Aussie households warned meat prices to rise
Making those warming winter comfort meals may be even harder this year, as cost-of-living continues to bite small businesses and Australians alike.
General manager of Cannings Butchers Matt Oltoumis said it's likely meat prices will rise this year, with a number of factors are contributing to the rising cost.
'We're likely to see beef and lamb prices rise in 2025, mainly due to tighter supply, strong export demand and some processing bottlenecks,' he said.
'Pork and chicken should stay more stable.' General Manager of Cannings Butchers Matt Oltoumis warned price of meat will go up this winter Supplied Credit: Supplied
Mr Oltoumis said this is due to a variety of reasons, which are constraining cost-effective supply.
'The cost of meat at your local butcher is driven by a combination of factors, everything from farm prices and export demand to rent, power bills, logistics, and wages,' he said.
'Fuel and inflation hit hard too for business owners.
'It's a complex supply chain, and as a retailer we wear a lot of that pressure while still trying to offer fair prices and keep creative with value-adding products that aren't in on our customers' usual menu.'
Labor costs are hurting local butchers – but the quality delivered by skilled human input is also what keeps customers coming back despite economic conditions.
'The most expensive part of producing meat is labour. We need skilled farmhands and processors to ensure the quality of the meat we sell to our customers, as well as experienced butchers and retail staff,' Mr Oltoumis said.
'This expert human input is vital and obviously comes at a cost. Add to that the rising costs of compliance, logistics, and maintaining cold chains, and labour consistently tops the list.'
However, the investment is paying off, as overall spending at butchers has grown 6 per cent, despite the average basket size dropping 41 per cent – $80 from April 2024 to $47 in April 2025, Tyro payment data shows. Spending at butchers has grown, despite basket sizes dropping, Tyro payments data show. NewsWire / Nikki Short Credit: News Corp Australia
This comes as food prices rose 3.2 per cent over the 12 months to the March quarter, up from 3.0 per cent in the December quarter, ABS statistics show.
Meat and seafood prices rose 4.3 per cent compared to 12 months ago, the largest annual increase since the December 2022 quarter.
Mr Oltoumis revealed the most underrated cuts of meat for budget-conscious shoppers. Mr Oltoumis has revealed some underrated cuts of meat that are budget-friendly. NewsWire / Monique Harmer Credit: News Corp Australia
'Pork neck is hugely underrated. It's affordable, well-marbled and incredibly versatile. Perfect for slow roasts in winter, but also brilliant when minced for a rich, traditional bolognese or cut into chunks and grilled as skewers. It delivers tenderness, flavour, and value across a range of cooking styles,' he said.
'Chicken thighs, beef mince, pork shoulder (neck/scotch), and chuck roast are my go-to economical cuts.
'They're flavourful, versatile, and stretch across multiple meals – perfect for bolognese, curries, roasts or slow cooks. You get great value without compromising on quality, especially when it's all premium, free range produce. This comes as Aussies begin to crave winter comfort food. NewsWire / Nikki Short Credit: News Corp Australia
'As the seasons change its entirely natural for us to crave 'winter comfort meals' and people start to cook a little different, they tend to want to make a meal that will feed them for a few days like a ragu for lasagne or slow cooked roast that you can use for a bunch of different other meals afterwards.
'People swing towards products that can be cooked slowly and
open them up to a variety of recipes.'
Tyro chief executive Jon Davey said small businesses like local butchers are showing great resilience despite economic pressures, as community and quality keeps them above water.
'Local Australian food retailers remain important for local economies,' he said.
'Small independent retailers continue to attract business through trust and personal connections, with nearly 68 per cent of customers visiting weekly.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Advertiser
9 hours ago
- The Advertiser
The billion-dollar industry with scant consumer protections
Virtually every man, woman and teenager has a mobile phone. Ninety-eight per cent of adults use mobile phones for calls. Behind your phone service is a multibillion-dollar industry critical to education, health, business, leisure, civic life and - in an emergency - life and death. But can we trust our telco providers? And as consumers what protections can we rely upon? Late last month deeply concerning allegations were levelled at Telstra by rival telco TPG/Vodafone which yet again raised red flags about the trust consumers can place in telcos. TPG claims that Telstra - which is Australia's largest telco by some margin - has misled consumers by making false claims about the size of its mobile network in its advertising, website content, annual reports and other sales material. Australians take note of claims made by telcos about their network size, network reliability and network performance in deciding their mobile provider. They do so on the presumption that telcos are honest with this information. Many Australians, particularly in regional and remote areas, sign up for more expensive plans with Telstra because they believe it's the only option for reliable coverage. If these latest allegations are true - and the coverage advantage is not as big as people have been led to believe - regional consumers could be forgiven for feeling betrayed. When consumers are misled, markets are distorted, and trust is eroded. That is why these latest allegations are so serious and should be investigated by the ACCC. Of course, the latest allegations are not the only indication that our trust in the major telcos is brittle. New research undertaken by Essential Media shows that 41 per cent of consumers have limited faith in their telco to act in their best interest -and almost a third said the coverage they received didn't match what they were led to expect. The Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman has recently identified a spike in complaints, including those for poor sales conduct - misleading and high-pressure tactics - as the most common systemic issue it investigates. In parallel, credit assessments in the telco sector remain inconsistent and inadequate. Complaints to the Ombudsman about poor credit checks increased by over 30 per cent in the past financial year, with financial counsellors reporting that many of their clients are routinely signed onto contracts they simply cannot afford. These concerns are not academic, they have a real-world impact everyday for Australians. The fact that we cannot rely on what telcos tell us about their coverage is why ACCAN supports the Government's National Audit of Mobile Coverage, which is gathering real-world data through 180,000 kilometres of on-the-ground testing each year. This information is important as it could help to build an independent coverage map, a key recommendation of the recent Regional Telecommunications Review, giving Australians accurate, unbiased insight into where they can expect service. But independent mapping will not fix all the problems with the nation's major telecommunications carriers. The fact is there is precious little to protect telecommunications consumers. The telecommunications industry itself develops the TCP Code (the sector's consumer protections rulebook) and is required to conduct a review every five years. The TCP Code already offers inadequate consumer protections and is not underpinned by effective compliance, enforcement and penalty arrangements. There are countless examples of consumer harm from this weak regulation. In May, ACCAN voted "no" in a ballot of the TCP Code Review Committee- of which we are a part - on the question of whether the draft Code should be sent to the regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority for consideration. Despite this, and despite 22 other consumer groups already walking away from the industry led code process, the ballot was carried. The revised Code has now been submitted to the ACMA for potential registration - a process that raises significant questions about whether the proposed updates meet community needs. Domestic, family and sexual violence and financial hardship have been taken out of the TCP Code, replaced with direct regulation in the last 18 months. This is a recognition of the critical nature of the problems, and the inadequacy of the code system. The current TCP Code fails to provide adequate consumer protections in two critical areas: irresponsible sales and inadequate credit assessments. These gaps result in thousands of Australians being sold plans they can't afford, don't understand, or never needed in the first place. These harms are exacerbated by sales incentive structures that reward telco staff for maximising sales volume and value - an eerily similar model to that called out and reformed in the financial services sector following the banking royal commission. Despite months of consultation, the final version of the draft Code submitted to the ACMA has not meaningfully strengthened these protections. The sales clauses still allow commission-based incentives and fail to impose clear duties to ensure affordability or product suitability. We are concerned that proposals in the Telecommunications (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2025 before parliament to make code compliance mandatory will not fully solve the problem - because the issue lies in the content of the industry-led code. The Ombudsman, the ACMA and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) have all criticised the process in which the industry is in charge of writing the nation's telecommunications protections. ACCAN has now joined the 22 consumer groups fed up with weak telecommunications regulation in the Fair Call Coalition. The answer is simple: new Minister for Communications, Anika Wells must reject the farcical process by which the industry (Communications Alliance) writes the nation's primary consumer protection code for telecommunications - and apply robust and enforceable rules in key areas of consumer harm. Consumers deserve and demand appropriate protections - and will be closely watching the leadership brought to bear by the federal government and the regulator to ensure their safety. Virtually every man, woman and teenager has a mobile phone. Ninety-eight per cent of adults use mobile phones for calls. Behind your phone service is a multibillion-dollar industry critical to education, health, business, leisure, civic life and - in an emergency - life and death. But can we trust our telco providers? And as consumers what protections can we rely upon? Late last month deeply concerning allegations were levelled at Telstra by rival telco TPG/Vodafone which yet again raised red flags about the trust consumers can place in telcos. TPG claims that Telstra - which is Australia's largest telco by some margin - has misled consumers by making false claims about the size of its mobile network in its advertising, website content, annual reports and other sales material. Australians take note of claims made by telcos about their network size, network reliability and network performance in deciding their mobile provider. They do so on the presumption that telcos are honest with this information. Many Australians, particularly in regional and remote areas, sign up for more expensive plans with Telstra because they believe it's the only option for reliable coverage. If these latest allegations are true - and the coverage advantage is not as big as people have been led to believe - regional consumers could be forgiven for feeling betrayed. When consumers are misled, markets are distorted, and trust is eroded. That is why these latest allegations are so serious and should be investigated by the ACCC. Of course, the latest allegations are not the only indication that our trust in the major telcos is brittle. New research undertaken by Essential Media shows that 41 per cent of consumers have limited faith in their telco to act in their best interest -and almost a third said the coverage they received didn't match what they were led to expect. The Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman has recently identified a spike in complaints, including those for poor sales conduct - misleading and high-pressure tactics - as the most common systemic issue it investigates. In parallel, credit assessments in the telco sector remain inconsistent and inadequate. Complaints to the Ombudsman about poor credit checks increased by over 30 per cent in the past financial year, with financial counsellors reporting that many of their clients are routinely signed onto contracts they simply cannot afford. These concerns are not academic, they have a real-world impact everyday for Australians. The fact that we cannot rely on what telcos tell us about their coverage is why ACCAN supports the Government's National Audit of Mobile Coverage, which is gathering real-world data through 180,000 kilometres of on-the-ground testing each year. This information is important as it could help to build an independent coverage map, a key recommendation of the recent Regional Telecommunications Review, giving Australians accurate, unbiased insight into where they can expect service. But independent mapping will not fix all the problems with the nation's major telecommunications carriers. The fact is there is precious little to protect telecommunications consumers. The telecommunications industry itself develops the TCP Code (the sector's consumer protections rulebook) and is required to conduct a review every five years. The TCP Code already offers inadequate consumer protections and is not underpinned by effective compliance, enforcement and penalty arrangements. There are countless examples of consumer harm from this weak regulation. In May, ACCAN voted "no" in a ballot of the TCP Code Review Committee- of which we are a part - on the question of whether the draft Code should be sent to the regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority for consideration. Despite this, and despite 22 other consumer groups already walking away from the industry led code process, the ballot was carried. The revised Code has now been submitted to the ACMA for potential registration - a process that raises significant questions about whether the proposed updates meet community needs. Domestic, family and sexual violence and financial hardship have been taken out of the TCP Code, replaced with direct regulation in the last 18 months. This is a recognition of the critical nature of the problems, and the inadequacy of the code system. The current TCP Code fails to provide adequate consumer protections in two critical areas: irresponsible sales and inadequate credit assessments. These gaps result in thousands of Australians being sold plans they can't afford, don't understand, or never needed in the first place. These harms are exacerbated by sales incentive structures that reward telco staff for maximising sales volume and value - an eerily similar model to that called out and reformed in the financial services sector following the banking royal commission. Despite months of consultation, the final version of the draft Code submitted to the ACMA has not meaningfully strengthened these protections. The sales clauses still allow commission-based incentives and fail to impose clear duties to ensure affordability or product suitability. We are concerned that proposals in the Telecommunications (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2025 before parliament to make code compliance mandatory will not fully solve the problem - because the issue lies in the content of the industry-led code. The Ombudsman, the ACMA and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) have all criticised the process in which the industry is in charge of writing the nation's telecommunications protections. ACCAN has now joined the 22 consumer groups fed up with weak telecommunications regulation in the Fair Call Coalition. The answer is simple: new Minister for Communications, Anika Wells must reject the farcical process by which the industry (Communications Alliance) writes the nation's primary consumer protection code for telecommunications - and apply robust and enforceable rules in key areas of consumer harm. Consumers deserve and demand appropriate protections - and will be closely watching the leadership brought to bear by the federal government and the regulator to ensure their safety. Virtually every man, woman and teenager has a mobile phone. Ninety-eight per cent of adults use mobile phones for calls. Behind your phone service is a multibillion-dollar industry critical to education, health, business, leisure, civic life and - in an emergency - life and death. But can we trust our telco providers? And as consumers what protections can we rely upon? Late last month deeply concerning allegations were levelled at Telstra by rival telco TPG/Vodafone which yet again raised red flags about the trust consumers can place in telcos. TPG claims that Telstra - which is Australia's largest telco by some margin - has misled consumers by making false claims about the size of its mobile network in its advertising, website content, annual reports and other sales material. Australians take note of claims made by telcos about their network size, network reliability and network performance in deciding their mobile provider. They do so on the presumption that telcos are honest with this information. Many Australians, particularly in regional and remote areas, sign up for more expensive plans with Telstra because they believe it's the only option for reliable coverage. If these latest allegations are true - and the coverage advantage is not as big as people have been led to believe - regional consumers could be forgiven for feeling betrayed. When consumers are misled, markets are distorted, and trust is eroded. That is why these latest allegations are so serious and should be investigated by the ACCC. Of course, the latest allegations are not the only indication that our trust in the major telcos is brittle. New research undertaken by Essential Media shows that 41 per cent of consumers have limited faith in their telco to act in their best interest -and almost a third said the coverage they received didn't match what they were led to expect. The Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman has recently identified a spike in complaints, including those for poor sales conduct - misleading and high-pressure tactics - as the most common systemic issue it investigates. In parallel, credit assessments in the telco sector remain inconsistent and inadequate. Complaints to the Ombudsman about poor credit checks increased by over 30 per cent in the past financial year, with financial counsellors reporting that many of their clients are routinely signed onto contracts they simply cannot afford. These concerns are not academic, they have a real-world impact everyday for Australians. The fact that we cannot rely on what telcos tell us about their coverage is why ACCAN supports the Government's National Audit of Mobile Coverage, which is gathering real-world data through 180,000 kilometres of on-the-ground testing each year. This information is important as it could help to build an independent coverage map, a key recommendation of the recent Regional Telecommunications Review, giving Australians accurate, unbiased insight into where they can expect service. But independent mapping will not fix all the problems with the nation's major telecommunications carriers. The fact is there is precious little to protect telecommunications consumers. The telecommunications industry itself develops the TCP Code (the sector's consumer protections rulebook) and is required to conduct a review every five years. The TCP Code already offers inadequate consumer protections and is not underpinned by effective compliance, enforcement and penalty arrangements. There are countless examples of consumer harm from this weak regulation. In May, ACCAN voted "no" in a ballot of the TCP Code Review Committee- of which we are a part - on the question of whether the draft Code should be sent to the regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority for consideration. Despite this, and despite 22 other consumer groups already walking away from the industry led code process, the ballot was carried. The revised Code has now been submitted to the ACMA for potential registration - a process that raises significant questions about whether the proposed updates meet community needs. Domestic, family and sexual violence and financial hardship have been taken out of the TCP Code, replaced with direct regulation in the last 18 months. This is a recognition of the critical nature of the problems, and the inadequacy of the code system. The current TCP Code fails to provide adequate consumer protections in two critical areas: irresponsible sales and inadequate credit assessments. These gaps result in thousands of Australians being sold plans they can't afford, don't understand, or never needed in the first place. These harms are exacerbated by sales incentive structures that reward telco staff for maximising sales volume and value - an eerily similar model to that called out and reformed in the financial services sector following the banking royal commission. Despite months of consultation, the final version of the draft Code submitted to the ACMA has not meaningfully strengthened these protections. The sales clauses still allow commission-based incentives and fail to impose clear duties to ensure affordability or product suitability. We are concerned that proposals in the Telecommunications (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2025 before parliament to make code compliance mandatory will not fully solve the problem - because the issue lies in the content of the industry-led code. The Ombudsman, the ACMA and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) have all criticised the process in which the industry is in charge of writing the nation's telecommunications protections. ACCAN has now joined the 22 consumer groups fed up with weak telecommunications regulation in the Fair Call Coalition. The answer is simple: new Minister for Communications, Anika Wells must reject the farcical process by which the industry (Communications Alliance) writes the nation's primary consumer protection code for telecommunications - and apply robust and enforceable rules in key areas of consumer harm. Consumers deserve and demand appropriate protections - and will be closely watching the leadership brought to bear by the federal government and the regulator to ensure their safety. Virtually every man, woman and teenager has a mobile phone. Ninety-eight per cent of adults use mobile phones for calls. Behind your phone service is a multibillion-dollar industry critical to education, health, business, leisure, civic life and - in an emergency - life and death. But can we trust our telco providers? And as consumers what protections can we rely upon? Late last month deeply concerning allegations were levelled at Telstra by rival telco TPG/Vodafone which yet again raised red flags about the trust consumers can place in telcos. TPG claims that Telstra - which is Australia's largest telco by some margin - has misled consumers by making false claims about the size of its mobile network in its advertising, website content, annual reports and other sales material. Australians take note of claims made by telcos about their network size, network reliability and network performance in deciding their mobile provider. They do so on the presumption that telcos are honest with this information. Many Australians, particularly in regional and remote areas, sign up for more expensive plans with Telstra because they believe it's the only option for reliable coverage. If these latest allegations are true - and the coverage advantage is not as big as people have been led to believe - regional consumers could be forgiven for feeling betrayed. When consumers are misled, markets are distorted, and trust is eroded. That is why these latest allegations are so serious and should be investigated by the ACCC. Of course, the latest allegations are not the only indication that our trust in the major telcos is brittle. New research undertaken by Essential Media shows that 41 per cent of consumers have limited faith in their telco to act in their best interest -and almost a third said the coverage they received didn't match what they were led to expect. The Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman has recently identified a spike in complaints, including those for poor sales conduct - misleading and high-pressure tactics - as the most common systemic issue it investigates. In parallel, credit assessments in the telco sector remain inconsistent and inadequate. Complaints to the Ombudsman about poor credit checks increased by over 30 per cent in the past financial year, with financial counsellors reporting that many of their clients are routinely signed onto contracts they simply cannot afford. These concerns are not academic, they have a real-world impact everyday for Australians. The fact that we cannot rely on what telcos tell us about their coverage is why ACCAN supports the Government's National Audit of Mobile Coverage, which is gathering real-world data through 180,000 kilometres of on-the-ground testing each year. This information is important as it could help to build an independent coverage map, a key recommendation of the recent Regional Telecommunications Review, giving Australians accurate, unbiased insight into where they can expect service. But independent mapping will not fix all the problems with the nation's major telecommunications carriers. The fact is there is precious little to protect telecommunications consumers. The telecommunications industry itself develops the TCP Code (the sector's consumer protections rulebook) and is required to conduct a review every five years. The TCP Code already offers inadequate consumer protections and is not underpinned by effective compliance, enforcement and penalty arrangements. There are countless examples of consumer harm from this weak regulation. In May, ACCAN voted "no" in a ballot of the TCP Code Review Committee- of which we are a part - on the question of whether the draft Code should be sent to the regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority for consideration. Despite this, and despite 22 other consumer groups already walking away from the industry led code process, the ballot was carried. The revised Code has now been submitted to the ACMA for potential registration - a process that raises significant questions about whether the proposed updates meet community needs. Domestic, family and sexual violence and financial hardship have been taken out of the TCP Code, replaced with direct regulation in the last 18 months. This is a recognition of the critical nature of the problems, and the inadequacy of the code system. The current TCP Code fails to provide adequate consumer protections in two critical areas: irresponsible sales and inadequate credit assessments. These gaps result in thousands of Australians being sold plans they can't afford, don't understand, or never needed in the first place. These harms are exacerbated by sales incentive structures that reward telco staff for maximising sales volume and value - an eerily similar model to that called out and reformed in the financial services sector following the banking royal commission. Despite months of consultation, the final version of the draft Code submitted to the ACMA has not meaningfully strengthened these protections. The sales clauses still allow commission-based incentives and fail to impose clear duties to ensure affordability or product suitability. We are concerned that proposals in the Telecommunications (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2025 before parliament to make code compliance mandatory will not fully solve the problem - because the issue lies in the content of the industry-led code. The Ombudsman, the ACMA and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) have all criticised the process in which the industry is in charge of writing the nation's telecommunications protections. ACCAN has now joined the 22 consumer groups fed up with weak telecommunications regulation in the Fair Call Coalition. The answer is simple: new Minister for Communications, Anika Wells must reject the farcical process by which the industry (Communications Alliance) writes the nation's primary consumer protection code for telecommunications - and apply robust and enforceable rules in key areas of consumer harm. Consumers deserve and demand appropriate protections - and will be closely watching the leadership brought to bear by the federal government and the regulator to ensure their safety.
Sky News AU
11 hours ago
- Sky News AU
Nationals Leader David Littleproud demand Prime Minister Anthony Albanese rules out kowtowing on US beef imports
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese 'needs to' immediately rule out kowtowing to Donald Trump on biosecurity laws on US beef imports, Nationals Leader David Littleproud has demanded. Government officials reportedly told The Sydney Morning Herald that Australia could alter its biosecurity laws to allow US beef exports without risks to local industry, in a move to appease Trump as he wages his trade war. Australia banned US beef in 2003 after a mad cow disease outbreak before undoing this in 2019 when the outbreak subsided. Cattle raised in Mexico and Canada but slaughtered in the US is still banned, however, this could be changed according to the report. Mr Littleproud raised concerns about Australia's cattle industry on Friday and urged the Prime Minister not to use the sector as a bargaining chip in negotiations with the US President. 'There needs to be certainty. The Prime Minister needs to rule it out immediately,' the Nationals Leader said on Sky News. 'He needs to make sure that he's very clear with Australian producers that our biosecurity standards will not be reduced and that … if we want to get imports that originated from Mexico or Canada, that there's some traceability on it like Australian producers have.' He called for the Prime Minister to be transparent with Australian beef producers as concerns fester about the nation's biosecurity following this report. 'I don't think Australian producers are asking for anything unfair here, they're just trying to protect their production systems, making sure that they can not only feed Australians but feed the world,' Mr Littleproud said. 'The Prime Minister and his department who are mooting these things need to be very, very clear with Australian beef producers that it's not on the table and it won't be on the table at all. 'But when you start getting these reports - you don't start seeing these reports unless there's smoke and when there's smoke, there's fire.' Australia exports more than $4b of beef to the US annually, making it the largest market for Aussie beef exports behind China. After Trump revealed his sweeping tariffs and invited impacted nations to negotiate, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese vowed to protect the nation's biosecurity laws, Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and news publishers against tech giants. 'We will not weaken the measures that protect our farmers and producers from the risks of disease or contamination,' he said in a statement. Cattle Australia chief executive Chris Parker issued a statement highlighting the importance of traceability for foreign-produced beef. 'Our position is that the US needs to be able to demonstrate it can either trace cattle born in Mexico and Canada, or has systems that are equivalent to Australia's traceability, before imports of meat could occur from non-US cattle,' Mr Parker said. 'Cattle Australia is in ongoing communication with the Federal Government regarding this issue and the vital importance that our science-based biosecurity system is not compromised as part of trade discussions with any country.' Mr Albanese is expected to have a meeting with Trump either on the sidelines of the G7 meeting in Canada or in the US later in June where the Prime Minister will make Australia's case for tariff exemptions. Australia faces 50 per cent tariffs on steel and aluminium alongside a broad 10 per cent levy on all goods, which is still paused by the Trump Administration.
West Australian
21 hours ago
- West Australian
Cost-of-living pressures sees Aussies take on a second job
The post-Covid boom in the number of Aussies working multiple jobs continues as higher cost of living pressures means more workers are taking on a second gig. The Australian Bureau of Statistics data shows that in the March quarter there were 963,100 Aussies – or 6.5 per cent of the workforce – who had more than one job. While this is actually down from the previous quarter where 999,500 Australians held multiple jobs, it is still a sharp uptick in workers looking to diversify their incomes compared with the years prior to Covid, where around 5 to 6 per cent of Aussies took on a second gig. Seek senior economist Blair Chapman said the spike in cost-of-living pressures from inflation meant more Australians needed to take on extra work. 'We've really seen cost-of-living, especially for employee households, increase quite a lot over the last couple of years,' he said. 'If you've got a mortgage, those repayments have increased quite a bit over the last couple of years so I suspect people have sought a second job just to reach the higher cost of living recently.' Australians are holding onto their second job despite the overall unemployment rate holding firm in recent months, around the 4.1 per cent mark. The main driving force behind this trend is underemployment meaning workers are getting fewer hours from their primary employer than they'd like. 'We are seeing more people being employed in industries where we tend to see a lot of multiple job holdings,' Mr Chapman said. 'For example, we've seen healthcare and social assistance grow and that is one of the industries where multiple job holdings are most common. 'That comes down to the nature of the work, where you have shift work and one business may not be able to provide all the hours an employee wants so the individual has to work across multiple sites to get the hours they are desiring.' Many of these multiple job holders are Australians aged between 20-24, with women more likely to hold a second role over males. In contrast older Australians aged between 60 to 64 are the least likely to hold a second role. 'When we look at a lot of the multiple job holders, they tend to be younger. Maybe it is a university aged person who can't work full-time but can work nights and weekends,' Mr Chapman said. 'While maybe it is not the same job but for them it is probably good they can work multiple jobs with flexible hours.'
