News 
 National Rural News 
 Livestock 
 Cattle 
 Abattoirs at risk: AMIC 

Abattoirs at risk: AMIC

13 Feb, 2012 12:35 PM
AUSTRALIA’S meat processors say the government can’t decide whether abattoirs are in farming or manufacturing – a quandary that is placing 148,000 Australian jobs at risk.

The Australian Meat Industry Council (AMIC) says unparalleled pressure on Australia’s red meat processing sector is threatening its productive base. It warns that without major change, the industry and its jobs may not exist within 10 years.

Spokesman, Gary Burridge, says Australia’s most efficient meat packing plants will be hit hardest by the coming carbon tax – incurring a penalty of $6 to $8 for every animal processed.

“They do not emit enough carbon to attract the significant financial support that the steel, concrete and similar large scale manufacturing industries have access to,” he said.

“Meat processing is part of agriculture but we are really part of the manufacturing sector as well. We are often forgotten.”

Mr Burridge told a Senate hearing in Sydney that processing meat in Australia costs twice the amount it costs in competitor nations such as the US and Brazil.

The meat industry is a major regional employer. Eighty percent of Australia’s meat processing facilities are located in Local Government areas with a population of less than 50,000 people. “The mining boom is driving higher wage expectations coupled with high levels of employment and labour shortages,” Mr Burridge said. “Running a low margin meat processing business in regional Australia is becoming less viable.”

Labour costs had increased without offsets in productivity. Additional on-costs such as workers compensation and new superannuation contributions had added to the burden.

With more than 70 percent of Australian beef (about 950,000 tonnes) exported into competitive international markets, AMIC says the burden of rising costs is falling onto farmers. “It is producers who will ultimately wear the brunt,” Mr Burridge said.

At the hearing, AMIC presented a list of ten problem areas, in which changes were required to improve the competitiveness of the sector:

  • Rising input costs – raw materials, energy and transport
  • Impact of the carbon tax – which hits hardest in bigger, more efficient works
  • Market access – the failure to secure export opportunities
  • Highe r wage demands due to the mining boom

  • Inefficient taxes including State-based payroll tax

  • Inadequate, inefficient transport infrastructure

  • Exchange rates – the value of the dollar has doubled in 10 years

  • Regulatory costs – eg: increased AQIS charges that do not apply overseas

  • Research and Development costs - low margins limit commercial contributions

  • GST – promised offsets on livestock purchases have not been delivered

    Mr Burridge said payroll tax and other state-based taxes did not apply in overseas facilities, including those receiving and processing sheep and cattle from the Australian live export trade.

    “Live exports to markets like Indonesia and the Middle East are processed in facilities which do not incur such a tax, further destabilising any level playing field between our sectors,” he said.

  • Print
    Increase Text Size
    Decrease Text Size

    comments


    Date: Newest first | Oldest first
    "Producers will have to bear the brunt..".This is the first official confirmation that the processor cartel (essentially 4 corporations)have decided to pass the carbon tax back to cattle producers.
    Posted by john from tamworth, 13/02/2012 2:06:35 PM
    Tamworth? Oh that is Tony Windsor. Suggest you let your local Fed MP know that you are not happy. The whole nasty mess called Fed minority Labor government is coming home to hurt everybody.
    Posted by Shambolic, 13/02/2012 5:52:29 PM
    Why has the NFF and all state Farming so called lobby groups -rolled over and endorsed the farcical "Carbon Farming Initiative" and said nothing about the fraudulent CO2 Tax and the Kyoto scam!

    This is unforgivable and nobody tried harder than me to shame them into action.

    Of course the Processors will pass any new costs down onto our meagre share of the retail $. Why wouldn't they. The realQ for me is how can the CCA,MLA,SFO be so blatantly ineffective when it comes to producers interests?

    WE FUND the BA.Tards with a compulsory levy. Thanks John Andersen( another great NPasset

    Posted by Rob Moore, 13/02/2012 7:16:34 PM
    John from Tamworth – it will be interesting to see how that works given that agriculture is exempt and passing the tax backwards to producers would seem inconsistent with that pretext. I suppose that we will have to wait and see.
    Posted by PAYG, 13/02/2012 8:08:27 PM

    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
    10 February, 2012
    07 February, 2012
    11 February, 2012
    POLL
    Q: Should Cattle Council get a proportion of the $5 transaction levy to boost funding of its operations?

    Yes
    (13.2%)

    No
    (46.8%)

    Only if Cattle Council starts doing more to represent the beef industry
    (31.1%)

    The government should provide additional funding
    (8.9%)

    Total Votes: 447
    Poll Date: 06 February, 2012

    Most popular articles

    Advertisement



    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...