COMMENT
In the recent Federal Budget, the government committed $46.7 million to support continuous improvement in our livestock traceability systems.
The Budget papers said the funding was to maintain "our world-class system and ensuring we can recover quickly from any disease incursions".
Traceability systems are the key to an effective biosecurity regime and underpin our agricultural exports.
However, a decision taken by Australian agriculture ministers, when they met at the end of last year to consider a report from the National Horse Traceability Working Group, may put years of hard work at risk.
The Working Group was formed following a Senate Committee inquiry into the feasibility of establishing a national horse register.
There are serious diseases, such as equine influenza and African horse sickness, affecting horses that are either not present in Australia or rarely occur.
The consequences of a major disease outbreak in Australia's horse population would be very significant.
The forced closure of the $9 billion thoroughbred racing industry, for example, could trigger an economic shock - particularly in regional economies where it employs large numbers of people.
Australia's meat, live export, fibre and hide industries rely on horses for the operation of many farms and most feedlots.
But the impact of a major disease outbreak in our horse population might not be limited to the domestic economy or to horses.
Such an outbreak could see Australia's trading partners and, more importantly, our trading competitors call into question Australia's biosecurity regime more generally.
The Traceability Group considered four options, but focused on two of them.
Option two is an enhanced Property Identifier Code (PIC) system and record keeping.
This is described as an incremental approach leveraging off the various state and territory-based PICs, with minimum development costs.
But it has no central database to record births and deaths and relies on paper-based records.
Option four is a national horse traceability system that would achieve whole-of-life traceability and quick access to individual horse data in an emergency, increased oversight and real time movement traceability.
But it appears the working group, departmental officers and ministers were scared off by high development and operational costs.
The Working Group recommended option two and ministers agreed.
The Group argued in support of option two based on the following "benefits":
- It utilises current property registration and PIC systems run by the states
- It has minimal development costs and enforcement processes and
- It establishes a base on which option four could be built "if necessary, at a later date".
The Group identified the challenges as having no central database to record horse movements, foaling or deaths and the use of paper-based records.
In contrast, the Working Group noted the benefits of option four as having a centralised database that allows quick access to individual traceability data in a biosecurity emergency and increased oversight of the horse population (that is, better welfare outcomes).
The challenges are high development and ongoing costs and mandatory recording of horse deaths.
Ministers were given the choice of a T Model Ford complete with crank handle over a RAM 1500 TRX. They opted for the T Model Ford.
We need a national, integrated traceability system for all livestock - including horses - that sits within the National Livestock Identification Scheme (NLIS) framework, that operates a mandatory data system and that provides real time access to individual data.
We do not need a separate system for horses built of different state-based PIC regimes and the use of paper-based movement records.
