Tag Archives: canberra

Defining Rulers

India has several thousand years of history under various ruling regimes, and today is the largest democracy. So not unexpectedly they have identified four kinds of rulers that would be in power any one time in a country’s history. These definitions apply whether the regime is democratic, republic, monarchy, communism or dictatorship.

Leaders: provide vision and cohesion, engage people to realise and share the vision; Intellectuals: have ideas, but unable to translate these and gain wide support; Warriors: Defend what Leaders or Intellectuals have created or overthrow until new rulers energy; Proletariat (the Masses): Mob rule and anarchy. The cycle of such rule can over centuries. The masses do not rule for long.

Under our current system of government small parties are entitled to run in an election without evidence that they have the capacity to represent their members let alone the wider constituency. When small Parties or individuals are in such numbers that they can override the majority in our preferential system, governing for all is not workable. We have seen this happen over the past three years especially and may yet see it again in our House of Review.

It could be a lesson to the major Parties to listen to the concerns of our citizens more and to be seen to be acting accordingly.

It is a lesson to us as citizens, that the rights we enjoy were hard won and it is not what Australia can do for us but what we can do for Australia.

Stop the Sale of Graincorp – it is not in our national interest – please consider the sale of these assets continue to threaten our food security. How can we pay off our national debt if we continue to sell our wealth creating assets?

If you do nothing else this week send two emails before the election to these two politicians.


[email protected]
[email protected]

Spread the word for your friends to do the same. Here are the reasons why.
Whoever is the treasurer next week will have the final say on the sale of this public company to the US owned ADM. The sale has already been approved by the FIRB (all public servants) and the ACCC. Together these organisations have a history of never saying no to foreign takeovers. Every major food commodity except rice is now majority controlled beyond the farm gate by foreign interests.
It is not foreign investment when they buy our assets and our cash flow. It is takeover.
When foreign companies or countries own the assets beyond the farm gate is makes our farmers price takers not price makers. Foreign owned companies do not pay the same taxes as Australian owned businesses – only 10% withholding tax on their declared profits, and borrow off shore at low interest rates which then adds to our national debt.
We do not count the cost of loss to Australian if these assets are owned by private interests or a public company which does not trade here.
Already 20% of our grain exports are owned by Cargill a private US family company that also controls many of our beef exports and the processing infrastructure. Once Australian grain was sold as the best in the world, now it is bundled in so that the foreign owners’ countries give priority to their own.
25% of Graincorp shareholders have said no. ADM needs 51% to buy the company.
If they want to invest then they can buy up to 49% of the shares and keep the company here so Australians have the chance to invest in our own country and companies.
If Australia is to take advantage of the Asian Century then we urgently need to secure the benefits all Australians will derive.

Selling Our Land & Wealth Creating Assets to Foreign Interests & Countries

If anyone can put up a rational case for what is happening in this country and who is really making the decisions, then we would welcome the discussion.

The sale of our wealth creating assets, our land and our businesses continues to be condoned unabated by our decision makers in Canberra. The countries buying our assets do not reciprocate the opportunities even to their own citizens. No one seems prepared to count the long term cost to Australia’s long term security and financial viability when you combine the lenient tax rules for foreign interest to buy our assets and cash flow, and the Australians acting as real estate agents with companies set up to siphon profits off shore.

Again we see a Chinese company not only purchase the farm, it has bought the port facilities that were built using Australian taxpayers money. The Chinese company has been allowed to buy assets giving it a vertically integrated operation from paddock to plate to sell to itself. While over the past few decades we have allowed the control of every major food commodity except rice to be controlled beyond the farm gate by foreign companies. Several of which are privately owned and dominate in more than one commodity sector.

How does it benefit Australia when they own the land, the supply chain and are exporting to themselves?

How does it benefit Australia when Australian governments give foreign interests money to invest here – $450M from WA Government and $174M from the Federal Government to encourage the Chinese to buy the lease for Stage 2 of the Ord – a $600m asset from which they will benefit. Fifty years is a long time in a country’s history.

It has taken Australian over 200 years to build these assets, it will take less than two decades to dismantle our control of these.

In the meantime our farmers are under great financial pressure and our government wants to “lend” them money at variable market interest rates to help them survive the drought.  Is this representing our short and long term interests?

 

Australian Broadcasting Corporation http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2013/s3809433.htm

Broadcast: 23/07/2013

Reporter: Bronwyn Herbert

China’s biggest state-owned agricultural conglomerate has bought farmland and port facilities in Western Australia and the move has sharply divided responses.

Transcript

LEIGH SALES, PRESENTER: It’s an emotive issue across rural Australia. Cashed up foreigners buying land and speeding the demise of the family farm.

In the latest example China’s biggest State owned agricultural conglomerate has for the first time invested in the Australian market, buying up vast tracks of farmland in Western Australia as well as port facilities to ship its grain out of the country.

There’s no doubt foreign capital helps boost economic growth but it’s also breeding resentment, as Bronwyn Herbert reports.

WILL CROZIER, VICSTOCK GLOBAL: Yeah, g’day, mate, it’s Will. Good, really good, thanks. Look, just want to go over that asset register for our eastern property.

BRONWYN HERBERT, REPORTER: Will Crozier has a lot on his mind. The former farmer from Geelong is now an international deal maker in agriculture.

WILL CROZIER: Yeah, fantastic. Ten mills, overnight.

BRONWYN HERBERT: And the purchase of this farm four hours south of Perth is one of the biggest he’s negotiated. It’s part of a $150 million investment by China’s largest agricultural company.

WILL CROZIER: The vision is massive. The development is massive so far and it’s only a start.

BRONWYN HERBERT: Beidahuang lays claim to being the world’s biggest farming operation. It already grows more than 70 million tonnes of grain globally, has a permanent work force of 300,000 people and operates in more than 30 countries. But the purchase of more than 40,000 hectares of farmland in WA’s south is the company’s first foray into Australian agriculture and this is its first crop.

WILL CROZIER: Beidahuang farm all over the world. They’re the biggest farming operation in the world. I think it’s 70 million tonnes of grain annually that they crop. This is the first time that we’ve, that they’ve been introduced to Australia, Australian techniques, Australian technology and Australian climate.

BRONWYN HERBERT: Beidahuang through its new Australian subsidiary Heilongjiang Agriculture, hasn’t just bought the farm. It’s also purchased port facilities at nearby Albany to vertically integrate its operations. This creates its own paddock to plate supply chain from WA to northern China.

MARY NENKE, WEST AUSTRALIAN FARMER: They’re going to be shipping the grain out of Albany. Are they going to be bringing in empty ships or are they going to be filling them with their own machinery, their own fertiliser, their own chemical?

BRONWYN HERBERT: Mary Nenke and her family are fourth generation wheat farmers in southern WA who have also diversified into yabby farming.

MARY NENKE: These are business people, they’re not there for our good, they’re there for their good. In our patch there are people paying up to 17 per cent interest. These people will be, you know, it will be Chinese money, what interest rates will they be paying? When you can’t compete in your own country what next?

WILL CROZIER: There’s nothing to be afraid about. This is simply a new stream of capital coming in to rural Australia.

BRONWYN HERBERT: The Beidahuang deal like the Ord River expansion signed last year with a private Chinese firm are exactly what the WA Premier Colin Barnett and his ministry are promoting.

KEN BASTON, WA AGRICULTURE MINISTER: I believe that that investment, you know, employs people, employs jobs, it has regional development because they’re obviously they’re not city centric, they’re out in the country so regional areas thrive with that capital investment there. And of course what we’re actually doing is we’re supplying the food chain of the world.

BRONWYN HERBERT: Bill Heffernan leads the Senate rural and regional affairs committee which has been investigating whether purchases like these are in the national interest.

BILL HEFFERNAN, LIBERAL SENATOR: It would be a great pity if Australia’s farmers ended up as tenants and tenant farmers and unlike the prospect of capital growth to hand on to the family, only have the job to hand on and I guess there’s a warning there.

BRONWYN HERBERT: At last count around 11 per cent of the nation’s farmland was in foreign hands. But Bill Heffernan says no one really knows what the exact figure is, which is why it’s crucial a foreign land registry is set up.

BILL HEFFERNAN: We need to do that and then we need to model that out for 20 or 30 years given the present law and the present practices and then say to ourselves “is that where we want to be in 20 or 30 years as a nation?” Because it’s my view that under the present arrangements we are redefining sovereignty.

MARY NENKE: The thing is they’re saying it’s good for us. Would it be good if all our suburbs of the city were owned by China and then we were renting back the houses from China? That’s exactly what it is. They’re suggesting, and banks are suggesting this, that it would be better for farmers to sell their land and then rent it back.

BRONWYN HERBERT: For Will Crozier, it’s the way of the future.

WILL CROZIER: Looking at substantial gains, we’re looking at substantial markets coming in here. It’s a great thing for Australia. I’m very, very proud to be a part of it.

LEIGH SALES: Bronwyn Herbert reporting.

What You Can Do as a Concerned Australian!

We urge concerned Australians to talk to those proposing to represent us in the next Government. Ask them:

  1. what priority they give Australia’s long term interest when we have an open door policy to imports which do not meet our standards;
  2.  why do we have a “for sale” sign on our wealth creating assets so foreign countries and companies can buy our land and our businesses;
  3. why our government fund foreign purchases – over $600m to China to lease the Ord Stage Two;
  4. why they allow foreign interests to pay less company tax from the profits they declare (10% withholding tax), after consultancy fees and interest repayment are sent off shore;
  5. why they do not apply the laws we have in place to ensure products do not come here or are removed from sale that do not meet our standards;
  6. why government procurement tends to favour foreign owned business operating here who then do not necessarily source from our businesses and often replace inferior quality;
  7. why products are dumped here and nothing is done;
  8. when will they apply labelling laws which show were products are grown and sourced; where they are made and who really owned the;
  9. why they have not called for an amendment under the WTO to give protection to our key industries and our knowledge base;
  10. why they do not acknowledge the implications of decades of policies based on a false principle that everyone is playing by the same rules. Only Australia does this to our own. All the countries we trade with ignore our intellectual property, do not allow domination of key sectors in the supply chain to dictate prices and profits to their suppliers and import goods to replace their own. Australia cannot take advantage of the Asian century if we do not own our land and our manufacturing.
  11. Sign the AUSBUY petition

We are losing over 200 years knowledge of our land and our capacity for innovation as countries and global companies circle to buy our wealth creating assets. That is why AUSBUY goes to the people. Every $ you spend on Australian owned and made goods and services has a multiplier effect within our economy. $50 a week for every household becomes $50B multiplied in our economy. Sign 

No Money for Food – Where is it Going?

 

According to a journalist who has taken a forensic look at the Budget, the Government will be spending nearly half $B ($464M) in the next six weeks to promote something yet unknown. The inference is to buy votes or promote the NBN. This is either borrowed money or our money, yet we do nothing to plan for the long term future and sustainability of our food processors and farmers.  The Farmer Power Group established recently identified the plight on farms as incomes continue to decline.

 

Concerned people need to understand that food security is an issue of national importance – our farming skills, knowledge of the land, and investment in processing and value adding represent what is left of our manufacturing here in our cities and across regions. Australia has no major food company left relative to global brands. Our open door policies to imports, many of which do not meet our standards, our high dollar and the For Sale on our businesses and land exacerbate the problem. We have been complicit in allowing this to happen through poor policies and failure to plan long term. What we need to see is our Governments represented the long term interests and sustainability of the people they purport to represent. We need to support our owned while we still can.

 

 AUSBUY represents Australian owned companies exclusively and initiated a Food Security group nearly four years ago which identified the lack of research since 1998 to show the impact of policies on farm gate profitability and potential loss of skills. 

 

 Interviews can be arranged Lynne Wilkinson CEO AUSBUY 0294375455 or 0418314923

 

Intent: How to Get What You Wish For

“While intent is the seed of manifestation, action is the water that nourishes the seed. Your actions must reflect your goals in order to achieve true success. INTENT reveals desire; ACTION reveals commitment.”  Steve Maraboli

In our topsy-turvy world it is useful to be reminded how we evaluate the information overload which forms our opinions, and how we as individuals and groups respond to these.

Have you ever experienced the “ah ha!” factor? In recent months there have been several occasions where I have seen both the good and bad in our changing world, and, while not necessarily directly related to business and trade, these helped put into context what ACIL (AUSBUY) does and why we do it and to observe the intent of others. So I invite you to consider what the word “intent” means to you, to determine the “intent” of your own decisions, and observe those given responsibility to make them on our behalf. We appreciate that change happens. We can adapt to it, be part of it and even lead it. However the “intent” of those driving the change needs to be better understood.

Firstly, I was in a meeting where the leaders espoused a particular outcome before a vote that would mean a change in the organisation’s voting rights, and give a greater voice to its members. Robust discussion ensued from representatives both for and against change before a wide audience and those entitled to vote. Representatives of the non- voters, were seated separately. While the leaders espoused the same intent to change the rules to allow a plebiscite, the approach taken in the meeting to achieve the result did not reference their shared intent – a stronger, engaged organisation. In discussions both sides showed aggression. The only way was their way. Points of law and a limited time frame distracted and even confused the worthy adjudicator and the people asked to vote.

“The most important distinction between aggression and assertion is the intention. During assertion, we move ourselves toward another; during aggression, we move ourselves against another.” Georgia Lanoil

The end result was when voting took place – you guessed it – no change. Better the devil you know rather than something new. What got in the way of achieving the shared values and outcome? The intent was honourable, but the actions by some parties on both sides much less so. There was little time for “reason” and questions about the consequences of the proposed changes, although much had been written and distributed to the voters. There was no time given to make people accountable for their positions or vested interests. Innuendo is not a good basis for decisions. And this was a meeting of highly educated people. It would appear wisdom cannot be assumed or translated in a group where vested interests have louder voices.

“A fraudulent intent, however carefully concealed at the outset, will generally, in the end, betray itself”. Titus Livius

The second “ah ha!” was when AUSBUY took a petition to Canberra for the last sitting week of Parliament in late 2012. Eight politicians from both Houses and all Parties supported the petition asking for a moratorium on the sale of our wealth creating assets and our land until we have a national interest test. In a year where confrontation and discord seemed to be the order of the day, this was an issue which united these political representatives to stand beside us. What has happened in the subsequent period is that the issue of the “national interest” is talked about without discussion or reference, while back room deals are done to sell off our wealth creating assets for the short term fix. Organisations representing Australian owned interests are rarely invited to the table. However it says a lot about the politicians who supported AUSBUY and does give some hope that their “intent” is in our interests.

The third “ah ha!” occasion was orchestrated by a recent AUSBUY Corporate Member, Aussie Farmers Direct, at the opening of their new distribution facility in Melbourne. The “intent” of the function reflected the principles of the business. State and Federal representatives attended, indigenous Australians performed welcome to country, and local school children sang the national anthem. Suppliers and franchisees were integral to the team effort. While these activities might be “must haves” for local businesses, the “intent” to engage with and empower people is evident in the way in which the business was established, and is lead and structured. This is a business with a long term plan based on engagement, shared values, creating an environment for people to operate at their best and giving back.

AUSBUY recently launched a Builders and Makers Campaign where the key issues that they share no matter what the industry are: long term plan; short term adaptation to market conditions; innovation; product or service integrity, value their people and manage them accordingly, perseverance and resilience; reinvestment here. Their “intent” gives meaning to what they do and is reflected in the integrity and quality of goods and services that they produce.

While we see change all around us and much of it is taken out of our control, we can assert our intentions and lead the change rather than be caught in the maelstrom. It is about empowerment and choice. Our future should be in our hands.

“We call an intention good which is right in itself, but the action is good, not because it contains within it some good, but because it issues from a good intention.” Peter Abelard