Bulldust.

First I'd like to see where this elusive '10 per cent' of growers statistic comes from.
I live in a wheat growing area and regularly speak to graingrowers. I've seen damn near unanimous support for the single desk.

Ask yourself - why does the National Party support the single desk system so vociferously? If it was only ten per cent of growers, wouldn't that be costing them votes?

The author speaks of the Labor Party being strange on the issue, because it doesn't affect them - it does affect the Nationals however, and they support it.

Secondly - why would overseas rivals be so keen to see the single desk dismantled if they didn't believe it was a threat to their own industries?

Dismantling the single desk would prove to be a boon for Australia's competitors, many of whom subsidise their growers when we do not.

Tell me if i am wrong but was it not the labor government that created the AWB.

With regards to reform do we have to lose all our money with a recession that labor has to have.

And i see that talking about labor and illegal activities with AWB and liberal party, well one can see that the labor party is still carring out illegal activities for instance south australia sentences aboriginal sexual abuse for 8 years but in queensland white mane get 8 weeks for sexual abuse of minor. Church members get 2 years.
Queensland deny justice to aboriginal minor from 15 years ago and kevin rudd and the beattie and goss government labor ministers should be in jail.

You talk about the wheat desk, its about time you slapstick morons spoke to people and not just labor spin doctors.

Another point of interest with labor is "I told you so" about public transport being privatised before the state election now the unions looking after the people no.

Unions only looking after labor.

Stuart Ulrich
Independent Candidate for Charlton

What a spray. I can't remember reading such unadulterated rubbish for years.
I come from a wheat growing family and I have also been a member of wheat selling delegations in the Middle East and Pakistan.
The AWB came under an awful lot of pressure from the Howard Government to hold onto the Iraq market and they responded. Some might say they went over the top.
But how do you think contracts are secured in many parts of the world including in our region?
I absolutely agree with TRTL.
Stick to your research Louise you won't get a job in the real world.
Bruce Haigh

Try 80% of growers per the Age:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/the-pros-and-cons-of-the-single-desk/2006/02/22/1140563859766.html

This gives a decent summary of the pros and cons. Even some of the cons in this article are not correct - eg it is argued that the single desk doesnt reward excellence nor does it punish poor grain. Yet this disregards the fact that growers grain is graded based on protein and foreign matter (weed seeds etc). Prices are set accordingly.

Far from sticking to research, the author should avoid it, as this article is purely an opinion piece with no statistics provided (other than a flawed reference to 10% of growers) and even few substantive claims. Its actually designed as an attack on the Labor party.

As to farmers not deciding a single seat in the coming election - what rot. Farmers alone wont, but the rural communities that rely largely on farming will.

This really is among the most disingenuous articles I've ever read on OLO. Plenty of articles push an ideological wheelbarrow, and that's fine, but this particular piece not only does that, but uses some of the most spurious claims I've ever heard in relation to this issue.
I can't help but doubt Ms Staley's experience in the matter, and her research.

That 10% claim does her credibility a great deal of damage. I've seen many claims regarding the level of support for the rural desk, though that one is way off.
I'd urge Ms Staley to visit some of the rural communities that rely on wheat growing, and perhaps listen to the farmers instead of the few big wheat organisations that would like to go against the majority of smaller operators.

AWB is looking unlikely to be part of a new single desk. WEMA has rejected an AWB proposal to have a de-merged entity of the company handling the single desk model, in favour of a grower-owned and run entity.

This makes sense. Many of the facilities used by wheatgrowers have been provided from levies on graingrowers. The original single desk concept was based around a farmers co-operative, banding together to work toward better export outcomes.
Whilst things such as the AWB scandal and bad business decisions by AWB have reduced profitability, the logic behind a single desk export model having superior negotiating ability on the world stage as well as more clout for its suppliers (who in many cases will be shareholders) is undeniably sound. There's no reason why it can't deliver superior outcomes for growers, which is why overseas competitors are so stridently against it, whilst happily subsidising their growers to the hilt to give them an edge.

Even the single desk model feels like protectionism to economic libertarians who are convinced of the virtues of free market principles. Unfortunately, their logic falls down in the face of overseas subsidies, so I'm of the view we're justified in maintaining a monopoly exporter if competitors are determined to unfairly back their producers from the government purse.

Well said Country Gal and TRTL. Yes, in my moment of steam I should not have urged the author to stick to research, although she has not demonstrated any in relation to this article, which as TRTL has indicated is an insult to the reader.
I hope the author reads these comments and offers an explanation as to motive,lack of fact and lack of analysis.
Bruce Haigh