Livestock SA puts support behind reinstating Brands Act 1933

About 70 producers were in attendance at the southern region meeting, where Livestock SA president Geoff Power outlined the repealing of the act by the state government earlier this year.

He believed the state government would not reinstate the act, but proposed another solution on how the brands could be registered.

“We receive our Property Identification Code notice every two years and pay a fee to the government to retain that PIC information – why can’t we document our registered brand and earmark on that form?” he said.

“They have been doing it in WA for years. I don’t understand why we couldn’t adopt that system in SA?”

The proposal received unanimous support and a motion was passed at the meeting.

Mr Power said the meeting highlighted that this was a statewide issue, not just northern producers.

Livestock SA SE regional group chair Peter Stock agreed, using his own experience to highlight the importance of ear notching.

“I trucked old cows off to market this week, and had to replace nearly 75 per cent of the eartags, which had been lost in time,” he said. 

“It just shows how easily tags do fall out or don’t last.

“Plus if I don’t have those tags in, it costs me $50 a head at the yards, plus the $5/hd the tags cost.

“The NLIS is a good system for a lot of reasons, particularly traceability, but it is not a foolproof system as far as identification goes.

“Earnotching also make it easier to identify if an animal is found wandering or from a glance in the yards whether something doesn’t belong.

“And when it comes to livestock theft, an earnotch is impossible to tamper with, and is fundamental in helping police do their job.

“We need the two systems to work alongside and complement each other.

“It’s a fundamental part of our industry and has been effective in livestock identification for the past century.

“I assume this is just another cost-cutting measure by the government, but is one that misses the mark.”

Biosecurity SA acting executive director Roger Paskin said the decision to repeal of Brands Act was not based on budget savings.

“But Biosecurity SA is aware that it does cost producers to register a brand, so the deregulation is a red tape reduction measure for those producers who wish to use a brand, in that they no longer need to register it with PIRSA and pay associated fees,” he said.

Mr Paskin also said the government looked at the legislation used in other jurisdictions, including WA.

“Biosecurity SA is also aware Vic fully deregulated its brands system several years ago and has not identified any resulting livestock tracing problems,” he said.

“The NLIS and PIC systems, since their implementation, have already proven useful in tracing livestock ownership and movements, especially with livestock disease surveillance and control and emergencies, such as bushfires.”

Mr Power said they still hoped to meet with the government to discuss the proposal.

“By updating the system, through incorporating it into the PIC logging system, this would also help to eliminate brands that are no longer being utilised, of which there would be many, meaning less work,” he said.

Family First leader and Mount Compass farmer Robert Brokenshire thought the PIC proposal had merit.

“If that’s the compromise Livestock SA and the government can meet, then I will support that,” he said.

“If WA can do it, then so can we. But at this stage it looks like the government are refusing to listen to the industry, which is extremely disappointing.”

Mr Brokenshire said he had written a letter to the government requesting the act be reinstated, but said the recent reply was “dismissive”.

“Most producers disagree that the NLIS legislation replaces the need for the brand legislation,” he said.

“The tag system fails to address when stock disappear or need to be identified if they have wandered off and don’t have an eartag.

“Why wouldn’t we continue to maximise the opportunities for identification?

“There needs to be some common sense in this.”

BELMORE Shorthorn principal Andy Withers, Naracoorte, moved the motion at the Livestock SA southern region meeting, saying ear notching and branding were an additional identification safeguard in the event of wandering stock or stock theft. “It is a time proven method,” he said.

“The NLIS tags can be easily removed and they’re not considered a legally-traceable lifetime form of identification.

“I was in the UK recently where they had to put two eartags in because they fall out so much.

“Earmarking and branding is also the only untamperable identification mark you can use.

“If you think you can tamper with a brand, and get away with it under a good stockman’s eye, you are sorely mistaken.

“Captain Starlight tried it, and he ended up in jail.”

Mr Withers said if repealing the act was about cost savings for the state government, then they should leave it as it is.

“If all they are worried about is making the system digital and the cost involved, then they should keep the paper-based system,” he said.

“The only time they really have to do anything then is when a property changes hands.”