The Problem with Livestock Breeder Representation in Australia

A recent push by Cattle Council of Australia (CCA) for extra funding, due to declining State Farm Organisation (SFO), membership has prompted this blog.

Since 1997 we have had the current Government monopoly in Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA) and CCA etc.

 Livestock producers have funded increased levies (what some refer to as compulsory unionism) , however their returns have remained almost stagnant since the 1980's.

The trickle down effect to producers, when meat prices increase are reaped by those in the supply chain above the producer.

As a result livestock producers are rightly concerned that a grab for some of the money by Cattle Council  is an expectation that we should be forced to help them now that times are tougher, and farmers have lost the confidence of SFO's and CCA in looking after their "interests"

The problem for most livestock producers is they no longer see SFO/CCA as supporting them. Some SFO's have been accused of getting into bed with government to the detriment of farmers e.g. agreeing the natural resource management legislation, accepting funds in relation to leasehold property etc. It would appear that SFO's will continue to decline because they aren't seen as farmer orientated.

The problem with CCA is that they are not a grass roots livestock producer organisation and get involved in meat marketing, trace back, NLIS etc and as a result many livestock breeders are not interested in financially "propping them up"

This results from what CCA are seen to be actually involved in, and where all the costs associated with their activities end up, that is back on the livestock breedere.g.NLIS, LPA and increased transaction levies.

Comments by Cattle Council members indicate that they are confused about whom they represent and what they should be doing, examples from the dialogue on farmonline blogs include:-

a) " I would suggest that stakeholders would include the State Farming Organisations who have funded been the "owners" of CCA since its inception."

NB Not Livestock breeders, CCA's starting fund and reserve are from historical cattle levies.

b) " who then goes into bat for the Australian industry when there is an Ecoli outbreak in Nth America, when steel shot appears in beef products in Asia, when Russians want to renegotiate the price of beef?"

Logically cattle means living beast, but they see their role as looking after what are really meat processing  problems. Where was CCA when the indonesian market was closed by our Governemnt? ( I know the answer )

What is also unusual in CCA discussion paper is the following statement:"

"It is important to provide an “opt out” option as producers must not be forced to pay for national representation (compulsory unionism). Producers must also take on the responsibility of actually joining the national representative organisation as a ‘member’ before they can vote or stand for direct election."

Two points come to mind:-

1) MLA transaction levies etc in effect is already compulsory unionism, but worse because levy payers have to register to vote.

2) Producers must join the proposed organisation even though the current system cannot recognise who paid levies, and how much they paid. That means the system is still open to the current rorts where individuals/companies just claim their right whether it is correct or a blatant lie.

Logically livestock breeders would voluntarily join an organisation that was seen to support their interests. The decline of SFO's is just the chickens coming home to roost.

My questions to you are:-1) Do livestock producers want a representative organisation that is not a government department and represents their interests instead of the current system where transaction levy benefits flow to processors and supermarkets, instead of livestock producers whom paid the levy in the first place?

                                     2) Is the current structure a dinosaur needing drastic evolution?

                                      3) Who actually represents the livestock breeder now?

THE ACT-

PRIMARY INDUSTRIES (EXCISE) LEVIES ACT 1999 - SCHEDULE 3

Cattle transactions

   

   

1   Definitions

                   In this Schedule:

"bobby calf" means a bovine animal (other than a buffalo or a head of lot-fed cattle):

                     (a)  which has been slaughtered and the dressed weight of whose carcase did not or does not exceed 40 kg; or

                     (b)  which has not been slaughtered but which, at the time of the leviable transaction or other dealing, had or has a liveweight that did not or does not exceed 80 kg; or

                     (c)  which has not been slaughtered or had its liveweight determined at the time of the leviable transaction or other dealing but which, in the opinion of the intermediary, would, if slaughtered at that time, have constituted or constitute a carcase whose dressed weight would not have exceeded or would not exceed 40 kg.

"cattle" means bovine animals other than buffalo.

"dairy cattle" means cattle that are, or, unless exported from Australia, would be likely to be, held on licensed dairy premises for a purpose related to commercial milk production, including, but without limiting the generality of the above, bulls, calves and replacement heifers.

"industry marketing body" has the same meaning as in Part 3 of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997 .

"industry research body" has the same meaning as in Part 3 of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997 .

"leviable bobby calf" means a bobby calf to which subclause 6(4) does not apply.

"licensed dairy farmer" means the person having day to day control of licensed dairy premises.

"licensed dairy premises" means premises that, under a law of the State or Territory in which the premises are situated, are authorised for use as a dairy farm.

"lot-fed cattle" means cattle that are, or are likely to be, used in the production of grain-fed beef.

2   Intermediary

                   A reference in this Schedule to the intermediary is a reference to the person required, under the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act 1991 , to pay to the Commonwealth, on behalf of the producer, an amount equal to the amount of levy imposed by this Schedule.

3   Determining the weight of a carcase

                   For the purposes of this Schedule, in determining the weight of a carcase immediately after it has been dressed, no adjustment of that weight is to be made on account of shrinkage.

4   Related companies

                   For the purposes of this Schedule, the question whether companies were or are related to each other is to be determined in the same manner as the question whether 2 corporations are related to each other is determined under the Corporations Act 2001 .

5   Imposition of levy

             (1)  Levy is imposed on:

                     (a)  each transaction entered into after the commencement of this Schedule by which the ownership of cattle is transferred from one person to another; or

                     (b)  the delivery, after the commencement of this Schedule, of cattle to a processor otherwise than because of a sale to the processor; or

                     (c)  the slaughter by a processor, after the commencement of this Schedule, of cattle purchased by the processor and held for a period of more than 60 days after the day of the purchase and before the day of the slaughter; or

                     (d)  the slaughter by a processor, after the commencement of this Schedule, of cattle in respect of which levy imposed by this Schedule would not be payable under paragraph (a), (b) or (c).

             (2)  Levy is not imposed by this Schedule:

                     (a)  on the sale of dairy cattle for dairying purposes; or

                     (b)  on the sale of cattle at auction to the vendor; or

                     (c)  on the sale or delivery of cattle between related companies, unless the company buying or taking delivery was or is a processor; or

                     (d)  on the delivery of cattle to a processor for slaughter on behalf of the person delivering the cattle if:

                              (i)  the delivery occurs within 14 days after the cattle were or are acquired by that person; and

                             (ii)  the cattle are afterwards slaughtered; and

                            (iii)  the person continues to own the cattle immediately after their hot carcase weight, within the meaning of Schedule 1, is determined or is taken, for the purposes of that Schedule, to have been determined, as the case requires; or

                     (e)  on the sale or delivery of cattle to a processor, if the cattle are not, at the time of the sale or delivery, fit for human consumption, under any applicable law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory; or

                      (f)  in circumstances where the ownership of the cattle changed or changes:

                              (i)  as a result of a sale or transfer ordered by a court in proceedings under the Family Law Act 1975 ; or

                             (ii)  by devolution on the death of the owner of the cattle; or

                            (iii)  on the happening of events referred to in subsection 70-100(1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 ; or

                     (g)  on a leviable bobby calf on which levy imposed by this Schedule, or by the repealed Cattle Transactions Levy Act 1997 , has already been paid; or

                     (h)  in such other circumstances (if any) as are prescribed.

             (3)  For the purposes of paragraph (2)(a), dairy cattle are taken to be sold for dairying purposes if:

                     (a)  both the vendor and the purchaser are licensed dairy farmers; or

                     (b)  either the vendor or the purchaser is a licensed dairy farmer and the cattle are being acquired for inclusion in, or eventual inclusion in, a herd of dairy cattle.

             (4)  If cattle are delivered to a processor, otherwise than because of a sale to the processor, for fattening or agistment for a period before slaughter by the processor, the cattle:

                     (a)  are taken not to have been delivered to the processor for the purposes of paragraph (1)(b) unless they are slaughtered at the end of that period; and

                     (b)  if they are slaughtered at the end of that period, are taken to have been delivered to the processor immediately before their slaughter.

6   Rate of levy

             (1)  The rate of levy imposed by this Schedule on each head of cattle (other than a head of lot-fed cattle or a leviable bobby calf) is the sum of the following amounts:

                     (a)  $2.16 or, if another amount (not exceeding $6.50) is prescribed by the regulations, the other amount;

                     (b)  72 cents or, if another amount (not exceeding $2.00) is prescribed by the regulations, the other amount;

                     (c)  17 cents or, if another amount (not exceeding $4.00) is prescribed by the regulations, the other amount;

                     (d)  13 cents or, if another amount (not exceeding 50 cents) is prescribed by the regulations, the other amount.

Note 1:       Paragraph (a) identifies amounts that, under the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997 , are destined for the industry marketing body.

Note 2:       Paragraph (b) identifies amounts that, under the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997 , are destined for the industry research body.

Note 3:       Paragraph (c) identifies amounts that, under the National Cattle Disease Eradication Account Act 1991 , are destined for the National Cattle Disease Eradication Account.

Note 4:       Paragraph (d) identifies amounts that, under Australian Animal Health Council (Live-stock Industries) Funding Ac... , are destined for the Australian Animal Health Council.

             (2)  The rate of levy imposed by this Schedule on each head of cattle that is a leviable bobby calf is the sum of the following amounts:

                     (a)  48 cents or, if another amount (not exceeding $1.90) is prescribed by the regulations, the other amount;

                     (b)  16 cents or, if another amount (not exceeding 40 cents) is prescribed by the regulations, the other amount;

                     (c)  the prescribed amount (not exceeding 20 cents), if any;

                     (d)  the prescribed amount (not exceeding 50 cents), if any.

Note 1:       Paragraph (a) identifies amounts that, under the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997 , are destined for the industry marketing body.

Note 2:       Paragraph (b) identifies amounts that, under the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997 , are destined for the industry research body.

Note 3:       Paragraph (c) identifies amounts that, under the National Cattle Disease Eradication Account Act 1991 , are destined for the National Cattle Disease Eradication Account.

Note 4:       Paragraph (d) identifies amounts that, under the Australian Animal Health Council (Live-stock Industries) Funding Ac... , are destined for the Australian Animal Health Council.

             (3)  The rate of levy imposed by this Schedule on each head of lot-fed cattle is the sum of the following amounts:

                     (a)  $2.16 or, if another amount (not exceeding $6.50) is prescribed by the regulations, the other amount;

                     (b)  72 cents or, if another amount (not exceeding $2.00) is prescribed by the regulations, the other amount;

                     (c)  17 cents or, if another amount (not exceeding $4.00) is prescribed by the regulations, the other amount;

                     (d)  13 cents or, if another amount (not exceeding 50 cents) is prescribed by the regulations, the other amount.

Note 1:       Paragraph (a) identifies amounts that, under the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997 , are destined for the industry marketing body.

Note 2:       Paragraph (b) identifies amounts that, under the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997 , are destined for the industry research body.

Note 3:       Paragraph (c) identifies amounts that, under the National Cattle Disease Eradication Account Act 1991 , are destined for the National Cattle Disease Eradication Account.

Note 4:       Paragraph (d) identifies amounts that, under the Australian Animal Health Council (Live-stock Industries) Funding Ac... , are destined for the Australian Animal Health Council.

             (4)  For the purposes of subclause (1), a cow with a calf at foot are together taken to constitute a single head of cattle.

7   Who pays the levy

             (1)  Levy imposed by this Schedule on a transaction by paragraph 5(1)(a) of this Schedule is payable by the person who owned the cattle immediately before the transaction was entered into.

             (2)  Levy imposed by this Schedule on a delivery of cattle by paragraph 5(1)(b) of this Schedule is payable by the person who owned the cattle immediately before the delivery.

             (3)  Levy imposed by this Schedule on the slaughter of cattle by paragraph 5(1)(c) or 5(1)(d) of this Schedule is payable by the person who owned the cattle at the time of the slaughter.

8   Regulations

             (1)  The Minister may, by notice in the Gazette, declare a body to be the body whose recommendations about the amount to be prescribed for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a), 6(1)(b), 6(1)(d), 6(2)(a), 6(2)(b), 6(2)(d), 6(3)(a), 6(3)(b) or 6(3)(d) of this Schedule are to be taken into consideration under subclause (2).

             (2)  If a declaration is in force under subclause (1), then, before the Governor-General makes regulations for the purposes of the paragraph to which the declaration relates, the Minister must take into consideration any relevant recommendation made to the Minister by the body specified in the declaration in relation to that paragraph.

9   Transitional--regulations

             (1)  This clause applies to regulations if:

                     (a)  the regulations were made for the purposes of a particular provision of the Cattle Transactions Levy Act 1997 ; and

                     (b)  the regulations were in force immediately before the commencement of this clause.

             (2)  The regulations have effect, after the commencement of this clause, as if they had been made for the purposes of the corresponding provision of this Schedule.

10   Transitional--declarations

             (1)  This clause applies to a declaration if:

                     (a)  the declaration was made for the purposes of a particular provision of the Cattle Transactions Levy Act 1997 ; and

                     (b)  the declaration was in force immediately before the commencement of this clause.

             (2)  The declaration has effect, after the commencement of this clause, as if it had been made for the purposes of the corresponding provision of this Schedule

Views: 3888

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Ian,

    What has actually happened is that Minister Ludwig wants to introduce the Pork Industry model and CCA are meant to be selling this decision. The decision has already been made, consultation be damned!!

    This consultation is a ploy to be able to say that the industry has been consulted.

Cattle producers need to write to the Minister Ludwig and not be dragged into this "fake" consultation process.

    A Mr Ramsey (ex Pork Industry) has been appointed to drive the change required by the Minister.

    I needn't remind anyone about the decimation of producers in the Pork Industry over recent years.


    Everyone please take note of AMLI Act 1997, the Minister has absolute dicretion to direct the "industry"as a result of its Prescription at regulation 7, at s69, 3 (e) any other matter with respect to which the parliament has power to make laws under the Constitution.

 

 

Ian Macrae Yeates said:

 Andrew Ogilvie of the CCA has established a dialogue for Beef 2015 and beyond to be a national strategy. This strategy will direct and mobilise all industry resources and efforts for the next few years and align with the framework provided by the wider Meat Industry Strategic Plan.

http://www.meattradenewsdaily.co.uk/news/200412/australia___beef__a...

 Sam Gunn, cattle producer from central NSW has invited all producers large and small to participate.

Midfield

Australia - Democracy is Dead in the Australian Red Meat Industry

29 Apr 2012

Rumours abound that the Federal Government in Australia may ditch part of the existing red meat structure and adopt the Pork Industry model introduced some years ago.

Livestock producers whom have heard the rumour are alarmed that this could lead to serious reduction business profitability if the recent history in Australian pig and pork production, which for all intents and purposes has been totally melted down, is reproduced in the red meat and cattle production sectors.

Unconfirmed rumours also indicate that personnel, historically from the pig/pork industry, have been appointed by the Agriculture Minister, Senator Joe Ludwig to consult dictate this change to the red meat “industry”. While Meat and livestock Australia have always referred to themselves as livestock and processor directed; the AMLI Act at s69 states the Minister’s absolute discretion to direct MLA, (and the rest of the “nationalised industry”), as a result of its Prescription at regulation 7, at s69, 3(e) any other matter with respect to which the Parliament has power to make laws under the Constitution.

At the same time Cattle Council (CCA) are campaigning for either increased levies or a part of the existing consolidated revenue going to Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA) to be able to better represent their sectarian role in the so-called “Industry”.

If we assume that CCA are aware of the rumoured changes, and want to represent “their” whole of industry better with more taxpayer funds; why would any producer or processor support the extra funds to CCA, if they are privy to the information above and will just sit silently in their current role, and let non-consultative and non-democratic changes be made to the whole of “industry.”

The only solution to the problems of reduced livestock producer returns and the losses being incurred by many northern cattle producers is deregulation and the formation of individual government independent sectors. Allowing CCA to continue with more tax payer funds and no sector accountability or a basic description of their role as either representative of the cattle production sector or as a dim-witted cog in the red meat processing sector is a recipe for a major beef and cattle production sector failure.

Livestock producers must mobilise to increase their sector industry’s democracy now!!

Source: - United Stockowners of Australia

 

 

Dale- the site is being run by the MLA it seems but if you register and log in - this is the link-

http://yoursaybeef2015andbeyond.com.au/topic/australian-beef-expeor...

 

Good find above there Heather!

Posted this on Farmonline this morning-

 

To the CCA operatives and board-I would like to table a meaty issue that you could take up for the good of your "peoples" bottom line!

THAT ALL CATTLE SOLD ON WEIGHT DIRECT TO A FEEDLOT HAVE THE FACILITY TO BE TRUCK TARED OFF ON A REGISTERED WEIGH-BRIDGE@ DELIVERY WITHIN ACCEPTABLE HOURS. THIS BEING THE POINT OF SALE AND PAYWEIGHT.

Unloading and pay weighing the following day is totally unacceptable and seems to be becoming by stealth and dominance over the sellers market position. Here is your chance to show us what your made of- I have elaborated more on your blog site!

Posted by Rob Moore, 25/04/2012 9:43:35 AM

Posted this in the CCA's blog-

 

Hide 1 reply

Sam Gunn Comment 6.1 25 Apr 2012, 7:44 PM

New  Ever heard of Auctions Plus?

Rob Moore Comment 7 28 Apr 2012, 8:48 AM Edit (0m 00s)

Sam,

Yes I have heard of Auctionsplus!

In fact i was in the very first ANGUSPLUS Auction a few years ago with 300 Hiefers and they went very well.

You should know how a feeder grid works....don't you?

Teeth and weight bands -within grades. It is a fair way of adjusting pro rata to give each individual animal a weight hence a price.

The initial delivery weight is (has been till now) the total pay weight and at induction - often one or two days later -each animal is weighted and whatever else they do. The total induction weights are tallied and become a ratio of the pay weight on delivery. This ratio gets multiplied to each indiv weight to give a true ind del-pay weight.

Induction weights are invariably well down on delivery weights.

Since we are supposed to be talking about "Marketing and promotion" am I to take it that something as fundamental and important as this IS NOT something CCA get involved in. Much easier to talk BS@ Beefex about all these abstract fluffy issues and make motherhood statements while pleading for money!!

Thankyou Heather!!

Heather Wallace said:

Home | News Archives | Property Sales | E-Newsletter | Advertise With Us | FAQ | About Us | Links | Contact Us

Midfield

Australia - Democracy is Dead in the Australian Red Meat Industry

29 Apr 2012

Rumours abound that the Federal Government in Australia may ditch part of the existing red meat structure and adopt the Pork Industry model introduced some years ago.

Livestock producers whom have heard the rumour are alarmed that this could lead to serious reduction business profitability if the recent history in Australian pig and pork production, which for all intents and purposes has been totally melted down, is reproduced in the red meat and cattle production sectors.

Unconfirmed rumours also indicate that personnel, historically from the pig/pork industry, have been appointed by the Agriculture Minister, Senator Joe Ludwig to consult dictate this change to the red meat “industry”. While Meat and livestock Australia have always referred to themselves as livestock and processor directed; the AMLI Act at s69 states the Minister’s absolute discretion to direct MLA, (and the rest of the “nationalised industry”), as a result of its Prescription at regulation 7, at s69, 3(e) any other matter with respect to which the Parliament has power to make laws under the Constitution.

At the same time Cattle Council (CCA) are campaigning for either increased levies or a part of the existing consolidated revenue going to Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA) to be able to better represent their sectarian role in the so-called “Industry”.

If we assume that CCA are aware of the rumoured changes, and want to represent “their” whole of industry better with more taxpayer funds; why would any producer or processor support the extra funds to CCA, if they are privy to the information above and will just sit silently in their current role, and let non-consultative and non-democratic changes be made to the whole of “industry.”

The only solution to the problems of reduced livestock producer returns and the losses being incurred by many northern cattle producers is deregulation and the formation of individual government independent sectors. Allowing CCA to continue with more tax payer funds and no sector accountability or a basic description of their role as either representative of the cattle production sector or as a dim-witted cog in the red meat processing sector is a recipe for a major beef and cattle production sector failure.

Livestock producers must mobilise to increase their sector industry’s democracy now!!

Source: - United Stockowners of Australia

 

 

and another!

 

I supported the United Beef Group's attempt to get some change for the better- Went to the Armidale meeting that Alan Jones mc'ed and later- emailed a few ideas in before their Rocky meeting.

Much to my dismay- there hasn't been a squeak out of them in almost a year. Meanwhile the four of us behind our- no cost soon to be open for members (USA)has the evidence that when finally adressed will bring the whole circus down (Think Nixon and Watergate)Processors sell meat- we sell cattle and we need to band together for our rights to a fair cop of the Retail $

Beefex - ignore this.........!?

Posted by Rob Moore, 29/04/2012 6:32:01 PM

and another!

 

Rob Moore Comment 15 1 May 2012, 7:48 PM Edit (4m 46s)

Sam Gunn- you talk about a "workable solution" - to all this roundtable bs. To have a solution- you have to have a problem!!!???? There are plenty of problems in this industry but this crap isn't one of them. You and MLA have had your "Ausgraze" modules planned and ready for nearly two years now and you thought that you could sneak them in under Swift and Cargills skirts and that no one would notice.

Processors are very good at what they do but have very little in common with producers interests. Everyone accept all the hanger-on appendages to the livestock industry knows that producers are the bottom of the food chain and get shafted everytime. We stick the bulls out and about two and a half years later we may or may not make a small profit. Everyone else can cut and run, play unders and overs,sit it out for awhile etc. Thank goodness we have had three reasonable seasons in a row and weight gain has been making up a bit for the pathetic LW and kill prices. Anything under 2$ per kg is a joke in this day and age and this is the issue at hand-PROFITABILITY not this greenie vego inspired bulls..t that this topic is.

The world is near broke so it is PRICE<PRICE<and PRICE that sells meat. McDonalds take loads of our grinding meat because it is safe, cheap and there is heaps of it. All of this other circus is job creating games that we the "producers" can't afford. The high AUD caused by disgustingly wasteful Govt is cruelling all our returns and to wind up MLA and CCA would be a start to back to basic approach that will be forced on us soon. I have done some detailled research that from Ludwig down through the Levies Collection Unit- cannot dispute after months of silence.

Processors have had huge voting blocks @ our MLA -producer Company business and have pulled through -LPA,NLIS, Levy increases and only very few of the big boys are needed to achieve this. $170 M per year now by 14 years is a huge slush fund for a boys club and a mighty trough to share! I challenge anyone reading this to ask how a processor could pay a transaction Levy if they aren't claiming the grainfed levy out of their own feedlots?? They are all claiming there voting entitlements so they must be paying the LEVY. In the act at section 5(4)b- there is an explicit exemption for them and that makes what they are paying a DONATION that does not give voting entitlements.

Another interesting Q -IF they are really paying this levy is -Where did the 528577 Grainfed Levy Exempt Cattle on the LRS return forms come from in the last 12 months?. Over to you Sam!

and another on the CCA blog-

 

Rob Moore Comment 3 3 May 2012, 7:47 AM Edit (0m 00s)

Good morning Sam-I can see from the little video that you are a keen young fellow with the best of intentions. I used to be like that too but the years and the battles give one a thick skin and a good bs detector on these matters which come down to "reality v perception". I have many opinions and Jed Matz asked me to contribute here. I don't want to dominate with negativity but you would have to conceed that the blog opinion is that CCA is redundent and misguided. I feel it is weak of the staff there to let you carry the can on your own- Where is Inall, McDonnel ,McCamley etc?

This topic-Blue sky Research! -where do I start! We have corrupted science for many many years to come, in this country due to the AGW-CC hoax that has absolutely been debunked and inspite of that we are about to saw our leg off with a carbon Tax. SHAME on AGFORCE, Shame on NFF,-CCA....I have tried relentlessly to get you people to take a stand against this nonsense in the last two or more years. I offered to shout anyone at Agforce -tickets to Lord Monckton's Brisbane talks. Even called in to see who was coming before hand. The flat earth blinkered view forbade anyone coming to get enlightened. No sooner was Rudd PM and he gave MLA $26.8M to look into cattle emmissions. This was extra to their normal running budget of around $170M. Of course they weren't going to say that the cattle emission cycle is neutral -he's your money back- were they! Bribes and cash for comments in the greatest hoax ever to be put over the Aust population and now we have our major Processors with Million $ liabilities and guess who will pay. Well done - thanks for nothing in the representitive stakes.With pathetic judgement like this they couldn't be trusted to run the school tuck shop much less a multi Mill R&D program . What is worse is MLA has Flannery on it's books and he has his bib in the trough on this Target 100 bs - more cattle methane R&D. It is neutral -I can send you two reports for NOTHING.

The meat owners should market and research for themselves and the "Livestock" owners only want to be profitable which are commercial variables and have nothing to do with "ponzi" Carbon Farming Initiatives or cows that dont fart!

just put this on the CCA blog-  


Rob Moore Comment 2 17 May 2012, 7:53 PM Edit (8m 04s)

Baden- you make good points here. I have three in their early 20's and a couple of years ago there were a useful group of back packers and they had a good little group to have a bit of fun in what is an isolated area.

Career path is a bit of a "false hope" term as the work is often character building and difficult. For teen agers and even under 30's - it is often a great experience to get out on a company place for a year. Family places are a bit of a lottery- kids could be treated like family or slaves and all points in between. There was a fightening accident at a place my daughter was working at last year involving a back packer ( she saved the person's life) and there will be a long drawn out blame game which could see the landowners loose everything which would be totally unwarranted.

I undertook to pay mine $1000 per week which tested my capacity but they all earn two to three times that flying about the country as they know how to work. I just get their week off from time to time and my wife and I branded 700 big calves recently and I know that if we didn't have a well developed property and NO Debt- we would be stuffed. This is why I get so irrate at all these experts from MLA and CSIRO and DPI sprouting all the motherhood nonsense which has zero effect on our daily lives if but to choke us down even further. Let us get a consistent $2.50 per kg liveweight for our quality product and all would sort itself out in no time. Come on CCA - push THIS instead of chasing fairies at the bottom of the garden!

just put this on CCA blog

 

G'day there boys on the CCA.
                                                 Just got home after trucking feeder steers to a friendly feedlot and what a joy to tare off the truck and get on my way knowing the average pay weight.   ( 86 milk tooth av 460 odd kg so far out of last years drop)
Jed promised me that he would raise MY BEEF at the next meeting at the end of this month!  That would be soon! This is most important as I can prove beyond doubt that the " weigh next morning cost me $38.50 per head !"

To the CCA operatives and board-I would like to table a meaty issue that you could take up for the good of your "peoples" bottom line!

THAT ALL CATTLE SOLD ON WEIGHT DIRECT TO A FEEDLOT HAVE THE FACILITY TO BE TRUCK TARED OFF ON A REGISTERED WEIGH-BRIDGE@ DELIVERY WITHIN ACCEPTABLE HOURS. THIS BEING THE POINT OF SALE AND PAYWEIGHT.

Unloading and pay weighing the following day is totally unacceptable and seems to be becoming by stealth and dominance over the sellers market position. Here is your chance to show us what your made of!

 

Thanks James @ Beef Central

 

Grainfed levy exemptions under scrutiny

By James Nason23 May 2012

The Federal Government is looking into why cattle transaction levies were exempted on almost a quarter of all grainfed cattle sold in Australia last year.

The investigation by the Levy Revenue Service has been launched in response to a long-running campaign for clarity on the issue by Queensland cattle producer Rob Moore.

Mr Moore said he was advised by the Levy Revenue Service (LRS) earlier this year that a total 2,262,446 grainfed cattle units were transacted in Australia last year.

Of that number, the LRS’s figures showed that the cattle transaction levy was not paid on 528,577 of those units, or about 23 percent of all grainfed cattle sold last year.

The substantial figure has prompted the obvious question – on what grounds did so many cattle receive exemption from the cattle transaction levy?

The short answer seems to be that no one, including the Levy Revenue Service, can provide a simple answer.

Beef Central posed questions to the LRS on the issue earlier this month, but has yet to receive a response.

Australian Lot Feeders Association chief executive officer Dougal Gordon said that both ALFA and the Cattle Council of Australia had also directed similar questions for clarification to the LRS.

Mr Gordon said he understands the LRS has commenced an investigation to determine the underlying reasons for the exemption certificates provided by processors.

Under the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Act 1999 Act, provision is made for vendors or processors to claim exemptions in certain circumstances. To claim an exemption, they must supply an exemption certificate or other proof to support their application with their cattle transaction levy return forms.

Mr Gordon said the current LRS audit process only determined the processors from whom exemption certificates were received, and not the reasons for the exemptions.

It was hoped the investigation would provide clarity as to those reasons, and areas where improvements in the existing auditing system are required.

Rob Moore’s view is that the 528,577 non-levied cattle are explained by processors claiming a levy-exemption for cattle fed in their own feedlots under section 5 (4) of the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Act 1999.

He believes that section effectively classifies processors’ own feedlot cattle in the say way as all other killed cattle, which are exempt from the cattle transaction levy. (Processors pay a red meat processing levy on all cattle they process which goes to the Australian Meat Processing Corporation).

Mr Moore said publicly available information indicated that feedlots directly owned by the four largest processors in Australia – JBS, Teys Cargill, Nippon Meat Packers and Australian Country Choice – have the combined capacity to feed about 750,000 cattle per year.

Based on average feedlot occupancy rates of 62pc in 2012, he estimates that the big four processors would have fed around 465,000 cattle in their own feedlots last year, or 20.5pc of total grainfed units recorded by the LRS last year.

He believes that number goes very close to explaining the 23pc or 528,577 grainfed cattle that did not incur a cattle transaction levy in Australia last year.

“The 2.5pc difference would be for those obscure scenarios such as the very few grainfed cattle that get sold on spec in the saleyards.”

However others point to another clause in the Act which stipulates that the levy is payable by processors when taking delivery of cattle from a related company they own, such as their own feedlot.

The LRS investigation will hopefully provide much needed clarification over what is clearly a grey area, confused by often ambiguously-worded legislation that appears to invite a range of possible interpretations

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Honest Government, Fair Rights to property and compensation, Australia and our people strong and proud, reinstatement of values and respect

Members

Forum

ELECTIONS 2013 447 Replies

Started by Alyn Roule in General. Last reply by Alyn Roule 13 minutes ago.

EVERY PEACE LOVING MUSLIM OR ANY GROUP FOR THAT MATTER MUST SPEAK UP AGAINST THEIR OWN FANATICS? 25 Replies

Started by Nicholas N Chin in Activism. Last reply by Geoff Hutchesson 22 minutes ago.

Playground, Juke Box and Notepad 1786 Replies

Started by Geoff Hutchesson in Entertainment, Books, Movies, Music. Last reply by Dr Caroline Wright 1 hour ago.

Islamia Anyone? 2171 Replies

Started by Bob Stewart in Activism. Last reply by Alyn Roule 5 hours ago.

How to bring an Industry to it's knees! 702 Replies

Started by Rob Moore in General. Last reply by Alyn Roule 5 hours ago.

CHINESE BIGOTRY IN CALIFORNIA TOOK 124 YEARS TO BE RECTIFY? HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE WESTERN AUSTRALIA? 19 Replies

Started by Nicholas N Chin in General. Last reply by dallas spencer 7 hours ago.

LEADERSHIP FOLLOWING THE FEDERAL ELECTION 763 Replies

Started by Dr Caroline Wright in Politics. Last reply by Geoff Hutchesson 16 hours ago.

CLIMATE CHANGE REALITY ?? 383 Replies

Started by Alyn Roule in Climate Change. Last reply by Geoff Hutchesson 16 hours ago.

HEALTH ISSUES, HEALTH CONCERNS, HEALTH ASPECTS AND THE 'FLU SEASON 433 Replies

Started by Dr Caroline Wright in Health. Last reply by Geoff Hutchesson 17 hours ago.

SUPER TRAWLER IN TASMANIA, BAIT FISH AND THE ECOSYSTEM 450 Replies

Started by Dr Caroline Wright in Activism. Last reply by Dr Caroline Wright 19 hours ago.

PALMER UNITED PARTY 318 Replies

Started by Dr Caroline Wright in Politics. Last reply by Dr Caroline Wright 19 hours ago.

OZ LAW 5 Replies

Started by Alyn Roule in Law & Legal. Last reply by Alyn Roule 20 hours ago.

LABOR After Election 2013-14 16 Replies

Started by Alyn Roule in Politics. Last reply by Alyn Roule 21 hours ago.

SENATE VIEWS @ 2014 23 Replies

Started by Alyn Roule in Politics. Last reply by Alyn Roule 21 hours ago.

EDUCATION 707 Replies

Started by james darby in Politics. Last reply by james darby yesterday.

Tony Abbott 10 Replies

Started by Matt Thompson in General. Last reply by Alyn Roule yesterday.

Aussie Muslims support Sharia law: Trad 129 Replies

Started by greg rauchle in Law & Legal. Last reply by Nicholas N Chin yesterday.

BUDGET = 2014 67 Replies

Started by Alyn Roule in Politics. Last reply by Alyn Roule yesterday.

UNITED NATIONS info 100 Replies

Started by Alyn Roule in General. Last reply by Alyn Roule yesterday.

© 2014   Created by Rob Moore.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service