The great stink over cut-price toilet paper

Andrew says:

10:52am | 19/03/10

APP lost the contract with Woolies to ABC a few months ago…

If you ‘re interested in sustainable toilet paper, look into bamboo toilet paper (actually made from bamboo and sugar cane and elephant grass I think, which grows in like 1 year, and as such is far more sustainable)
That might make an interesting counter article to this.

Timmy Traralgon says:

11:19am | 17/03/10

Tim Vollmer has swallowed the union line hook, line and sinker, conveniently blaming importers when there is a thriving local toilet paper manufacturer—that is the real threat to the union-dominated paper industry and the key old-school paper players.

The key factor Tim and the local unions are conveniently overlooking is ABC Tissue, an Australian company with operations in Sydney and Brisbane.

The Customs report identified ABC as being the new key player in paper manufacturers in Australia.

ABC has consistently eroded the market share of Kimberly Clark and SCA Hygiene. Its Quilton Brand has knocked off Sorbent and Kleenex. If in doubt, ask genuine paper market analysts such as Robert Eastment.

There have been two keys to its success.

First, it has a non-unionised labour force, which caused it no end of trouble when building its NSW plant in 2004. Surprise, surprise, those kicking up the stink were from the CFMEU.

Second, it has relied on imports of market pulp into Australia, and not relied on Australian timber supplies. This gives them a competitive price advantage, able to take spot or contract prices on pulp and hedge against currency fluctuations. The strong AUD is currently seeing them make a killing. It also reduces reliance upon high-cost Australian pulp supplies - which come from unionised forestry operations and a diminishing resource base (caused by difficulty establishing plantations, not diminishing natural forests).

While SCA, Paperlink and Kimberley Clark have been making a fuss over this current issue, ABC has remained completely silent - despite supplying between one-third and one-half of the toilet paper market in Australia.

So, the evidence that the Australian industry has not been harmed by the Indonesian and Chinese paper, it is the contonuing profitability of ABC.

Of course, the Australian paper and packaging industry would never participate in collusion to outsmart new players in the market would they? Anyone asked Visy or Amcor what they think of the whole thing?

Julian Thomas says:

06:24pm | 08/03/10

surely ozzies can aspire to higher employment than competing with some slum asian to make toilet paper, personally I use aloe vera soaked wipes (yeah they cost $$ but my arse is worth it), get over it and invent b*tches

BTS says:

03:46pm | 08/03/10

Non-Union toilet paper? 

I won’t stand for it!

Jan Davis says:

11:25am | 08/03/10

We hear a lot about level playing fields and free trade, and the importance of Australian businesses recognising their place in the global marketplace.  But it is all bunkum.
I work in the farming sector - which has suffered significant impact from this misguided rhetoric. These impacts are not limited to the farming sector - as this discussion about loo paper clearly shows.
Governments continue to increase compliance burdens on producers - all of which increase costs. However, because of dysfunctional marketplaces, food producers do not have the opportunity to pass these costs on to consumers - as any manufacturer or service provider would.
Many of the regulations which apply to farming businesses are not unreasonable - especially as reflections of our expectations as a relatively sophisticated community. No-one would argue about requirements for staff to have a safe workplace and to be paid a living wage; no-one would argue about it being unacceptable to use chemicals which pose a risk to human health; and no-one would argue about the need to protect fragile environments. However, there are a myriad of regulatory requirements that could be seen as rent seeking by the community at the expense of the producers - or as transferring the cost of externalities onto private enterprises with no recognition of the impacts these costs have. Nonetheless, if we as a community consider these things to be important, there’s not much a food producer can do but grin and bear it.
If we consider these issues important enough to impose regulatory requirements on domestic producers, why would we accept imported products that do not meet the same standards? But we do – seemingly without question. Under our rules for imported products, we will permit imports that meet the regulatory standards of the originating country even where these standards are nowhere near those we expect domestically produced food to meet. How else do these often third world countries compete? Labour rates are much lower than ours – because often people are not paid a living wage and employers are not required to meet any OHS and workplace standards. Production costs are less than ours, because there are few requirements to protect the environment, to manage or minimise chemical use or to improve water efficiency. To rub salt into the wounds, we allow imports of food products that can potentially bring with them pests and diseases – and risks to human health – which we do not have here. And, if a producer happens to be wiped out because a decision made by a politician and implemented by a bureaucrat brings with it consequences that everyone foresaw and warned about, that’s tough. There is no recompense. Even the minimal standards applicable to the local dry cleaner – all care, no responsibility - do not apply here. The position is all too often ‘couldn’t care less, and no responsibility’.
Eventually the costs of compliance become greater than the risks and returns from production - especially when there is strong import competition - and another Australian farmer gives up.
This is insanity. Australia is one of the few countries in the world that actually believes this rhetoric - others talk the talk, but certainly don;t walk the walk. We have our heads firmly buried in the sand – and it will come back to bite us – sooner rather than later. Politicians of all colours need to heed the warning signs – if it is not already too late.

AFR says:

10:21am | 08/03/10

I’m struggling to work out why there is so much attention being paid to bog paper.

Zeta says:

09:40am | 08/03/10

I stopped reading because I couldn’t stop thinking of Vollmer in his party suit at the Opera House.

Macca says:

08:38am | 08/03/10

Pfft, protectionist policies went out nearly 3 decades ago, even Gillard and the left wouldn’t go this far

If you feel sorry for the workers, give them some outplacement support, upskill them so they can find another occupation or get them a job in the mines.

Flipflop says:

08:11am | 08/03/10

With all the issues around us , I am sorry toilet paper is the least of my worries. We all need it, the alternative is to used grass and leaves and the plumbing bill would be astronomical

xiaoecho says:

07:58am | 08/03/10

So now we can’t even wipe our bums without feeling guilty—-

E says:

07:56am | 08/03/10

pfft bit late to be whinging about it now ...

If the unions, politicans or business cared about workers, where were they in the 1980’s when this battle was being fought? Unions were missing in action, thats where. Lining their pockets and making noises about ‘productivity’.

Its important to remember that no civilisation has ever survived using slaves for very long. And yet, in the 1980’s, you couldnt even have fed a slave in Australia for what the Chinease were being paid.

China, communist authoritarian dystopia where dissent is crushed violently and wages are so low that its cheaper to hire them and ship the stuff a thousand kilometers than it would be to keep a person chained at the machine here is Aus.

So stop complaining, you wanted cheap DVD players, toys and all manner of consumer junk. All it cost us was the productive economy of this country and any claim to respecting human rights above dollar signs.

We are reaping what a generation of business leaders, politicians and union leaders sowed for us in the 1980’s.

John A Neve says:

05:58am | 08/03/10

This is just another aspect of the Free Market or competition at it’s best.
Free trade and competition can only work can only work on an even playing field. In case you have not noticed, the world isn’t an even playing field and won’t be in my life time.

The number of jobs lost overseas in the last twenty or thiry years is not funny. We all look the other way unless it’s our job!! After all the inported item is cheaper.