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: 2785

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Bro' al,

You may have noticed the section with the figures was in italics and inverted commas, indicating it was copied from an article. Also the figures quoted were CO2 9% and methane 7% = 16% of the total gas, which does fit in with your offering, and allows for the remainder to be of whatever you make it.

Good points Jeff and the best one-

                                              

So Flannery can just shut up.  Methane breaks down vey quickly and is small in volume- white ants are the biggest contributors world wide and whether the cows eat and fart or the termites eat and fart - it is a neutral cycle- hence the boldened writing!

ADVANCED BOVINE ECONOMICS 101
 
SOCIALISM
You have 2 cows.
You give one to your neighbour.
 
COMMUNISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and gives you some milk.
 
TRADITIONAL CAPITALISM
You have two cows.
You sell one and buy a bull.
Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows.
You sell them and retire on the income.
 
AN AMERICAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows.
Later, you hire a consultant to analyse why the cow has dropped dead.
 
A GREEK CORPORATION
You have two cows. You borrow lots of euros to build barns, milking sheds, hay stores, feed sheds, dairies, cold stores, abattoir, cheese unit and packing sheds. You still only have two cows.
 
A CHINESE CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You have 300 people milking them.
You claim that you have full employment, and high bovine productivity.
You arrest the newsman who reported the real situation.
 
AN INDIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You worship them.
 
A BRITISH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
Both are mad.
 
AN AUSTRALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
Business seems pretty good until Gillard imposes a cow fart tax - you go broke along with the rest of the nation.
 
Thanks Roger Crook.

Put this on CCA/MLA  comments blog-

 

I'm with you cactus- we don't need to reinvent the wheel- we just have to protect and improve OUR "bottom line"- not everybody elses.
                 It is very early now but later today I will be contacting the CCA execs with a problem to sort out which will be a real test of their convictions and who they are really batting for. Let me explain-

I have sold almost all my cattle direct for about 25 years now and even though one is continually being wrong footed with shifting goal posts and grids and rules- with the reduced stress(shrink) and saving of agent commission- it is the only way to go for me and my bottom line. My black cattle all get feedlotted and over the yearsI have delivered to most in QLD.
The worlds biggest processor WAS the only one that you got your cattle payweight on a separate cattle weigh bridge after they were unloaded and sorted if need be. This has it;s own set of variables and wild cards but with me delivering in my own truck- I would always leave knowing the delivery weight and no longer owned the cattle!!!!
                       I am due to deliver today but when organising the sale and grid like every other time it was only in the very fine print that I notice that the cattle wont be weighted till tomorrow morning! NEW RULES. Mine loose 6-9% depending on size ,feed quality and  this is a given. The stress of being tossed around on the disgusting roads that we have to navigate for 8 hrs and to get to a strange place with strange tasting water and thousands of other strange animals is going to be added to with this absurd discounting rule! Even with the unloading and weighting -it is usually only a half hour job and I get there at 2pm and it would only take the office girl to tare the truck off. This is what happens everywhere else but recently the  other big player  started the same system.

This is a blatant way of devaluing a price grid by 5% more than what would be considered a normal shrink. Therefore I call on CCA to demand on behalf of TRANSPARENCY<FAIRNESS and common sense( why should I have to drive all night  when you can't see what is going on , extra fatigue more dangerous on the woeful narrow bitumen with crooked truck headlights burning ones eyes out- just to play a stupid game that discounts 5% of what is mine.
                 Also - once the cattle are unloaded -and I have long gone -who knows when they will actually get pay weighted.
This is so important to me that -if unresolved - I would leave the industry than cop these stand over tacktics.

David Inall and Dougal Gordon ceo of Aust Lotfeeders Assoc -I am putting you on notice and will be reporting results here on this navel gazing excersize!

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!

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

REASON TO VOTE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT 5 Replies

Started by Nicholas N Chin in Activism. Last reply by Geoff Hutchesson 35 minutes ago.

How to bring an Industry to it's knees! 24 Replies

Started by Rob Moore in General. Last reply by Rob Moore 38 minutes ago.

NAPLAN School Education + GONSKI 56 Replies

Started by Alyn Roule in Education. Last reply by Ian Davies 55 minutes ago.

PM and the ALP = Past - Current - Future = 2013 397 Replies

Started by Alyn Roule in General. Last reply by Barbara lee 3 hours ago.

ODDS AND ENDS AND OTHER THINGS 993 Replies

Started by Dr Caroline Wright in General. Last reply by Bob Stewart 3 hours ago.

THE ILLUSION OF THE LEFT - RIGHT PARADIGM 62 Replies

Started by Norm Finkelstein in General. Last reply by Geoff Hutchesson yesterday.

Point of View from SA 245 Replies

Started by Bob Stewart in General. Last reply by Bob Stewart yesterday.

MIGRANTS, ASYLUM-SEEKERS, AND SOCIAL SERVICE BENEFITS (cont.) 1999 Replies

Started by Dr Caroline Wright in Activism. Last reply by Bob Stewart yesterday.

GEO ENGINEERING 19 Replies

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

Fighting the NSW Standard LEP? What if we all joined forces! 26 Replies

Started by Damien Rogers in General. Last reply by Geoff Hutchesson yesterday.

REFUGEE WEEK 2 Replies

Started by Nicholas N Chin in Activism. Last reply by Geoff Hutchesson on Monday.

SMALL FARM PRODUCE 2 Replies

Started by Alyn Roule in General. Last reply by Alyn Roule on Monday.

HOMELESSNESS: THE FORGOTTEN AUSTRALIANS 57 Replies

Started by Dr Caroline Wright in Activism. Last reply by Alyn Roule on Monday.

Grassfed Producers ie Cattle Breeders- Please review this Plan for the future. 22 Replies

Started by Rob Moore in General. Last reply by Alyn Roule on Monday.

TASMANIA AT THE CROSSROADS? 275 Replies

Started by Dr Caroline Wright in General. Last reply by Dr Caroline Wright on Sunday.

Playground, Juke Box and Notepad 1057 Replies

Started by Geoff Hutchesson in Entertainment, Books, Movies, Music. Last reply by Cate Stuart on Sunday.

LEADERSHIP FOLLOWING THE NEXT FEDERAL ELECTION 175 Replies

Started by Dr Caroline Wright in Politics. Last reply by Alyn Roule on Saturday.

Reaping Green Dividends 206 Replies

Started by Jim Fryar in General. Last reply by Dr Caroline Wright on Friday.

EDUCATION 492 Replies

Started by james darby in Politics. Last reply by Dr Caroline Wright on Friday.

Islamia Anyone? 610 Replies

Started by Bob Stewart in Activism. Last reply by Dr Caroline Wright Jun 14.

Blog Posts

Restore Australia petition

Posted by kate wade on April 12, 2013 at 9:12pm — 4 Comments

THE SHEEPLE OF HUMANITY

Posted by Colin Uebergang on March 2, 2013 at 4:36am — 1 Comment

© 2013   Created by Rob Moore.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service