OBSERVATIONS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
PART ONE
CHAPTER 1
Paras. 1.35-1.37
Committee observations
Although agriculture's proportionate contribution to Australia's GNP
and labour force has declined over the years it still makes a very significant
contribution to the national economy, particularly in regional areas, and will continue to
do so.
The Committee accepts that the emphasis on the importance of value-adding
to Australia's agricultural production has possibly been over rated at
times. However, given Australia's level of foreign debt and current account
deficit it is the view of the Committee that Australia must seek out every
opportunity to increase the level and value of its exports. The Committee
agrees with the comment of the South Australian Government that although
Australia is an efficient exporter of bulk agricultural commodities it
must, when the opportunities appear, “shift its agricultural export
profile up the trade spectrum to higher value added products”. [1]Value-adding activities related to agricultural
production must be encouraged at all levels, not just due to resulting
trade and balance of payment benefits but also because of the benefits
to the national economy through increased employment opportunities and
the broadening of our manufacturing base.
The Committee believes that value-adding to our agricultural production
should be viewed as part of an attempt to broaden our manufacturing base.
The Committee acknowledges a magazine article published in July 1991 which
argued that value-adding translates into a “recognition of the need
to change from the traditional production-driven approach of Australian
agriculture to a market-driven system.” [2]
Paras. 1.45-1.47
Committee observations
Despite concerns expressed during the inquiry regarding the
domination of Australia's food and beverage companies by overseas companies the Committee
would be concerned if this development results in a serious lack of competition in the
domestic food market leading to a detrimental affect on consumers or primary producers, or
a loss of access to export markets. During the inquiry the Committee received no concrete
evidence that such consequences have resulted due to the purchase or investment in
Australian food-processing companies by overseas interests.
The Committee accepts that the globalisation of value-added food
industries is likely to continue and that the benefits of such a development have not been
given adequate attention. Foreign ownership of food processing firms in Australia can lead
to:
- the provision of significant financial resources for Australian
operations;
- the opening up new markets for exports; and
- the provision of new technology and skills for the Australian
workforce, resulting in Australian operations becoming more internationally competitive.
The Committee is of the view that the Commonwealth Government should
indicate how it intends to monitor the impact on Australia's food and beverage industries
resulting from foreign ownership.
Paras. 1.60-1.62
Conclusion
The Committee accepts that Australia enjoys a wide variety of
advantages in producing value-added agriculturally based products. However, it is
important that none of these existing advantages be taken for granted. Every effort must
be made to ensure that these advantages are exploited to the greatest extent possible in
order to promote Australia's value-added products.
Australia's relatively clean environment is an advantage that is
difficult to duplicate in most other countries. Unfortunately, it is the most fragile of
the assets Australia has in value-adding and it is therefore imperative that Australian
authorities, industry bodies and individuals make every effort to preserve Australia's
image as a producer of clean food. Once the image of Australia as a producer of such food
from a clean environment is tarnished the image will be very difficult to restore.
As the comments of Mr Radcliffe make clear, Australia is operating
in a competitive environment overseas and it is essential that Australian producers and
manufacturers take nothing for granted in relation to the quality of Australian food
products.
Paras. 1.82-1.83
Committee observation
Food processing industries have been more profitable in using their
assets compared to most other manufacturing sectors. This is despite the fact that real
growth for food manufacturing has been behind that for the manufacturing sector generally.
Food processing industries' profitability has also been assisted in recent years by the
fact its productivity per employee is greater than that found in other areas of
manufacturing.
It is apparent to the Committee that companies involved in food
processing must increase their level of growth to maximise their profitability. For
continued profitability such companies must maintain the relatively high level of
productivity per employee presently existing in the food processing sector.
Paras. 1.99 -1.102
Committee observations and recommendations
Many people are surprised at the level at which Australia imports
highly processed value-added foods and beverages. Despite efforts to replace these imports
with value-added Australian products the Committee expects that the import of highly
processed value-added food products will continue in the future at significant levels.
However, the Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government implement improved
programs, if possible, to counter the dumping onto the Australian market of value-added
food and beverages.
Despite a general view in the community that food products should
not be dumped in Australia by overseas companies to the detriment of Australian producers,
the Committee recommends that anti-dumping regulations should not be used as a sham to
block imports. Nevertheless, the Committee accepts that there are occasions when action
must be taken against deliberately dumped overseas food products so as to protect our own
producers. Action taken must not be in effect a “defacto import restriction”.
Australia has been critical of countries using, for instance, health
or quarantine regulations as a means to block the import of our food products and it would
be improper to use the same types of strategies to restrict foreign food imports into
Australia in order to protect our domestic market from competition.
The issue of the labelling of food products indicating their place
of origin is outside the scope of this inquiry. However, the Committee wishes to express
its view that Australian consumers should have the right to clearly know where value-added
food products they purchase have been manufactured and in which country the bulk produce
used in their manufacture originated. The Committee does therefore support strict truth in
labelling.
Para. 1.109
Committee observations
As noted earlier in the chapter the importance of value-adding may
have been over stated on occasions. However, such activities do make a valuable
contribution, not only to Australia's balance of payments, but also to the national
economy as a whole. Although the Committee accepts that ideally every effort should be
made to support and encourage value-adding activities related to agricultural production
it recognises that resources to support such goals are limited. The Committee is therefore
of the view that careful assessment of industries seeking financial support for their
value-adding activities is necessary based largely upon the results of a cost/benefit
analysis.
PART TWO
CHAPTER 3
Paras. 3.17-3.18
Conclusions
The Committee is of the view that it is unlikely that any
value-adding could be successfully carried out in Australia, and the export of value-added
products take place even with some Government involvement, unless it can stand on its own
feet in the medium and long term. On occasions industry groups probably overestimate the
role that governments can play in smoothing the way for their participation in
value-adding, particularly gaining access to overseas markets. The Committee accepts that
governments should only play a role in creating an environment in which value-adding is
encouraged. However, there may be situations where governments can be more active in
encouraging value-adding enterprises in Australia and promoting Australia's export of
value-added products. Occasions for active involvement in supporting value-adding
activities are discussed later in this chapter. Value- adding is in the national interest
and it is therefore important for all levels of government to encourage and support such
activities.
The dairy industry provides an example of an industry that has
benefited from a reduction in government regulation. The importance of government support
to value-adding activities varies from one industry group to another.
Para. 3.53
Conclusions
Despite some negative comments concerning the performance of
Austrade in supporting value-adding enterprises in overseas markets the organisation, in
the view of the Committee, appears to be performing reasonably well. However, insufficient
evidence was presented during the inquiry to allow the Committee to express a more
detailed view on Austrade's performance.
Para. 3.76
Conclusions
The Committee is in agreement with the view of the Secretary of the
Department of Primary Industries and Energy that essentially the role of government in
respect to building Australia's image as a producer of clean food can be divided into two
roles, namely:
- providing enforcement and validation of standards in relation to the
safety of food, labelling and quarantine issues; and
- the provision of leadership, technical information and funding leading
to the improvement of food safety and quality. [3]
Para. 3.87
Conclusion and recommendations
The Committee is swayed by the arguments presented by the
Ricegrowers' Co-operative to the extent that it believes there is a need for a review of
legislation in relation to co-operatives. The Committee therefore recommends that
Commonwealth authorities, in co-operation with relevant state authorities conduct, a
review of legislation affecting the ability of co-operatives to expand their operations.
It is further recommended that if existing legislation is found to inhibit the ability of
co-operatives to make themselves internationally competitive the relevant legislation be
amended to remove these constraints.
CHAPTER 4
Paras. 4.31-4.32
Conclusions and recommendations
As noted in this chapter there is a wide range of diverse programs
and bodies, both Commonwealth and State, which in whole or in part, support value-adding
to Australia's agricultural production. The Committee is fully in agreement with the views
of the Victorian Government that coordination of policies and programs between the States
and Commonwealth authorities is essential if progress is to be made in the facilitation of
value- adding activities in Australia. The Committee recommends that Commonwealth
authorities ensure that Commonwealth programs are linked with State programs, where
possible. The Committee further recommends that State authorities be involved in the
delivery of Commonwealth programs, if appropriate.
It is appreciated that the existence of a large number of programs
and bodies has caused confusion among companies and individuals seeking support for their
value-adding activities. The Committee, therefore, warmly welcomes the establishment of
the AusIndustry organisation which will provide information on Commonwealth and state
assistance programs dealing with exports. AusIndustry should provide value-adding
enterprises with a one stop facility directing them to the most appropriate body and
program to meet their requirements.
Para. 4.60
Conclusions
The Committee is of the view that research is essential for the
future of value-adding to Australia's agricultural production. The Committee believes that
for research to be as beneficial as possible it should be closely related to particular
agricultural and related industries. As a result of this view the Committee welcomes the
increasing proportion of research being carried out by industries themselves as opposed to
government research, both Commonwealth and State.
Paras. 4.84-4.86
Conclusions and recommendation
The Committee encourages all levels of government to work in a
cooperative manner with industry groups to increase and improve the quality of
value-adding activities in agriculturally based industries.
The Committee appreciates that Commonwealth Government agencies are
involved in many of the suggested shared strategies set out above. However, the Committee
strongly encourages all relevant government authorities to review their involvement in
these activities and ascertain how they can further strengthen their involvement with
industry groups to support value-adding activities.
In relation to supporting the export of value-added products the
Committee sees an important role for the Commonwealth Government, particularly Austrade.
The Committee recommends that Austrade review its programs and activities formulated to
enhance the export of agriculturally based value-added products.
Para. 4.92
Conclusion and recommendation
The Committee is of the view that Agricultural Product Marketing
Units do offer the potential of making significant contributions to the marketing of
agricultural products and at the same time provide marketing skills to students who take
part in the activities of the units. There would be the potential of an overlap in the
activities by the units and other existing research bodies. However, the Committee is
confident that any overlap or conflict between the units and other bodies can be overcome.
Therefore the Committee recommends that as an initial step relevant Commonwealth
authorities consult with State authorities to ascertain how such units could best be
established, define what activities they might most profitably carry out, what their
relationships would be with existing research and marketing bodies and what financial
arrangements could be put in place to support them.
Paras. 4.110-4.112
Conclusions and recommendation
Given the number of programs and bodies that support value-adding
activities, to an extent it is understandable that some individuals and organisations have
been disappointed at times by the way they have been treated when seeking support for
their value-adding activities. It is hoped that the organisation AusIndustry will help to
overcome some of the problems previously faced by these individuals and bodies.
Of concern to the Committee was the claim raised by the West
Australian Government that small companies involved in value-adding were not always
receiving the assistance from Commonwealth authorities that they may be entitled to. The
Committee supports the call by the West Australian Government for an inquiry and
accordingly recommends that appropriate Commonwealth authorities review assistance
provided to small and medium sized companies to ascertain whether Commonwealth programs
are meeting the needs of these value-adding enterprises.
The Committee would like to see economic obstacles to the
establishment and operation of value-adding enterprises moderated or removed. These
restraints include taxation and other structural reforms. The issue of tax in relation to
value-adding activities is complex and well beyond the expertise of the Committee.
Therefore the Committee has chosen not to make a recommendation in relation to the issue
of taxation although it is aware of its economic importance to various sectors involved in
value-adding.
Para. 4.121
Conclusions and recommendations
As noted earlier in the report, the Committee believes that it is
essential for Australia to be flexible in marketing its value-added products overseas and
that on occasion it may be advantageous for Australian companies to enter into agreements
with overseas companies to value-add to Australian bulk or semi-processed agricultural
production overseas. The Committee recommends that two possible strategies be followed:
- Australian primary producers and/or processors take up financial
interests in established overseas companies and then use the resulting influence within
these companies to ensure that Australian bulk or partially value-added agricultural
products are imported by these companies for further processing and sale in the country or
region concerned; or
- In countries where it is permitted, Australian primary producers
and/or processors establish joint venture companies to produce value-added food and
beverages for the local or regional markets. These companies would import Australian raw
agricultural produce or partially value-added agricultural products.
The Committee further recommends that the Commonwealth Government
enter into discussions with relevant industry groups to ascertain the possible viability
of such strategies.
CHAPTER 5
Paras. 5.41-5.46
Conclusions and recommendations
It is evident to the Committee that for regional development to take
place in Australia, including the establishment and profitable operation of value-adding
activities, close cooperation between all levels of government is necessary. The Committee
acknowledges the view of the Victorian Government that Commonwealth programs designed to
support value-adding must be based on a “set of agreed principles”. Following on
from its recommendation in chapter 3 of this report, concerning the need for coordination
between the Commonwealth and State governments regarding value-adding support programs,
the Committee further recommends that:
- Commonwealth authorities closely consult with State and local
authorities concerning the most appropriate form of encouragement that can be provided to
promote regional development and related value-adding activities; and
- whenever possible Commonwealth regional development programs closely
involve both State and local authorities in their implementation.
The Committee accepts that the Rural Development Organisations
provide valuable feedback to the Commonwealth Government on the development needs of
regional areas. State and local government authorities are also involved in these RDOs.
However, the Committee believes there is a need to upgrade and improve coordination
between all levels of government in the promotion of value-adding activities in regional
area. The Committee therefore recommends that the Commonwealth Government consider methods
to improve improving the level of State and local government involvement in RDOs to
improve communication between the three levels of government in relation to regional
development.
The Committee is firmly of the view that without coordination
between the three levels of government, in consultation with relevant industries and local
people, sustainable regional development and related value-adding activities are made more
difficult. Suggested strategies to achieve regional development and value-adding are
complicated without consultation and cooperation between governments and other relevant
groups
The Committee believes regions attempting to increase value-adding
in their own areas can learn from the experiences of other regions. Therefore, the
Committee would encourage all authorities involved in a particular regional development
program to consider consulting with authorities involved in similar development programs
within or outside their own State. Certainly Commonwealth authorities should have an
overview of what is occurring in various projects nationally but the Committee received no
indication during the inquiry that other participants, such as State and local authorities
and industry groups, consult with similar authorities and bodies elsewhere to learn from
their experiences.
The existence of appropriate infrastructure such as roads and rail
lines provide a major attraction for industries to locate in regional areas. Private
companies do not have the resources to construct major infrastructure, only governments
have that ability. Various government bodies, Commonwealth and State are involved in the
construction of infrastructure either alone or cooperatively. The Committee is of the view
that in deciding on the construction or improvement of infrastructure in regional areas
governments must give consideration to how such infrastructure can stimulate, or maintain,
value-adding activities in regional areas.
Adequate financing of value-adding activities is essential for the
establishment of viable value-adding enterprises in regional areas. As noted in chapter 3
of the report there is a wide range of diverse government programs, both Commonwealth and
State that support value-adding activities in Australia, including regional areas. Many of
these programs supply financial support for value-adding enterprises. Although the
additional allocation of funds for regional development, in relation to value-adding,
would no doubt be appreciated by supporters of such development the inquiry received no
detailed evidence that there is an inadequate allocation of money for value-adding in
regional areas.
PART THREE
CHAPTER 6
Paras. 6.12-6.13
Conclusions
It is in the national interest that value-adding activities related
to agricultural production be encouraged at all levels so as to benefit the national
economy. However, the Committee is of the view that industries themselves have to make the
decision as to what extent they can profitably carry out value-adding activities. For
companies to make a correct assessment concerning profitability involved in value-adding
activities they must have access to the most up to date and reliable information
available.
There is no doubt that Australia is one of the most efficient
producers of bulk agricultural produce in the world. The Committee accepts that in some
situations it may be most profitable to export bulk produce with no value-adding component
involved.
Paras. 6.35-6.36
Conclusions
The Committee considers that the use of new technology resulting
from research and development programs will continue to have a significant impact on the
future course and success of value-adding to Australia's agricultural production.
In its attempt to compete in the Australian and international market
place Australian agricultural based industries face intense competition. To gain and
maintain a significant share in these market places Australian value-adding industries
must exploit every resource possible to be competitive. Due to the increasing
liberalisation of world trade, even within Australia, food producers can no longer count
on having a near monopoly on the supply of food, in all its varied forms. Australian
value-adding industries must be competitive in whatever market place they are operating.
To be competitive, primary producers and value-adding enterprises must have access to the
best available research and to the most advanced technology that can be developed or
purchased to exploit the results of this research.
Para. 6.69
Conclusions
The Committee accepts that the concentration of retail and wholesale
market power in the hands of a few large companies has impacted on value-adding food
industries in Australia. However, the Committee accepts that this impact has not always
been negative. The Committee is concerned that the negative effect of large food
retailers, wholesalers and food processors on value-adding activities is moderated, while
not destroying the advantages consumers enjoy from the operation of these large companies.
Paras. 6.80-6.81
Conclusions
The Committee is of the view that there appears to be a lack of
unity of purpose and cooperation within the beef industry which has an impact on
value-adding in the industry and on the marketing of beef and beef products overseas. The
Committee encourages all sectors of the beef industry to improve their level of
communication and cooperation so as to increase the industry's value adding activities.
The Committee appreciates that the Australian beef industry faces
significant difficulties in increasing its share of existing overseas markets, as well as
difficulties in breaking into new markets. Some of these difficulties, such as quotas or
contrived health restrictions, are beyond the control of the Australian beef industry.
However, difficulties the industry makes for itself in dealing with overseas markets, such
as a lack of unity and cooperation in the industry, can be overcome with some effort by
all the parties concerned.
Para. 6.110
Conclusions
As noted earlier in this chapter the Committee accepts that in some
circumstances it may be more profitable for Australian producers and processors to export
bulk produce rather than value-added items. It appears that dried fruits is an excellent
example of an industry where in some circumstances it may be more profitable to export
dried fruits in bulk, allowing packaging, a form of value-adding, to take place overseas.
CHAPTER 7
Paras. 7.30-7.32
Conclusions and recommendation
There was conflicting evidence presented during the inquiry
concerning the level of enthusiasm displayed by Australian food related companies
regarding entry into export markets. However, the Committee is of the view that in recent
years there has been a change in attitude by Australian companies, particularly larger
companies, resulting in a greater willingness to export their value-added products. This
development is welcomed by the Committee.
In chapter 1 of this report the Committee commented that in
principle it is not concerned with foreign ownership of Australia's food and beverage
companies unless such ownership results in a serious lack of competition in the domestic
food market leading to a detrimental affect on consumers or primary producers, or a loss
of access to export markets. However, the Committee would be concerned if multi-national
companies deliberately prevented their Australian subsidiaries from entering export
markets so as to benefit their subsidiaries in other countries or the parent company. Such
a situation would be to the detriment of Australia's value-adding activities and should
not be tolerated by the Australian Government.
No evidence was provided to the Committee that Australian
subsidiaries of foreign companies are being prevented from entering and operating in
export markets. However, the Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government
maintain a watching brief to ensure that foreign owned companies involved in value-adding
in Australia are not restricted in their overseas marketing activities by their overseas
owners. The Australian Government must ensure that the activities of foreign owned
companies in Australia benefit Australian interests and not solely the interest of foreign
owners.
Paras. 7.55-7.60
Conclusions
When looking at the potential of exporting value-added agricultural
products there must be an appreciation that no country wants to import such products if
not absolutely necessary. Countries, if at all possible, want to do their own value-adding
using imported bulk or semi-value added agricultural produce when necessary, so as to
benefit their own economies. Australia wants to do its own value-adding to products
consumed in this country whenever possible and it would be totally illogical to expect
that other countries would not have the same attitude to value-added products sold in
their own countries.
Although tariffs as a tool to curtail the import of value-added
agricultural products may decline in the future as a result of the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade countries may attempt to devise other means to place restrictions on the
import of value-added products.
During the inquiry evidence was presented by diverse bodies noting
the importance of the Asian market to Australia's value-added production. The Committee
accepts that Asia is, and will continue to be, an important market for Australia
agricultural production including, fresh bulk and value-added. However, the Committee is
concerned that too much emphasis may have been placed on the Asian market. It is important
that Australian value-adding enterprises investigate and exploit all potential markets and
opportunities either in Asia, Europe, Africa or the Americas.
In the view of the Committee it is essential that Australia be
flexible in marketing its value-added products overseas.
The Committee supports the views of Mr Denis Gastin that there is a
significant potential market for Australian value-adding agricultural based industries to
produce and export Asian style foods into Asia. It is the hope of the Committee that
relevant Australian producers and manufacturers will investigate the potential of this
particular market.
Australian agricultural producers and processors must be willing to
export bulk or semi-value-added products into any available overseas market when the
situation calls for such a strategy. It may be appropriate for Australian companies to
enter into agreements with overseas companies to carry out value-adding to Australian
produce in overseas locations. Flexibility must be the key for Australian agricultural
producers and processors to exploit any available opportunities in world markets.
Paras. 7.99-7.101
Conclusions
The Committee is of the view that Australia should be aware of the
danger of becoming a dumping ground for polluting industries. As time goes on it is likely
that Australia may be pressured into carrying out increased wool scouring by companies in
countries where this practice has become less acceptable. The Committee sees considerable
advantages for Australia if wool scouring systems can be operated in an environmentally
acceptable manner.
Regrettably the Committee has concluded that Australia may struggle
to become competitive in the weaving of wool and the production of wool garments. It would
appear to be more productive for the industry to concentrate on what it does best, namely
the production of the world's best wool.
As noted earlier the Committee expressed the belief that it is
essential for Australia to be flexible in marketing its value-added products overseas. It
is in line with this belief that the Committee accepts the suggestion, that in relation to
wool, most of the more complex value-adding processes appear to be more competitively
carried out overseas.
Para. 7.120
Conclusions and recommendation
The production of alcohol from sugar appears to the Committee to
offer a significant opportunity for value-adding. The Committee appreciates that the
production of ethanol is a complex operation and that at times its economic and social
benefits have been overestimated. Nevertheless, the Committee is of the view that every
possible encouragement should be given to the production and use of ethanol alcohol. The
Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government give substance to this encouragement
by:
- reviewing, in cooperation with the relevant States and industry
bodies, what actions can be taken to simplify barriers to ethanol production; and
- ascertaining what changes are necessary to overcome problems which
may occur in existing strategies and programs designed to promote ethanol production in
Australia.
Paras. 7.131-133
Conclusions and recommendation
The issue of value-adding in the tobacco industry and any support
that should be provided by governments to this industry is a controversial subject.
Given the health dangers related to tobacco consumption the question
arises whether governments should be encouraging value-adding in this
industry and supporting the export of tobacco overseas where its use may
lead to medical problems in a number of consumers? This is not an easy
question to answer. It is perplexing that Australian governments are financing
campaigns to curtail tobacco consumption in Australia while at the same
time encouraging value-adding in the industry. [4]
The Committee accepts that tobacco use will continue in Australia
and overseas for the foreseeable future and if Australian producers and processors do not
supply tobacco other countries will. Nevertheless, the Committee considers that any
expenditure by governments to support the production of tobacco has the potential of being
viewed as providing a double standard. Given the limited amount of government funds
available to support value-adding in Australia the Committee recommends that no funds or
assistance should be provided to the tobacco industry, except assistance for growers to
leave the industry.
Para. 7.168
Conclusions and recommendation
To meet the increasing competition from the United States and New Zealand
to the export of Australian beef, particularly into Asia, the Committee
is of the view that Australia must concentrate on producing beef through
feedlots to meet market requirements. The Committee accepts that feedlots
provide a significant means of “drought proofing” the beef industry.
[5]
Paras. 7.183-7.184
Conclusions
The Australian dairy industry presents an outstanding example of an
industry that has shown flexibility in adapting to the requirements of overseas markets.
The Committee congratulates the Australian Dairy Corporation on taking the initiative in
acquiring equity in dairy processing plants in Asia in an effort to assure access to these
markets for Australian milk and milk products. This strategy is an example of the
foresight and flexibility necessary to achieve success, or at least the chance of success,
in export markets for Australian value-adding agricultural based industries.
The Committee accepts the view of ABARE that Australia will improve its
access to overseas markets for its dairy products as a result of the implementation
of the Uruguay Round Agreement. It is the conclusion of ABARE, accepted
by the Committee, that Australia will increase its share of world trade
in dairy products due to a lessening of exports from the United States
and Europe. This lessening will result from increased domestic consumption
in these countries along with a reduction in subsidised dairy exports.
[6]
Footnotes
[1] Evidence, South Australian
Government, p. 557.
[2] Nigel Austin, The Growing Revolution,
Bulletin Magazine Vol. 113, 16 July 1991, p. 90.
[3] Mr Greg Taylor, Government-industry
Partnership to Underpin Clean Food Exports, Outlook 96, Vol. 2, Agriculture:
collection of papers delivered at the Outlook 96 Conference held in Canberra 6-8 February
1996, organised by ABARE, p. 118.
[4] See again Evidence, Philip
Morris Ltd., p. 639.
[5] See Kevin Roberts, Producing to Meet
the Market, Outlook 96, Vol. 2, Agriculture: collection of papers delivered at the
Outlook 96 Conference held in Canberra 6-8 February 1996, organised by ABARE, p. 229.
[6] See T. Gleeson and others, Outlook
for the Dairy Industry, Outlook 96, Vol. 2, Agriculture: collection of papers
delivered at the Outlook 96 Conference held in Canberra 6-8 February 1996, organised by
ABARE, p. 262,