THE Queensland State Government has launched a review of the state’s century-old Brands Act, and will be inviting submissions from stakeholders.
Queensland, along with the Northern Territory, are the only two Australian jurisdictions remaining where branding of stock is mandatory.
A roundtable involving livestock industry stakeholders and government will be convened by the Primary Industries Minister today, to consult on and discuss Queensland’s livestock branding and earmarking requirements for cattle and pigs.
The 1915 Brands Act, which has remained largely unchanged for decades, regulates branding and earmarking of livestock in the state.
Under an earlier Labor State Government, a Brands Act review produced no substantive outcome.
“It’s vital that we take the time to consult with Queensland’s livestock industry to ensure any changes reflect the modern needs of today’s producers,” Primary Industries Minister Tony Perrett said.
“The livestock industry plays a critical role in Queensland’s economy, and we will work with them to ensure livestock branding and earmarking requirements are suitable for producers and rural communities.
“Labor spent years stringing out a review, hid the views of the industry in inaccessible cabinet documents and left the industry in limbo,” he said.
“Primary producers deserve updated legislation that keeps pace with a modern industry.”
Under current legislation brands and earmarks may be used to identify the owner of livestock, but the registered owner of the brand is not always the current owner of the animal. Brands are only compulsory for cattle above 100kg liveweight when they are being sold or offered for sale.
Queensland’s Crisafulli Government has produced a 25-year blueprint Primary Industries Prosper 2050 plan, which was developed to streamline and energise the industry through “the largest stakeholder collaboration primary industry seen in at least a decade,” the government said in a statement.
The Brands Act review is a part of that process.
Click here to find out more about Queensland’s current livestock branding and earmarking requirements.
I will always earmark/brand our cattle. My Mum is no longer with us in body, we had our brand registered jointly, as long as there is air flowing through my lungs her name remains on our Brand Return. Unlike all other ownership in life, when you leave, your things find new homes. How beautiful, to know that every time I brand, she is still our matriarch and mentor in spirit and on paper. If you are proud of the cattle you produce, you should also be proud enough to place your brand on them, how Australian. Take that away and we become just a little less Australian.
Should be optional. Other states have outlawed it and in some you can actually be prosecuted for branding under their animal cruelty act. Brand is out of date should a beast be sold anyway so seems an outdated requirement that places extra burden on the producer when selling cattle.
Brands and earmarks should remain in place as they are permanent markers. Nils tags are not permanent as they can be cut or lost. Also need a reader to read most nils tags as they are dirty or the beast is too agitated to get close to it. Plus if you read a stray animal graziers cannot find out the owner of the animal as the nils site won’t allow you.
Instead of concerning yourself with the Brands Act you should put a few stock inspectors on the tick line for spraying horses and preventing ticky animals entering clean clean country. The self regulated system for horses and the contractor system for cattle does not work. The stock inspector was the next best thing to a policeman in terms of protecting the tick line.
Biosecurity is the same. There is no accountability.
I take 10 head from Gympie to the Brisbane Exhibition each year. There is nobody at the DPI office prepared to inspect the cattle and the designated local contrator is an agent who couldn't be bothered so I have to get them inspected down there.
Once at the Ekka I can read a dozen rules about Biosecurity supported by signage which nobody polices.
As a grazier running around 80 head on 1400 acres I strongly believe that branding in my size operation is largely pointless, I only comply to meet legal requirements.
In reference to the change to QLD brands act
Q.
If no brand and NLIS tag is lost
The beast is then a clean skin ?
It is still a cleanskin with only a blister tag
Nothing wrong with branding
It just needs better policing