http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2010/s2808946.htm

The above link is one of many about the closure of the Young Meatworks, one of the largest employers in the town, also employing many Afghan refugees. The closure is purported to be due to high sheep prices and the effects of the drought, acknowledging as the article says that the meat industry is cyclical.

More and more we hear about regional business like this closing down which has far greater impact on a small town than in the cities.

In the current financial situation, why aren't governments doing more to keep these sorts of businesses going? There are great benefits to supporting regional employment.

The job losses in Young are estimated to be about 300, the Geelong Ford Factory estimated losses would be around 400 without Government financial assistance. Why is there such inconsistency or disparity with regards to industry assistance in this country?

Why is the car industry subsidised and seen as crucial while other industries are left to go under.

Why don't we own our own LNG resources? While foreign ownership creates some investment and taxation windfalls for Australia, much of the investment ends up flowing overseas. Most of the resource sector in Australia appears to be owned by OS companies (much of it US, Chinese, Dutch).

Isn't there some case for government owned or financed industries if the spoils will have a positive flow on effect for Australia? From an ideological viewpoint isn't it better for nations to have control over their own resources particularly in developing nations who desperately need the benefits that ownership of resources can bestow.

If both major parties are willing to accept Chinese investment, which means owned by the Chinese Government, why do we balk at the idea of Australia (the Australian people) owning a project like Gorgon.

Can we do better overall within the industry sector?

Dear Pelly,

Unfortunately most towns rely on one major
indudustry, cars, meat, spinning mills,
chocolate, et cetera - which doesn't give
enough diversity within the town to absorb
employment fluctuation.

Greed and the pursuit of big profit tends
to affect all production and if it is
easier to sell to overseas investors than
make an honest effort to improve the
situation locally by diversification - we're
faced with the problems we have today.

We should not continually demand or rely on
government bail-out when lack of foresight,
mismanagement, may be contributing factors,
of the collapsing industry. Better management
practices may need to be implemented.
Eg. meat industry in Young - slaughters the
animals, and exports the meat. Whereas if they diversified,
into production of hams, sausages, fruit packaging,
and the production of packaging, which they could
sell separately - they may be able to survive.

That has been proven in industries - where the
workers have bought the factory from managment,
diversified, and are surviving as a result.

I agree Foxy. Governments would be better off providing a good foundation for those business to survive via appropriate economic measures rather than continually bailing out businesses. Less red tape and other positive tweakings might have positive spin-off effects.

Sometimes given our large continent, measures that might be used to keep business in rural areas are taxation offsets, fuel rebates (if one is going to use rebates at all) or interest free loans. Similar to the way doctors are encouraged to go rural with attractive free rental housing, higher salaries and similar advantages but from a business perspective rather than salaried employee.

My queries come from a lack of understanding as to why governments come in to aid certain industries ie. the car industry or insulation where the results are a bit iffy and where unscrupulous contractors take advantage of government subsidies. Like roof insulators trying to flog new insulation to houses that are already insulated to take advantage of the boom gratis subsidies. Yet other sectors are largely ignored.

Revenue might be better spent possibly on taxation and other incentives for small-medium enterprises that create the most employment.

"In the current financial situation, why aren't governments doing more to keep these sorts of businesses going?"

Why do you ask the question in that way? Ask it this way "Why are governments doing so much to stop these businesses from being viable?" Every cost that government adds to these businesses makes them less viable, and every tax and regulation adds costs. There's no need for government to do anything; merely cutting back on its own depredations would help.

One example: the tax on diesel. Just abolishing that alone would make so much more rural business viable and provide employment for Australians. Count up the ways that governments at all levels add to the costs of the Young meatworks, and you will find no shortage of ways the government can help to make it more viable.

Valid point Peter. It does sound better your way.

For the record, Killarney abb, on the QLD NSW boarder has also recently closed, although this is hot off the press and not well known yet.

The fact is that consumers simply will not pay the prices that meat should be.

By all accounts 'rump steak' should be around $45 per kilo and 'Lamb chops' about the same, but, people simply won't pay this so the meat works that rely soley on the domestic market are going broke.