin is equally interesting, some of the Co-Operative's staunchest stalwarts have an understanding of many of the Co-Op principles whilst others have only a very basic understanding of the ins & outs of such a corporate structure. So in the front bar after the weekend footy, down the bowling club or over the fence, its difficult for some to defend CBH when much of it isn't known or properly understood.
Not so much what CBH is, but what this type of corporate structure is and is capable of delivering.
It will sound unkind, but there are some members who are flat out managing their own day to day farming operations, overseeing their own immediate financial futures that they genuinely haven't got time to sit the Australian Institute of Company Directors flagship course. For some, CBH has been there so long its part of the furniture. Its just an "always been" and some of the younger generation really haven't worried about looking at it too much. Phrased in potentially offensive-to-some language, there are many members who are either less than sophisticated shareholders or just too damn busy to be involved in CBH matters beyond each harvest.
Its a critical flash point that was exploited, albeit poorly, by AGC. Some of their "directors" either had a poor understanding of how the structure works and the actual proper process required to achieve what it is they wanted to achieve.
For the AGC strategy to be fulfilled they need only follow due process and with the required amount of support it is done. However they did not do this. Indeed the proper process is to either lodge a motion at an AGM or Special Meeting. To do that they need the required number of voters to vote in favour of corporatisation.
They never ever did this, never even tried.
Instead they followed a different path and accused the board, in public in several media platforms that the members were being denied their right to assess and decide on the proposal themselves.
I think the board missed a valuable opportunity to gently with little effort to push the AGC house of cards over during the first onslaught.
AGC's claim was potentially inferring the directors had breached their fiduciary duty, or as the AICD's flagship course tells you...failed the reasonable person test. Now if this is the case the entire board could be swept out in one foul swoop with each of them being personally, financially liable under the Corporations Act.
Due process is due process and the board was falsely being labelled incompetent and/or corrupt and/or breaching their fiduciary duty & the Corporations Act. Here's the fact, its not that there was a denial of a claimed right, that right didn't even exist in the first place. This horrible wrong was never properly squashed and continued to gather momentum.
Originally the offer should have been received by the board and immediately a reply issued that includes an outline of the proper due process the board & the co-operative must take before any change of corporate structure can entertained.
Again this didn't happen and although AGC failed to gather enough support to get it through, it did gather some support, ill-informed as it was.
What made it worse was another opportunity to properly deal with it was missed because before the board had time to consider it, long before the set final acceptance date, AGC went on the attack about members having rights denied and a number of other comments. They drew an adversarial line in the sand and decide not to pursue a unifying result, but rather draw up battle plans to conquer by verbal force. It was not at all in the members best interests.
The offer would have cost an enormous amount of money to consider not just in large legal fees but also in lost time & productivity from key senior staff who then had to turn some of their attention away from day to day work.
I think the board missed the opportunity to remain proper process driven which would have then placed the onus onto AGC to tick all the boxes before the board wasted any valuable time, money and effort on the proposal.
There is another important angle. There's been a perceived lack of connection between the board & the members (by some). The board & management have put a lot of effort into member engagement with many meetings with grower/members in the various districts. This is good.
This has to continue but it has to include what due process is, what a board's role is and what the director's rights and responsibilities are so lay members have a better understanding of when their board is on song, on the right page, in the proper hymn sheet.
If these gaps of understanding are not filled, a return debacle isn't far away. If AGC are aware of how embarrassing it was watching their bizarre efforts from the outside you can be guaranteed they will approach this again with similar vigour and perhaps for the first time with matching rigour. If the members are ill informed, some will possibly be making a decision they may later regret.
The board's role is to make decisions such as the suitability of any offer if its in the best interests of the members or not. I believe this was their intent, but they focused on the offer due to pressure and missed the chance to stick to due process. Is it a mistake? Possibly it was, but the outcome was what it was.
From the outside the offer had many other faults and when one of AGC's "directors" called it a "Wesfarmers moment" it really confirmed that it would, in the longer term, not be in the best interests of grower/members. Wesfarmers is a publicly listed company that delivered a huge nest egg to well positioned people and certainly not all members. Its now no longer involved in Agriculture apart from CSBP. Its a Coal/Hardware/Gas investment conglomerate. Therein in possibly lies the motivation of some other folk aligned with AGC.
Strategy is an interesting thing, at times complex, at times very simple.
Strategic Thinking is the board's domain...not management.
Strategic Planning is management's domain...not the board's
Strategic Direction is something the board, the management & the members should all be across. Due process, is also everyone's concern. Communication from the board/management to the members is not at all woeful, the engagement (looking from the outside) is far better than many listed companies.
Its some of the content that may need addressing. Member education on process, legal liability, director's rights, roles & responsibilities, managements role & limitations and what fiduciary duty actually means.
A recent letter to the editor in the Farm Weekly makes my point very well. It shows one member not very well informed, displaying less than adequate understanding of the basics of corporate governance, the company structure and the underpinnings of a good board and its performance. Putting more "young people" in solves no problem, real or imagined.
You need good, well trained, directors who know their rights, roles and responsibilities, the corporate structure they're working in, their over arching strategic direction, their fiduciary duties and that failing to exercise their rights is a failure in the responsibilities. They need to be able to communicate all these things simply and well so the clear majority of members aren't tricked into falsely believing they're being denied a right that doesn't exist. And doesn't exist for good reason and that the board's actions actually pass the reasonable person's test.
The average farmer isn't sophisticated nor unsophisticated, they've not naturally board/director trained, not conversant in Corporations Act. The membership doesn't need to sit the AICD course, but the board needs to get a lot of board basics out to the members regularly in a learning forum so members understanding of the board, the directors, the corporate governance line and due process so its gradually better understood.
Ironically some people who could be labelled as being part of Agriculture's self proclaimed ruling class elite helped attack the board by inferring it was untrained and/or in breach of the rules as the board was some kind of pig headed self proclaimed ruling class elite.
The board is not perfect. Perhaps some facets of its strategy are not perfect, but if the process is correct and widely known and understood it can be better adhered to and the board's performance better understood & appreciated.
Then silly offers & letters from zealots will be dismissed and rejected by the majority of members as soon as the board rejects them. Yep, I have written a number of letters to the Farm Weekly defending CBH & the board, more on social media to respectfully correct common misconceptions about CBH, the board, strategy and structure. Apart from the odd anti-cooperative zealot most are stunned to learn things they didn't know, realise or understand. More than half of them drew enough comfort to private message me their thanks. 2 from the northern wheat belt went so far as to track down my phone number & ring me. I'm probably not writing letters to the editor anymore on CBH & I hope the board get across the issue of shareholder engagement & education.
So is this a critical attack on the board, management or the members?
No, none of the above. This is a not-uncommon scenario that plays out in many board rooms.
Once the board, management and the members/shareholders all have a better understanding of due process & who does what, the easier it is for all to get on with their respective roles, waste less time & money on side tracking. Everyone can share the strategic direction that the organisation holds dear.
Monday 30 January 2017
Wednesday 25 January 2017
Albany Advertiser & Arson
Well its possibly poor form to have a blue with someone on the Interknot, then use another platform on the Interknot to bag them out. But if I'm to do it and it might possibly help reduce the chance of one fire in 100...well so be it.
This however is probably my best effort at a poor impersonation of MediaWatch because this minor country town media outlet fell way below standard & I'm not MediaWatch. Figure I could unload an edited version on the actual thread but chances are it'd get deleted or I'd get blocked or both. So here we are. Scroll right down to see the exchange in its natural state but from this point forward, I'll break it up into sections, bit by bit. Overview is simply I posted that the Albany Advertiser should stop showing footage of fires and flames and flashing lights that it encourages arsonists, that some get their gratification, others decide to copy and even more still are encouraged in the Hero Syndrome where they light the fire, then join in to put it out.
Read on as we break up the Newspapers comments (in bold italics) into bite size portions for proper digestion...
"Its our job to report on what's happening"
Yes, no dispute there, but you're a newspaper so you can actually report without putting video footage up on your FB page.
"Perhaps if someone sees the extent of the fire they will come forward with information"
Really? Perhaps you should tell us how successful footage of flames is as a tool for generating intel from the public? Facts & data, all ears ;-)
"Emergency services have not requested we run less footage"You'll surely know that suicides are not reported on TV News for very good reasons, unless they meet very specific circumstances. You knew that right?
I'll contact some emergency services over the next few days and see if you can be contacted. Perhaps request that you not "run less footage" but not run any at all.
"The cause of the fire is yet to be determined"Are you so sure? You know that is irrelevant. Arsonists see fires, arsonsists are capable of being encouraged to light fires. Your odd logic (and I loosely use the term logic) is on this occasion because it hasn't yet been declared an act of arson, another firebug won't light one. It suggests it needs an announcement it was arson...which you will relay as reporters strangely. It also highlights the absurdity that because the fire wasn't deliberately lit someone will not be inspired by footage to light another.
Please do report, but halt the footage. A newspaper doesn't need to do that. Sole defence at this stage is, emergency services haven't told you to stop, doing it could help the flow of information leading to an arrest & the cause hasn't been announced.
That's 3 loads of bollocks so far...but lets continue, because you absurdity did.
"Also worth noting that Australian Criminologists have dismissed the idea of arsonist getting gratification, or as you so eloquently put it "jollies" from lighting fires"
Hmm...using the term "as you eloquently put it" is an age old put down, drenched in equal measures of sarcasm and derision to lessen the argument without using actual intellectual rigor. We will let that slide, but it is noticed and noted.
DISMISSED? WHEN, BY WHOM???
WHICH Australian Criminologists? One thing is for sure, the Australian Institute of Criminology has a publicly available document on arson (SEVERAL ACTUALLY) that directly relate to copy cats & serial arsonists. You find it by typing "copy cat arsonist" into google and you'll find it. Interesting is it says around 22% of fires are likely to be "copy cat" so reading and breaking that stat down in its most simplistic form, you could reduce deliberately lit fires by lessening the reporting. Now if its a bland text only type of reporting then the word gets reported and if you only reduce copy cat arson by 5% its well worth it.
In any case, waiting to see which Australian Criminologists don't think fire footage sparks more arson for any reason. There is a recognised established and demonstrable link between footage & fire lighting.
"Its generally an anti social behaviour like vandalism, but with more serious consequences"
Ahhh says who, as you haven't cited who, we can only assume at this stage that's a view or opinion.
It seems to counter what another report from the Australian Institute of Criminology sets out (below) in blue are some of the motives for arson...Please note the highlighted and underlined last sentence. Seems exactly what I was suggesting and totally opposite to what you are rejecting. Not a just a little bit, but totally contrary to your claim. Which you haven't cited or backed up at all. It must be a feeling or opinion.
revenge, usually against an employer, lover or institution;
excitement or relief of boredom;
vandalism, often influenced by peer pressure;
attention seeking, as a 'cry for help' or to gain recognition and 'hero status';
financial gain, including insurance fraud and for other business purposes;
crime concealment, often to remove physical evidence;
political, as a form of protest or as a weapon of terror;
no discernible motive, perhaps under the influence of a mental illness;
mixed or unclear, where fire may achieve several purposes or the motive is not apparent; and
child firesetting, which can differ in many ways from adult firesetting.
Revenge is a factor in many cases of arson. A sacked employee may burn down a company's premises. A jilted lover may respond by setting fire to a former partner's home or car. A troubled student may attack his or her school. Sometimes the anger may be displaced onto a more general target, such as a public facility or even a bushland area.
The sights and sounds of sirens, uniforms, equipment and action as fire services respond to a blaze can provide thrills and a source of activity that motivates some people to start fires.
( http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/bfab/1-20/bfab004.html )
And here's yet another Australian report from Australian Criminologists...it looks at the complexity of pyromania as a term and covers some of the motivations of a pyromaniac (again in blue) and note the highlighting of number 4.
The diagnostic criteria for pyromania are:
If people aren't influence to light fires, why are they influenced to offer information or how are people influenced to by anything at all if there's, heck I dunno...say advertising?
Kind of makes the bulk of the Tuesday & Thursday editions pretty pointless as most of it is advertising and perhaps it doesn't work sometimes and works other times.
Worst gripe at all is pushing a line about "Australian Criminologists" who have "dismissed" that fire bugs are encouraged or gratified by seeing footage when clearly that is actually false and misleading of you. Its a personal view or opinion based on no solid science and just a quick and convenient way of hopefully quelling a critic that could halt an opportunity to sensationalise a dangerous event.
You're going to have to lift your game, cite sources when you make claims and err on the side of caution when it comes to public safety. Odd set of Standard Operating Procedures.
BTW I'm a trained volunteer bush fire brigade member of 32 years experience. I make my living off the land. Until recently I was Chairman of the Highway Bushfire Brigade and I've been sitting with my Fire Control Officers ticket for over 20 years. Just saying...
This however is probably my best effort at a poor impersonation of MediaWatch because this minor country town media outlet fell way below standard & I'm not MediaWatch. Figure I could unload an edited version on the actual thread but chances are it'd get deleted or I'd get blocked or both. So here we are. Scroll right down to see the exchange in its natural state but from this point forward, I'll break it up into sections, bit by bit. Overview is simply I posted that the Albany Advertiser should stop showing footage of fires and flames and flashing lights that it encourages arsonists, that some get their gratification, others decide to copy and even more still are encouraged in the Hero Syndrome where they light the fire, then join in to put it out.
Read on as we break up the Newspapers comments (in bold italics) into bite size portions for proper digestion...
"Its our job to report on what's happening"
Yes, no dispute there, but you're a newspaper so you can actually report without putting video footage up on your FB page.
"Perhaps if someone sees the extent of the fire they will come forward with information"
Really? Perhaps you should tell us how successful footage of flames is as a tool for generating intel from the public? Facts & data, all ears ;-)
"Emergency services have not requested we run less footage"You'll surely know that suicides are not reported on TV News for very good reasons, unless they meet very specific circumstances. You knew that right?
I'll contact some emergency services over the next few days and see if you can be contacted. Perhaps request that you not "run less footage" but not run any at all.
"The cause of the fire is yet to be determined"Are you so sure? You know that is irrelevant. Arsonists see fires, arsonsists are capable of being encouraged to light fires. Your odd logic (and I loosely use the term logic) is on this occasion because it hasn't yet been declared an act of arson, another firebug won't light one. It suggests it needs an announcement it was arson...which you will relay as reporters strangely. It also highlights the absurdity that because the fire wasn't deliberately lit someone will not be inspired by footage to light another.
Please do report, but halt the footage. A newspaper doesn't need to do that. Sole defence at this stage is, emergency services haven't told you to stop, doing it could help the flow of information leading to an arrest & the cause hasn't been announced.
That's 3 loads of bollocks so far...but lets continue, because you absurdity did.
"Also worth noting that Australian Criminologists have dismissed the idea of arsonist getting gratification, or as you so eloquently put it "jollies" from lighting fires"
Hmm...using the term "as you eloquently put it" is an age old put down, drenched in equal measures of sarcasm and derision to lessen the argument without using actual intellectual rigor. We will let that slide, but it is noticed and noted.
DISMISSED? WHEN, BY WHOM???
WHICH Australian Criminologists? One thing is for sure, the Australian Institute of Criminology has a publicly available document on arson (SEVERAL ACTUALLY) that directly relate to copy cats & serial arsonists. You find it by typing "copy cat arsonist" into google and you'll find it. Interesting is it says around 22% of fires are likely to be "copy cat" so reading and breaking that stat down in its most simplistic form, you could reduce deliberately lit fires by lessening the reporting. Now if its a bland text only type of reporting then the word gets reported and if you only reduce copy cat arson by 5% its well worth it.
In any case, waiting to see which Australian Criminologists don't think fire footage sparks more arson for any reason. There is a recognised established and demonstrable link between footage & fire lighting.
"Its generally an anti social behaviour like vandalism, but with more serious consequences"
Ahhh says who, as you haven't cited who, we can only assume at this stage that's a view or opinion.
It seems to counter what another report from the Australian Institute of Criminology sets out (below) in blue are some of the motives for arson...Please note the highlighted and underlined last sentence. Seems exactly what I was suggesting and totally opposite to what you are rejecting. Not a just a little bit, but totally contrary to your claim. Which you haven't cited or backed up at all. It must be a feeling or opinion.
The sights and sounds of sirens, uniforms, equipment and action as fire services respond to a blaze can provide thrills and a source of activity that motivates some people to start fires.
( http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/bfab/1-20/bfab004.html )
And here's yet another Australian report from Australian Criminologists...it looks at the complexity of pyromania as a term and covers some of the motivations of a pyromaniac (again in blue) and note the highlighting of number 4.
The diagnostic criteria for pyromania are:
- deliberate and purposeful firesetting on more than one occasion;
- tension or emotional arousal before the act;
- intense interest, curiosity or fascination about fire (which can include fire equipment and the consequences of fire);
- pleasure, gratification or relief when setting or witnessing fires and their aftermath;
- the firesetting is not done for another motive such as financial gain, anger or revenge, to gain recognition or to relieve boredom, and is not done in response to a delusion or hallucination or due to impaired judgment (such as through intoxication); and
- the firesetting is not better accounted for by conduct disorder, antisocial personality disorder or a manic episode.
If people aren't influence to light fires, why are they influenced to offer information or how are people influenced to by anything at all if there's, heck I dunno...say advertising?
Kind of makes the bulk of the Tuesday & Thursday editions pretty pointless as most of it is advertising and perhaps it doesn't work sometimes and works other times.
Worst gripe at all is pushing a line about "Australian Criminologists" who have "dismissed" that fire bugs are encouraged or gratified by seeing footage when clearly that is actually false and misleading of you. Its a personal view or opinion based on no solid science and just a quick and convenient way of hopefully quelling a critic that could halt an opportunity to sensationalise a dangerous event.
You're going to have to lift your game, cite sources when you make claims and err on the side of caution when it comes to public safety. Odd set of Standard Operating Procedures.
BTW I'm a trained volunteer bush fire brigade member of 32 years experience. I make my living off the land. Until recently I was Chairman of the Highway Bushfire Brigade and I've been sitting with my Fire Control Officers ticket for over 20 years. Just saying...
Monday 16 January 2017
The "New Mining Tax" according to the Labor/Liberal Duopoly
Well where does the Lib/Labor Duopoly sit on the plan by Brendon Grylls & the NationalsWA to update state agreements, specifically the Mining Rental Fee?
The fee that's at the same rate its been at since the 1960s. And why lump arch enemies Liberals & Labor in as the "Lib/Labor Duopoly"? Well lumped them together because its the duopoly that's caused the rise and rise of the "deplorable" vote in Australia in recent time for the benefit of Tier 2 parties like One Nation and Shooters, Fishers & Farmer's Party.
Well start with Labor. We go to view Mark MacGowan's view back in Oct 2016.
( http://www.markmcgowan.com.au/news/statement-from-wa-labor-leader-mark-mcgowan-1242 )
“The Nationals want to introduce a mining tax that will destroy jobs without delivering any benefits to our State. The tax is a direct attack on our mining industry."
MacGowan's first 2 sentences on the matter and he's wrongly referred to the tax deductible rental fee, a cost of doing business, as a "tax".
Interesting aside, MacGowan in the same "article" says Labor will protect Royalties for Regions.
I believe that, because I think Labor would have to recognise that RfR has to stay because it should have been legislation since the 1960s. But what he did do was hint that RfR would be used for not metropolitan road funding. I thought that sort of infrastructure was paid for out of Main Roads (?) so why should it coming out of Royalties for Regions according to Labor?
Its called cost shifting. It means the figures can be distorted and RfR is completely reconfigured, not abolished. Hope not.
Colin Barnett however had a different approach, he offered to remove the production rental fee on iron ore in exchange for an upfront cash payment. Rio & BHP rejected it.
Now seeing the CME is against, the Chamber of Commerce & Industry seem against it...well only need Pastoralists & Graziers Association to agree its a bad idea and that'll be all the fully Liberal Party stalwarts aligned ;-)
Shooters Fishers & Farmers Party has a position. ( http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-03/wa-election-shooters-and-fishers-fiona-white-hartig-in-pilbara/8089764 )
"Shooters and Fishers MP Rick Mazza said the party opposed Mr Grylls proposed iron ore tax. "
Ahh its a mining rental fee not a tax though but we know where they stand at present. They oppose the rise in the rental fee.
One Nation? Hmmm this one is similarly clear but opens up other questions.
They oppose it.
One Nation’s WA spokesman Colin Tincknell has said of Brendon Grylls and the fee rise...
“His mining tax is offensive, ill-conceived and low-quality politics”
Ahh its not a tax, its a deductible fee, but in relation to the possible One Nation/SFFP preference deal in Brendon Grylls' seat of the Pilbrara...
“makes sense — we share a lot in common. Rick Mazza and I have discussed the Pilbara but also (preference deals in) other seats".
Well the SFFP & One Nation (and NationalsWA for that matter) share one thing in common, they're Tier 2 parties, but as for much else...well maybe so, maybe not but having lots in common with One Nation is not a suggested parallel I'd accept I were a SFFP candidate.
Its easy to argue that One Nation & the SFFP are more Liberal Party aligned than Labor aligned but there's more. It seems Liberal, Labor, SFFP & One Nation all continually refer to raising the Rental Lease fee from 1960's rate of 25c a tonne to $5/tonne as "a new tax"...which it is not.
Several have referred to the Mining Industry is against the rise. The CME is, Rio Tinto is, BHP is and many other members of the mining industry are pretty darn quiet. Twiggy Forrest referred to it as being dangerous in terms of our international reputation. So to retain our international reputation we must keep the 196os rate of fee level which the 2 companies didn't pay in the first 15 years.
This densely wrapped conundrum is still unravelling. How it affects WA if it goes ahead or doesn't is still clouded. How it'll affect the NationalsWA prospects is subjective, how it'll affect the SFFP & One Nation is also in dispute & open to wide ranging conjecture.
Either Colin Barnett will go close to winning the election and will be in a repeat of 2008 & have to form a coalition with the Nationals to retain power or Labor will win power.
If Labor wins, royalties for Regions will be reconfigured to cost shift a chunk of cost out of the Main Roads budget and the raising of the Mining Rental Fee is dead...something that would have been once been decidedly non-Labor Party.
If the Liberal Party goes close and needs a Nationals alliance to form government you can bet that the Nationals will be non-negotiable...it'll be raise the rental fee or no alliance.
Ironically its the Tier 2 parties like One Nation & SFFP which appear decidedly more Liberal aligned than NationalsWA aligned. Those parties might be in a funny place, helping Liberals get elected as opposed to Nationals or Labor. Why? I think it's because the minor parties are banking on opposing the "mning tax" as they all call it because then they have a perceived better chance of taking seats of Nationals whereas taking seats of Liberals or Labor might be harder.
The fee that's at the same rate its been at since the 1960s. And why lump arch enemies Liberals & Labor in as the "Lib/Labor Duopoly"? Well lumped them together because its the duopoly that's caused the rise and rise of the "deplorable" vote in Australia in recent time for the benefit of Tier 2 parties like One Nation and Shooters, Fishers & Farmer's Party.
Well start with Labor. We go to view Mark MacGowan's view back in Oct 2016.
( http://www.markmcgowan.com.au/news/statement-from-wa-labor-leader-mark-mcgowan-1242 )
“The Nationals want to introduce a mining tax that will destroy jobs without delivering any benefits to our State. The tax is a direct attack on our mining industry."
MacGowan's first 2 sentences on the matter and he's wrongly referred to the tax deductible rental fee, a cost of doing business, as a "tax".
Interesting aside, MacGowan in the same "article" says Labor will protect Royalties for Regions.
I believe that, because I think Labor would have to recognise that RfR has to stay because it should have been legislation since the 1960s. But what he did do was hint that RfR would be used for not metropolitan road funding. I thought that sort of infrastructure was paid for out of Main Roads (?) so why should it coming out of Royalties for Regions according to Labor?
Its called cost shifting. It means the figures can be distorted and RfR is completely reconfigured, not abolished. Hope not.
Colin Barnett however had a different approach, he offered to remove the production rental fee on iron ore in exchange for an upfront cash payment. Rio & BHP rejected it.
Now seeing the CME is against, the Chamber of Commerce & Industry seem against it...well only need Pastoralists & Graziers Association to agree its a bad idea and that'll be all the fully Liberal Party stalwarts aligned ;-)
Shooters Fishers & Farmers Party has a position. ( http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-03/wa-election-shooters-and-fishers-fiona-white-hartig-in-pilbara/8089764 )
"Shooters and Fishers MP Rick Mazza said the party opposed Mr Grylls proposed iron ore tax. "
Ahh its a mining rental fee not a tax though but we know where they stand at present. They oppose the rise in the rental fee.
One Nation? Hmmm this one is similarly clear but opens up other questions.
They oppose it.
One Nation’s WA spokesman Colin Tincknell has said of Brendon Grylls and the fee rise...
“His mining tax is offensive, ill-conceived and low-quality politics”
Ahh its not a tax, its a deductible fee, but in relation to the possible One Nation/SFFP preference deal in Brendon Grylls' seat of the Pilbrara...
“makes sense — we share a lot in common. Rick Mazza and I have discussed the Pilbara but also (preference deals in) other seats".
Well the SFFP & One Nation (and NationalsWA for that matter) share one thing in common, they're Tier 2 parties, but as for much else...well maybe so, maybe not but having lots in common with One Nation is not a suggested parallel I'd accept I were a SFFP candidate.
Its easy to argue that One Nation & the SFFP are more Liberal Party aligned than Labor aligned but there's more. It seems Liberal, Labor, SFFP & One Nation all continually refer to raising the Rental Lease fee from 1960's rate of 25c a tonne to $5/tonne as "a new tax"...which it is not.
Several have referred to the Mining Industry is against the rise. The CME is, Rio Tinto is, BHP is and many other members of the mining industry are pretty darn quiet. Twiggy Forrest referred to it as being dangerous in terms of our international reputation. So to retain our international reputation we must keep the 196os rate of fee level which the 2 companies didn't pay in the first 15 years.
This densely wrapped conundrum is still unravelling. How it affects WA if it goes ahead or doesn't is still clouded. How it'll affect the NationalsWA prospects is subjective, how it'll affect the SFFP & One Nation is also in dispute & open to wide ranging conjecture.
Either Colin Barnett will go close to winning the election and will be in a repeat of 2008 & have to form a coalition with the Nationals to retain power or Labor will win power.
If Labor wins, royalties for Regions will be reconfigured to cost shift a chunk of cost out of the Main Roads budget and the raising of the Mining Rental Fee is dead...something that would have been once been decidedly non-Labor Party.
If the Liberal Party goes close and needs a Nationals alliance to form government you can bet that the Nationals will be non-negotiable...it'll be raise the rental fee or no alliance.
Ironically its the Tier 2 parties like One Nation & SFFP which appear decidedly more Liberal aligned than NationalsWA aligned. Those parties might be in a funny place, helping Liberals get elected as opposed to Nationals or Labor. Why? I think it's because the minor parties are banking on opposing the "mning tax" as they all call it because then they have a perceived better chance of taking seats of Nationals whereas taking seats of Liberals or Labor might be harder.
The New Mining Tax
Couple of things worth remembering...
On the CME website, the above CME claim is also joined with this beauty...
Sorry, did we mention its not actually a tax? In the article claiming to be "Fact Based" refers to the 1960s pegged fee as a tax. In fact they use the word tax 12 times. They refer to it as a new tax. It is neither a tax, nor new. Its a fee that's been there since the early 1960s, at the same price since it began. That's accurate, there's the fact based comments you can take to the bank.
- Its not a new tax, its not a tax nor new, its mining rental lease fee
- Being a fee, its a cost of doing business and a tax deductible one
- It was waived for the first 15 years. Yes when it was actually at a fair rate, it wasn't paid at all.
- The proposed raise brings it into line with current day costs & fees, it should have been pegged to CPI or some other index. It wasn't, hasn't & if the CME, oops I mean the 2 big multi billion dollar multi national miners have their way it won't ever be and they'll be paying 25c a tonne in another 50 years when it'll take close to 20 tonnes worth of rental fees to buy a pack of Lifesavers.
The CME claims "WA’s two biggest miners pay an average of $19 per tonne in taxes and royalties, not 25 cents as claimed by the WA Nationals."
Actually the two biggest miners pay an average of $19 per tonne in taxes, the Nationals actual claim was the two biggest miners only pay 25 cents on the Mining Rental Fee. There's no confusion here, the miners do not pay 25c per tonne for Royalties...they pay 25c for the Mining rental Lease Fee and have done since it came in...except for the 1st fifteen years where it was completely waived.
On the CME website, the above CME claim is also joined with this beauty...
"CME Chief Executive, Mr Reg Howard-Smith, said the fact-based campaign would counter mistruths put by the WA Nationals in an attempt to justify their job-destroying tax."
Sorry, did we mention its not actually a tax? In the article claiming to be "Fact Based" refers to the 1960s pegged fee as a tax. In fact they use the word tax 12 times. They refer to it as a new tax. It is neither a tax, nor new. Its a fee that's been there since the early 1960s, at the same price since it began. That's accurate, there's the fact based comments you can take to the bank.
CME need to be what they claim, they need to become fact based.
CME had to yank its anti rental fee advert from the TV due to complaints from Busselton Mayor Grant Henley who appeared in the advert. Mr Henley is in the advert saying "no new investment, no new projects, no new jobs".
His complaint after seeing the advert was he didn't know he was appearing in a political advert and was taken out of context.
But here, think seriously for a minute and consider the CME's comment from their webpage...
“As part of this campaign we are commissioning independent experts to assess any positive or negative impacts of this tax. We will release this information to enable people to make their own decisions based on independent, expert advice.”
A few points...
- Good they acknowledge they've chosen to be a part of the election campaign.
- Good to see they're commissioning "independent experts" to assess the proposal. Sadly if the people they commission think or assert the fee is a "tax" then they cannot be both independent nor experts.
- If the information does not contain a list of pros & cons, it is not independent advice let alone expert. If its solely negatives its a farce.
- If you see it, assess it closely.
One thing is for sure...its not new, its not a tax, it was waived for the first 15 years of its existence in the 1960s and it hasn't been raised since. The updating of the state agreement to 2017 levels does not include the huge financial advantage already forgone by the state and given to the 2 big miners.
Now I'm off to see what all the other parties have nailed their flag on. ONE Nation has already said they oppose "the tax" not knowing its not a fee. One Labor MP & one ex-Labor MP said they oppose the "new tax". If they think its a tax, they're not well informed at all.
I'll check the SFFP, the current One Nation position and then try to find the exact Labor/Liberal duopoly stance.
If the money the Nationals is fair, then the current 25c is unfair and its WA Mums & Dads who've lost the benefit or rather paid the subsidised benefit to Rio Tinto & BHP.
Here's a few other facts to mill over
See the CME comment at the below link...which mentions "tax" 12 times but never mentions "Rio Tinto" or "BHP" once...they're not mentioning the 2 multi national, multi billion dollar companies they're campaigning on behalf of.
https://www.cmewa.com/news-and-events/latest-news/290-fact-based-campaign-to-fight-mining-tax-mistruths
BHP
- Total Assets (2015) - US$ 126 Billion
Rio Tinto
- Total Assets (2015) - US$ 91.56 Billion
Just saying
Now I'm off to see what all the other parties have nailed their flag on. ONE Nation has already said they oppose "the tax" not knowing its not a fee. One Labor MP & one ex-Labor MP said they oppose the "new tax". If they think its a tax, they're not well informed at all.
I'll check the SFFP, the current One Nation position and then try to find the exact Labor/Liberal duopoly stance.
If the money the Nationals is fair, then the current 25c is unfair and its WA Mums & Dads who've lost the benefit or rather paid the subsidised benefit to Rio Tinto & BHP.
Here's a few other facts to mill over
See the CME comment at the below link...which mentions "tax" 12 times but never mentions "Rio Tinto" or "BHP" once...they're not mentioning the 2 multi national, multi billion dollar companies they're campaigning on behalf of.
https://www.cmewa.com/news-and-events/latest-news/290-fact-based-campaign-to-fight-mining-tax-mistruths
BHP
- Total Assets (2015) - US$ 126 Billion
Rio Tinto
- Total Assets (2015) - US$ 91.56 Billion
Just saying
Thursday 12 January 2017
2017 WA State Election - Yes I'm Calling A Result
Yes its a bait like title, but having said that I'm leaning one way already even though its hard to remain unbiased and disconnect heart in favour of the head.
The fortunate part for commentators in the media is they can point to their predicted winner & when they're horribly wrong, its forgotten fairly quickly. If they were able to pull a real rabbit out of the hat and accurately predict a real surprise they'll be lauded as smart & astute political observers for a while...then it'll be forgotten.
So although I could toss a coin a few times, I'll try to make an educated guess...based on a personal reason of what I think...repeat think is reasoning.
The Rod Culleton side show is still rolling but most likely drawing to a close soon. The Rod Culleton Effect at the next election is lessening, or it was until two Pauline Hanson One Nation candidates (PHON) hit the news in less than flattering fashion. One promoting anti LGBT views, the other saying the dead Syrian toddler who's drowned body was photographed on the beach is "alive & well" and that the Port Arthur atrocity was a staged conspiracy.
So there's a Tier 2 party that's going to need major repair very soon to be a huge influence on the WA election. They still may influence it though even in the current decaying state.
Their votes will primarily be "The Deplorables" those that are fed up with the Liberal/Labor Duopoly. There's really four parties who qualify as Tier 2 Parties, Nats, Greens, SFFP & One Nation.
Greens will be more likely to preference Labor if the Greens we're placed 3rd or worse in any given seat.
WANats, the Shooters Fishers & Farmers & One Nation are more likely to preference the Liberal party if they find themselves outside the 2 horse race. One Nation is stating its not Preferencing anyone...but that could change in the next few weeks but, still there's a good chance for an irony laden backfire for the "Deplorable" voters.
They may vote elsewhere to try & protest against the Liberal/Labor Duopoly but in doing so, they might actually end up helping get the Liberals over the line.
Labor is ahead by the bookies and many commentators & it may work out that way, but I think its still very likely that Colin Barnett will be returned to form government with possibly the slightest decrease in numbers. Yes, I'll call it...maybe Colin Barnett returned by the barest of margins, less than now. What was the final bit of deciding reasoning that tipped my prediction that way?
It was the toss of the coin. So I tossed the coin and it landed Liberal...so with the most unscientific method to decide I think the Deplorables via the NatsWA, the SFFP & PHON will get Colin over the line, make him Premier for 12 months or less as he'll retire citing health/spending more time with the family etc and Liza Harvey will take over.
There...I said it.
And if its dead on wrong...everyone will forget after a while.
Phew :-)
The fortunate part for commentators in the media is they can point to their predicted winner & when they're horribly wrong, its forgotten fairly quickly. If they were able to pull a real rabbit out of the hat and accurately predict a real surprise they'll be lauded as smart & astute political observers for a while...then it'll be forgotten.
So although I could toss a coin a few times, I'll try to make an educated guess...based on a personal reason of what I think...repeat think is reasoning.
The Rod Culleton side show is still rolling but most likely drawing to a close soon. The Rod Culleton Effect at the next election is lessening, or it was until two Pauline Hanson One Nation candidates (PHON) hit the news in less than flattering fashion. One promoting anti LGBT views, the other saying the dead Syrian toddler who's drowned body was photographed on the beach is "alive & well" and that the Port Arthur atrocity was a staged conspiracy.
So there's a Tier 2 party that's going to need major repair very soon to be a huge influence on the WA election. They still may influence it though even in the current decaying state.
Their votes will primarily be "The Deplorables" those that are fed up with the Liberal/Labor Duopoly. There's really four parties who qualify as Tier 2 Parties, Nats, Greens, SFFP & One Nation.
Greens will be more likely to preference Labor if the Greens we're placed 3rd or worse in any given seat.
WANats, the Shooters Fishers & Farmers & One Nation are more likely to preference the Liberal party if they find themselves outside the 2 horse race. One Nation is stating its not Preferencing anyone...but that could change in the next few weeks but, still there's a good chance for an irony laden backfire for the "Deplorable" voters.
They may vote elsewhere to try & protest against the Liberal/Labor Duopoly but in doing so, they might actually end up helping get the Liberals over the line.
Labor is ahead by the bookies and many commentators & it may work out that way, but I think its still very likely that Colin Barnett will be returned to form government with possibly the slightest decrease in numbers. Yes, I'll call it...maybe Colin Barnett returned by the barest of margins, less than now. What was the final bit of deciding reasoning that tipped my prediction that way?
It was the toss of the coin. So I tossed the coin and it landed Liberal...so with the most unscientific method to decide I think the Deplorables via the NatsWA, the SFFP & PHON will get Colin over the line, make him Premier for 12 months or less as he'll retire citing health/spending more time with the family etc and Liza Harvey will take over.
There...I said it.
And if its dead on wrong...everyone will forget after a while.
Phew :-)
Wednesday 11 January 2017
How to help Labor's Anti Live Export Policy
First off, IT IS an Anti Live Export Policy. If your plan is to "transition" from Live to Chilled then it is about a gradual shut down of the trade. Its abolishing the trade in a orderly fashion. It is about shutting the trade down. Its about placating the Veganarchist vote in the metro area. This time round, Labor knows every vote will count.
So despite them saying it isn't about banning Live Trade, they will continue their "transition" plan and won't support the Liberals promised plan to build a Live Export Facility if the Fremantle Port is leased out.
Sounds like an ANTI LIVE EXPORT plan for sure.
How do we help their plan to have no negative impact on the WA economy and show the way for the rest of the world to follow? Its pretty simple.
Firstly, its all about creating WA jobs and keeping more money here. So the jobs have to be for Australian citizens, not 457 visa holders.
Secondly, it needs to deliver the same or better farm gate price to livestock producers if there's to be no negative impact on the WA economy.
Thirdly, it has to deliver to the customer an equal product for the same price.
Remember those 3 things...in fact let's deal with them one by one.
1) Currently there are not enough slaughtermen & meat processors in the country to handle the extra TWO MILLIONG HEAD OF SHEEP PER YEAR that will have to be transported, handled, slaughtered and processed before being chilled and exported.
If its about jobs, its about creating jobs here so long term unemployed will have to be trained and employed and not for 457 visa holders. After all, Labor says its for Australian jobs...not imported ones. Now whilst you're trying to get your head around that number of livestock, don't forget to add in 1.3 MILLION HEAD OF CATTLE that have to be handled, transported, slaughtered, processed, chilled, loaded transported to port then exported.
2) Farmgate price has to be the same or better than current live export prices. You'd get therefore no argument from farmers who already face dwindling profit margins well below normal metropolitan small to medium enterprises (SME). But wait there's more, to make it appealing to overseas buyers, you have to ensure that the chilled price to their consumers in Vietnam, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and everywhere else is exactly the same or cheaper than what their consumers are paying now. Slowly you're beginning to get a handle on the idea of threading Everest through the eye of a needle. The numbers have to stack up, yet they cannot because in amongst that non workable equation is the fact that many nations do not have good infrastructure to store chilled or frozen product. Its often killed on demand and until its needed for sale, it stands and grazes. A lot cheaper than running a freezer plus in a freezer it cannot put on more weight. Once you overcome all that, then there's the inability to transport frozen and chilled meat. Then when you overcome that, much meat is sold in market places, hanging warm & wet on a hook. It doesn't spoil because its killed in the early hours of the morning and before lunchtime its in the consumer's home being cooked because many consumers don't have refrigerators nor reliable, cheap electricity supply. Remember its cost roughly AUD$150-250 per year to run a fridge maybe a little less for a freezer. For most people in Indonesia that can be a large portion of their annual earnings.
Labor has to cost out and remedy that price squeeze to suit both the producers in Australia, the processor industry in Australia, the overseas importers, the overseas retailers and the overseas consumers.
It also doesn't take into account that aside from the logistical nightmare and the foolish economic folly on every level, Chilled into a 3rd country is not popular because warm meat in a wet market is safer for some markets? Many are suspicious of chilled and frozen because when its wet & warm its impossible to hide spoiled meat. Chilled and frozen can spoil if it thaws and its then hidden if its refrozen. Some overseas consumers won't touch it, they'll buy wet & warm which will still be in their markets. Yes, Australian Chilled will have to compete with Warm & Wet from other countries...both for market share and its own profitability.
At this point in time, its not possible to replace Live with Chilled yet many tell us it is, so how do we find middle ground and placate those outside the industry who want to change the industry?
Simple really.
If most of WA is in favour of Banning Live Export and if its good for WA's economy and jobs market and its profitable for farmers and everyone in the trade then its easy to move to a chilled trade & all the required infrastructure and staff required by starting with an Industry Infrastructure Fund.
If Labor and its supporters are so convinced that the majority of WA want this and its profitable for all then you just have to find 200,000 people with the apparently superior ethics to take out a mere $50,000 mortgage on their home and invest it in a super fund willing to take on this oh so fantastic once in a life time, highly lucrative ethical investment.
200,000 x $50,000 is $10,000,000,000
That should fully fund the industry, offer modest yet competitive returns for the super funds and its investors, transition the industry, build the new industry.
Its there, all fully funded.
Now, once its built & paid for all the chilled industry has to do is make a profit, deliver same or better profit to live stock producers and offer a chilled product at a very competitive price to overseas consumers with everyone in the chain making a reasonable profit for their efforts.
How long do you think it'd take to make a good return on the $10,000,000,000 investment?
What return would it make? 12%?
At 12% after tax profit the entire $10,000,000,000 or $50,000 per person investment would be paid back in 6 years (yes fully repaid in SIX YEARS) and then just be adding a good, apparently reliable 12% pa return to the person's super. Yes, borrowed money paid from the mortgage paid back in 6 years and from then on return free clear profit to a person's super fund. Sounds sooooo easy.
Over to you Mark MacGowan. You're not planning to spend one red cent on promoting Live Export, you're planning to promote and encourage the chilled trade. Here it all is, fully costed and funded at no cost to the WA Government Coffers at all...unless you want to drop a lazy $10,000 million in and get it paid back in 6 years and have a big chunk dropping into Consolidated Revenue for each year thereafter.
Its all that simple apparently. No really the dreadlocked lass told me its moral & profitable. Ok that's all she said because she didn't know really anything about the industry at all.
The plan only lacks a couple of things...well one really.
Reality.
If its that easy, get some skin in the game and get some good big ethical returns as you close the live trade. Its at this point some people say "I'm not funding the death of any animal for food just so you can make a profit"
Then some protestors reveal themselves to be the type of Vegan Activists known as abolitionists. They pretend to be whatever it takes to abolish all meat eating.
Stop and seriously think.
So despite them saying it isn't about banning Live Trade, they will continue their "transition" plan and won't support the Liberals promised plan to build a Live Export Facility if the Fremantle Port is leased out.
Sounds like an ANTI LIVE EXPORT plan for sure.
How do we help their plan to have no negative impact on the WA economy and show the way for the rest of the world to follow? Its pretty simple.
Firstly, its all about creating WA jobs and keeping more money here. So the jobs have to be for Australian citizens, not 457 visa holders.
Secondly, it needs to deliver the same or better farm gate price to livestock producers if there's to be no negative impact on the WA economy.
Thirdly, it has to deliver to the customer an equal product for the same price.
Remember those 3 things...in fact let's deal with them one by one.
1) Currently there are not enough slaughtermen & meat processors in the country to handle the extra TWO MILLIONG HEAD OF SHEEP PER YEAR that will have to be transported, handled, slaughtered and processed before being chilled and exported.
If its about jobs, its about creating jobs here so long term unemployed will have to be trained and employed and not for 457 visa holders. After all, Labor says its for Australian jobs...not imported ones. Now whilst you're trying to get your head around that number of livestock, don't forget to add in 1.3 MILLION HEAD OF CATTLE that have to be handled, transported, slaughtered, processed, chilled, loaded transported to port then exported.
2) Farmgate price has to be the same or better than current live export prices. You'd get therefore no argument from farmers who already face dwindling profit margins well below normal metropolitan small to medium enterprises (SME). But wait there's more, to make it appealing to overseas buyers, you have to ensure that the chilled price to their consumers in Vietnam, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and everywhere else is exactly the same or cheaper than what their consumers are paying now. Slowly you're beginning to get a handle on the idea of threading Everest through the eye of a needle. The numbers have to stack up, yet they cannot because in amongst that non workable equation is the fact that many nations do not have good infrastructure to store chilled or frozen product. Its often killed on demand and until its needed for sale, it stands and grazes. A lot cheaper than running a freezer plus in a freezer it cannot put on more weight. Once you overcome all that, then there's the inability to transport frozen and chilled meat. Then when you overcome that, much meat is sold in market places, hanging warm & wet on a hook. It doesn't spoil because its killed in the early hours of the morning and before lunchtime its in the consumer's home being cooked because many consumers don't have refrigerators nor reliable, cheap electricity supply. Remember its cost roughly AUD$150-250 per year to run a fridge maybe a little less for a freezer. For most people in Indonesia that can be a large portion of their annual earnings.
Labor has to cost out and remedy that price squeeze to suit both the producers in Australia, the processor industry in Australia, the overseas importers, the overseas retailers and the overseas consumers.
It also doesn't take into account that aside from the logistical nightmare and the foolish economic folly on every level, Chilled into a 3rd country is not popular because warm meat in a wet market is safer for some markets? Many are suspicious of chilled and frozen because when its wet & warm its impossible to hide spoiled meat. Chilled and frozen can spoil if it thaws and its then hidden if its refrozen. Some overseas consumers won't touch it, they'll buy wet & warm which will still be in their markets. Yes, Australian Chilled will have to compete with Warm & Wet from other countries...both for market share and its own profitability.
At this point in time, its not possible to replace Live with Chilled yet many tell us it is, so how do we find middle ground and placate those outside the industry who want to change the industry?
Simple really.
If most of WA is in favour of Banning Live Export and if its good for WA's economy and jobs market and its profitable for farmers and everyone in the trade then its easy to move to a chilled trade & all the required infrastructure and staff required by starting with an Industry Infrastructure Fund.
If Labor and its supporters are so convinced that the majority of WA want this and its profitable for all then you just have to find 200,000 people with the apparently superior ethics to take out a mere $50,000 mortgage on their home and invest it in a super fund willing to take on this oh so fantastic once in a life time, highly lucrative ethical investment.
200,000 x $50,000 is $10,000,000,000
That should fully fund the industry, offer modest yet competitive returns for the super funds and its investors, transition the industry, build the new industry.
Its there, all fully funded.
Now, once its built & paid for all the chilled industry has to do is make a profit, deliver same or better profit to live stock producers and offer a chilled product at a very competitive price to overseas consumers with everyone in the chain making a reasonable profit for their efforts.
How long do you think it'd take to make a good return on the $10,000,000,000 investment?
What return would it make? 12%?
At 12% after tax profit the entire $10,000,000,000 or $50,000 per person investment would be paid back in 6 years (yes fully repaid in SIX YEARS) and then just be adding a good, apparently reliable 12% pa return to the person's super. Yes, borrowed money paid from the mortgage paid back in 6 years and from then on return free clear profit to a person's super fund. Sounds sooooo easy.
Over to you Mark MacGowan. You're not planning to spend one red cent on promoting Live Export, you're planning to promote and encourage the chilled trade. Here it all is, fully costed and funded at no cost to the WA Government Coffers at all...unless you want to drop a lazy $10,000 million in and get it paid back in 6 years and have a big chunk dropping into Consolidated Revenue for each year thereafter.
Its all that simple apparently. No really the dreadlocked lass told me its moral & profitable. Ok that's all she said because she didn't know really anything about the industry at all.
The plan only lacks a couple of things...well one really.
Reality.
If its that easy, get some skin in the game and get some good big ethical returns as you close the live trade. Its at this point some people say "I'm not funding the death of any animal for food just so you can make a profit"
Then some protestors reveal themselves to be the type of Vegan Activists known as abolitionists. They pretend to be whatever it takes to abolish all meat eating.
Stop and seriously think.
Sunday 8 January 2017
WA Labor's Live Export Deception Plan
There should be a "WA DUOPOLY LET DOWN LEADERBOARD" to keep score of every time Labor & the Liberals let us down...it'd be ticking over like a fast forward counter.
So apparently according to Darren West MLC (Lab), WALabor is not anti Live Export, nor anti ESCAS, nor is it trying to halt Live Export.
Here's a handy copy & paste for Darren...
Mr McGowan said on Sunday, January 27 (2013) when officially launching WA Labor's campaign that: “You have to take all the steps you can to create more jobs in Australia, so that's why I'm talking more about processing meat in Australia as opposed to overseas”.
Here's another simple copy & paste
At the WA Labor Conference in July 2011, a momentous Animal Welfare motion introduced by Lisa Baker Member for Maylands was passed. The section covering live exports reads as follows:On Live Export:
64. Labor recognises that:
a) There are strong economic, job and animal welfare reasons for transitioning from the live export trade to domestic processing of animals for local consumption and the chilled and frozen meat trade.
b) While the live export trade continues, livestock for slaughter from Australia will be treated humanely while being transported and in the country of destination.65. To this end, Labor will:
a) Require that livestock be transported, unloaded, held and slaughtered in accordance with OIE Guidelines and stunned using appropriate humane restraints immediately before slaughter, and that there will be independent monitoring and enforcement of these standards.
b) Ensure adequate transitional arrangements are in place to facilitate the expansion of a chilled and frozen meat trade.
c) Develop and implement an alternative and sustainable economic base for the pastoral industry in the north of Western Australia.
d) Work with the Commonwealth government, industry and importing countries to promote the trade in chilled meat from animals humanely transported and slaughtered in Australia.
e) Pursue, as part of trade negotiations, the elimination of policies of foreign governments, such as subsidies and tariffs, which distort competitive neutrality between the meat processing and the live export industries.
f) Promote Australian chilled and frozen meat in potential new markets through intensive international promotional campaigns, such as the emerging markets in China..
Oops...
Promote Chilled in new markets...but no promotion for Live Export in new markets.
Develop, implement an alternative for the pastoral industry in the north of WA...not ADD another option but implement an ALTERNATIVE.
Ensure adequate TRANSITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS not add more options for producers to supply either or both markets...CHILLED is the aim, LIVE EXPORT is the Target for abolition.
Nothing to support ESCAS approved markets.
Nothing to promote ESCAS approved markets.
Nothing to create new markets for ESCAS approved supply
Nothing for ESCAS approved markets in the way for intensive international promotional campaigns unlike chilled.
Develop alternatives for pastoralists, not add additional options for them to choose from
But look closely very closely...the passed motion clearly states that Labor recognises There are strong economic, job and animal welfare reasons for transitioning from the live export trade to domestic processing of animalsGet that? They recognise that there are strong economic, job and animal welfare reasons for TRANSITIONING FROM LIVE EXPORT TO CHILLED.
WA Labor is anti live trade, just like Julia Gillard and Federal Labor was when they introduced the atrocious Live Export Ban.
They say there's strong economic reasons yet cannot and refuse to say how WA can slaughter & process an additional 2 MILLION SHEEP and sell them overseas as chilled. No mention how this is logistically possible when there isn't enough abattoirs, equipment, processing plants, staff and other supporting infrastructure to process an additional 2 million head of sheep (in WA alone) and 1.3 million head of cattle.
No economic case, strong or otherwise...just a vague hollow sentiment to placate the green leaning rusted on Labor voters.
Who pays to build all the new abattoirs, pays for the extra staff that don't currently exist or where the chilled carcases are processed, chilled and stored. Who pays?
No surprise there is no economic case at all because it would have to set out how its going to provide primary producers with the same farmgate price or better and how it will be a similar cost or cheaper for overseas buyers and how it actually is handled properly overseas.
DO NOT BE FOOLED, WA LABOR USE THE WORD "TRANSITION" - THEY'RE TRYING TO BAN THE LIVE EXPORT TRADE, NOT COMPLIMENT IT, NOT ADD EXTRA OPTIONS FOR PRODUCERS. THEY'RE PLANNING TO HALT THE LIVE EXPORT TRADE.
They have made absolutely no mention whatsoever about the successful export of many millions of sheep & cattle that have fully met the ESCAS arrangements. None, not one word. Despite the Live Trade have in excess of 97% ESCAS compliance, better than here with the road rules, illicit drugs or many other day to day facts.
WA LABOR = ANTI LIVE EXPORT.
Now when you look at WA Labor's integrity on the matter, look at the current smokescreen from one Labor stalwart who needs to defend Labor's indefensible position to keep his $156,000 salary intact.
So apparently according to Darren West MLC (Lab), WALabor is not anti Live Export, nor anti ESCAS, nor is it trying to halt Live Export.
Here's a handy copy & paste for Darren...
Mr McGowan said on Sunday, January 27 (2013) when officially launching WA Labor's campaign that: “You have to take all the steps you can to create more jobs in Australia, so that's why I'm talking more about processing meat in Australia as opposed to overseas”.
Here's another simple copy & paste
At the WA Labor Conference in July 2011, a momentous Animal Welfare motion introduced by Lisa Baker Member for Maylands was passed. The section covering live exports reads as follows:On Live Export:
64. Labor recognises that:
a) There are strong economic, job and animal welfare reasons for transitioning from the live export trade to domestic processing of animals for local consumption and the chilled and frozen meat trade.
b) While the live export trade continues, livestock for slaughter from Australia will be treated humanely while being transported and in the country of destination.65. To this end, Labor will:
a) Require that livestock be transported, unloaded, held and slaughtered in accordance with OIE Guidelines and stunned using appropriate humane restraints immediately before slaughter, and that there will be independent monitoring and enforcement of these standards.
b) Ensure adequate transitional arrangements are in place to facilitate the expansion of a chilled and frozen meat trade.
c) Develop and implement an alternative and sustainable economic base for the pastoral industry in the north of Western Australia.
d) Work with the Commonwealth government, industry and importing countries to promote the trade in chilled meat from animals humanely transported and slaughtered in Australia.
e) Pursue, as part of trade negotiations, the elimination of policies of foreign governments, such as subsidies and tariffs, which distort competitive neutrality between the meat processing and the live export industries.
f) Promote Australian chilled and frozen meat in potential new markets through intensive international promotional campaigns, such as the emerging markets in China..
Oops...
Promote Chilled in new markets...but no promotion for Live Export in new markets.
Develop, implement an alternative for the pastoral industry in the north of WA...not ADD another option but implement an ALTERNATIVE.
Ensure adequate TRANSITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS not add more options for producers to supply either or both markets...CHILLED is the aim, LIVE EXPORT is the Target for abolition.
Nothing to support ESCAS approved markets.
Nothing to promote ESCAS approved markets.
Nothing to create new markets for ESCAS approved supply
Nothing for ESCAS approved markets in the way for intensive international promotional campaigns unlike chilled.
Develop alternatives for pastoralists, not add additional options for them to choose from
But look closely very closely...the passed motion clearly states that Labor recognises There are strong economic, job and animal welfare reasons for transitioning from the live export trade to domestic processing of animalsGet that? They recognise that there are strong economic, job and animal welfare reasons for TRANSITIONING FROM LIVE EXPORT TO CHILLED.
WA Labor is anti live trade, just like Julia Gillard and Federal Labor was when they introduced the atrocious Live Export Ban.
They say there's strong economic reasons yet cannot and refuse to say how WA can slaughter & process an additional 2 MILLION SHEEP and sell them overseas as chilled. No mention how this is logistically possible when there isn't enough abattoirs, equipment, processing plants, staff and other supporting infrastructure to process an additional 2 million head of sheep (in WA alone) and 1.3 million head of cattle.
No economic case, strong or otherwise...just a vague hollow sentiment to placate the green leaning rusted on Labor voters.
Who pays to build all the new abattoirs, pays for the extra staff that don't currently exist or where the chilled carcases are processed, chilled and stored. Who pays?
No surprise there is no economic case at all because it would have to set out how its going to provide primary producers with the same farmgate price or better and how it will be a similar cost or cheaper for overseas buyers and how it actually is handled properly overseas.
DO NOT BE FOOLED, WA LABOR USE THE WORD "TRANSITION" - THEY'RE TRYING TO BAN THE LIVE EXPORT TRADE, NOT COMPLIMENT IT, NOT ADD EXTRA OPTIONS FOR PRODUCERS. THEY'RE PLANNING TO HALT THE LIVE EXPORT TRADE.
They have made absolutely no mention whatsoever about the successful export of many millions of sheep & cattle that have fully met the ESCAS arrangements. None, not one word. Despite the Live Trade have in excess of 97% ESCAS compliance, better than here with the road rules, illicit drugs or many other day to day facts.
WA LABOR = ANTI LIVE EXPORT.
Now when you look at WA Labor's integrity on the matter, look at the current smokescreen from one Labor stalwart who needs to defend Labor's indefensible position to keep his $156,000 salary intact.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)