These financial documents were obtained through the Victorian consumer commision.
Image #2 Animals Australia Income 2013-14
Image #3. Animals Australia Expenses 2013-14
These financial documents were obtained through the Victorian consumer commision.
Image #2 Animals Australia Income 2013-14
Image #3. Animals Australia Expenses 2013-14
There has been a significant amount of media debate concerning the possible introduction into Australia of Agriculture protection laws (APL’s), or as opponents refer to, ‘Ag –gag laws’. Those opposed, view these laws in particular as targeting and restrictive of people who choose to undertake actions that most notably involve illegal entry of property to expose alleged animal cruelty.
Increasingly what is currently happening in Australia is that Animal Activists (AA’s) target a site they feel is not meeting animal welfare standards. They enter a property, sometimes under false pretences, usually as break and enter. Search, record and on occasion cause malicious damage to infrastructure including intentional spread of disease. Animals are then filmed in various situations involving housing, slaughter and treatment. Some filmed in poor visibility at night and by people with flash lights. Obtained film is then distributed as video, film, stills or information as they see fit, when they want and with information that they see as suited to the situation they wish to portray. Most notably footage release may be targeted at a high consumption point of the year but long after the film was made.
What AA’s think the APL’s will do is completely stop the ability of them to release footage of what they regard as animal cruelty which is basically what the American rulings have done. I think the US versions are too stringent but I do think adaption could be used in Australia.
An Australian friend has looked at the US laws extensively and I think has come up with a more relevant version to Australia that doesn’t prevent the use of the footage but certainly makes the AA’s more accountable for their actions in regards to authenticity, accuracy and release of footage. I have added my own take on disclosure to the owners property that was filmed including ability of owner to refute information.
Social media has become the court house and AA’s have proclaimed themselves as judge jury and executioner of the producer in the public arena. Using footage to incite outrage and reaction from mostly the general public, who in turn are asked to pressure government and law makers to act against the animal property owner by implementation of supposed better animal welfare laws or abolition of the animal use all together. The footage’s usual intention is to incite hate and repulsion and thus detrimentally affect market sales of that properties or related industry animal product. Through repulsion, emotion and often outright mis-information by the AA’s, the industry targeted then suffers as a consequence either through direct loss of income or the problems directly caused by the AA’s.
It is sometimes many months after the event of a media wave that the facts of the film in regards to what was happening, why, where and who were involved actually comes to light and sometimes, I’m not saying all but definitely sometimes is shown to be intentionally misleading and outright propaganda.
From the producers point of view a major concern is bio security, but it is also control of information and image and a chance to have a fair say when directly attacked. The right to know when they are being slandered and the right of reply. In my view the APL’s could make it legally equitable in disputes of animal cruelty that the producer at least has a chance to explain their situation and reasoning of what the film depicts at the same time as it is released because it will be illegal to withhold it longer than 48 hours without notification to the owner and authorities.
Currently it is quiet legal to openly place photographic images advertised as animal cruelty, poor animal welfare, poor animal standards or outright neglect and mis treatment. These images need no details of who, when or where they were taken and many times these aren’t provided even when investigated further by a viewer on social media. The intended purpose of the visual, is to lead the audience to always assume they are viewing Australian animals and think what they see is a fair representation of how Australian animals are treated overall.
Many images provided by AA’s are undated, without source names, often not even proving that they have been filmed at a site. Usually the recorder is anonymous. Some blatantly promote their business as animal expose and earn money through their escapades. So the attacks on the producer come from many and varied sources but the initial antagonist, the trespass person or persons generally remain completely anonymous.
More often than not the animal producer faces intense hostile assault from other AA’s including large organisations most notably on social media as to their business attributes and again the images are used as if that is what the whole of that industry represents. Personal attacks are very common against the producer and their families including children through social media and many sites allow these comments to remain visible as it feeds the hate and outrage. This is how things get so out of hand and beyond control.
The interesting thing about some of the claims attackers of the producer make is that ‘the consumer has a right to know or they as the consumer have the right to dictate animal husbandry practices’. Ironically most of these people conducting trespass invasions are vegetarian or vegan and don’t actually consume or use the products from the industry they attack, so they aren’t consumers.
Some AA’s may own or produce livestock for their economic survival, usually not though as many are fundamentally against animal production for food. Many actively work in and solicit donations for animal shelters they are involved with. Most are definitely concerned members of the public but how informed, representative or even knowledgeable of animal welfare practices and their purposes would vary from very informed and experienced in animal care to absolutely not having any idea of animal behaviour or practices at all.
I am very wary of the phrase ‘social licence’ when used as description of the supposed general public view of animal production. When given a choice based on economics many of the buying public won’t actually pay extra for the improved animal welfare standards that they perceive are required. Instead buying imported products that don’t come even close to Australian welfare standards. Therefore at what point as a producer do I take their social licence prejudices seriously when they don’t practice what they preach when it comes to the act of actually paying at the checkout!
As a producer we can explain, if people don’t accept that some practices are absolutely necessary, then that’s just the way it is, don’t eat our product. But if people don’t accept our business operations it doesn’t give them the right to invade and destroy our business because they don’t agree with consumption of animals.
I have no doubt it is only a matter of time before an activist or producer is killed due to a property invasion. At the least massive disease across some animal industries will occur. If some tighter regulations are not put in place soon the AA’s will simply become more brazen and the producers more angry. Something will give.
The APL’s in the US currently do and could be moulded to suit Australia, not to stifle animal activities but to filter those who have genuine intent animal welfare improvement from those who are simply economic terrorists with criminal malicious intent. APL’s are a possible way to hold AA’s legally accountable by ensuring that if an event of animal cruelty is recorded it is a recognised obligation by the recorder, for that information to be passed to relevant authorities quickly and unedited in a set time frame of 48 hours. With the provision that footage be not allowed on any public media format until at the least handed to authorities and the animal producer targeted allowed first viewing and 24 hours to consider it and mount a defence.
Once footage is handed to authorities it is then the responsibility of them to act in a responsible and legal way. Once viewed by the accused then the AA’s can do what ever they like with their film and if so choosing could splash animal images of alleged cruelty where ever they liked. The point being that the producer has a fair and equitable chance of also instigating their own media commentary on the footage and saying what they think is relevant.
If footage is not backed up by a declaration by a real person as the recorder, as named and verified then the footage would be illegal to use on any media at all.
Let the general public decide who they wish to listen too, but at least allow the opportunity to the public decide to investigate the other side of a story to be able make an informed decision. If the producers view is available then they may just see two sides of the story and not only the one as they are most commonly presented with at the moment.
Where the American’s differ in their aspect of APL’s is they are saying any footage is never allowed to be publicly aired. I’m, not saying that at all. I don’t think all animal producers are good but then I don’t think all AA’s work with best intentions of improving animal welfare either.
Under APL’s if an act is deemed as maliciously cruel as opposed to husbandry practice, determined by experts in the field, then the person or people who presented the original unedited footage would not face prosecution under law rulings irrespective if the initial property invasion was normally deemed illegal.
Importantly those who withhold footage, and promote without handing to authorities including those that support that promotion, should face the full force of the law for their trespass and intentional damages actions. For organisations this should be harsh monetary fines, for individuals with little or no assets this should be restraining orders and jail time.
If AA’s get it wrong and they make wrongful accusations that have been publically displayed as animal cruelty then they must personally face and be prepared to accept serious remedy consequences payable to the producer they wrongly accused. They have responsibility of duty when entering animal properties and at the moment AA’s rarely acknowledge this, particularly in respect of bio security including ironically animal welfare itself through the stress their actions may cause
The APL’s are intended to enforce the witnessing of malicious cruelty as an obligation to report the recorded activity, so that animal cruelty can be stopped for the purpose of improving animal welfare. Not for the footage to be used for the gain of an Animal activists ego and advertising of campaigns for financial donation collection.
Another aspect of the legislation is that groups opposed to animal farming or other aspects of agriculture can’t impose legislation or regulations that are not scientifically based on fact and significant research. This is the right to conduct Agriculture it is about protecting agriculture as the right to conduct animal breeding, raising and use of animals as acknowledged in any legitimate business.
APL’s as could be adapted to Australian laws are not intended to stop genuine animal cruelty exposes or provide coverage to poorly operated animal producers they are meant to make the AA’s more accountable. If AA’s wants to make serious accusations of malicious cruelty to animals then they better be sure they are accurate and genuine in their revelations of it and not as what is happening at the moment where many are just economic terrorists on ego trips.
Agricultural protection laws are about recognition of responsibility of animal activists and fairness for production owners including the health safety of their animals they are not about hiding practices and diminishing animal welfare.
I made a comment on the following newspaper article
My comment was
“When do any of Animals Australia’s so called informants ever appear before DAFF to back up their so called evidence. Feb 2012 Indo Footage was proven false. Giles abattoir woman never supported her own evidence, Gaza tapes were sourced from internet via you tube stating they used Animals Australia supplied camera’s”
I made another comment following others asking for my evidence in which I arrogantly stated ‘I never say what I can’t back up’.
I owe an apology to Animals Australia regarding the abattoir as going back over my notes I don’t have direct evidence to back up that Sarah Lynch didn’t actually front the Primesafe investigation. For that accusation I do apologise.
I am extremely weary of any animal cruelty film clips that have the ability to be used as evidence when undated, unverified and usually unsupported by the person who was actually doing the filming. I am not denying there hasn’t been terrible cruelty filmed and many are Australian animals shown but I don’t believe all the footage presented are always supplied unedited to authorities, are all Australian animals or even recent incidences. Not to mention circumstances that surround the incidences of filming to explain people and animal actions.
In regards to ESCAS it is not a kangaroo court and Animals Australia are not judge, prosecuter and jury. They are an animal liberation group who are intent on stoppage of all animal livestock production systems.
What I had based my opinion on regarding the Trafalgar abattoir (Victoria) was that the prosecution of cruelty had failed against the owners due to charges dropped with no explanation of the reasons to the owners. Workers had been charged with cruelty. My recall was that Animals Australia presented the evidence to primesafe not Sarah Lynch, an exert of the article I had mis-interpreted is as follows.
In regards to The West Java Indonesian footage in early 2013 – the informants who presented this information did not appear before the then DAFF investigation at all. This was an investigation that occured following claims of cruelty at an Indonesian abattoir in which the informant supplied information to Animals Australia which was used to pursue a complaint against the exporters for breach of ESCAS.
The basis of the evidence revolved around supply of eartags by Animals Australia that allegedly proved the animals time of death, they didn’t. The exporter proved the eartag was from an animal slaughtered some weeks prior to the informants film event taking place.
The DAFF report Allegations of breach of Exporter Suppy Chain Assurance system is linked here West Java Feb 2013.
The annex 4 regarding the eartag incident is here annex4-investigation-report-ile-abattoir4
Failure of informants to appear before DAFF is noted on page 2
Again mention was made that informants were not prepared to support their information supplied to Animals Australia on page 3
People wonder why DAFF take so long to undergo investigations, I would assume much of their time is spent just trying to verify who and what is being filmed.
In a Kuwait 2012 DAFF report Animals Australia supplied still photos and two film footages, one 45 seconds long the other 42 seconds. Neither film could identify the sheep, infact an exporter claimed they weren’t even Australian Sheep, highly likely Awassi. Another exporter had already self notified of a breach of ESCAS having reclaimed lost sheep and corrected the problem. Animals Australia vigilantly exposes are not helping animal welfare they are slowing it down because they are wasting valuable time and resources that could be better spent on direct positive animal welfare outcomes.
It is well known most of the Gaza cattle footage presented December 2013 was from youtubes. Considering anyone can do a youtube and anyone can edit and modify I would have liked to have seen a lot more verification of where and when these videos were filmed. Animals Australia was credited by a supporter as having supplied some of the phones for use to film animals being treated cruelly, the following screen shot I took in December 2013. I believe it has now been removed from the following link Facebook link to Gaza footage
Again I apologise for not having the evidence to back up for all that I had originally stated. But reading the DAFF report of the Egyptian vet that is referred to the original Stock and Land article and his questionable conflict of business interests. The forgotten irony is that Animals Australia actually supported the closed loop system in Egypt that was in place prior to ESCAS. Lyn White even claims Animals Australia proposed it in her appearance before the senate inquiry of live export welfare standards in August 2011.
Various reports have been conducted over the years that have considered the economic impact were live exports of Australian animals stopped. Some reports have attempted to put a price on the financial cost of stopping live export, and predict ongoing returns if live export animals were supplied to Australian processors instead. I would like to discuss the economic expectations of some of these views. I am purely looking at economics, not animal welfare in this article.
In 2006 MLA released a report1 that considered the value and ramifications of closure of the live animal export industry stating that
“the prosperity of Australian sheep and cattle producers is linked to the live export trade as domestic prices are underpinned by the trade”1(Pg ii).
Forecasting a drop in both sheep and cattle prices of up to 18% and 7% respectively if live export was stopped 1(Pg 28/29). That irrespective of any gains made in beef export, the national beef industry would decline by $330M or 5% annually for every following year due to no live export trade1(Pg28)
Before the peak of the 2009 cattle export period of slightly less than 1M head, MLA (20072 ) forecast a 10 year direct loss of income if the trade was halted. Across Australian sheep and cattle industries (including dairy) a direct loss of income over 10 years was estimated at $2.2B. The effects would continue to be significant after the initial 10 years of closure. It forecast a farm-gate price drop of 59c/kg for the Northern Territory alone, due mainly to lack of processing facilities in the north and increased costs in freight, a point the MLA 2006 report also raised citing freight increases of as much as 40c/kg1(Pg 28).
From a personal perspective, owing to effects of the ban in 2011, and then subsequent market loss the following 18 months we personally realised a direct loss of income of $239 per head ($0.70/kg loss directly plus extra cost in freight) for every steer that was suitable as a boat animal as a young animal but eventually sold into the Australian domestic market due to being too heavy or unable to gain market access in the period of 2011/2012 and part way into 2013. This doesn’t include the cost of keeping an animal for another 18 months on property and effect on overheads and finances due to loss of income. In total a loss of approximately nearly $300 per beast. We are a small property, the effect on others could have been much greater.
For WA northern cattle producers, a more dire forecast is predicted if live export ceased, estimating price drop of $1.60 down to $1.10 plus additional costs of 21c/kg in costs due to cartage2(Pg 6).
WA sent 23% of the cattle exported through their ports in 2013 of 276,450 head3. Historically WA has always been a significant volume exporter of approximately 70-80% Australian sheep exports.
WA sheep producers prices are expected to plummet by 70-80% with a live export ban, remember this report was done nearly 7 years ago when Australia was approximately exporting 4M head of sheep a year3. In 2013 Australia sent just under 2M head of sheep. WA’s market share of live sheep exports in 2013 was 83%9
WA sheep producers experienced catastrophic market price freefall when the Saudi Arabian market had closed and caused an immediate reduction in WA sheep local prices of 50%1(Pg 23), In 20054. The WA saleyard sheep indicator in March 2013 was 120c/kg cwt, down from 331c/kg cwt 12 months previously. The OTH sheep (18-24kg) was 187c/kg in March 2013 but had been 220c/kg 12 months prior10
Friends who supplied live export sheep in WA have told me ram prices went from $100 per head export prices pre 2012, ESCAS implementation to $40 in Australia (following ESCAS implementation and loss of some markets) with many animals not being able to be sold at all. Others who solely supplied live export with Damaras, purposely bred for live export were unable to sell any into Australian processors as they were simply not desired animal type.
The Victorian dairy industry, if live export was stopped would affect their entire sectors farm profitability negatively by 20%2. Many enterprises sometimes up to 250 producers may contribute to a single shipment of export animals. 12 month old dairy heifer prices were estimated to drop in price from the then $1000 head to $500 and surplus heifers would go from $500 to $100 if the dairy live export industry shut down. Again keep in mind this report was written nearly 7 years ago. When dairy exports were nearly half of what they were in 2013.
In my opinion it could be reasonably expected some live export animals could be picked up by Australian processing. Surely though the realisation is that 100% transferability of live export sheep and cattle to onshore meat processing can not and will not happen. In regards to sheep the “current view is that such a subsititution will not occur easily”5(Pg 13).
As to what percentage Australian plants would willingly process animals and to what capacity has simply been assumed at 100%. If the investment funding was available, abattoirs built, animals fed to ensure all year supply and availability, markets assured and costs of production not prohibitive, labour assured including unions irratic demands kept at bay and costs of production controlled. Would the Australian processes be able to or even want to maintain 100% capacity? Interestingly 100% operating capacity is actually not optimum for many abattoirs, about 80 to 85% is. If it was feasible to do don’t people think we would be doing it now? Live export in the north developed because the processing facilities we did have, were unable to stay competitive due to costs of operation and freight. Australian processing currently costs nearly twice as much as overseas processors, competititiveness is becoming a big problem on a global scale for all Australian manufacturing industries.
Of course the fundamental question underpinning a complete stoppage of live export to domestic processing, is would it be profitable? For the producer, processor and retailers. Ultimately in the long term most reports concur that for the producer, the base of the whole livestock production supply, it will not be profitable without live export. Why would processors pay more than they have to for a product of which there is no other competition for. Again the producer cops the raw end of the deal.
In 2009 ACIL Tasman, by virtue of RSPCA, conducted a study on the closure of the WA live export sheep industry, their conclusion, was that closure of live export for WA would “require adjustments” but were “not extensive”5. Ironically they had the figures so completely wrong and undervalued that Livecorp instigated a review of the ACIL report in 20107. Livecorp claimed gross miscalculations were made by ACIL of nearly double in most cases of losses directly attributable to producers that would occur if live export was stopped. ACIL had based its ‘No live export available scenario’ on the assumption that market prices would remain unchanged without live export as a market alternative to producers. Every single other report even those supported by WSPA realise that returns to producers will lessen without live export. Yet RSPCA and others supporting a ban continue to present the ACIL 2009 report as fundamentally sound! Of course as the impact will be mainly worn by producers maybe it is of no concern to them of $60M losses here and there.
In 2012 WSPA stepped up to the plate, employing ACIL also, they carried out a feasibility study of establishment of an abattoir in north Australia, this study WSPA regularly quote saying that producers will magically make 245%6 in increased profit by being able to sell heavier cattle to a newly established abattoir.
From a producers point of view this report indicated the abattoir required prime animals at very cheap prices to be paid for at less than cost of production, hot boned and put into non-premium markets in direct competition with already existing meat suppliers and assumed new market access will occur for the outgoing meat produced. A lot of ‘ifs’ in that equation on how the abattoir would be feasible itself and highly likely it wouldn’t!
I really do wonder sometimes at what point do people think producers should gift their animals, it seems that we are expected to do it an awful lot and yet magically to operate with no income! Of course assuming that they want livestock production to actually continue.
Unfortunately as with most things there’s a few points WSPA never point out in their propaganga phamplets, though very clearly stated by ACIL in the opening paragraphs of the 2012 report. The requirement of significant ongoing government investment if more processing facilities are to be established. Personally I think our government is currently broke, there is no slush fund for any industry at the present time.
ACIL have obviously realised the importance of producer viability to maintain live export because the 2012 report very clearly states that processing would depend on only a portion, they suggest half of what is currently sent to live export. The point being not to stop live export completely, yet process in the vicinity of 400,000 head. While I don’t agree with the basis of the views used in this report, it at least acknowledges the fact that live export is an important support basis for price and herd productivity.
Consider this AAco have battled for over 5 years now to eventually get an abattoir that will process 100,000 head initially, mostly its own cattle and cull numbers that were already being processed somewhere else. It is not intended as a facility to process animals intended for live export, it is a vertically integrated system mainly intended for AAco’s own stock. The Facility is costing around $94M, of which they received no direct government assistance yet have repeatedly lobbied for. It will not process the 600,000 head turnoff currently directed to live export, infact it will process some numbers that are already directed at other abattoirs. I would dearly love to see the Livingstone abattoir operating profitably as it would be a welcome outlet for some of our own cull animals. I have not met a producer who doesn’t want this abattoir to succeed. In my opinion it had to be built near Darwin, not for cattle supply or market access but for labour supply and employee demands now of facilities and amenities. A smaller facility in WA is also being currently built, again repeated requests for government funding have not been forthcoming, the majority of supply of cattle intended to come from the owners own herds.
ACIL’s 2012 report made some incredible assumptions concerning the 245% increased profitability
Of course a number of new processing facilities would be lovely in the perfect world but then again in the perfect world money would grow on trees. Australia simply doesn’t have the consistency of seasons to ensure continuity of supply of heavy animals suitable for slaughter. That is why Live export is so well suited to northern properties operations, we breed quality cattle, but we don’t need to send them fully grown and fat. Other countries do the feedlot process, we breed they feed. For Australian processing we have to send them heavy for the processors to have yield of carcase in comparison to cost of processing. Small animals cost just as much to process yet yield substantially less meat, they are less profitable to process.
While it would be nice to process another 400,000 cattle in north Australia, surely others can see that it is not financially achievable. We must have the competition of live export to ensure some form of market price parity for the producer. Send us broke we will take a lot of other service industries, employees and businesses with us, including eventually some processors.
Is the Australian producer expected to give their cattle away to keep up supply to abattoirs to keep them in business while we go broke, it simply doesn’t work that way!
If the financial viability of producers is undermined then we simply go out of business or for those who can afford to diversify from livestock will do so. Stopping live export will undermine the national herds as producers stop production or lower it and this will ultimately affect processor numbers which will decline their supply of animals more than with live export available. A point only realised in one report5 and I’m surprised isn’t given more thorough consideration.
The most recent report I have found is another sponsored by WSPA. This one mainly focus’s on WA and phasing out of the sheep live export trade. Released in March 2013 this report is written by a economic analyst and uses these curious equations to consider prices in NSW sheep markets in comparison to WA and Comparing live export of sheep to sheep processed in WA determine that
“there is no support for the connection that the live sheep export trade somehow underwrites domestic sheep prices”8.
I must say this report is the oddest, most contradictory piece of rubbish I have seen for a long time. The very next paragraph following that profound statement then states a premium price of 57c per kg which is approximately $28 per head is received by farmers selling to the live export trade. 3 or 4 paragraphs after that it states that
“cessation of the live export trade would see sheep farmers selling heavy wethers lose the premium they currently receive at sale yard auctions when they sell to live sheep exporters. On this basis, these sheep farmers would be materially worse off”(Pg vii).
Yet the author feels that live export doesn’t underpin the market prices. Very odd and very wrong!
Sheep producers in WA have communicated quiet clearly the collapse of their ram prices and older sheep. Why on earth did this 2013 report so stupidly say that there is enough processing capacity in WA to process the entire WA current live export supplies when the sheep supplied to LE are in no way similar to type or age to what the processors actually want. It makes the arrogant assumption that to ensure all year round supply of animals to the processors that producers could and would wear all costs of feeding while waiting for kill space availability. At 50c per day cost to feed a sheep at what point do others expect producers to not even cover their own production costs but then incur further costs to appease the processors to keep up supply?
There is absolutely no doubt that Live export offers stability, income and confidence for investment in the beef industry as a whole, it does contribute significantly to the economy. Those who say it doesn’t aren’t affected directly by it and for those who believe we are ‘insignificant’ I can assure you stopping live export will destroy many good businesses. Live export production underpins not only the domestic cattle and sheep prices but the entire herd populations of both cattle and sheep. If you want to see a serious demise of the entire Australian livestock industries then support a ban. I hope I don’t have to write an article 3-4 years after a ban and ‘say I told you so, you really should be careful what you wish for”. Then again those who are pushing for a ban are not paying the economic price for it are they? and they aren’t really pushing to improve animal welfare just animal liberation. Ironically I don’t think most of them give a damn anyway about the people a ban would affect, welcome to the more compassionate world.
Other reports of interest though not referred to in this post.
Investment opportunity – Northern outback QLD abattoir – DAFF. Feb 2012
‘The Live export industry – Value, Outlook and Contribution to the economy’ MLA. Hassall & Associates. June 2006. – project code LIVE 314
‘The Live export industry – Assessing the value of the livestock export industry to Regional Australia’ MLA Clarke et al. June 2007 – project code LIVE 326
3 Australian livestock export trade. N Austin 2011.
‘Impact on Western Australia’s shep supply chain of the termination of live sheep exports’ Nath at el. 2012
5 ACIL Tasman 2009 – The value of live sheep exports from Western Australia
‘The Value of the live sheep exports from Western Australia’ ACIL Tasman, M. Barber 2009
‘An economic analysis of the live exportation of cattle from northern Australia’ ACIL Tasman, M. Barber 2012
‘Review of the ACIL Tasman study into the value of live sheep exports from Western Australia’ J. Zeitsch. 2010.
The data used in these charts is taken from Animals Australia Incorporated financial records for each year up to 2012/2013, which they have submitted to the Victorian Department of Justice – these files are legitimately obtained and accessable to the public.
Animals Australia Inc (ABN 65 016 845 767)
Charts available for 2011/2012 financial year at Animals Australia Funding 2011 / 2012
Copies of prior financial records are available at Animals Australia financial statements and information
Chart 1 – Animals Australia Inc. Membership for years 2006 to 2013
Chart 2. Animals Australia Income from 2002/03 to 2012/2013
Chart 3 – Animals Australia Inc Income for 2012/2013
Chart 4 – Animals Australia Expenses for 2012/13
The data used in these charts is taken from Animals Australia Incorporated financial records for each year up to 2011/2012, which they have submitted to the Victorian Department of Justice – these files are legitimately obtained and accessable to the public.
Animals Australia Inc (ABN 65 016 845 767) Financial records 2011/2012
Updated information for 2012/2013 is available at Animals Australia Funding 2012 / 2013
Copies of prior financial records are available at Animals Australia financial statements and information
Chart 2. Animals Australia Income from 2002/03 to 2011/2012
Chart 5 – How Animals Australia choose to present their financial information of exactly the same statistics in chart 3 and 4.
Animals Australia Inc. Extract of 2011/12 financials sourced 09/06/2013