A war of words has erupted in recent weeks between concerned SA livestock producers and Livestock SA, the organisation tasked to represent them.
A decade on from its establishment, Livestock SA has been working with Mellor Olsson Lawyers to ensure its structure and governance is appropriate for the body it has evolved into.
Members will vote on the new constitution at a special meeting on June 6 but the discussion paper has prompted a flurry of letters to the editor to Stock Journal, largely concerned about plans to streamline Livestock SA's six sub committees into one livestock advisory group, reducing duplication.
This would see the separate Sheep and Cattle Industry Fund Boards -which are two of the six sub committees- abolished.
These committees - which were previously ministerially appointed advisory groups - comprise individuals selected by an independent panel.
They provide recommendations on how the voluntary Sheep Industry Fund and Cattle Industry Fund monies should be spent each year to Livestock SA, which then writes to the Primary Industries Minister of the day for approval.
Marrabel Merino breeder Ian Rowett says many levy payers are suspicious of Livestock SA's intent as just four years ago the organisation put in writing a guarantee, which was signed off by Livestock SA president Joe Keynes and then-chief executive officer Andrew Curtis, that the two boards would remain independent.
He is concerned Livestock SA is "attempting a takeover" of these industry funds.
"There is a strong belief in the livestock industry that the changes will lead to a snout in the trough mentality," he said
Mr Rowett, who was the chair of the SIF committee for six years until a year ago, says the funds are the envy of other states.
The funds are collected from the 55 cent sheep transaction levy and $1.50 cattle producers pay when they buy their NLIS tags and fund valuable industry projects from animal health programs to traceability and predator control.
Livestock SA is also a significant beneficiary, going towards its advocacy work.
In 2023-24 it received $903,040 from the SIF, along with $375,000 from the CIF for its core function - the same as the previous financial year.
Mr Rowett says these SIF and CIF project recommendations must be made at an arms length from Livestock SA's board.
"These sub committees are not policy making so are separate from the divisive agri-political issues, which can cause levy payer unrest and jeopardise the fund with a run of refund requests," he said.
He says the proposal to amalgamate Livestock SA's six sub committees "defies logic" with people with expert cattle knowledge unlikely to want to sit through a meeting revolving around sheep issues and vice versa.
"To Livestock SA, I say stop the waffle and poppycock and get on with your role and stop grandstanding about the need to change things when what we have now is working very efficiently," he said.
Livestock SA chief executive officer Travis Tobin says there will be no changes, under a new committee structure, to the current process where the organisation appoints a skills-based committee (currently SIF and CIF Boards) to review project proposals and provide independent funding recommendations to the Livestock SA Board.
Discussions within the organisation about streamlining the committee's structure have begun and are expected to be finalised by the annual general meeting in November, he said.
"The important thing for Livestock SA is to continue appointing people with the right skills to its committees, not the number of committees the organisation has or what they are called," he said.
He says for the CIF and SIF annual project recommendations to be truly independent from Livestock SA, separate sheep and cattle industry entities would need to be established - the same as the SA Grains Industry Trust, which handles the grains levy.
"Besides the administrative and regulatory issues to be addressed before SIF and CIF trusts could be put in place, it will cost livestock producers an estimated $300,000 more per year than the current model," he said.
Mr Tobin assured producers that Livestock SA would have no direct access to or control of the CIF and SIF, with a number of checks and balances in place.
"Accountability issues occur when organisations are not properly governed, not from adopting modern governance and industry best practice," he said.
A PIRSA spokesperson confirmed the Minister for Primary Industries was the administrator of all Primary Industry Funds to "ensure the appropriate accountability for the use of funds for the benefit of industry".
Livestock SA is recognised as the recipient of approved funding from the SIF and Livestock SA with the support of SA Dairyfarmers Association as the recipient of approved funding from the CIF but must provide progress reports on each funded project, they said.
