Question Time

Sheep and Goat Electronic Identification

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI (Leader of the Opposition) (14:20): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before addressing a question to the Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development on the topic of eID infrastructure rebates.

Leave granted.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: According to the PIRSA website, saleyard size categories are classified by annual throughput of sheep and farm goats when it comes to eligibility for infrastructure rebates. Because of the differences in footrot management policy between states and the intensive surveillance by PIRSA inspectors for footrot in South Australia compared to Victoria, the South-East saleyards have seen a significant drop in annual throughput over the last two years. For example, in the 2018-19 financial year there were 121,596 head through the Mount Gambier saleyards, whereas the 2022-23 financial year saw only 67,815 head through those same saleyards.

My question to the minister is: given the direct impact government policy is having on the annual throughput in the South-East, will these saleyards continue to be disadvantaged by now being downgraded when it comes to saleyard size categories for the eligible equipment and/or infrastructure for sheep and goat eID, or will the minister consider averaging the throughput for each saleyard over the last five years to achieve an average to determine the saleyard size category?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries) (14:22): I thank the honourable member for her question. I think there are a couple of points to be made first of all. In terms of footrot in the Limestone Coast, the so-called intensive surveillance referred to is not accurate in terms of the current approach in the Limestone Coast.

Following approaches from a number of stakeholders within the South-East last year, a trial was established which means that there is not active surveillance for footrot per se by PIRSA. However, that does not mean that where footrot is evident and has an animal welfare impact of significance there is no longer a requirement to take action. There is. That is part of the requirements of PIRSA.

What is happening concurrently with this is a review of footrot approaches across the state. That is an independent review that is taking place. The investigations or surveillance is part of a program that is through Livestock SA through the Sheep Industry Fund. So it's an arrangement or—I am not sure of the formalities but a memorandum of understanding or a contractual arrangement between Livestock SA and PIRSA to ensure that the program that was developed is the program that is adhered to.

Because of the feedback and concerns that were raised with me last year we have been able to, if you like, have a variance to that to enable this short trial to occur, and that is still the case at the moment. The review is not yet complete. I understand the reviewer has already had detailed conversations with stakeholders in the Limestone Coast and Kangaroo Island, and when I was last briefed, which was probably about two weeks ago, was either just in the process or about to commence consultation with other parts of the state, because clearly footrot management affects all areas. I am advised that due to wet weather obviously the incidence of footrot increases, and I believe there has been an increase in recent weeks.

In terms of the query about the rollout of eID and how it would apply to saleyards if, indeed, they have been affected in the last couple of years, certainly that is something that can be raised through the eID implementation committee. The saleyards at Mount Gambier and Naracoorte, if I recall correctly, are both represented on that committee. If there are concerns that the size of saleyards might be impacted if it is just taken on the most recent year, I am sure that can be raised and considered whether an alternative approach is needed.