Water buy up not what it appears
SOME CLARITY: Canadian interests are not selling Australian water and forcing up the price, but in fact growing crops and adding to our nation's productivity.
News that a Canadian government superannuation fund will be the largest corporate owner of water in Australia will send the uninformed into a spin.
Particularly social media, which has been the playground of those claiming we have sold out to the Chinese, and even media personality Eddie McGuire.
To this has been the allegation that outside forces are manipulating the current very high prices of water.
Now, we hear that sections of this burgeoning conglomerate have been in the current market buying water.
So no they are not selling water forcing up the price, but in fact growing crops and adding to productivity of the nation.
And yes, we have to ask the question as to why our Australian superannuation funds are not investing in agriculture, but prefer to seek solace in parking money off-shore.
Many times, our funds have admitted that the return from agriculture is too thin and they lack expertise.
And what a load of claptrap is that. They control billions and they screech ethics pillorying the fossil fuel sector a very factor that provides a base of employment for many their super contributors.
We cannot bleat about overseas ownership if the Australian market and individuals are not prepared to stump up financing and involvement.
Australia needs more of that involvement in agriculture, similar to that of VicSuper that has bought up thousands of hectares of some badly salt-degraded country between Kerang and Swan Hill.
Using the expertise of management company Kilter, this land now grows thousand and thousands of tonnes of tomatoes and other irrigated produce and fibre from cotton used as a break crop.
In a highly competitive market, Kilter analyses which crop gives the best return.
This expertise is available to all superannuation funds, but they are not flexible or nationalist enough to seek it out.
However, be sure that overseas-based superannuation funds are not here to be benevolent and promote the long-term future of sustainable Australian agriculture. They are here to provide income for their funds.
BIG NUMBERS
No-one should wallow in the misfortune of others, however the reported facts around the demise of a Wagga-based cattle breeding enterprise has uncovered a wide range of claims that in due course will require substantiating.
It is claimed that the basis of the business is a herd of 1654 females that are covered by a stock mortgage of approximately $2145 per head.
We could argue all day about the value of stud and commercial cows, but the level of that debt does not leave a great space for equity.
The total raw debt on a per cow basis is $70,000.
What has also ably been demonstrated is the burden of conducting a registered cattle breeding operation with a debt of $15,000 to a breed society.
Is this scenario another case of reckless spending by banks and a lack of due diligence.