Letters to the Editor - April 29

Letters to the Editor - April 29


People put pen to pad - or fingers to keyboard - to discuss the integrity of Australia's red meat brands, veteran mental health and the future of sports.


Brand integrity critical

It's time to level the playing field for red meat category branding.

Across the butcher shops, supermarket aisles and restaurant tables throughout the nation, there's no better-branded product than Australian red meat. Whether it's nutrition, food safety, or product quality, Australian consumers know they're getting the real deal every time they buy red meat.

Our industry's collective category brand is unlike any other. As an industry, we've built our brand over generations of socialised levies and private investment.

We pay mandatory levies at every point along the supply chain, which are spent on marketing, research and product integrity measures. In addition to socialised levies, private companies invest millions of dollars into branding our industry's products. Investment in Australia's red meat category branding isn't only through marketing but through the heavy mandatory compliance costs our industry has to pay to sell products labelled as meat, lamb, beef, or goat.

It's no wonder there's a laundry list of manufactured plant-based protein products trying to piggyback off the reputation of Aussie red meat.

Australia's meat and livestock industry isn't afraid of competition - we've held our own against the tofu warriors for decades.

What isn't acceptable is dishonestly using our category branding for a product that doesn't pay the levies, doesn't pay the compliance costs and doesn't have our centuries-old proud history.

Our industry deserves better. Denigrating a trademarked brand to sell another is not permitted and nor should the use of our industry's meat category brand.

John McKillop,

Red Meat Advisory Council Chair.

Defence voices to have their say

It is vital Barker residents involved in the Defence and veteran support system have their say through the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. In the coming weeks a public consultation process is being undertaken to ensure the Royal Commission is focused and based on the experiences and perspectives of those impacted by Defence and veteran suicide.

Any member of the community or any organisation is able to provide their input regarding the broad themes released on Monday April 19 and I would encourage them to provide their feedback.

I encourage anyone with thoughts, ideas or experiences to share, to have their say so we can work together towards a better understanding of suicide in the serving and ex-serving community.

Following consultation, all feedback will be provided to the Attorney-General's Department, which will lead the drafting of the Terms of Reference.

Interested individuals, groups, peak bodies, ex-service organisations and community members are able to review the consultation themes on the DVA website and contribute to the consultation process by emailing royalcommission@dva.gov.au.

For anyone who may find this process difficult, help is available through their local Garrison Health Centre, the All Hours Support Line on 1800 628 036 or those wanting anonymity can contact Safe Zone Support on 1800 142 072.

Tony Pasin,

Member for Barker.

Size could lead to equality

While men and women are now participating in the same codes of competition - AFL, NRL, BBL, NBL and A League, once the sole domain of men - there are significant differences that determine participants salaries and the conditions provided today.

The length of competition, crowd and supporter levels, sponsorship, broadcast rights, skill level and marketability all play a part in determining the size of playing contracts that can be sustained, in either men's' or women's competitions.

Given that male competitions are long established and have been traditionally played by men for decades, administrators are able to offer their players contracts commensurate with the income generated and that their chosen code can finance.

To expect women's codes, many of which have only be operating for much shorter periods, to receive pay parity with male counterparts, when the income generated by each of their codes at present does not allow this, is unjustifiable at this stage.

With the expected growth and development of each of the women's codes, increasing their salaries may well be achievable in the future.

Ian Macgowan,


Start the day with all the big news in agriculture. Sign up here to receive our daily Stock Journal newsletter.


From the front page

Sponsored by