September 10th 2005

  Buy Issue 2715

Articles from this issue:

CANBERRA OBSERVED: The Telstra sale and economic ideology

EDITORIAL: Telstra: a better way forward . . .

SPECIAL FEATURE: The human cost of sexual exploitation (Part 1)

BIOETHICS: Review of cloning and embryo research laws

ECONOMICS: What future for globalism?

PRIMARY INDUSTRY: Pork farmers under attack on two fronts

STRAWS IN THE WIND: Revolting students / Precondition for education / Drugs and Asia / Swallow insult / Waldheimer's disease / Warning shadows

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS: China frustrates Taiwan's bid to play bigger role

TAIWAN: Fostering democracies on the Pacific Rim

VIETNAM: Remembering the battle of Long Tan

CINEMA: Romantic comedy 'Wedding Crashers' lauds boys behaving badly

Competition Policy killing cane-farmers (letter)

Cornelia Rau not Australian (letter)

Elephant in the room (letter)

Profits for the people (letter)

Rights deprivation syndrome (letter)

BOOKS: The Criminalization of Christianity, by Janet L. Folger


Books promotion page

Pork farmers under attack on two fronts

by Patrick J. Byrne

News Weekly, September 10, 2005
Australian pork producers are under attack from the risk of disease-carrying imports and from subsidised imports, writes Pat Byrne.

Australian pork producers have challenged pork imports on both quarantine and probable dumping grounds. In both cases, government agencies have been accused of adopting import-risk methodologies that allow imports to continue.

A Federal Court judge recently described as "bizarre" the methodology used by Biosecurity Australia in recommending pork imports to continue from countries where Post-Weaning Multisystemic Wasting Syndrome has devastated young pig populations.

The judge's ruling, however, is being appealed against by the Federal Government before a full sitting of the Federal Court.

Bizarre report

Now the Productivity Commission has issued an equally "bizarre" report, claiming that pig meat imports from Denmark are not dumped, as they "do not benefit significantly from subsidies".

The report has argued that the subsidies received by Danish farmers is "comparable" to the 3.95 per cent producer-support estimate (PSE) received by Australian farmers. The PSE is an internationally-recognised measure of the percentage of gross farm income that comes from government assistance.

Australian Pork Limited (APL) has accused the Productivity Commission (PC) of conducting what was, at best, "a desk top audit of Danish pork imports". It said the PC conducted no on-the-ground investigations in Denmark, "so it is difficult to see how the PC can arrive at any meaningful conclusions".

In a damning criticism, APL said that "the PC needs to explain why it decided to use a different methodology in analysing the issue of imports and subsidies than that used by the OECD in determining the PSE in Demark, which has resulted in the PC making basic and very serious errors in its analysis". The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is the recognised agency for tracking government assistance to agriculture around the world.

In fact, the PC didn't even offer a figure for what level of subsidies (PSE) the Danish and EU governments offered Danish farmers. The PC report just kept asserting that Danish farmers don't benefit from any significant government subsidies.

In contrast, APL commissioned ITS Global to undertake detailed on-the-ground investigations, which included discussions with Danish industry organisations, commercial parties, government agencies, the OECD and research institutes.

APL's on-the-ground consultancy study found that pork producers in Denmark received the same 23 per cent PSE level of government support as pork producers in other EU countries.

It said: "The PC fails to take into account the fact that EU tariff barriers (a market-support mechanism), ranging from between 21 and 37 per cent inside the quota, and the equivalent to between 64 to 106 per cent outside the quota, have the effect of pushing up pigmeat prices inside the EU.

"The PC also draws the erroneous conclusion that Denmark is a competitive exporter."

APL said that, in making this conclusion, the PC has failed to recognise that Denmark does not export 85 per cent of its production under world market price conditions.

While it exports 85 per cent of total production, in fact only around 18 per cent of those exports are sold under world market price conditions. Nearly 60 per cent of Denmark's "exports" actually go to EU countries (and as such are not truly exports for tariff purposes), where the prices are supported by tariffs of up to 106 per cent. Producers receive no less support in Denmark from the EU tariffs and quotas than any other EU country.

Further, around 23 per cent of Danish exports go to Japan, where the prices are inflated by specific duties which encourage exporters to artificially raise prices. The OECD deliberately excludes Japan's exports from its calculation of the PSE in the EU because of these distorted prices.

"Therefore, the PSE of 23 per cent is entirely consistent with Denmark exporting a marginal proportion of its production under world market conditions (estimated at 15 percent). The PC seems to have failed to recognise this," APL said.

Finally, apart from the benefit of higher prices inside the EU, the biggest Danish pig meat company, Danish Crown, received $30 million directly from the EU in export subsidy and other payments in 2003.

Shifting the goal posts

Australian pork producers are under attack on two key fronts, from disease-carrying imports and from subsidised imports. They have fought back on both fronts, and in each case the relevant government agencies have simply "shifted the goal posts", in a way that favours imports. Bizarre!

The decision of the Federal Government to challenge the Federal Court ruling against disease-carrying imports, and now the appearance of the Productivity Commission's transparently flawed report, will only add fuel to the argument that the Federal Government is bending over backwards to allow pork imports, as an unwritten condition of the US to agreeing to sign the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement.

  • Pat Byrne

Join email list

Join e-newsletter list

Your cart has 0 items

Subscribe to NewsWeekly

Research Papers

Trending articles

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE Memo to Shorten, Wong: LGBTIs don't want it

COVER STORY Shorten takes low road to defeat marriage plebiscite

COVER STORY Bill Shorten imposes his political will on the nation

COVER STORY Reaper mows down first child in the Low Countries

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE Kevin Andrews: defend marriage on principles

CANBERRA OBSERVED Coalition still gridlocked despite foreign success

ENVIRONMENT More pseudo science from climate

News and views from around the world

Menzies, myth and modern Australia (Jonathan Pincus)

China’s utterly disgraceful human-rights record

Japan’s cure for childlessness: a robot (Marcus Roberts)

SOGI laws: a subversive response to a non-existent problem (James Gottry)

Shakespeare, Cervantes and the romance of the real (R.V. Young)

That’s not funny: PC and humour (Anthony Sacramone)

Refugees celebrate capture of terror suspect

The Spectre of soft totalitarianism (Daniel Mahoney)

American dream more dead than you thought (Eric Levitz)

Think the world is overcrowded: These 10 maps show why you’re wrong (Max Galka)

© Copyright 2011
Last Modified:
November 14, 2015, 11:18 am