A viable future for King Island

ABC pic of the abattoir

The Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association was deeply disappointed by JBS Australia’s decision to close its King Island meat processing facility. Though the rationale was perhaps understandable from a business viewpoint, it came as a surprise to those farmers who supplied the plant.

Unfortunately, this decision is just another blow to hardworking farmers on King Island following hard on the heels of the recent changes in the way the King Island dairy (owned by Lion Nathan) does business.

JBS has been very supportive of our farmers on the island and we trust that continues, even though they are going to have to shift cattle off the island for processing. Our farmers are obviously conscious of the King Island brand, especially for beef. We hope that measures can be put in place to enable the brand to survive.

The bottom line is that it is tough for farmers at the moment. As well as the usual risks of weather, farmers across the country are battling the impacts of the high Aussie dollar, the fickleness of overseas markets; low cost imports flooding into the country; the pressures of the retail duopoly at home; and the increased risk (and, in some cases, the reality) of pest and disease incursions.

There’s an added degree of difficulty for farmers here in Tasmania, though, because the costs of production here are higher than anywhere else in the country. For farmers on King Island, this is becoming almost the perfect storm – when you are doing business on an island off an island off an island, costs are bound to be magnified.

The lesson of the King Island abattoir is that both state and federal governments have to act immediately to address the costs that are crippling farmers in this state. Freight and power are the two big items here – but there are other complicating issues too.

The federal government must be forced to address the issues of freight equalisation that are crippling not only producers from King Island, but businesses across the state. The whole point of the freight equalisation scheme seems to have been lost. This is not a handout that can be ignored or even withdrawn at a political whim. It was introduced more than thirty years ago in recognition of the fact that we are the only state without a national road link. That has not changed – there is still no road link to the mainland. Worse still, the situation has been exacerbated by the loss of shipping services and reduction in air access to international markets, the ever-increasing costs of fuel, and the unfair and discriminatory burden created by the fact the carbon tax applies to shipping diesel but not road diesel. No attempts have been made to ensure there is logic in the scheme’s application or even to keep it current in terms of costs. This is simply not good enough. No weasel words or paltry handouts will disguise the fact that we have been shabbily treated in this instance. It is time all our federal representatives stepped up to the plate and delivered a better outcome for Tasmanians.

Both governments need to reduce the red and green tape that has made doing business in this state so costly when compared to our competitors on the mainland. We have to stop the expectation that Tasmanian farmers can bear the cost of ever-increasing social expectations without any increase in their return – whether this be the mainlander view of Tasmania being the ‘national park’ for Australia, or the state government’s headlong push to make us the first to embrace costly trends ahead of any market preparedness to pay.

Both governments also need to address the increasing uncertainties created by sovereign risk. They need to deliver an environment in which businesses can have confidence that, if they operate within existing rules and regulations, they will not be blown out of the water by the stroke of a ministerial pen.

The state government must also commit urgently to work with the King Island community and affected industries to reappraise the island’s economic direction and work out how best to secure existing businesses and how to attract new investment.

Both governments say the cost of power is outside their control. Even if we accept that (which many of us don’t) they must recognise the increasing cost burden this places on everyone. This is even worse for farmers, who not only have to deal with spiraling input costs (including power), but also with falling returns at farm gate. If farmers were paid a realistic price for their produce, and if the costs of compliance and red/green tape were reduced, they would be in a better position to deal with some of these externalities. Remember the old saying ‘it is not easy to be green, when you’re in the red’.

If we want to enjoy the quality of life Tasmania has to offer; if we want to move from being a ‘mendicant state’ reliant on handouts; if we want to have a sustainable future for our children and our children’s children, it is time for some tangible action. Without that action, it is very difficult to see a viable future for the King Island. Without that action, it is even difficult to see a viable future for Tasmania as a whole. The time for political brinksmanship, platitudes and words has long passed.

• Richard Colbeck: King Island brand name must be protected

Years of hard work by the King Island Beef Producers group and King Island Brand Management Group must not be lost with the closure of the JBS Swift Abattoir on the island.

That’s according to Senator for Tasmania Richard Colbeck and State deputy opposition leader Jeremy Rockcliff.

“The King Island brand has become one of the best-known quality brands in Australia, and King Islanders are right to want it protected,” Senator Colbeck said.

Senator Colbeck and Mr Rockliff are calling for all products processed off the island and bearing the King Island brand to be subject to a chain-of-custody system.

“We want to see all King Island beef be at least processed in Tasmania and to have a chain of custody system attached to it,” Senator Colbeck said.

Mr Rockcliff said “With the provenance of food becoming even more important in the market today the efficacy of product bearing the brand is vital.

“It will be important in the development and monitoring of the scheme that King Islanders are involved in the development and monitoring.”

It was important the islanders confidence was retained as a part of efforts maintain the King Island brand strength.