Division on levy hike

But others accept they must pay for animal health programs, surveillance, traceability, predator control and industry advocacy – which bring significant benefits.

Producers have been mailed a one-page survey seeking their feedback on future investment priorities and their preferred contribution rate – 55c, 60c, 65c or 70c – to support these activities.

The 2015-16 budgeted expenditure is $4.38 million – 71c a sheep transacted – compared to projected revenue of $2.223m from the 35c contribution.

It has been estimated if left unchanged, the fund would become unsustainable by 2017-18.

Livestock SA president Geoff Power accepts industry needs a transaction levy but is calling for a longer consultation period.

Many producers only received the discussion paper in the mail late last week and had been asked to respond by Wednesday, December 16.

“We support the fact there needs to be a rise but it needs to be 55c or 60c and it should be in increments,” Mr Power said.

“With the development of One Biosecurity we will find some savings so shouldn’t get too far ahead of ourselves.”

SA Sheep Advisory Group chair Leonie Mills says they will accept feedback for “one or two weeks” past the deadline before putting a recommended contribution rate to Agriculture Minister Leon Bignell in January. 

Mrs Mills reiterated the cost of running core programs had not significantly increased, but a major part of the draw down of cash reserves has come from the state government’s push towards a full cost recovery model.

Kangaroo Island sheep producer John Symons, Parndana,  says “producers must pay”.

“I shudder to see where the industry is going to be if we throw up our hands and say we won’t fund these programs,” he said.

“Sadly the government for whatever reason is broke and is saying they won’t put funds in so it is up to us.

“Seventy cents is a big ask, to double the levy in the one go, but we have known for a long way back we would need to raise the levy.

“If we face reality 70c is where it needs to be but it is a question of what we can get away with funding.”

Mr Symons, who spent more than a decade on SASAG, said the government’s withdrawal of funding of PIRSA’s programs was very disappointing but said they fought hard to protect industry funds.

“In this day and age if we want to continue to farm livestock we have got to be seen to be doing the right thing,” he said.

“Running sheep with footrot and lice and dying of ovine johnes disease is not acceptable – we have got to do it better than that.”

Mannanarie sheep producer Ruth Robinson says the SA Sheep Industry Fund is a considerable asset and producers need to “step up and shoulder responsibility for their industry”.

“No state governments anywhere want to pay for anything,” she said.

“It is all user pays. At least in SA we have an industry fund to draw on. We are envied by other states.”

Ms Robinson, who completed a three-year term on SASAG in June, says she will be voting for the highest proposed levy option – 70c.

“The choice is either to front up as an industry or to drop the ball and be loose with disease control which could be disastrous,” she said.

“Like all producers I don’t want any more taken off my proceeds than necessary, but I would rather pay 70c than deal with the consequences of a major disease outbreak.”

STRATHALBYN sheep producer Roger Farley has questioned the management of the Sheep Industry Fund, which has dropped from almost $9m three years ago to an estimated $3.4m by the end of 2015-16.

“SASAG and the government are in a no-win situation where they have to raise the levy – it is no better than the ESL and NRM levies,” he said.

Mr Farley, who is livid about the proposed levy hike, says SA’s sheep sector only needs one industry body. 

He wants to see Livestock SA replace SASAG as the administrator of the fund. 

He questions whether SASAG members’ views are in line with the commercial industry with a large proportion of stud producers on the board, and no independent elections.

He also wants changes to the largest annual expense of the fund, the OJD program.

At risk flocks are eligible for a subsidy on the Gudair vaccine but Mr Farley says this does not extend far enough.

He believes sheep on the family’s Kybybolite property are at huge risk of being infected with OJD from nearby Victorian properties.

But they have been told they are ineligible for a subsidy because the Border Road dividing them is a sufficient biosecurity barrier.

Mr Farley disagrees and is paying the full cost of vaccinating 2800 lambs a year, but he is questioning this.

“I thought we were getting on top of OJD here in SA so the cost of subsidising the vaccine to producers should be less than when it was set up,” he said.

“If at the end of the day we are not getting on top of it we might as well go like NSW and Vic and let everyone manage it themselves.”

Mr Farley says he has considered applying for a refund of the voluntary levy but is in support of continuing to fund the Dog Fence – which he views as a vital asset to protect SA’s sheep flock.

“Can I pay for predator control and Livestock SA without all the other add-on expenses?” he said.

He believes the 35c levy would remain adequate if the state government recognised agriculture as a major economic contributor. 

“Aren’t we of some benefit to the economy?” he said.