A RUINOUS GRAIN TRADING DEBACLE AND DUTY OF CARE

by Patrick O'Shea
The vexing question for grain growers regarding the "duty of care" in grain trading has now come to the fore. This is about how grain trading is supposed to work. At this very moment there are thousands of grain growers throughout Australia trapped with grain trade contracts that have gone horribly wrong.

The first question that must be asked is: Is there such a thing as "duty of care" at all in the business world today? For instance, when a farmer signs a contract to sell grain and a trader arranges a sale - the trader considers he has now done his part. But is it as simple as that when so much can happen from that moment on?

The very complexity of this entire proposition needs explaining and the naïve sellers are certainly entering dangerous territory they do not adequately understand. Gambling with their crops is another way of looking at it - if there are not strict rules to follow and adhere to with what is referred to as 'washing out'.

The single desk pooling system allowed to be dismantled:
The vulnerable, individual farmer - and this means a great percentage of them at this time - is raw and new to this 'forward selling' stunt. He has been thrown to the wolves because the single desk pooling-system, which he understood, was allowed to be dismantled. The farmer is now told: you are a grain trader now as well as a grain grower. Those who tell him this know full well that the average farmer is as green as grass in this grain trading business. Futures trading and currency fluctuations can quickly distort the 'bottom line', as can the supply and demand factor along with big-fund speculators.

Things can start going the wrong way in a very short time for the grain-growing-now-trader farmer. In such circumstances, a farmer would need access to a 'red alert' warning every day to enable him to successfully negotiate the hurdles and monitor his position for his own benefit. The farmer entered into 'forward selling' believing he was protecting his next year's income (a type of 'insurance'). Some 'forward sold' their anticipated crop even before the seed was sown.

Trading rules run somewhat along these lines:
If the 'futures' price goes up the farmer becomes exposed and vulnerable - if the 'futures' price goes down he could sell the contract and make a financial profit. This is a simple explanation, but that's about what happens. But how can the individual farmer keep a tab on all this daily cut and thrust in the grain-trading markets of the world without a mechanism to interpret the actual bottom line in dollars and cents, for him?

§ Crops can suddenly fail on the other side of the world.
§ Miscalculations on the hectares planted in some land the farmer has hardly heard spoken of - causing buyers to panic.
§ Some trading organisations can issue very 'sloppy' information around too.
§ Big-fund speculators often move in and 'stir the pot'.

But, we are told, this is merely 'market forces' at work. Last August farmers saw grain trade prices go up to unprecedented levels in a very short time. Almost overnight prices went from roughly US$4.00 a bushel to US$9.70. Such words of 'advice' from traders as the following went out to the farmers: "This price is above the ten-year average," etc. Some banks actually encouraged contracts to be made to guarantee the grain price, confident farmers would be able to service their loans with the banks. The facts are, the grain traders could not care less just what their client's position is, they simply claim "a contract is a contract is a contract".

Suddenly drought conditions brought farmers to their knees:
Suddenly, because of looming crop failures with the prolonged drought conditions, growers who had contracted out significant tonnages, found themselves facing horrendous financial liabilities ranging from $150,000-$200,000 to $400,000-$500,000 when they tried to 'wash out' their contracts. What it meant was the farmers would not be able to physically deliver the tonnages to which they were contracted. A termination of a contract is called 'a washout'. The contract is terminated when one or other of the party cannot fulfil their part of the agreement.
A case could be made that the prices then claimed by the traders were somewhat fanciful. One distressed grower insisted the claimed price was not that of the prices being paid at actual physical sales at that very time. But questions need to be asked:

§ Where was the concern from the Grain Traders for their clients' predicament then? There was none.
§ What did the banks think about their clients' escalating exposure? Nothing.
§ The banks simply offered to meet the new debt with further loans and were in denial of any responsibility for advice given beforehand. This is in the face of their chartered responsibility that they must care for their client's position equally to their own.

It could be said 'duty of care' is but a one-way street - for the Grain Traders and the Banks. Not only did the farmer have to face the 'washout' of his contract but additional fees over and above his contract suddenly materialised.

We either come for the grain - or the money:
One trader initially wrote up over 2000 Trade Agreements and when conditions worsened, when 'the balloon went up' a great number of growers did not exit quickly enough. Some were now facing near total crop failure.
Of the top 17% of Trade Agreements 17% of growers now owe $99 million as their short-fall and buyout cost. This is a devastating figure for those growers dealing with just the one trader and there are a dozen such traders now in Australia.
To a man, the traders have said, "we want this money on time and will not give consideration even if the farmers are totally cash-strapped at the moment. We either come for the grain or the money."

Is there another way for the future selling of our grain? Can the traders and the banks be made accountable under a "duty of care"?
Duty of care simply means that a trader or a bank must have the same concern for their client's position as for their own. A lot of squeals will go up in denial. But they haven't got a choice because if a breach of duty of care is established, a liability which can then be examined and tested: what was the cause of the breach, what was the standard of care? Strict liability will eventually prevail. No farmer enters a trade agreement to lose money. A mechanism must be put in place that allows a farmer to monitor his exact position daily, using a stop loss order or the like. But his actual, his daily position must be available to him. Modern technology is there to do this for him, along with a manageable washout fee that is not onerous.

What can Australian grain growers expect at Federal Government level? Only silence I am afraid - and continued nonsense.
The Coalition intimated support for single desk marketing of wheat but with unrealistic conditions.

Senator Kerry O'Brien Shadow Minister for Agriculture has stated that the Labor Party has a plan regarding single desk and export arrangements having multiple traders. Now that is an inspired idea isn't it? He is not going to listen to farmers' arguments whom overwhelmingly wanted to retain the single desk pooling system. But, he said his party has a better plan which they will bring in if elected on the 24th November.

And what about the Coalition?
The Cole Inquiry has been and gone exposing the 'kick-back' scandal which - amazingly - no one knew about and but a few wrists have been slapped. Farmers and the Australian public in general are still waiting for someone to be earnestly questioned and responsibility and blame placed - but not till after the federal elections, if then.

But then according to the economic rationalist no one will be blamed because 'free' trade must rule - so the graffiti on the 'free trade' says. It should have dawned on the farmers of this nation by now: the single desk marketing system has been destroyed as has been the objective all along. Why? To pander to the free trade protagonists of a one world corporate plan.

One last word:
Duty of care goes right up the chain even to those 'elected representatives' who are elected to look after their constituencies.

HOARSE COMMENTARY

from Lynn Stanfield
We simply had to publish the following. We badly need to have a laugh, because if we didn't laugh we would cry at what has happened to our wonderful Commonwealth of Australia.

Welcome Punters, to the running of the 2007 federal cup.
The weather is awful, track is rough and there is not much hope for a fair or dinkum outcome. However, we have endeavoured, over the past three years, to keep you up to speed with the animals we think are the only ones worth talking about. We've given you every detail, no matter how trivial, in an effort to help you pick the winner we wanted you to have.

Wearing the red colours with the purple and white V is Labor, riding "Krudd", a fresh young stud from the breeding stalls of Bankers and Toilers. Krudd was trained in international circles of fine china and high living.

Wearing the blue shirt and cap with brown markings is Little Johnny Libnat on "Hope out of Turmoil". Hope out of Turmoil is from the well known stables of Bankers and Law.
Little Johnny has been weighing in a bit light lately as well as fighting with his fellow jockeys and is carrying additional weight in his bulging saddle bags, the contents of which, he has been handing out around the track in hopes it would make him favourite again.
Little Johnny was also trained in international circles of fine china and high living. So this year's race is very close; too close to call really.

But we have told you about both of them, over and over and over, so you should have no trouble picking our winner.

As they approach the barrier, we notice other starters are moving in to take their places in the stalls. Barrier position one, closest to the rails has been drawn by some CEC bloke; I can't quite see who has drawn other barriers; looks like Independent colours there; but no matter, we'll continue to cover the movements of our favourites Krudd and Hope out of Turmoil, those others are just to make up the numbers anyway.

They're Racing:------------ and the first to jump is Krudd, closely followed by Midnight Oil and Slick Jenny. Around the first turn with a thousand to go and it's still Krudd from Coward, sorry, Hope out of Turmoil.

Hope out of Turmoil is trying very hard to out-pace Krudd; Little Johnny is distributing as much weight from his bags as possible; hang on, that's money he's throwing --- c'mon Johnny, c'mon. By crikey, he just might make it.

At the half-way now and it's still Krudd by a neck. Midnight Oil has stumbled a couple more times; Rabbit has made some slow moves which he is sorry for and Lab, on Krudd, keeps shouting "Me too -- me too -- We'll match you anytime -- me too!"

Still not sure who those other contenders are; some appear to be making a nuisance of themselves; should be more restrictive rules on such entrants I reckon; don't know anything about them.

Into the home stretch and the punters are sluggish. More weight from Little Johnny's bag. More "Me too" from Lab; and now it's starting to get nasty, whips are drawn, the Jockeys are beating each other severely about the person, oh, I cannot imagine such a dirty, meaningless effort from these two, oh!, oh!, oh!

And there goes the winner ----------------------------- Beatle Bomb! (Good one Lynn!)

OUR SOLDIERS' PROUD HISTORY - PALESTINE'S SAD ONE

by Betty Luks
Those who have studied the history of the origins of the modern State of Israel and followed the horrible experiences of the Palestinians over the last fifty years, may have some trouble in raising the same enthusiasm as Professor David Flint of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy for the "The Re-enactment" of the 1917 Australian light-horsemen's role in ending the Ottoman Empire's control over that portion of the Middle East.
Please don't get me wrong, I do my best to distinguish between the courage and bravery of our men and women in theatres of war - there at the behest of our political and military leaders - and the hidden agendas of the ruling elite of the time.

After fifty years of following the situation Jewish-American author Alfred Lilienthal recently wrote:
"Fifty years have come and gone since the first publication of "What Price Israel?" in 1953. I was 39 then, and now I am 89. The long sad story over this half-century has been one of conflict, aggression, terror, war, occupation, resistance, and so-called peace processes guaranteed to fail over and over again.
I have seen it all-and yet I have hoped that somehow I would live long enough to finally see a just peace and true independence for the Palestinian Arab people.
Zionism has often been innocently defined as a movement to provide a homeland and refuge for Jews in need of safety in the land where their ancestors lived in ancient times. That definition only sounds good until we realize that almost a million Palestinian Arabs already living there had to be displaced and made homeless in the process.
Incredibly, even today so many years later, many Americans and others worldwide still believe that it was "a land without a people for a people without a land." It was not!…"

On 31 October, The Australian carried the story of "seventy Australians, including several descendants of the Australian light horsemen, wearing uniforms of the time, with emu plumes in their slouch hats, armed with Lee Enfield 303 rifles and led by the Flag of the Commonwealth of Australia, who rode proudly into the centre of Beersheva (formerly Beersheba) to a rapturous welcome from hundreds of Israeli children waving the Star of David along with Australian flags."

Under the overall command of British Field Marshal Allenby, the plan was to break the Turkish line of defence which came up from Beersheba and the Australian 4th Light Horse Brigade was finally chosen to mount the attack. According to Marin Chulov, in The Australian: "Beersheva in 2007 embraced the visiting Australians and the legend of their ancestors remains very much alive here. He says the rapport the light-horsemen struck up with the children of Beersheba will be marked by the unveiling of a life-sized bust of a Digger on horseback, to be erected at the new Park of the Australian Soldier. This is a $3 million project funded by that great Australian, Richard Pratt."

They'll need to be quick
They might need to be quick-smart about it. If Graeme Samuel of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission gets his way, Richard Pratt could be serving a goal sentence for his criminal price-fixing activities by the time the unveiling takes place.

I wonder…do Australians still refer to Alan Bond as 'a great Australian' or a former corporate criminal? (See next article)

BUTTONING UP AND BEATING PRATT

by Peter Ewer
What did I miss? Richard Pratt, Jewish, and the third richest man in Australia, was as far as I know, a supporter of the usual globalist package of big immigration (you are right Peter, this gentleman wants to see a population of 50 million in this country…ed) near open borders and free trade. Nothing unusual about that. But now "buttoned up and beaten" (The Australian 17/10/07 p.1)

Pratt was fined $36 million for price-fixing and illegal market sharing. Price fixing and market sharing are economic no-no's - the equivalent of plagiarism in academia. Academics guilty of plagiarism are often fired. The equivalent punishment for the largest price-fixing scam in Australian history should be gaol.

A fine of $36 million is not enough: Pratt donated over $14 million to charities and other causes in 2006. A fine of $36 million is just a slap on the wrist for this billionaire.

CARTELS ARE THEFT - USUALLY BY WELL-DRESSED THIEVES

Lo and behold Mr. Graeme Samuel of the "Australian Competition and Consumer Commmission chairman (ACCC) has called for just that - goal terms to be imposed on executives who engage in cartel activities, The Australian, 2 November 2007.

Mr Samuel's comment came just hours after billionaire Richard Pratt, and his Visy group of companies, were fined a record $36 million for a price-fixing deal with arch-rival Amcor. He called for Australian law to fall in line with other jurisdictions by imposing criminal sanctions that include goal terms for executives who engage in cartel activities. He also thought that nothing concentrates the mind of an executive contemplating creating or participating in a cartel more than the prospect of a criminal conviction and a stretch in goal.

Mr Samuel refused to comment directly on whether he thought Mr Pratt, or any of the Visy executives, should have been been sent to prison, as no criminal sanctions currently existed. But he did describe the penalties handed out as a "highwater mark" in the enforcement of competition law in Australia.

The competition watchdog boss said the impact on the economy of a cartel, such as the Visy-Amcor deal, would have been immense: "Anyone who has in the past, bought a chocolate bar, or a piece of fruit originally packed in a box, made by Visy or Amcor has probably been ripped off," Mr Samuel said."

THE CHAMELEON CROWN

comment from Phillip Benwell
Claims in Anne Twomey's book have been the catalyst for heated discussions between folk interested and concerned about our Constitutional Monarchy and the push for a republic. Phillip Benwell, National Chairman of the Australian Monarchist League wrote to one of our supporters in response to Twomey's claims:

"The Twomey arguments that the Australian States were British colonial dependencies until the 1986 passage of the Australia Act and that, until that time, the United Kingdom government advised the Crown on the States' matters. It is a fallacy that, simply because the Colonial Acts had not been repealed following Federation, somehow the British Government retained control over the Governance of Australia. This is the height of absurdity. On Federation the Commonwealth of Australia and each of the Colonies became totally independent of Britain and subservient only to their electors.

It is true that until the Australia Acts of 1986, such instruments as the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865, remained, but this was at the behest of the States who preferred to retain direct contact with Britain as they felt that that process gave them a measure of independence from the Federal Government. As did eventually occur in 1986, the States could have rescinded the application to them of any Colonial law.

The period up until the Imperial Conferences on the 1920's and the resultant Statute of Westminster 1931, was a time of learning and adjustment. The Statute itself came into being only because the then Dominions and particularly Australia, refused to accept the continuing involvement of the British Government in their affairs. No new laws had previously been passed so there was nothing to prevent such a Statute being enacted at a much earlier date. It was not because the Dominion Governments preferred in the main to continue on much as they had before independence. It was their decision, not that of the King.

Similar arguments apply to the Appeals to the Privy Council and to Imperial Honours. It was the decision of Australians to retain these links and it was the decision of Australians to sever these links.
Republicans may argue otherwise, but, as far as the people are concerned, they care not who had what power in years past. What matters to them is the situation in 2007 and in a few weeks, 2008.
The fact is that, since 1901, Australians have, through their elected Governments, been free to do as they wish. If this were not so, how else could, in 1999, the people themselves have decided on whether or not to retain The Queen and the system of Constitutional Monarchy?"

Our writer James Reed wrote in his review of Twomey's book: "
The Chameleon Crown" is a scholarly text which makes use of previously unpublished documents to show that the Australian States were British colonial dependencies until the 1986 passage of the Australia Act. Until that time, the United Kingdom government advised the Crown on the States' matters.

The book contains interesting material, but has a republican slant, that this advisory role was somehow bad. On the contrary, in my opinion, it resisted the slide to centralism. Republicans, of course, are Canberra centralists, and an Australian republic will ultimately see the elimination of the States.

"The Chameleon Crown" is for advanced readers, but is worth dipping into as its material will be used against us by republicans. Price: $60.00 posted from all Heritage Book Services and Veritas Pub.(W.A.).