THREE former CBH chairman, who served in the role for a decade between them prior to current chairman Neil Wandel, have spoken out collectively against the "confusing" corporate myth busting claims made by the co-operative supporters, in the run up to this year's CBH board elections.
Alan Watson, Robert Sewell and Tony Critch, are unambiguously supporting the five candidates running on a commercial platform and expressed disappointed last week at the "Myth Busting the Corporate Claims", coming from the co-operative camp.
The claims were made in support of the three candidates, one in each District, offering 100 per cent support for retention of CBH's co-operative structure.
The "myth busted" claims were; "Growers don't own CBH, the WA Government does; growers don't have equity in CBH; CBH can't access capital; CBH can't grow under its current structure; CBH has been made an offer and is under threat from a hostile takeover; and the Asian flour mills are not profitable".
The claims were made on a flyer distributed during the campaign period and in advertising taken out in the Farm Weekly's February 25 issue.
The former chairmen spoke to Farm Weekly to express their views on the myth busting claims, saying they were false and misleading and had also generated unnecessary confusion during the most critical election in the company's history.
Mr Critch said the three were, "passionately pro-CBH", and had invested a great deal of time and energy into the company's future.
"The last thing we want is for CBH to fail; claims we are trying to dismantle the company are wrong," he said.
Mr Watson said this election was the first time he could recall where growers had a choice between candidates that supported a clear commercial change to CBH's structure and those that proposed its retention as a co-operative.
"I think it's a statement of fact that growers have clear choice," he said.
Mr Watson said he had no financial incentive for endorsing the corporate candidates.
"I have not grown grain for eight years, so by the time any shares are issued, I will get nothing or peanuts," he said.
"There's nothing in it for me other than the fact I don't want to see the company go backwards.
"CBH has had a wonderful structure in the regulated environment but the co-operative structure is not the optimum structure for the deregulated environment for the company going forward.
"I'm not saying the co-operative structure won't work; I'm just saying growers will get the best out of a corporate structure."
Mr Critch said he had "no doubt" CBH rivals were looking at making an investment in the WA supply chain.
He said this election's outcome would either encourage or stall investors' desires, to build alternative grain storage facilities and export options in WA.
"If the co-operative guys have their day at this election and enough of their candidates get up, it will trigger investment from CBH's competitors," Mr Critch said.
"However, the opposite will happen if they see CBH gather commercial strength and direction.
"If commercial directors are appointed, the less likely these competitors will be to make a start on entering the supply chain, cherry picking it and taking a nibble here and there.
"If CBH gather more commercial strength, and flexibility, they won't rush into it."
In respect to growers having equity in CBH, Mr Critch said the reality was growers only had a $2 share.
"Equity is a non-issue really," he said.
"You only need to look at the CBH annual report, where shareholder equity is listed on the balance sheet.
"It clearly states that value according to the number of growers and if there's 4500 growers today, then the annual report will list equity as $9000 because each grower has a $2 share."
Email a friend