It's a shame that the Australian government doesn't protect Australian farmers and manufacturers.

China protects it's car industry by having high tariffs on imported cars. All imported cars are very expensive in China because the government wants Chinese people to buy Chinese made cars.

In Japan the Japanese rice costs $32.35 for 5kg (expensive for sure). Australian rice in Japan costs $33 for 5kg because it has high tax to protect the Japanese Farmers.

In Europe most governments subsidizes their farmers' incomes so they can earn a good income regardless of the value of the crop at that time (from Encyclopedia of the Nations and the Parliamentary Assemble Council of Europe). Have you noticed very cheap canned tomatoes from Italy? The Australia does not subsidize its farmers' income like the EU does.

We think it's a great shame that the Australian government doesn't support Australian manufacturing. We have the second highest minimum wage in the world. It is expensive for companies to manufacture here and compete on a global stage when employment costs and taxes are so high.

Import Tarrifs have been abolished, so imports are often cheaper than Australian products because the cost of making products outside Australia is cheaper than within Australia. If the Australian government supported its own industries we would not have manufacturers continually closing down. Other countries protect their industries, why shouldn't we?

The cheap imports might seem great now, but when Australians don't have jobs and more people are on the dole, will our taxes increase to support unemployment costs? What will Australians do if we import everything? We can not all work in the mines and in tourism.

Why Are Some Imports So Cheap?

Products imported from countries such as Thailand, Taiwan, Pakistan, and China are often very cheap because labor costs are low in those countries.

In China, the minimum wage can be as little as $0.68 international dollars per hour (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage_law#People.27s_Republic_of_China),

Australia has the third highest minimum wage in the world (according to Wikipedia) at $15 per hour. Only Luxemburg and The Netherlands have minimum wages at $20,197 and $19,203 respectively.

So in China the minimum wage is $0.45 per hour but in Australia the minimum wage is $15 per hour. Of course it is difficult for Australian companies to compete with cheap imports. We need to protect our industries in Australia or we will lose them. We will lose our skills and manufacturing plants. We can not all be involved with exporting coal! But we do need Australian to have jobs. We should be able to make our own food.

When it comes to wages The World is not a level playing field so ˇ "free trade" or cheap imports competing with Australian products is not fair. Australian companies must pay Australians more than all other countries in the world (except 2) so of course our products will cost more. Other countries protect their industries, employers, employees, farmers and investors.

Why can't the Australian government protect Australian industries, employers, employees, farmers and investors?

HELPING AUSTRALIA

WHY DO WE SUPPORT AUSTRALIAN COMPANIES 

 Australian companies:

    * Pay higher taxes in Australia than multinational companies.

    * Keep profits in Australia .

    * Are more likely to manufacture in Australia .

    * Are more likely to use Australian produce from Australian farmers.

    * Employ Australians.

You can choose to make a difference too !!!! All products on our website are from Australian owned companies.

Proud Retail Supporter of Australian Made & Australian Grown

We have a rating system for the products on our website:

AAAA = Australian owned, Australian made from Australian materials or ingredients.

AAA = Australian owned, Australian made from local and imported ingredients.

AA = Australian owned, imported product, packaged in Australia.

A = Australian owned, imported product.

Consumer Awareness of Australian Made

 Buying Australian is much more important to consumers than Australian business believes. That's a major finding from 1999 research to assess the importance of country of origin information to consumers and business.

The research suggests Australian businesses have underestimated the value of promoting the origin of their products. Over 95 per cent of consumers recognise the Australian Made logo and most consumers say made in Australia is an important purchase criterion, but only half of Australian businesses believe such branding is an important marketing tool.

The awareness level of the Australian Made logo is high, with 96% of respondents aware of the Australian Made logo.

The research shows some 91% of respondents have purchased goods with the Australian Made logo. The most commonly reported types of purchases made with the logo were food (25%), adult fashion clothing (20%), children's clothing (11%) and other grocery items excluding food (11%).

Females were more likely to consciously look for the Australian Made logo than males when purchasing food, clothing and a range of other items.

The main reasons why people buy Australian Made products are:

    * to create jobs

    * to help the economy

    * to support fellow Australians

    * for the future of our country

    * to reduce imports

    * to help manufacturers.

Importance of buying Australian

Overall 89% of respondents felt it was important to them that the goods or products they purchase are of Australian origin. Some 19% of respondents considered it "extremely important", 37% considered it "very important" and 32% considered it "important".

When respondents were asked how often they actively sought goods or products of Australian origin, 12% said "always", 43% said "mostly" and 27% said "sometimes".

Awareness of the importance of buying Australian, and frequency of seeking Australian made goods, is higher amongst older respondents (35+ and highest amongst 50+) than younger respondents (18-34).

Country of origin research

Industry and consumer research conducted nationally by Sweeney Research on behalf of the Commonwealth Department of Industry, Science and Resources (in May 1999) found that industry underestimates the importance consumers place on country of origin information.

Almost 70% of consumers look for information about a product's origin when making purchasing decisions. This far exceeds industry predictions. Of the businesses surveyed, only 55% agreed that consumers look for country of origin information when shopping.

The consumer research found that:

    * Consumers look for country of origin labels to help them determine the quality of an item and to support local industry and employment

    * Around 88% of consumers prefer to buy Australian whenever possible and 77% are happy to pay a little extra for Australian made goods.

Consumers are keen to know where a product comes from and are more likely to purchase a product if they know its origins. When consumers specifically ask for country of origin information at the point of sale 78% of those who receive an answer go on to purchase the product whereas only 45% of those who do not receive the requested information go on to purchase the goods.

Importance of buying Australian varies with product type

Research shows that the importance consumers place on country of origin varies according to product type:

    * 83% of consumers believe country of origin information is important when purchasing fresh food

    * 72% believe country of origin information is important when deciding which packaged foods to buy

    * 63% believe country of origin information is important when choosing clothing and shoes

    * 63% of consumers purchasing white goods look for country of origin information

    * 57% of consumers think country of origin information is important when looking at big ticket items such as cars, motorbikes and boats

    * 51% of consumers still look for country of origin information on items such as tools and electrical appliances

    * 50% of consumers believe country of origin information is important when purchasing household furniture.

The research also revealed that:

    * 64% of industry respondents show country of origin labelling information on their products

    * but only 7% could accurately describe what 'made in' means

    * and only 14% could describe what 'product of' represents.

Measurement of awareness of the Australian Made logo was commissioned by the Australian Made Campaign and undertaken by Roy Morgan Research in August 1999 and September 1999. Research results reported here are reproduced from the report to the Campaign by Roy Morgan Research. Results from the Sweeney Research are reproduced from DISR Country of Origin Labelling, Industry - Industry Fact Sheet available at www.isr.gov.au/labelling

This information was taken from The Australian Made Campaign website

3 December 2010  - ACCC calls for comment on proposed acquisition of P&N Beverages by Asahi

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission today issued a Statement of Issues on the proposed acquisition of P&N Beverages Australia Pty Ltd by Asahi Holdings (Australia) Pty Ltd.

The Statement of Issues seeks further information on certain competition issues which have arisen from the ACCC's review.

The ACCC invites submissions from the market in response to the Statement of Issues by 20 December 2010.  As a result, the ACCC's final decision will be deferred until 3 February 2011.

Submissions can be sent by email to the ACCC at: mergers@accc.gov.au

Statement of issue is at: http://www.accc.gov.au/content/trimFile.phtml?trimFileName=MER10+4304.pdf&trimFileTitle=MER10+4304.pdf&trimFileFromVersionId=959477

ACCC calls for comment on proposed pharmaceutical acquisition (Herron)

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission today issued a Statement of Issues on the proposed acquisition of Sigma Pharmaceuticals Limited's Pharmaceutical Division by Aspen Pharmacare Holdings Limited.

The Statement of Issues seeks further information on certain competition issues which have arisen from the ACCC's market inquiries to date.

The ACCC invites further submissions from the market in response to the Statement of Issues by 11 November 2010. As a result, the ACCC's final decision will be deferred until 25 November 2010.

Submissions can be sent by email to the ACCC at: mergers@accc.gov.au

The Statement of Issues will be available on the public merger register on the ACCC's website,www.accc.gov.au/mergersregister.

Monday 15th November 2010 - Foreign land grab on Aussie farms and brands to secure local food supply

By Steve Lewis and Nic Christensen  From: The Daily Telegraph November 15, 2010

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/business/foreign-farm-raiders-buy-9bn-of-aussie/story-e6frfm1i-1225953501132#ixzz15JacUkY5

From www.ausfoodnews.com.au

Sucrogen sale to Wilmar receives FIRB approval * November 9, 2010   * Nicole Eckersley

Federal Treasurer Wayne Swan yesterday announced the Foreign Investment Review Board’s approval of the sale of CSR Ltd’s sugar and renewable energy business, Sucrogen, to Singaporean food giant Wilmar International.

“I have taken account of Wilmar’s ambitious growth plans for Sucrogen.  These include the expansion of the company’s Australian operations by providing better access for its sugar products to growth markets in Asia, and jointly developing refining facilities and distribution networks in the region,” said Swan.

“Wilmar has informed FIRB that it does not anticipate any significant changes to Sucrogen’s operations and its management, with current employment conditions remaining unchanged. Wilmar has also advised that if its growth plans are achieved, there will be increased jobs in the Australian sugar industry.”

As part of the decision, Wilmar (through Sucrogen) will be restricted in its ability to influence industry marketing body Queensland Sugar Limited, if it chooses to take its marketing elsewhere. Any interest in sugar storage business Sugar Terminals Ltd by Sucrogen will also be subject to “proper regard to the broader interests of the industry and other participants”.

Proceeds of the sale to CSR’s shareholders will be limited, however, with the company required to keep back enough money to cover its existing asbestos compensation claims, as well as costs to cover estimated future claims.

“CSR has consistently stated that it accepts its responsibilities with respect to its asbestos liabilities and that it would maintain a responsible capital structure to support its future obligations, as it has done for over 20 years,” said a release by the company.

“As further evidence of this commitment, CSR has agreed to put in place arrangements for the external oversight by an independent body of any repatriation of capital by CSR (other than ordinary dividends) to its shareholders.”

The transaction remains subject to approval from the Overseas Investment Office (OIO) in New Zealand and other “minor customary conditions”.  The sale can take place within five days of completion of these conditions, which CSR said it expects to occur before the end of November.

Letter to the Foreign Investments Review Board       2 November 2010

It has come to my attention that CSR’s 75% ownership of Sugar Australia is being bought by Wilmar, the world's largest palm oil trading company. Sugar Australia is the only Australian retailer of sugar. If this company is sold to a non-Australian company, Australians will not be able to buy Australian sugar and the control of one of our biggest rural resources will be out of our hands.

•    Sugar Australia Pty Ltd is currently with the Foreign Investments Review Board.

•   Wilmar, the world's largest palm oil trading company is intending to buy CSR’s share of Sugar Australia.

•    Sugar is Australia's second largest rural industry.

•    95% of Australian’s sugar comes from Queensland cane growers.

•    If the largest retailer of sugar is no longer Australian owned then the control and eventually the price of sugar is out of our hands.

•    I wish to protest against the sale of an Australian owned company CSR’s Sugar Australia to a foreign owned company.

The Foreign Investment Policy states: “The Government reviews foreign investment proposals against the national interest case-by-case. We prefer this flexible approach to hard and fast rules. Rigid laws that prohibit a class of investments too often also stop valuable investments. The case-by-case approach maximises investment flows, while protecting Australia’s interests.

Our Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB) will work with an applicant to ensure the national interest is protected. But, if we ultimately determine that a proposal is contrary to the national interest, we will not approve it.

The Government also recognises community concerns about foreign ownership of certain Australian assets. The review system allows the Government to consider these concerns when assessing Australia’s national interest.”

Apparently the sale is currently being approved by the Foreign Investments Review Board. If this is the case I wish to protest most strongly. Too many Australian companies are being sold to non-Australian companies.

After Golden Circle was sold to Heinz, an American company, Golden Circle has started manufacturing some of their products outside Australia. Golden Circle is no longer Australian owned or made (for some products).

The main dairy companies are now all foreign owned. Dairy Farmers, Pauls, and Peters are not owned by Australian companies.

P & N Beverages is being sold to a Japanese company. Sugar Australia is being sold to a Chinese company. This makes it very difficult for those of us who are attempting to support Australian owned companies. Allowing the sale of Sugar Australia (CSR Sugar)  to a non-Australian company when there are no other players in the Australian market is unacceptable and curtails our choices.

I wish to protest against the sale of an Australian owned company CSR’s Sugar Australia to a foreign owned company.

Sincerely

Katie Hooker, Everton Hills, Brisbane.

Attention ACCC and The Foreign Investment Review Board:

Another Australian Company to go Offshore!

It has come to my attention that P & N Beverages is being bought by Asahi, a Japanese company. Asahi also owns Schweppes Australia another large non-alcoholic drink company.

P & N is the last Australian owned fruit juice, cordial and soft drink company. If this company is sold to a non-Australian company, Australians will not be able to buy an Australian drink - all will be from a foreign owned company and eventually manufactured overseas!

Apparently the sale is currently being approved by the ACCC. If this is the case I wish to protest most strongly. Too many Australian companies are being sold to non-Australian companies.

After Golden Circle was sold to Heinz, an American company, Golden Circle has started manufacturing some of their products outside Australia. Golden Circle is no longer Australian owned or made (for some products).

The main dairy companies are now all foreign owned. Dairy Farmers, Pauls, and Peters are not owned by Australian companies.

P & N Beverages being sold to a Japanese company is just another nail in the coffin to those of us who are attempting to buy local and support local industries and local employment. Allowing the sale of P&N Beverages to a non-Australian company when there are no other players in the Australian market is unacceptable and curtails our choices.

Why We Need Balance  By Dick Smith

A number of articles have appeared recently, including two by Dennis Shanahan, accusing me of the most extraordinary sins. I have been denounced for misusing patriotism to sell products and stirring up everything from paranoia and jingoism to outright xenophobia in the Australian public.

Unfortunately, the writers of these articles have all made the same fundamental error. They have failed to understand my overriding goal ever since I started Dick Smith Foods. That goal has been simply to achieve balance. As the publicity material said over 12 months ago, at the time of the company's launch, "I am determined to back our farmers and fight back for a fair balance of Australian ownership in our food industry."

Because originally I made money from importing electronic components from overseas, some journalists criticise me for pushing the advantages of buying goods produced in Australia by Australian-owned companies. However, I am not being hypocritical; I am being totally consistent. My attitude has always been, and still is, that you buy the best and sell the best. You never accept mediocrity. When I was a spokesman for the "Australian Made" campaign I clearly stated that you should only buy Australian "when it's as good".

Australia makes few electronic components, and it does not necessarily make the best. On the other hand Asian countries - principally Japan - make the best. So that's where I went in search of products for Dick Smith Electronics.

Now, when it comes to food, I believe Australia grows the best in the world. So it shocked me to discover that 85 per cent of the food in a typical supermarket trolley is either imported or comes from foreign-owned companies. I'm a strong supporter of free trade as it will assist third world countries to raise their standard of living and I accept globalisation as a fact of life. But here we get back to the issue of balance. I firmly believe that we should strive for a balance in our trade, with roughly the same quantities of goods, services and profits coming into Australia as are going out. We have nothing like that kind of balance at the moment. Every day $100 million more leaves the country than comes in.

Another of the sins I'm accused of committing is of only employing a small number of people at Dick Smith Foods. However, my accusers fail to mention the hundreds of extra people who have been taken on by canneries and Australian-owned food producers around the country as a result of my company's activities.

I believe there are distinct advantages of local ownership of companies as the profits are most likely to be re-invested in Australia creating further wealth. This is why I have always believed that Australian made is good, but Australian made by an Australian owned company is even better.

Not that I have anything against foreign companies operating in Australia. Quite the opposite: I have stressed this from the moment Dick Smith Foods was launched.

To accuse me of being against foreign ownership is like saying that an Australian who barracked for Australian swimmers at the Olympic games must be against foreign swimmers. Of course that's not the case. It's simply a case of supporting the home team. Dick Smith Foods is waving the flag for Australia and Australian companies.

But having said that, I should add that I prefer the old ways of foreign investment, by which companies would take the risk of creating a new business here and actually generating jobs. Good examples of this are General Motors and Ford. These days foreign companies tend to come in, buy up existing successful Aussie companies at bargain-basement prices (because of the Australian dollar's low value), "down size" (ie sack staff), put up prices and then repatriate all the profits out of the country. The Australian funeral industry has been particularly hard hit in this way. Once entirely Australian-owned and mainly family-run, it is now in the hands of a large American funeral conglomerate. I simply cannot see the advantage for Australia of this type of foreign ownership.

I believe this is one of the downsides of globalisation. Another is that as companies become huge they tend to stop competing with one another because they operate and think in the same way. These mega companies also result in the situation where it's virtually impossible for a new entrepreneur to start up in competition. Without strong and new competition I believe our proven successful system of free enterprise could be doomed.

Even so, I accept that globalisation is here to stay. Unfortunately, although the advantages of globalisation get glowing coverage from some journalists, there's no rational discussion about some of its disadvantages and how they should be handled. It is impossible to discuss these issues rationally when people such as Dennis Shanahan take such an extreme position.

As well as contributing to the creation of hundreds of jobs, Dick Smith Foods is enabling me to use my marketing skills to help Australian businesses that lack those skills. A company like Kraft can spend millions of dollars marketing peanut butter. Through its network of international contacts, it can call on the skills of very best - and highest-paid - marketing people in the world. Small Australian business simply can't do this. So I'm putting my skills at their disposal, and I'm getting tremendous satisfaction out of giving them a boost.

Experience has taught me that it would have taken me 10 or 15 years to create even one manufacturing facility for a food company from scratch. I feel that by doing things the way I have done them with Dick Smith Foods I can help Australian farmers and food producers a lot more simply - and a lot more quickly.

We are also supporting Australian charities. This is not something that writers such as Dennis Shanahan and television commentators such as Stuart Littlemore can bring themselves to mention. They haven't told their audiences about the $600,000 that we have given so far to charities such as the Salvation Army.

Of course, I give money away purely for selfish reasons - it gives me immense satisfaction. I am also well off so I don't need any more money.

I understand that most foreign companies give the majority of their charitable support in their home countries. This is logical, but just another disadvantage of the lack of balance of foreign and local ownership in this country.

I believe it's sad that Dennis Shanahan and a small number of journalists have taken such an extreme position in attacking me. With over $80 million of sales of our products in the last 12 months, it is obvious that the marketplace has shown that many Australians agree that there needs to be a fairer balance between Australian and foreign ownership.

This article was written by Dick Smith of Dick Smith Foods. Address: Dick Smith Foods Pty Ltd, 2 Booralie Road, Terrey Hills, NSW, 2084, Australia. (Est No 2297)