News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 General 
 Why a fertiliser monopoly exists 

Why a fertiliser monopoly exists

10 Dec, 2008 10:49 AM
There are plenty of reasons to believe a monopoly exists in the Australian fertiliser industry, a report into pricing and supply arrangements has revealed, accusing it of being "a law unto itself" in the setting of fertiliser prices.

A special Senate committee investigating price rises in the Australian and global fertiliser market has released a draft report highlighting preliminary evidence which points to monopoly and anti-competitive behaviour in the market.

It said market domination, by Incitec Pivot in particular, was compromising serious competition.

The committee, headed up by Liberal Senator Bill Heffernan, won't release its final report until June next year.

But the draft says the committee noted recent mergers and acquisitions in the industry which it believes have resulted in "an increase in market concentration and a lessening of competition".

"The committee considers that the market dominance of large players in the fertiliser industry seriously compromises effective competition in the industry," the report says.

"This in turn has implications for the pricing of fertiliser products in this country.

"The committee believes that an effective monopoly may exist in relation to the fertiliser industry in Australia – with the market dominance of Incitec Pivot in eastern and southern states and CSBP in Western Australia.

"The committee considers that the fertiliser industry operates in a distorted market not governed by the usual supply and demand factors and is, to a large extent, a law unto itself in the setting of fertiliser prices."

The report cites numerous examples of alleged abuses of market power, including difficulties for smaller companies to access port warehousing facilities for imported fertiliser products.

* More in this week's Rural Press weekly agricultural newspapers.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size


comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
My question is - What is the point of the ACCC who found no problem with this industry? These people should be shut down, what a waste of taxpayers money. Good on you Bill Heffernan, please push on and get to the bottom of this, and prove that it is what most suspected all along.
Posted by Narele, 10/12/2008 8:55:47 AM
Once upon a time thieves and robbers were sent to gaol, today they direct public companies.
Posted by Ken, 10/12/2008 9:22:42 AM
originally growers owned the Co-op which "worked" for the growers. Now it's owned by shareholders, with growers paying the ultimate penalty. Now we are seeing the same happen in a deregulated grains industry!!! And why is the dairy industry blooming?
Posted by H, 10/12/2008 12:29:56 PM
I read the report and it is pathetic. It is unprofessional and just "he said", "she said". No facts or figures. The simple analysis is to report what other fertiliser comsumers are paying in other importing countires and compare to what Australian farming fertiliser consumers are paying.

As I understand it Malaysian palm oil urea consumers are paying 30% less that Australian importers.

Posted by terry, 10/12/2008 3:19:21 PM
Bill Heffernan would easily find reds under the beds. And even if Incitec Pivot became a monopoly, they cannot be broken up or compelled to drop prices by government order. The fertilizer trade is not a natural monopoly, unlike Telstra land lines. In response to similar articles, farmers wrote that they have imported fertilizer themselves and saved a motza. Purchasing coops importing their own are the appropriate answer, not feelgood Senate inquiries.
Posted by not surprised, 10/12/2008 3:50:14 PM
As farmers come to realise that it is biology that drives the soil and plant production system and not NPK, they will make the switch to biological farming and give consumers value for money in food nutrition. Besides, biological farming has far less input costs than chemical farming and higher revenue returns for farmers. Also, biological farming is not owned by large corporations.
Posted by Mangiri, 11/12/2008 8:50:37 AM

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
POLL
Q: Should the Nationals split from the Coalition?

Yes
(48.8%)

No
(47%)

Undecided
(4.1%)

Total Votes: 606
Poll Date: 07 December, 2008

Most popular articles

SPRAY AWARDS NEWS MREC



Stock & Land







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...