SA’s livestock producers want greater transparency and control on the spending of their SA Sheep Industry and SA Cattle Industry Funds.
The grower voluntary contributions support animal health and biosecurity programs, industry development and advocacy through funding to Livestock SA.
Both the sheep fund, derived from 35 cents a head transactions on sheep sold in SA, and the cattle fund from a $1.10/hd tag levies, will be in jeopardy by 2017-18 without a higher contribution.
The increased cost of administering some core programs and the state government’s move to full cost recovery for its animal health programs has put pressure on the budgets.
The Sheep Advisory Group and Cattle Advisory Group, comprising mainly producers, advise Agriculture Minister Leon Bignell on how the fund is spent. But many producers are concerned about the government’s level of control.
Late last year SASAG held meetings across the state, with four levy options – 55c, 60c, 65c and 70c – floated in a survey. More than 700 responses were received, but five months later producers have heard nothing.
The Liberal Opposition probed Mr Bignell about the delay during question time in state parliament last week, but he took the question on notice.
A PIRSA statement said Mr Bignell had given in-principle endorsement to a proposal by SACAG to increase their CIF contribution rate to $1.50/hd.
The proposed increase was consulted with industry in 2015 through Livestock SA and the SA Dairy Association. Any increase in the SIF contribution rate will be considered concurrently with the proposed increase in the CIF rate.
Livestock SA president Geoff Power said industry had waited “far too long” for the announcement of the new sheep transaction levy rate. But he said there had been widespread support for a 20c increase.
Sheep and cattle producers recognised the importance of the funds to safeguard SA’s livestock industry through strong biosecurity and enhanced abattoir surveillance programs, as well as funding industry development and industry advocacy.
“We are an exporting state and if you talk lamb, we are the biggest exporters in Australia with the processors here, so it is important that we have got the tools in place to monitor for diseases and manage our biosecurity,” Mr Power said.
“If there was a disease outbreak or even the perception of one it could shut the industry down overnight.”
Mr Power confirmed Livestock SA’s support for the cattle tag levy rise as an “interim measure”, with its preference still moving to a transaction levy.
“It is the most equitable system with not just breeders but feedlotters, backgrounders all contributing,” he said. “Breeders may even be paying (the tag levy) twice with a percentage of tags falling out.”
Mr Power said Livestock SA had been given some figures by CAG stating the CIF was at risk of running out of money without the increase, but had not received a detailed budget.
PIRSA did not provide Stock Journal with an up-to-date budget with actual figures on income and expenditure of the CIF, but provided a pie chart showing 75 per cent of the annual spend was on animal health traceability and access programs.
CAG chairperson Tom Honner said the rise was necessary as it was 100pc “industry funded".
“If we continue to erode our base capital, we run the risk of being unable to fund beneficial projects into the future that will enhance, protect and innovate our state’s cattle industry,” he said.
Mr Honner said the CIF had contributed money to a range of programs which had benefited the state’s cattle industry, from the Pimelia project in northern SA, to identifying causes for dark cutting meat in the South East.
CAG was also critical in the eradication of Enzootic Bovine Leucosis in SA, which was a major win for the dairy industry.
“SA has a responsibility to contribute to nationally-important programs, such as National Livestock Reporting Service, Bovine Johnes Disease and disease surveillance, which is a major cost to the fund,” Mr Honner said.
REFORM NEEDED
ADELAIDE Hills and SE sheep producer Roger Farley says SA sheep producers have lost control of their industry fund.
The former SAFF president put in a lengthy submission to SASAG late last year during its consultation, concerned about the management of the fund. He also expressed concerns the advisory group was skewed towards the stud industry and controlled by government.
He says it is unacceptable for farmers to be hit with an increase for the 2016-17 financial year, having already done their budgets.
Mr Farley is also calling for greater transparency of SIF and CIF budgets and wants the financial returns or an annual budget to be presented for both funds every year at the Livestock SA annual general meeting.
“The SA grains industry levy is voted on every year at the AGM of either SAFF or more recently Grain Producers SA,” he said.
“The GPSA board may put in their recommendations, but it is always the decision of the growers.
“SASAG, you have never given sheep producers a chance to have a say about the levy rate at a special meeting or AGM of SAFF or Livestock SA or asked whether they want the fund or not – where is your credibility?”
Mr Farley also maintains only one organisation is needed for SA’s livestock industry.
“Livestock SA has to go cap in hand to SASAG, who tells them if their budget is approved or not and what they will get,” he said.
“I will be recommending to my business partners no more money for SASAG and that we should be asking for $3500-$4000 paid each year to be returned. We could then instead make a direct contribution to Livestock SA for their advocacy work.”
