❓ WA Minister for Agriculture addresses concerns about feed sabotage in Victoria, confirming existing penalties for feeding restricted animal material to ruminants and promising review of penalties to reflect seriousness and potential for civil action.
AnsweredQoN 1555Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
Given the sabotage of feed by the introduction of a meat product in a live sheep feedlot in Victoria, I ask - (1) Does the law in Western Australia allow for criminal charges to be laid against anyone doing a similar act in Western Australia? (2) If not, will the minister, in conjunction with the Attorney General and Minister for Health, ensure that urgent steps are taken to create the most severe penalties for those who offend in this way in Western Australia? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question. I missed the news last night and only heard about the incident through a third party report on the news. I had thought, until I read The Australian this morning, that the event had actually happened in Western Australia. Therefore, I had given some real consideration to what might have happened. Had this occurred in Western Australia - clearly the question contemplates that possibility - the Government would pursue the perpetrators to the limit of the criminal law and would also provide whatever assistance possible in the event that persons were damaged by these actions, once proved under civil action for damages, which could call for the recovery of compensation for the damages that resulted from the action. I can provide only a partial answer as follows - (1)-(2) Under the Veterinary Preparations and Animal Feeding Stuffs Act 1976, it is an offence to feed restricted animal material to a ruminant animal. Restricted animal material is, with some minor exceptions, any tissue from an animal, bird or fish. The penalty is $2 000. I understand that a number of matters under the Criminal Code may also apply to such a case. That is something we will be researching. This has been an appalling and blatant attempt to sabotage a legal trade, whether by implication of feed contamination or by actual contamination. The live export trade is of strategic importance to Western Australia. It provides a valuable alternative market for Western Australian sheep and cattle owners and producers and a significant source of employment. The penalties applicable under the agricultural Acts appear out of date when related to the possible consequences for animal disease outbreaks. When those penalties were first framed they did not contemplate the possibility of terrorism of this nature. I have directed that they be reviewed to better reflect the seriousness of the offences. Aside from the statutory penalties that I have referred to, an offence such as that alleged in Portland could well be a matter subject to civil action for recovery of damages. If successful, such action would result in the recovery of damages amounting to millions of dollars from the perpetrators. The Government would provide full support to any such civil action.
(1) Does the law in Western Australia allow for criminal charges to be laid against anyone doing a similar act in Western Australia? (2) If not, will the minister, in conjunction with the Attorney General and Minister for Health, ensure that urgent steps are taken to create the most severe penalties for those who offend in this way in Western Australia? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank the member for some notice of this question. I missed the news last night and only heard about the incident through a third party report on the news. I had thought, until I read The Australian this morning, that the event had actually happened in Western Australia. Therefore, I had given some real consideration to what might have happened. Had this occurred in Western Australia - clearly the question contemplates that possibility - the Government would pursue the perpetrators to the limit of the criminal law and would also provide whatever assistance possible in the event that persons were damaged by these actions, once proved under civil action for damages, which could call for the recovery of compensation for the damages that resulted from the action. I can provide only a partial answer as follows - (1)-(2) Under the Veterinary Preparations and Animal Feeding Stuffs Act 1976, it is an offence to feed restricted animal material to a ruminant animal. Restricted animal material is, with some minor exceptions, any tissue from an animal, bird or fish. The penalty is $2 000. I understand that a number of matters under the Criminal Code may also apply to such a case. That is something we will be researching. This has been an appalling and blatant attempt to sabotage a legal trade, whether by implication of feed contamination or by actual contamination. The live export trade is of strategic importance to Western Australia. It provides a valuable alternative market for Western Australian sheep and cattle owners and producers and a significant source of employment. The penalties applicable under the agricultural Acts appear out of date when related to the possible consequences for animal disease outbreaks. When those penalties were first framed they did not contemplate the possibility of terrorism of this nature. I have directed that they be reviewed to better reflect the seriousness of the offences. Aside from the statutory penalties that I have referred to, an offence such as that alleged in Portland could well be a matter subject to civil action for recovery of damages. If successful, such action would result in the recovery of damages amounting to millions of dollars from the perpetrators. The Government would provide full support to any such civil action.
(2) If not, will the minister, in conjunction with the Attorney General and Minister for Health, ensure that urgent steps are taken to create the most severe penalties for those who offend in this way in Western Australia? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank the member for some notice of this question. I missed the news last night and only heard about the incident through a third party report on the news. I had thought, until I read The Australian this morning, that the event had actually happened in Western Australia. Therefore, I had given some real consideration to what might have happened. Had this occurred in Western Australia - clearly the question contemplates that possibility - the Government would pursue the perpetrators to the limit of the criminal law and would also provide whatever assistance possible in the event that persons were damaged by these actions, once proved under civil action for damages, which could call for the recovery of compensation for the damages that resulted from the action. I can provide only a partial answer as follows - (1)-(2) Under the Veterinary Preparations and Animal Feeding Stuffs Act 1976, it is an offence to feed restricted animal material to a ruminant animal. Restricted animal material is, with some minor exceptions, any tissue from an animal, bird or fish. The penalty is $2 000. I understand that a number of matters under the Criminal Code may also apply to such a case. That is something we will be researching. This has been an appalling and blatant attempt to sabotage a legal trade, whether by implication of feed contamination or by actual contamination. The live export trade is of strategic importance to Western Australia. It provides a valuable alternative market for Western Australian sheep and cattle owners and producers and a significant source of employment. The penalties applicable under the agricultural Acts appear out of date when related to the possible consequences for animal disease outbreaks. When those penalties were first framed they did not contemplate the possibility of terrorism of this nature. I have directed that they be reviewed to better reflect the seriousness of the offences. Aside from the statutory penalties that I have referred to, an offence such as that alleged in Portland could well be a matter subject to civil action for recovery of damages. If successful, such action would result in the recovery of damages amounting to millions of dollars from the perpetrators. The Government would provide full support to any such civil action.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank the member for some notice of this question. I missed the news last night and only heard about the incident through a third party report on the news. I had thought, until I read The Australian this morning, that the event had actually happened in Western Australia. Therefore, I had given some real consideration to what might have happened. Had this occurred in Western Australia - clearly the question contemplates that possibility - the Government would pursue the perpetrators to the limit of the criminal law and would also provide whatever assistance possible in the event that persons were damaged by these actions, once proved under civil action for damages, which could call for the recovery of compensation for the damages that resulted from the action. I can provide only a partial answer as follows - (1)-(2) Under the Veterinary Preparations and Animal Feeding Stuffs Act 1976, it is an offence to feed restricted animal material to a ruminant animal. Restricted animal material is, with some minor exceptions, any tissue from an animal, bird or fish. The penalty is $2 000. I understand that a number of matters under the Criminal Code may also apply to such a case. That is something we will be researching. This has been an appalling and blatant attempt to sabotage a legal trade, whether by implication of feed contamination or by actual contamination. The live export trade is of strategic importance to Western Australia. It provides a valuable alternative market for Western Australian sheep and cattle owners and producers and a significant source of employment. The penalties applicable under the agricultural Acts appear out of date when related to the possible consequences for animal disease outbreaks. When those penalties were first framed they did not contemplate the possibility of terrorism of this nature. I have directed that they be reviewed to better reflect the seriousness of the offences. Aside from the statutory penalties that I have referred to, an offence such as that alleged in Portland could well be a matter subject to civil action for recovery of damages. If successful, such action would result in the recovery of damages amounting to millions of dollars from the perpetrators. The Government would provide full support to any such civil action.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. I missed the news last night and only heard about the incident through a third party report on the news. I had thought, until I read The Australian this morning, that the event had actually happened in Western Australia. Therefore, I had given some real consideration to what might have happened. Had this occurred in Western Australia - clearly the question contemplates that possibility - the Government would pursue the perpetrators to the limit of the criminal law and would also provide whatever assistance possible in the event that persons were damaged by these actions, once proved under civil action for damages, which could call for the recovery of compensation for the damages that resulted from the action. I can provide only a partial answer as follows - (1)-(2) Under the Veterinary Preparations and Animal Feeding Stuffs Act 1976, it is an offence to feed restricted animal material to a ruminant animal. Restricted animal material is, with some minor exceptions, any tissue from an animal, bird or fish. The penalty is $2 000. I understand that a number of matters under the Criminal Code may also apply to such a case. That is something we will be researching. This has been an appalling and blatant attempt to sabotage a legal trade, whether by implication of feed contamination or by actual contamination. The live export trade is of strategic importance to Western Australia. It provides a valuable alternative market for Western Australian sheep and cattle owners and producers and a significant source of employment. The penalties applicable under the agricultural Acts appear out of date when related to the possible consequences for animal disease outbreaks. When those penalties were first framed they did not contemplate the possibility of terrorism of this nature. I have directed that they be reviewed to better reflect the seriousness of the offences. Aside from the statutory penalties that I have referred to, an offence such as that alleged in Portland could well be a matter subject to civil action for recovery of damages. If successful, such action would result in the recovery of damages amounting to millions of dollars from the perpetrators. The Government would provide full support to any such civil action.
(1)-(2) Under the Veterinary Preparations and Animal Feeding Stuffs Act 1976, it is an offence to feed restricted animal material to a ruminant animal. Restricted animal material is, with some minor exceptions, any tissue from an animal, bird or fish. The penalty is $2 000. I understand that a number of matters under the Criminal Code may also apply to such a case. That is something we will be researching. This has been an appalling and blatant attempt to sabotage a legal trade, whether by implication of feed contamination or by actual contamination. The live export trade is of strategic importance to Western Australia. It provides a valuable alternative market for Western Australian sheep and cattle owners and producers and a significant source of employment. The penalties applicable under the agricultural Acts appear out of date when related to the possible consequences for animal disease outbreaks. When those penalties were first framed they did not contemplate the possibility of terrorism of this nature. I have directed that they be reviewed to better reflect the seriousness of the offences. Aside from the statutory penalties that I have referred to, an offence such as that alleged in Portland could well be a matter subject to civil action for recovery of damages. If successful, such action would result in the recovery of damages amounting to millions of dollars from the perpetrators. The Government would provide full support to any such civil action.
(1) Does the law in Western Australia allow for criminal charges to be laid against anyone doing a similar act in Western Australia? (2) If not, will the minister, in conjunction with the Attorney General and Minister for Health, ensure that urgent steps are taken to create the most severe penalties for those who offend in this way in Western Australia? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank the member for some notice of this question. I missed the news last night and only heard about the incident through a third party report on the news. I had thought, until I read The Australian this morning, that the event had actually happened in Western Australia. Therefore, I had given some real consideration to what might have happened. Had this occurred in Western Australia - clearly the question contemplates that possibility - the Government would pursue the perpetrators to the limit of the criminal law and would also provide whatever assistance possible in the event that persons were damaged by these actions, once proved under civil action for damages, which could call for the recovery of compensation for the damages that resulted from the action. I can provide only a partial answer as follows - (1)-(2) Under the Veterinary Preparations and Animal Feeding Stuffs Act 1976, it is an offence to feed restricted animal material to a ruminant animal. Restricted animal material is, with some minor exceptions, any tissue from an animal, bird or fish. The penalty is $2 000. I understand that a number of matters under the Criminal Code may also apply to such a case. That is something we will be researching. This has been an appalling and blatant attempt to sabotage a legal trade, whether by implication of feed contamination or by actual contamination. The live export trade is of strategic importance to Western Australia. It provides a valuable alternative market for Western Australian sheep and cattle owners and producers and a significant source of employment. The penalties applicable under the agricultural Acts appear out of date when related to the possible consequences for animal disease outbreaks. When those penalties were first framed they did not contemplate the possibility of terrorism of this nature. I have directed that they be reviewed to better reflect the seriousness of the offences. Aside from the statutory penalties that I have referred to, an offence such as that alleged in Portland could well be a matter subject to civil action for recovery of damages. If successful, such action would result in the recovery of damages amounting to millions of dollars from the perpetrators. The Government would provide full support to any such civil action.
(2) If not, will the minister, in conjunction with the Attorney General and Minister for Health, ensure that urgent steps are taken to create the most severe penalties for those who offend in this way in Western Australia? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank the member for some notice of this question. I missed the news last night and only heard about the incident through a third party report on the news. I had thought, until I read The Australian this morning, that the event had actually happened in Western Australia. Therefore, I had given some real consideration to what might have happened. Had this occurred in Western Australia - clearly the question contemplates that possibility - the Government would pursue the perpetrators to the limit of the criminal law and would also provide whatever assistance possible in the event that persons were damaged by these actions, once proved under civil action for damages, which could call for the recovery of compensation for the damages that resulted from the action. I can provide only a partial answer as follows - (1)-(2) Under the Veterinary Preparations and Animal Feeding Stuffs Act 1976, it is an offence to feed restricted animal material to a ruminant animal. Restricted animal material is, with some minor exceptions, any tissue from an animal, bird or fish. The penalty is $2 000. I understand that a number of matters under the Criminal Code may also apply to such a case. That is something we will be researching. This has been an appalling and blatant attempt to sabotage a legal trade, whether by implication of feed contamination or by actual contamination. The live export trade is of strategic importance to Western Australia. It provides a valuable alternative market for Western Australian sheep and cattle owners and producers and a significant source of employment. The penalties applicable under the agricultural Acts appear out of date when related to the possible consequences for animal disease outbreaks. When those penalties were first framed they did not contemplate the possibility of terrorism of this nature. I have directed that they be reviewed to better reflect the seriousness of the offences. Aside from the statutory penalties that I have referred to, an offence such as that alleged in Portland could well be a matter subject to civil action for recovery of damages. If successful, such action would result in the recovery of damages amounting to millions of dollars from the perpetrators. The Government would provide full support to any such civil action.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank the member for some notice of this question. I missed the news last night and only heard about the incident through a third party report on the news. I had thought, until I read The Australian this morning, that the event had actually happened in Western Australia. Therefore, I had given some real consideration to what might have happened. Had this occurred in Western Australia - clearly the question contemplates that possibility - the Government would pursue the perpetrators to the limit of the criminal law and would also provide whatever assistance possible in the event that persons were damaged by these actions, once proved under civil action for damages, which could call for the recovery of compensation for the damages that resulted from the action. I can provide only a partial answer as follows - (1)-(2) Under the Veterinary Preparations and Animal Feeding Stuffs Act 1976, it is an offence to feed restricted animal material to a ruminant animal. Restricted animal material is, with some minor exceptions, any tissue from an animal, bird or fish. The penalty is $2 000. I understand that a number of matters under the Criminal Code may also apply to such a case. That is something we will be researching. This has been an appalling and blatant attempt to sabotage a legal trade, whether by implication of feed contamination or by actual contamination. The live export trade is of strategic importance to Western Australia. It provides a valuable alternative market for Western Australian sheep and cattle owners and producers and a significant source of employment. The penalties applicable under the agricultural Acts appear out of date when related to the possible consequences for animal disease outbreaks. When those penalties were first framed they did not contemplate the possibility of terrorism of this nature. I have directed that they be reviewed to better reflect the seriousness of the offences. Aside from the statutory penalties that I have referred to, an offence such as that alleged in Portland could well be a matter subject to civil action for recovery of damages. If successful, such action would result in the recovery of damages amounting to millions of dollars from the perpetrators. The Government would provide full support to any such civil action.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. I missed the news last night and only heard about the incident through a third party report on the news. I had thought, until I read The Australian this morning, that the event had actually happened in Western Australia. Therefore, I had given some real consideration to what might have happened. Had this occurred in Western Australia - clearly the question contemplates that possibility - the Government would pursue the perpetrators to the limit of the criminal law and would also provide whatever assistance possible in the event that persons were damaged by these actions, once proved under civil action for damages, which could call for the recovery of compensation for the damages that resulted from the action. I can provide only a partial answer as follows - (1)-(2) Under the Veterinary Preparations and Animal Feeding Stuffs Act 1976, it is an offence to feed restricted animal material to a ruminant animal. Restricted animal material is, with some minor exceptions, any tissue from an animal, bird or fish. The penalty is $2 000. I understand that a number of matters under the Criminal Code may also apply to such a case. That is something we will be researching. This has been an appalling and blatant attempt to sabotage a legal trade, whether by implication of feed contamination or by actual contamination. The live export trade is of strategic importance to Western Australia. It provides a valuable alternative market for Western Australian sheep and cattle owners and producers and a significant source of employment. The penalties applicable under the agricultural Acts appear out of date when related to the possible consequences for animal disease outbreaks. When those penalties were first framed they did not contemplate the possibility of terrorism of this nature. I have directed that they be reviewed to better reflect the seriousness of the offences. Aside from the statutory penalties that I have referred to, an offence such as that alleged in Portland could well be a matter subject to civil action for recovery of damages. If successful, such action would result in the recovery of damages amounting to millions of dollars from the perpetrators. The Government would provide full support to any such civil action.
(1)-(2) Under the Veterinary Preparations and Animal Feeding Stuffs Act 1976, it is an offence to feed restricted animal material to a ruminant animal. Restricted animal material is, with some minor exceptions, any tissue from an animal, bird or fish. The penalty is $2 000. I understand that a number of matters under the Criminal Code may also apply to such a case. That is something we will be researching. This has been an appalling and blatant attempt to sabotage a legal trade, whether by implication of feed contamination or by actual contamination. The live export trade is of strategic importance to Western Australia. It provides a valuable alternative market for Western Australian sheep and cattle owners and producers and a significant source of employment. The penalties applicable under the agricultural Acts appear out of date when related to the possible consequences for animal disease outbreaks. When those penalties were first framed they did not contemplate the possibility of terrorism of this nature. I have directed that they be reviewed to better reflect the seriousness of the offences. Aside from the statutory penalties that I have referred to, an offence such as that alleged in Portland could well be a matter subject to civil action for recovery of damages. If successful, such action would result in the recovery of damages amounting to millions of dollars from the perpetrators. The Government would provide full support to any such civil action.
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.