Council Backs Saleyards Future After Marathon Debate

By Tim Howard

The Grafton saleyards will remain under council ownership after Clarence Valley Council unanimously backed the facility’s future following more than an hour of debate over increased fees, ageing infrastructure and its long-term financial sustainability.

Councillors also agreed to establish a stakeholder group of producers, livestock agents, transport operators and industry representatives to help guide future improvements at the Grafton Regional Livestock Selling Centre.

The decision followed consideration of a future management options report and 18 public submissions, all of which supported retaining a saleyards facility in the Clarence Valley.

But councillors rejected a proposal from Cr Debrah Novak to seek expressions of interest for the sale, lease or contract management of the facility.

Cr Greg Clancy successfully moved to remove the proposal, arguing it would cost council money and conflicted with the decision to retain council ownership.

“I don’t think we need it,” he said. “If council decides that we should take different action, that could be the subject of a notice of motion.”

The amendment was carried 6-2, with Crs Novak and Cristie Yager voting against its removal.

The final resolution confirmed continued council ownership and operation as the preferred pathway while delaying development of future capital works until consultation with the new stakeholder group.

The committee’s terms of reference will come back to council before expressions of interest are called for members.

While there was unanimous support for retaining the saleyards, councillors differed sharply over who should bear the cost of keeping the ageing facility viable.

Council has already adopted higher saleyards charges for 2026-27, increasing producer yard dues from $11.03 to $14 a head, agent yard dues from 67 cents to $3 a head and introducing a new $3-a-head capital works levy.

The combined council charges have increased from $11.70 to $20 a head, although the fees are invoiced to livestock agents, who determine how they are passed on to vendors.

Cr Novak argued producers accepted the need for a sustainable business model but wanted to see council demonstrate good faith by tackling long-standing maintenance issues before asking them to pay substantially more.

“What they want to see is no more talk,” she said.

“They want to see action.”

She said the industry had been discussing improvements for years and wanted to see practical progress through a stakeholder group, business plan and master plan.

Cr Novak also described the saleyards as a vital agricultural asset supporting about 365 cattle producers and generating almost $5 million in farm rates for council.

Cr Yager said many producers were surprised to learn the fee increases had already been adopted before submissions on the management options report were considered.

“This is taking $11 or $12 up to $20 per head and, if you have cattle, that’s actually massive,” she said, adding that smaller producers would be hardest hit.

She said producers had not rejected higher charges outright, but wanted greater involvement in deciding how the money would be spent.

Other councillors argued the saleyards could only survive if council addressed its long-term financial position.

Cr Andrew Baker said council could not insist on running the saleyards in a businesslike manner while refusing to charge enough to keep it operating.

“If keeping the doors open is critical, and I accept that it probably is, we need to ensure that the customers know they’re paying the appropriate amount,” he said.

Cr Peter Johnstone said the increase had come as a shock to many producers, but warned any future attempt to reverse the fees would require council to find replacement revenue elsewhere.

Cr Karen Toms said the saleyards was a council business activity that should progressively cover its operating and renewal costs rather than relying on the general rate base.

“We need to make sure that our business activities are financially sustainable,” she said.

“We can’t be subsidising private businesses in their business at one of our business activities.”

Cr Clancy said council had to balance support for the rural community with responsible financial management.

“We need to support the farmers … but we also need to make it viable,” he said.

“I think the setting up of the advisory group is a really positive thing.”

The council report found the saleyards generated a net operating surplus of $173,508 before depreciation over the past five years.

However, depreciation totalled $804,698 over the same period, leaving a cumulative deficit of $631,190 once long-term asset renewal costs were taken into account.

The new capital works levy is expected to raise about $120,000 a year, based on annual throughput of about 40,000 head of cattle.

Money raised through the levy will be placed in a dedicated reserve for future renewal and improvements, with priorities to be developed in consultation with the stakeholder group.

Councillors also discussed the saleyards’ role during natural disasters.

Cr Novak successfully removed the word “potential” from the resolution’s reference to its emergency-management value, arguing producers had used the facility to shelter livestock during floods.

However, General Manager Laura Black told the meeting the saleyards was not formally designated as an emergency livestock refuge, with emergency authorities deciding which facilities were used during individual events.

The amended motion was carried unanimously.