Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Graham Clune on September 29, 2012 at 2:50pm

 

"....When will they learn that this type of response will ONLY HARM the Industry and force a continually escallating spiral into future oblivion in the name of Political Expediency...."

 

They will NEVER learn, they already know the damage that it is/will be doing and they dont care.....they will continue to increase lease costs and run everyone off of the land....then happily turn them into more "National Parks"

"They" being the Govt. of the day.....whatever their political color....."They" are more interested in who will win the AFL final then doing ANYTHING to sustain the growth of the country.....

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Barbara lee on September 29, 2012 at 4:59pm

 Hello everyone. Well was just wonderful seeing pastoral land on our travels.  We need to look after this industry as we depend upon dairy to keep us going.  The work that goes on each day is none stop and enormous.  Early morning rising and late nights, no week ends off.  All the time planning ahead, which paddock grazing needs to be and what their feeding on, and having the paddock planted with the right food.  So I would image there would be a lot of shifting into different paddocks taking place come sun or rain still needs  to be done regardless.  I have to take my hat off to them. The supermarkets are ripping them off I feel.  Without these farmers we just simply wouldn't have milk cheese or meat.  And what do they get in return a roar deal for all their toil.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Barbara lee on September 29, 2012 at 5:19pm

I was amazed at seeing in the out back, bramer cattle grazing anywhere and everywhere, no troubles at all. And normal cattle just every now and then, the story goes to do with their upper lip so I was told. They get to many prickles stuck up there and so stop eating normal cattle do.  So they cross bred the bramer with normal cattle to be able survive that sort of terrain in the out back.  Saw heaps of bramers just on the side of the road munching away.  Did see some normal cattle, so don't know if their is any truth in the mouth thing with all the prickles getting up under the top lip.  But found it be interesting.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rob Moore on September 30, 2012 at 12:06pm

Timely Posting Dale as by co-incidence Rob Wass posted a discussion on the state of play in NSW.

The fine print when separated by the spin seems to be all that counts.

        See here-

 

  http://unitedstockowners.com.au/nsw-native-vegetation-regulation-re...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Roger Rankin Crook on September 30, 2012 at 12:41pm

Two of Australia's biggest pastoralists have lost a landmark three-year fight for dramatic increases imposed on pastoral leases across the country's north to be reduced.

Paul Holmes a Court said rents on three of his Kimberley cattle stations had quadrupled after the State Government's standard five-year review in 2009.

He believed the Valuer-General had greatly overvalued the land.

He and the Kidman family, who run several stations across the Top End, claimed the methodology applied by the Valuer-General to determine lease rents was inconsistent and resulted in exorbitant pastoral leases in northern Australia.

The State Administration Tribunal rejected the challenge in what was a test case for other pastoralists across the State's north, whose leases increased by an average of 334 per cent three years ago.

"We're obviously disappointed," Mr Holmes a Court said. "We were asking that our rents should double and that that would be a reasonable adjustment.

"The Valuer-General was just doing their job which then leads us to conclude that if our pastoral leases are madness and are a nonsense - which they are - then responsibility must lie with somebody else, being the Government.

"We had to go down this very expensive route and got no result."

The hearing had previously been told stations in the Northern Territory paid far lower rents than those in the Kimberley.

Pastoral lease assessment in WA was reached according to unimproved capital values of the land, unlike in the NT.

Pastoralists and Graziers Association of WA president Rob Gillam said the tribunal result highlighted the need for legislative changes to alter the way rents were assessed.

He said the increase was costing many pastoralists tens of thousands of dollars each year and believed the State should be divided into five different assessment zones.

"The next appraisal of rents is due for July 1, 2014 and I believe there is time for legislation to be considered and introduced," Mr Gillam said.

"We're not denying the need for there to be increases at times but they need to be within the range of business increases that people can accommodate."

Just in case you think the east is a special case.

R

(source Google search, extract from The West, no copyright details on site)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alyn Roule on September 30, 2012 at 12:52pm

Thankyou RRC = I just learned something today.

Also have formed a question = Does the Valuer General get influenced by the Treasury Dept. ??

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Roger Rankin Crook on September 30, 2012 at 12:59pm

Going back my days as Dep Pres of a country Shire Council, and having some contact with the val gen due to the urban sprawl from Geraldton and the demand for small acreage 'hobby' farms (which were already surveyed and in place but part of larger holdings) I would say no.

But then again who knows?

On reflection, I would say, no.

R

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Graham Clune on September 30, 2012 at 3:25pm

Thanks Dale. I sat up late last night and read thru ALL of the submissions. It will be interesting to see the outcome.

Dale Stiller said:

[Click here] to go the web site for the inquiry. You can read the terms of reference, view the submissions & see when the interim & final reports are due.

If you read the submissions you can see the fundamental differences of ideologies to the approach to ownership, management & use of land by the various organisations that made submissions.

PRA sent in a submission & Joanne Rea was invited to speak at the inquiry hearing.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joanne Rea on October 1, 2012 at 4:16pm

Sterling effort Graham.

You will have noticed the differences between what the agricultural industries and the environmental industries were asking for.

The environmentalists of course want more regulation of farming and no expedition of freeholding. Fairly predictable.

What I cannot fathom though is why WWF weighed in on reccommending full commercial rental to alleviate the state's debt problem.

Economic factors usually play no part in the reasoning of green groups. Why a change of tack this time?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Graham Clune on October 1, 2012 at 5:33pm

Hi Joanna,

 

I had a free night and I do tend to speed read at times but I did actually go thru the whole 103? submissions and your are spot on about the differences which was going to happen. Security of tenure via more freeholding at the right price of course is what is needed and the enviros will never want that. Or even longer term secure leases at affordable rates. Can they not see that you cant raise the rent of land 100/200/300% and expect businsses to survive when income does not increase expedentially big word that one :-))  

Yr right about the WWF also and I even went back and read it over (slowly) in case my speed reading had gone off the dial. Still may read it again and take it in again with a fresh mind.  

 

Now if they did the review based on "numbers" the "ayes" would have it..there were more submissions requesting security of tenure and reasonale costs than them other "nays".....

Joanne Rea said:

Sterling effort Graham.

You will have noticed the differences between what the agricultural industries and the environmental industries were asking for.

The environmentalists of course want more regulation of farming and no expedition of freeholding. Fairly predictable.

What I cannot fathom though is why WWF weighed in on reccommending full commercial rental to alleviate the state's debt problem.

Economic factors usually play no part in the reasoning of green groups. Why a change of tack this time?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joanne Rea on October 1, 2012 at 5:53pm

Graham

The environmentalists do not care about people going broke as long as their ideology prevails.

We could make a long list here on JG amongst all members of businesses that have totally failed as a result of their actions and an even longer one of those whose profitability has been severely reduced.

If you read the WWF submission again, bear in mind that WWF through their beef project officer is trying to take a softly, softly approach to the cattle industry and trying to foster trust and the end to the "us v Them attitude" in order to gain acceptance of the WWF's Roundtable for Sustainable Beef. I don't think the attitude of WWF elsewhere is helping his cause.

This is a link to a speech by Senator Ron Boswell recently about WWF certification programs.

 http://qcl.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/agribusiness-and-ge... 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alyn Roule on February 27, 2013 at 5:52pm

the NFF joins the FFN today

See = http://www.queenslandcountrylife.com.au/news/nationalrural/agribusi... 

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page