❓ A WA parliamentary question probes the government's practice of seeking legal advice from Commonwealth officers, specifically regarding Animals Australia's complaint about live sheep transport, questioning the necessity and cost.
AnsweredQoN 88Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
(1) In the question of legal matters and governance, has it been the practice of this minister’s agency under the Gallop government to seek advice first from the State Solicitor’s Office and then from commonwealth law officers? (2) (a) If yes, how many times has this occurred? (b) If no, why has this practice taken place in relation to Animals Australia’s complaint about live sheep transport aboard the Al Kuwait ? (3) Given that the State Solicitor’s Office is capable of providing advice on all state and federal laws, what public benefit derives from the minister’s action in seeking advice from commonwealth law officers in this or any other matter of legal advice? (4) In relation to the matter of Animals Australia’s complaint, what are the additional costs to the taxpayer of seeking advice from commonwealth law officers over and above that advice already provided by the State Solicitor’s Office? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(4) The questions again refer to a case pending adjudication in a court of law and are therefore out of order pursuant to Legislative Council standing order 140(a)(iii). That is the answer I have been provided with, but because I have some responsibility in this area I just want to add to that. The reason that the commonwealth law officers’ opinion was sought is that the live export trade is commonwealth controlled. That essentially goes to the centre of what the Supreme Court will be adjudicating on. Therefore, I cannot give any advice on that. However, the state found it necessary, given the government’s assumption that this is commonwealth controlled trade, which it is, that the commonwealth needed to have a say in whether jurisdictional issues existed. I think that is a pretty clear position. I hope that it helps the member. It is a jurisdictional issue that needs to be resolved. The PRESIDENT : I note in that answer that the Leader of the House can provide any answer he likes. However, it is interesting to hear a view about standing orders that I do not share and that has nothing to do with standing orders.
(2) (a) If yes, how many times has this occurred? (b) If no, why has this practice taken place in relation to Animals Australia’s complaint about live sheep transport aboard the Al Kuwait ? (3) Given that the State Solicitor’s Office is capable of providing advice on all state and federal laws, what public benefit derives from the minister’s action in seeking advice from commonwealth law officers in this or any other matter of legal advice? (4) In relation to the matter of Animals Australia’s complaint, what are the additional costs to the taxpayer of seeking advice from commonwealth law officers over and above that advice already provided by the State Solicitor’s Office? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(4) The questions again refer to a case pending adjudication in a court of law and are therefore out of order pursuant to Legislative Council standing order 140(a)(iii). That is the answer I have been provided with, but because I have some responsibility in this area I just want to add to that. The reason that the commonwealth law officers’ opinion was sought is that the live export trade is commonwealth controlled. That essentially goes to the centre of what the Supreme Court will be adjudicating on. Therefore, I cannot give any advice on that. However, the state found it necessary, given the government’s assumption that this is commonwealth controlled trade, which it is, that the commonwealth needed to have a say in whether jurisdictional issues existed. I think that is a pretty clear position. I hope that it helps the member. It is a jurisdictional issue that needs to be resolved. The PRESIDENT : I note in that answer that the Leader of the House can provide any answer he likes. However, it is interesting to hear a view about standing orders that I do not share and that has nothing to do with standing orders.
(b) If no, why has this practice taken place in relation to Animals Australia’s complaint about live sheep transport aboard the Al Kuwait ? (3) Given that the State Solicitor’s Office is capable of providing advice on all state and federal laws, what public benefit derives from the minister’s action in seeking advice from commonwealth law officers in this or any other matter of legal advice? (4) In relation to the matter of Animals Australia’s complaint, what are the additional costs to the taxpayer of seeking advice from commonwealth law officers over and above that advice already provided by the State Solicitor’s Office? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(4) The questions again refer to a case pending adjudication in a court of law and are therefore out of order pursuant to Legislative Council standing order 140(a)(iii). That is the answer I have been provided with, but because I have some responsibility in this area I just want to add to that. The reason that the commonwealth law officers’ opinion was sought is that the live export trade is commonwealth controlled. That essentially goes to the centre of what the Supreme Court will be adjudicating on. Therefore, I cannot give any advice on that. However, the state found it necessary, given the government’s assumption that this is commonwealth controlled trade, which it is, that the commonwealth needed to have a say in whether jurisdictional issues existed. I think that is a pretty clear position. I hope that it helps the member. It is a jurisdictional issue that needs to be resolved. The PRESIDENT : I note in that answer that the Leader of the House can provide any answer he likes. However, it is interesting to hear a view about standing orders that I do not share and that has nothing to do with standing orders.
(3) Given that the State Solicitor’s Office is capable of providing advice on all state and federal laws, what public benefit derives from the minister’s action in seeking advice from commonwealth law officers in this or any other matter of legal advice? (4) In relation to the matter of Animals Australia’s complaint, what are the additional costs to the taxpayer of seeking advice from commonwealth law officers over and above that advice already provided by the State Solicitor’s Office? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(4) The questions again refer to a case pending adjudication in a court of law and are therefore out of order pursuant to Legislative Council standing order 140(a)(iii). That is the answer I have been provided with, but because I have some responsibility in this area I just want to add to that. The reason that the commonwealth law officers’ opinion was sought is that the live export trade is commonwealth controlled. That essentially goes to the centre of what the Supreme Court will be adjudicating on. Therefore, I cannot give any advice on that. However, the state found it necessary, given the government’s assumption that this is commonwealth controlled trade, which it is, that the commonwealth needed to have a say in whether jurisdictional issues existed. I think that is a pretty clear position. I hope that it helps the member. It is a jurisdictional issue that needs to be resolved. The PRESIDENT : I note in that answer that the Leader of the House can provide any answer he likes. However, it is interesting to hear a view about standing orders that I do not share and that has nothing to do with standing orders.
(4) In relation to the matter of Animals Australia’s complaint, what are the additional costs to the taxpayer of seeking advice from commonwealth law officers over and above that advice already provided by the State Solicitor’s Office? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(4) The questions again refer to a case pending adjudication in a court of law and are therefore out of order pursuant to Legislative Council standing order 140(a)(iii). That is the answer I have been provided with, but because I have some responsibility in this area I just want to add to that. The reason that the commonwealth law officers’ opinion was sought is that the live export trade is commonwealth controlled. That essentially goes to the centre of what the Supreme Court will be adjudicating on. Therefore, I cannot give any advice on that. However, the state found it necessary, given the government’s assumption that this is commonwealth controlled trade, which it is, that the commonwealth needed to have a say in whether jurisdictional issues existed. I think that is a pretty clear position. I hope that it helps the member. It is a jurisdictional issue that needs to be resolved. The PRESIDENT : I note in that answer that the Leader of the House can provide any answer he likes. However, it is interesting to hear a view about standing orders that I do not share and that has nothing to do with standing orders.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(4) The questions again refer to a case pending adjudication in a court of law and are therefore out of order pursuant to Legislative Council standing order 140(a)(iii). That is the answer I have been provided with, but because I have some responsibility in this area I just want to add to that. The reason that the commonwealth law officers’ opinion was sought is that the live export trade is commonwealth controlled. That essentially goes to the centre of what the Supreme Court will be adjudicating on. Therefore, I cannot give any advice on that. However, the state found it necessary, given the government’s assumption that this is commonwealth controlled trade, which it is, that the commonwealth needed to have a say in whether jurisdictional issues existed. I think that is a pretty clear position. I hope that it helps the member. It is a jurisdictional issue that needs to be resolved. The PRESIDENT : I note in that answer that the Leader of the House can provide any answer he likes. However, it is interesting to hear a view about standing orders that I do not share and that has nothing to do with standing orders.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(4) The questions again refer to a case pending adjudication in a court of law and are therefore out of order pursuant to Legislative Council standing order 140(a)(iii). That is the answer I have been provided with, but because I have some responsibility in this area I just want to add to that. The reason that the commonwealth law officers’ opinion was sought is that the live export trade is commonwealth controlled. That essentially goes to the centre of what the Supreme Court will be adjudicating on. Therefore, I cannot give any advice on that. However, the state found it necessary, given the government’s assumption that this is commonwealth controlled trade, which it is, that the commonwealth needed to have a say in whether jurisdictional issues existed. I think that is a pretty clear position. I hope that it helps the member. It is a jurisdictional issue that needs to be resolved. The PRESIDENT : I note in that answer that the Leader of the House can provide any answer he likes. However, it is interesting to hear a view about standing orders that I do not share and that has nothing to do with standing orders.
(1)-(4) The questions again refer to a case pending adjudication in a court of law and are therefore out of order pursuant to Legislative Council standing order 140(a)(iii). That is the answer I have been provided with, but because I have some responsibility in this area I just want to add to that. The reason that the commonwealth law officers’ opinion was sought is that the live export trade is commonwealth controlled. That essentially goes to the centre of what the Supreme Court will be adjudicating on. Therefore, I cannot give any advice on that. However, the state found it necessary, given the government’s assumption that this is commonwealth controlled trade, which it is, that the commonwealth needed to have a say in whether jurisdictional issues existed. I think that is a pretty clear position. I hope that it helps the member. It is a jurisdictional issue that needs to be resolved. The PRESIDENT : I note in that answer that the Leader of the House can provide any answer he likes. However, it is interesting to hear a view about standing orders that I do not share and that has nothing to do with standing orders.
(2) (a) If yes, how many times has this occurred? (b) If no, why has this practice taken place in relation to Animals Australia’s complaint about live sheep transport aboard the Al Kuwait ? (3) Given that the State Solicitor’s Office is capable of providing advice on all state and federal laws, what public benefit derives from the minister’s action in seeking advice from commonwealth law officers in this or any other matter of legal advice? (4) In relation to the matter of Animals Australia’s complaint, what are the additional costs to the taxpayer of seeking advice from commonwealth law officers over and above that advice already provided by the State Solicitor’s Office? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(4) The questions again refer to a case pending adjudication in a court of law and are therefore out of order pursuant to Legislative Council standing order 140(a)(iii). That is the answer I have been provided with, but because I have some responsibility in this area I just want to add to that. The reason that the commonwealth law officers’ opinion was sought is that the live export trade is commonwealth controlled. That essentially goes to the centre of what the Supreme Court will be adjudicating on. Therefore, I cannot give any advice on that. However, the state found it necessary, given the government’s assumption that this is commonwealth controlled trade, which it is, that the commonwealth needed to have a say in whether jurisdictional issues existed. I think that is a pretty clear position. I hope that it helps the member. It is a jurisdictional issue that needs to be resolved. The PRESIDENT : I note in that answer that the Leader of the House can provide any answer he likes. However, it is interesting to hear a view about standing orders that I do not share and that has nothing to do with standing orders.
(b) If no, why has this practice taken place in relation to Animals Australia’s complaint about live sheep transport aboard the Al Kuwait ? (3) Given that the State Solicitor’s Office is capable of providing advice on all state and federal laws, what public benefit derives from the minister’s action in seeking advice from commonwealth law officers in this or any other matter of legal advice? (4) In relation to the matter of Animals Australia’s complaint, what are the additional costs to the taxpayer of seeking advice from commonwealth law officers over and above that advice already provided by the State Solicitor’s Office? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(4) The questions again refer to a case pending adjudication in a court of law and are therefore out of order pursuant to Legislative Council standing order 140(a)(iii). That is the answer I have been provided with, but because I have some responsibility in this area I just want to add to that. The reason that the commonwealth law officers’ opinion was sought is that the live export trade is commonwealth controlled. That essentially goes to the centre of what the Supreme Court will be adjudicating on. Therefore, I cannot give any advice on that. However, the state found it necessary, given the government’s assumption that this is commonwealth controlled trade, which it is, that the commonwealth needed to have a say in whether jurisdictional issues existed. I think that is a pretty clear position. I hope that it helps the member. It is a jurisdictional issue that needs to be resolved. The PRESIDENT : I note in that answer that the Leader of the House can provide any answer he likes. However, it is interesting to hear a view about standing orders that I do not share and that has nothing to do with standing orders.
(3) Given that the State Solicitor’s Office is capable of providing advice on all state and federal laws, what public benefit derives from the minister’s action in seeking advice from commonwealth law officers in this or any other matter of legal advice? (4) In relation to the matter of Animals Australia’s complaint, what are the additional costs to the taxpayer of seeking advice from commonwealth law officers over and above that advice already provided by the State Solicitor’s Office? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(4) The questions again refer to a case pending adjudication in a court of law and are therefore out of order pursuant to Legislative Council standing order 140(a)(iii). That is the answer I have been provided with, but because I have some responsibility in this area I just want to add to that. The reason that the commonwealth law officers’ opinion was sought is that the live export trade is commonwealth controlled. That essentially goes to the centre of what the Supreme Court will be adjudicating on. Therefore, I cannot give any advice on that. However, the state found it necessary, given the government’s assumption that this is commonwealth controlled trade, which it is, that the commonwealth needed to have a say in whether jurisdictional issues existed. I think that is a pretty clear position. I hope that it helps the member. It is a jurisdictional issue that needs to be resolved. The PRESIDENT : I note in that answer that the Leader of the House can provide any answer he likes. However, it is interesting to hear a view about standing orders that I do not share and that has nothing to do with standing orders.
(4) In relation to the matter of Animals Australia’s complaint, what are the additional costs to the taxpayer of seeking advice from commonwealth law officers over and above that advice already provided by the State Solicitor’s Office? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(4) The questions again refer to a case pending adjudication in a court of law and are therefore out of order pursuant to Legislative Council standing order 140(a)(iii). That is the answer I have been provided with, but because I have some responsibility in this area I just want to add to that. The reason that the commonwealth law officers’ opinion was sought is that the live export trade is commonwealth controlled. That essentially goes to the centre of what the Supreme Court will be adjudicating on. Therefore, I cannot give any advice on that. However, the state found it necessary, given the government’s assumption that this is commonwealth controlled trade, which it is, that the commonwealth needed to have a say in whether jurisdictional issues existed. I think that is a pretty clear position. I hope that it helps the member. It is a jurisdictional issue that needs to be resolved. The PRESIDENT : I note in that answer that the Leader of the House can provide any answer he likes. However, it is interesting to hear a view about standing orders that I do not share and that has nothing to do with standing orders.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(4) The questions again refer to a case pending adjudication in a court of law and are therefore out of order pursuant to Legislative Council standing order 140(a)(iii). That is the answer I have been provided with, but because I have some responsibility in this area I just want to add to that. The reason that the commonwealth law officers’ opinion was sought is that the live export trade is commonwealth controlled. That essentially goes to the centre of what the Supreme Court will be adjudicating on. Therefore, I cannot give any advice on that. However, the state found it necessary, given the government’s assumption that this is commonwealth controlled trade, which it is, that the commonwealth needed to have a say in whether jurisdictional issues existed. I think that is a pretty clear position. I hope that it helps the member. It is a jurisdictional issue that needs to be resolved. The PRESIDENT : I note in that answer that the Leader of the House can provide any answer he likes. However, it is interesting to hear a view about standing orders that I do not share and that has nothing to do with standing orders.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(4) The questions again refer to a case pending adjudication in a court of law and are therefore out of order pursuant to Legislative Council standing order 140(a)(iii). That is the answer I have been provided with, but because I have some responsibility in this area I just want to add to that. The reason that the commonwealth law officers’ opinion was sought is that the live export trade is commonwealth controlled. That essentially goes to the centre of what the Supreme Court will be adjudicating on. Therefore, I cannot give any advice on that. However, the state found it necessary, given the government’s assumption that this is commonwealth controlled trade, which it is, that the commonwealth needed to have a say in whether jurisdictional issues existed. I think that is a pretty clear position. I hope that it helps the member. It is a jurisdictional issue that needs to be resolved. The PRESIDENT : I note in that answer that the Leader of the House can provide any answer he likes. However, it is interesting to hear a view about standing orders that I do not share and that has nothing to do with standing orders.
(1)-(4) The questions again refer to a case pending adjudication in a court of law and are therefore out of order pursuant to Legislative Council standing order 140(a)(iii). That is the answer I have been provided with, but because I have some responsibility in this area I just want to add to that. The reason that the commonwealth law officers’ opinion was sought is that the live export trade is commonwealth controlled. That essentially goes to the centre of what the Supreme Court will be adjudicating on. Therefore, I cannot give any advice on that. However, the state found it necessary, given the government’s assumption that this is commonwealth controlled trade, which it is, that the commonwealth needed to have a say in whether jurisdictional issues existed. I think that is a pretty clear position. I hope that it helps the member. It is a jurisdictional issue that needs to be resolved. The PRESIDENT : I note in that answer that the Leader of the House can provide any answer he likes. However, it is interesting to hear a view about standing orders that I do not share and that has nothing to do with standing orders.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.