❓ A parliamentary question addresses concerns about the impact of PETA on Australian wool production, the phasing out of mulesing, and the feasibility of breeding bare-breeched sheep. The Minister strongly condemns PETA's tactics and outlines government support for the industry's transition.
AnsweredQoN 454Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
AUSTRALIAN WOOL SALES — PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS PROTEST GROUP
OF ANIMALS PROTEST GROUP
I refer to the claim by the United States-based group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals that the use of clips to protect sheep from potentially fatal flystrike is no better than surgical mulesing, and that only the breeding of bare-breeched sheep is acceptable. (1) I am becoming increasingly concerned about the effect this group is having on our wool production, with 30 international retailers refusing to buy Australian wool. What is this government doing to counteract the impact of this group? (2) Will Western Australians farmers meet the deadline of 2010 for phasing out mulesing? (3) Does the minister really believe that every wool producer in Australia will be producing bare-breeched sheep by the end of 2013? (4) Mulesing is an acceptable farm practice. Why are we being dictated to by this unethical group? Hon KIM CHANCE
OF ANIMALS PROTEST GROUP
I refer to the claim by the United States-based group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals that the use of clips to protect sheep from potentially fatal flystrike is no better than surgical mulesing, and that only the breeding of bare-breeched sheep is acceptable. (1) I am becoming increasingly concerned about the effect this group is having on our wool production, with 30 international retailers refusing to buy Australian wool. What is this government doing to counteract the impact of this group? (2) Will Western Australians farmers meet the deadline of 2010 for phasing out mulesing? (3) Does the minister really believe that every wool producer in Australia will be producing bare-breeched sheep by the end of 2013? (4) Mulesing is an acceptable farm practice. Why are we being dictated to by this unethical group? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
Can I say that I absolutely agree with the term used by Hon Robyn McSweeney. Indeed, I have been known to have used some stronger terms in the past. The PRESIDENT : Order, members! Parts of the question were contrary to standing orders. I am sure the Leader of the House is not alluding to those. Hon KIM CHANCE : No. I am sure I will manage not to do that, Mr President. The tactics used by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals worldwide are standover tactics and qualify in my view as the practice of commercial terrorism. I have no time for PETA whatever. The answer is as follows — (1) The Wool Industry Task Force, which comprises industry representatives, announced in November 2004 that the wool industry would phase out mulesing by the end of 2010. To this end, the Department of Agriculture and Food Western Australia is undertaking research to assist the industry to seek alternatives, as well as assessing management options to allow producers to protect their flocks against breech strike and supply the market with wool from un-mulesed sheep. The cessation of mulesing on DAFWA research stations is a proactive move aimed at assessing different strategies to prevent flystrike, thereby providing wool growers with best-practice extension packages. It follows from that that we do not expect that the whole Western Australian woolclip can be bred from bare-breeched sheep in that time line. (2) A recent survey of producers indicated that 30 per cent were intending to phase out mulesing this year. The decision about when to cease mulesing prior to 2010 is for the individual producer. However, a heavy focus on extension and support will enable producers to change their practices with minimal disruption. (3) The commitment to phase out mulesing by 2010 has been reaffirmed since November 2004 by the Wool Industry Taskforce and Australian Wool Innovation Ltd. AWI is providing producers throughout Australia with information on strategies to reduce the risk of flystrike without mulesing, including management, strategic chemical usage and genetic selection. (4) Industry has accepted that mulesing will be phased out by 2010, and research and extension activities will continue to support industry to achieve this. It is likely that mulesing will in time become an unacceptable practice given that the Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Regional Services has discussed the need to modify state legislation to take account of the industry-led phasing out of mulesing. I wish to add to that answer a little. Although mulesing remains an accepted practice within the code of practice, its existence as an accepted practice within the code is an automatic guarantee—an automatic defence—against prosecution. Although my answer referred to the primary industries standing committee, which is the CEO equivalent of a ministerial council—in our case, the Primary Industries Ministerial Council—that body makes recommendations for consideration only by the Primary Industries Ministerial Council. That council ultimately decides what is in the code of practice. At this stage, mulesing remains within the code of practice and remains a legal defence and is likely to remain so for some time. The 2010 position was effectively taken by industry and was not led by the government. Indeed, the government is quite concerned about the outcome of the mulesing ban.
(1) I am becoming increasingly concerned about the effect this group is having on our wool production, with 30 international retailers refusing to buy Australian wool. What is this government doing to counteract the impact of this group? (2) Will Western Australians farmers meet the deadline of 2010 for phasing out mulesing? (3) Does the minister really believe that every wool producer in Australia will be producing bare-breeched sheep by the end of 2013? (4) Mulesing is an acceptable farm practice. Why are we being dictated to by this unethical group? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: Can I say that I absolutely agree with the term used by Hon Robyn McSweeney. Indeed, I have been known to have used some stronger terms in the past. The PRESIDENT : Order, members! Parts of the question were contrary to standing orders. I am sure the Leader of the House is not alluding to those. Hon KIM CHANCE : No. I am sure I will manage not to do that, Mr President. The tactics used by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals worldwide are standover tactics and qualify in my view as the practice of commercial terrorism. I have no time for PETA whatever. The answer is as follows — (1) The Wool Industry Task Force, which comprises industry representatives, announced in November 2004 that the wool industry would phase out mulesing by the end of 2010. To this end, the Department of Agriculture and Food Western Australia is undertaking research to assist the industry to seek alternatives, as well as assessing management options to allow producers to protect their flocks against breech strike and supply the market with wool from un-mulesed sheep. The cessation of mulesing on DAFWA research stations is a proactive move aimed at assessing different strategies to prevent flystrike, thereby providing wool growers with best-practice extension packages. It follows from that that we do not expect that the whole Western Australian woolclip can be bred from bare-breeched sheep in that time line. (2) A recent survey of producers indicated that 30 per cent were intending to phase out mulesing this year. The decision about when to cease mulesing prior to 2010 is for the individual producer. However, a heavy focus on extension and support will enable producers to change their practices with minimal disruption. (3) The commitment to phase out mulesing by 2010 has been reaffirmed since November 2004 by the Wool Industry Taskforce and Australian Wool Innovation Ltd. AWI is providing producers throughout Australia with information on strategies to reduce the risk of flystrike without mulesing, including management, strategic chemical usage and genetic selection. (4) Industry has accepted that mulesing will be phased out by 2010, and research and extension activities will continue to support industry to achieve this. It is likely that mulesing will in time become an unacceptable practice given that the Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Regional Services has discussed the need to modify state legislation to take account of the industry-led phasing out of mulesing. I wish to add to that answer a little. Although mulesing remains an accepted practice within the code of practice, its existence as an accepted practice within the code is an automatic guarantee—an automatic defence—against prosecution. Although my answer referred to the primary industries standing committee, which is the CEO equivalent of a ministerial council—in our case, the Primary Industries Ministerial Council—that body makes recommendations for consideration only by the Primary Industries Ministerial Council. That council ultimately decides what is in the code of practice. At this stage, mulesing remains within the code of practice and remains a legal defence and is likely to remain so for some time. The 2010 position was effectively taken by industry and was not led by the government. Indeed, the government is quite concerned about the outcome of the mulesing ban.
(2) Will Western Australians farmers meet the deadline of 2010 for phasing out mulesing? (3) Does the minister really believe that every wool producer in Australia will be producing bare-breeched sheep by the end of 2013? (4) Mulesing is an acceptable farm practice. Why are we being dictated to by this unethical group? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: Can I say that I absolutely agree with the term used by Hon Robyn McSweeney. Indeed, I have been known to have used some stronger terms in the past. The PRESIDENT : Order, members! Parts of the question were contrary to standing orders. I am sure the Leader of the House is not alluding to those. Hon KIM CHANCE : No. I am sure I will manage not to do that, Mr President. The tactics used by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals worldwide are standover tactics and qualify in my view as the practice of commercial terrorism. I have no time for PETA whatever. The answer is as follows — (1) The Wool Industry Task Force, which comprises industry representatives, announced in November 2004 that the wool industry would phase out mulesing by the end of 2010. To this end, the Department of Agriculture and Food Western Australia is undertaking research to assist the industry to seek alternatives, as well as assessing management options to allow producers to protect their flocks against breech strike and supply the market with wool from un-mulesed sheep. The cessation of mulesing on DAFWA research stations is a proactive move aimed at assessing different strategies to prevent flystrike, thereby providing wool growers with best-practice extension packages. It follows from that that we do not expect that the whole Western Australian woolclip can be bred from bare-breeched sheep in that time line. (2) A recent survey of producers indicated that 30 per cent were intending to phase out mulesing this year. The decision about when to cease mulesing prior to 2010 is for the individual producer. However, a heavy focus on extension and support will enable producers to change their practices with minimal disruption. (3) The commitment to phase out mulesing by 2010 has been reaffirmed since November 2004 by the Wool Industry Taskforce and Australian Wool Innovation Ltd. AWI is providing producers throughout Australia with information on strategies to reduce the risk of flystrike without mulesing, including management, strategic chemical usage and genetic selection. (4) Industry has accepted that mulesing will be phased out by 2010, and research and extension activities will continue to support industry to achieve this. It is likely that mulesing will in time become an unacceptable practice given that the Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Regional Services has discussed the need to modify state legislation to take account of the industry-led phasing out of mulesing. I wish to add to that answer a little. Although mulesing remains an accepted practice within the code of practice, its existence as an accepted practice within the code is an automatic guarantee—an automatic defence—against prosecution. Although my answer referred to the primary industries standing committee, which is the CEO equivalent of a ministerial council—in our case, the Primary Industries Ministerial Council—that body makes recommendations for consideration only by the Primary Industries Ministerial Council. That council ultimately decides what is in the code of practice. At this stage, mulesing remains within the code of practice and remains a legal defence and is likely to remain so for some time. The 2010 position was effectively taken by industry and was not led by the government. Indeed, the government is quite concerned about the outcome of the mulesing ban.
(3) Does the minister really believe that every wool producer in Australia will be producing bare-breeched sheep by the end of 2013? (4) Mulesing is an acceptable farm practice. Why are we being dictated to by this unethical group? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: Can I say that I absolutely agree with the term used by Hon Robyn McSweeney. Indeed, I have been known to have used some stronger terms in the past. The PRESIDENT : Order, members! Parts of the question were contrary to standing orders. I am sure the Leader of the House is not alluding to those. Hon KIM CHANCE : No. I am sure I will manage not to do that, Mr President. The tactics used by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals worldwide are standover tactics and qualify in my view as the practice of commercial terrorism. I have no time for PETA whatever. The answer is as follows — (1) The Wool Industry Task Force, which comprises industry representatives, announced in November 2004 that the wool industry would phase out mulesing by the end of 2010. To this end, the Department of Agriculture and Food Western Australia is undertaking research to assist the industry to seek alternatives, as well as assessing management options to allow producers to protect their flocks against breech strike and supply the market with wool from un-mulesed sheep. The cessation of mulesing on DAFWA research stations is a proactive move aimed at assessing different strategies to prevent flystrike, thereby providing wool growers with best-practice extension packages. It follows from that that we do not expect that the whole Western Australian woolclip can be bred from bare-breeched sheep in that time line. (2) A recent survey of producers indicated that 30 per cent were intending to phase out mulesing this year. The decision about when to cease mulesing prior to 2010 is for the individual producer. However, a heavy focus on extension and support will enable producers to change their practices with minimal disruption. (3) The commitment to phase out mulesing by 2010 has been reaffirmed since November 2004 by the Wool Industry Taskforce and Australian Wool Innovation Ltd. AWI is providing producers throughout Australia with information on strategies to reduce the risk of flystrike without mulesing, including management, strategic chemical usage and genetic selection. (4) Industry has accepted that mulesing will be phased out by 2010, and research and extension activities will continue to support industry to achieve this. It is likely that mulesing will in time become an unacceptable practice given that the Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Regional Services has discussed the need to modify state legislation to take account of the industry-led phasing out of mulesing. I wish to add to that answer a little. Although mulesing remains an accepted practice within the code of practice, its existence as an accepted practice within the code is an automatic guarantee—an automatic defence—against prosecution. Although my answer referred to the primary industries standing committee, which is the CEO equivalent of a ministerial council—in our case, the Primary Industries Ministerial Council—that body makes recommendations for consideration only by the Primary Industries Ministerial Council. That council ultimately decides what is in the code of practice. At this stage, mulesing remains within the code of practice and remains a legal defence and is likely to remain so for some time. The 2010 position was effectively taken by industry and was not led by the government. Indeed, the government is quite concerned about the outcome of the mulesing ban.
(4) Mulesing is an acceptable farm practice. Why are we being dictated to by this unethical group? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: Can I say that I absolutely agree with the term used by Hon Robyn McSweeney. Indeed, I have been known to have used some stronger terms in the past. The PRESIDENT : Order, members! Parts of the question were contrary to standing orders. I am sure the Leader of the House is not alluding to those. Hon KIM CHANCE : No. I am sure I will manage not to do that, Mr President. The tactics used by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals worldwide are standover tactics and qualify in my view as the practice of commercial terrorism. I have no time for PETA whatever. The answer is as follows — (1) The Wool Industry Task Force, which comprises industry representatives, announced in November 2004 that the wool industry would phase out mulesing by the end of 2010. To this end, the Department of Agriculture and Food Western Australia is undertaking research to assist the industry to seek alternatives, as well as assessing management options to allow producers to protect their flocks against breech strike and supply the market with wool from un-mulesed sheep. The cessation of mulesing on DAFWA research stations is a proactive move aimed at assessing different strategies to prevent flystrike, thereby providing wool growers with best-practice extension packages. It follows from that that we do not expect that the whole Western Australian woolclip can be bred from bare-breeched sheep in that time line. (2) A recent survey of producers indicated that 30 per cent were intending to phase out mulesing this year. The decision about when to cease mulesing prior to 2010 is for the individual producer. However, a heavy focus on extension and support will enable producers to change their practices with minimal disruption. (3) The commitment to phase out mulesing by 2010 has been reaffirmed since November 2004 by the Wool Industry Taskforce and Australian Wool Innovation Ltd. AWI is providing producers throughout Australia with information on strategies to reduce the risk of flystrike without mulesing, including management, strategic chemical usage and genetic selection. (4) Industry has accepted that mulesing will be phased out by 2010, and research and extension activities will continue to support industry to achieve this. It is likely that mulesing will in time become an unacceptable practice given that the Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Regional Services has discussed the need to modify state legislation to take account of the industry-led phasing out of mulesing. I wish to add to that answer a little. Although mulesing remains an accepted practice within the code of practice, its existence as an accepted practice within the code is an automatic guarantee—an automatic defence—against prosecution. Although my answer referred to the primary industries standing committee, which is the CEO equivalent of a ministerial council—in our case, the Primary Industries Ministerial Council—that body makes recommendations for consideration only by the Primary Industries Ministerial Council. That council ultimately decides what is in the code of practice. At this stage, mulesing remains within the code of practice and remains a legal defence and is likely to remain so for some time. The 2010 position was effectively taken by industry and was not led by the government. Indeed, the government is quite concerned about the outcome of the mulesing ban.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: Can I say that I absolutely agree with the term used by Hon Robyn McSweeney. Indeed, I have been known to have used some stronger terms in the past. The PRESIDENT : Order, members! Parts of the question were contrary to standing orders. I am sure the Leader of the House is not alluding to those. Hon KIM CHANCE : No. I am sure I will manage not to do that, Mr President. The tactics used by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals worldwide are standover tactics and qualify in my view as the practice of commercial terrorism. I have no time for PETA whatever. The answer is as follows — (1) The Wool Industry Task Force, which comprises industry representatives, announced in November 2004 that the wool industry would phase out mulesing by the end of 2010. To this end, the Department of Agriculture and Food Western Australia is undertaking research to assist the industry to seek alternatives, as well as assessing management options to allow producers to protect their flocks against breech strike and supply the market with wool from un-mulesed sheep. The cessation of mulesing on DAFWA research stations is a proactive move aimed at assessing different strategies to prevent flystrike, thereby providing wool growers with best-practice extension packages. It follows from that that we do not expect that the whole Western Australian woolclip can be bred from bare-breeched sheep in that time line. (2) A recent survey of producers indicated that 30 per cent were intending to phase out mulesing this year. The decision about when to cease mulesing prior to 2010 is for the individual producer. However, a heavy focus on extension and support will enable producers to change their practices with minimal disruption. (3) The commitment to phase out mulesing by 2010 has been reaffirmed since November 2004 by the Wool Industry Taskforce and Australian Wool Innovation Ltd. AWI is providing producers throughout Australia with information on strategies to reduce the risk of flystrike without mulesing, including management, strategic chemical usage and genetic selection. (4) Industry has accepted that mulesing will be phased out by 2010, and research and extension activities will continue to support industry to achieve this. It is likely that mulesing will in time become an unacceptable practice given that the Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Regional Services has discussed the need to modify state legislation to take account of the industry-led phasing out of mulesing. I wish to add to that answer a little. Although mulesing remains an accepted practice within the code of practice, its existence as an accepted practice within the code is an automatic guarantee—an automatic defence—against prosecution. Although my answer referred to the primary industries standing committee, which is the CEO equivalent of a ministerial council—in our case, the Primary Industries Ministerial Council—that body makes recommendations for consideration only by the Primary Industries Ministerial Council. That council ultimately decides what is in the code of practice. At this stage, mulesing remains within the code of practice and remains a legal defence and is likely to remain so for some time. The 2010 position was effectively taken by industry and was not led by the government. Indeed, the government is quite concerned about the outcome of the mulesing ban.
Can I say that I absolutely agree with the term used by Hon Robyn McSweeney. Indeed, I have been known to have used some stronger terms in the past. The PRESIDENT : Order, members! Parts of the question were contrary to standing orders. I am sure the Leader of the House is not alluding to those. Hon KIM CHANCE : No. I am sure I will manage not to do that, Mr President. The tactics used by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals worldwide are standover tactics and qualify in my view as the practice of commercial terrorism. I have no time for PETA whatever. The answer is as follows — (1) The Wool Industry Task Force, which comprises industry representatives, announced in November 2004 that the wool industry would phase out mulesing by the end of 2010. To this end, the Department of Agriculture and Food Western Australia is undertaking research to assist the industry to seek alternatives, as well as assessing management options to allow producers to protect their flocks against breech strike and supply the market with wool from un-mulesed sheep. The cessation of mulesing on DAFWA research stations is a proactive move aimed at assessing different strategies to prevent flystrike, thereby providing wool growers with best-practice extension packages. It follows from that that we do not expect that the whole Western Australian woolclip can be bred from bare-breeched sheep in that time line. (2) A recent survey of producers indicated that 30 per cent were intending to phase out mulesing this year. The decision about when to cease mulesing prior to 2010 is for the individual producer. However, a heavy focus on extension and support will enable producers to change their practices with minimal disruption. (3) The commitment to phase out mulesing by 2010 has been reaffirmed since November 2004 by the Wool Industry Taskforce and Australian Wool Innovation Ltd. AWI is providing producers throughout Australia with information on strategies to reduce the risk of flystrike without mulesing, including management, strategic chemical usage and genetic selection. (4) Industry has accepted that mulesing will be phased out by 2010, and research and extension activities will continue to support industry to achieve this. It is likely that mulesing will in time become an unacceptable practice given that the Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Regional Services has discussed the need to modify state legislation to take account of the industry-led phasing out of mulesing. I wish to add to that answer a little. Although mulesing remains an accepted practice within the code of practice, its existence as an accepted practice within the code is an automatic guarantee—an automatic defence—against prosecution. Although my answer referred to the primary industries standing committee, which is the CEO equivalent of a ministerial council—in our case, the Primary Industries Ministerial Council—that body makes recommendations for consideration only by the Primary Industries Ministerial Council. That council ultimately decides what is in the code of practice. At this stage, mulesing remains within the code of practice and remains a legal defence and is likely to remain so for some time. The 2010 position was effectively taken by industry and was not led by the government. Indeed, the government is quite concerned about the outcome of the mulesing ban.
The PRESIDENT : Order, members! Parts of the question were contrary to standing orders. I am sure the Leader of the House is not alluding to those. Hon KIM CHANCE : No. I am sure I will manage not to do that, Mr President. The tactics used by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals worldwide are standover tactics and qualify in my view as the practice of commercial terrorism. I have no time for PETA whatever. The answer is as follows — (1) The Wool Industry Task Force, which comprises industry representatives, announced in November 2004 that the wool industry would phase out mulesing by the end of 2010. To this end, the Department of Agriculture and Food Western Australia is undertaking research to assist the industry to seek alternatives, as well as assessing management options to allow producers to protect their flocks against breech strike and supply the market with wool from un-mulesed sheep. The cessation of mulesing on DAFWA research stations is a proactive move aimed at assessing different strategies to prevent flystrike, thereby providing wool growers with best-practice extension packages. It follows from that that we do not expect that the whole Western Australian woolclip can be bred from bare-breeched sheep in that time line. (2) A recent survey of producers indicated that 30 per cent were intending to phase out mulesing this year. The decision about when to cease mulesing prior to 2010 is for the individual producer. However, a heavy focus on extension and support will enable producers to change their practices with minimal disruption. (3) The commitment to phase out mulesing by 2010 has been reaffirmed since November 2004 by the Wool Industry Taskforce and Australian Wool Innovation Ltd. AWI is providing producers throughout Australia with information on strategies to reduce the risk of flystrike without mulesing, including management, strategic chemical usage and genetic selection. (4) Industry has accepted that mulesing will be phased out by 2010, and research and extension activities will continue to support industry to achieve this. It is likely that mulesing will in time become an unacceptable practice given that the Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Regional Services has discussed the need to modify state legislation to take account of the industry-led phasing out of mulesing. I wish to add to that answer a little. Although mulesing remains an accepted practice within the code of practice, its existence as an accepted practice within the code is an automatic guarantee—an automatic defence—against prosecution. Although my answer referred to the primary industries standing committee, which is the CEO equivalent of a ministerial council—in our case, the Primary Industries Ministerial Council—that body makes recommendations for consideration only by the Primary Industries Ministerial Council. That council ultimately decides what is in the code of practice. At this stage, mulesing remains within the code of practice and remains a legal defence and is likely to remain so for some time. The 2010 position was effectively taken by industry and was not led by the government. Indeed, the government is quite concerned about the outcome of the mulesing ban.
Hon KIM CHANCE : No. I am sure I will manage not to do that, Mr President. The tactics used by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals worldwide are standover tactics and qualify in my view as the practice of commercial terrorism. I have no time for PETA whatever. The answer is as follows — (1) The Wool Industry Task Force, which comprises industry representatives, announced in November 2004 that the wool industry would phase out mulesing by the end of 2010. To this end, the Department of Agriculture and Food Western Australia is undertaking research to assist the industry to seek alternatives, as well as assessing management options to allow producers to protect their flocks against breech strike and supply the market with wool from un-mulesed sheep. The cessation of mulesing on DAFWA research stations is a proactive move aimed at assessing different strategies to prevent flystrike, thereby providing wool growers with best-practice extension packages. It follows from that that we do not expect that the whole Western Australian woolclip can be bred from bare-breeched sheep in that time line. (2) A recent survey of producers indicated that 30 per cent were intending to phase out mulesing this year. The decision about when to cease mulesing prior to 2010 is for the individual producer. However, a heavy focus on extension and support will enable producers to change their practices with minimal disruption. (3) The commitment to phase out mulesing by 2010 has been reaffirmed since November 2004 by the Wool Industry Taskforce and Australian Wool Innovation Ltd. AWI is providing producers throughout Australia with information on strategies to reduce the risk of flystrike without mulesing, including management, strategic chemical usage and genetic selection. (4) Industry has accepted that mulesing will be phased out by 2010, and research and extension activities will continue to support industry to achieve this. It is likely that mulesing will in time become an unacceptable practice given that the Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Regional Services has discussed the need to modify state legislation to take account of the industry-led phasing out of mulesing. I wish to add to that answer a little. Although mulesing remains an accepted practice within the code of practice, its existence as an accepted practice within the code is an automatic guarantee—an automatic defence—against prosecution. Although my answer referred to the primary industries standing committee, which is the CEO equivalent of a ministerial council—in our case, the Primary Industries Ministerial Council—that body makes recommendations for consideration only by the Primary Industries Ministerial Council. That council ultimately decides what is in the code of practice. At this stage, mulesing remains within the code of practice and remains a legal defence and is likely to remain so for some time. The 2010 position was effectively taken by industry and was not led by the government. Indeed, the government is quite concerned about the outcome of the mulesing ban.
The tactics used by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals worldwide are standover tactics and qualify in my view as the practice of commercial terrorism. I have no time for PETA whatever. The answer is as follows — (1) The Wool Industry Task Force, which comprises industry representatives, announced in November 2004 that the wool industry would phase out mulesing by the end of 2010. To this end, the Department of Agriculture and Food Western Australia is undertaking research to assist the industry to seek alternatives, as well as assessing management options to allow producers to protect their flocks against breech strike and supply the market with wool from un-mulesed sheep. The cessation of mulesing on DAFWA research stations is a proactive move aimed at assessing different strategies to prevent flystrike, thereby providing wool growers with best-practice extension packages. It follows from that that we do not expect that the whole Western Australian woolclip can be bred from bare-breeched sheep in that time line. (2) A recent survey of producers indicated that 30 per cent were intending to phase out mulesing this year. The decision about when to cease mulesing prior to 2010 is for the individual producer. However, a heavy focus on extension and support will enable producers to change their practices with minimal disruption. (3) The commitment to phase out mulesing by 2010 has been reaffirmed since November 2004 by the Wool Industry Taskforce and Australian Wool Innovation Ltd. AWI is providing producers throughout Australia with information on strategies to reduce the risk of flystrike without mulesing, including management, strategic chemical usage and genetic selection. (4) Industry has accepted that mulesing will be phased out by 2010, and research and extension activities will continue to support industry to achieve this. It is likely that mulesing will in time become an unacceptable practice given that the Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Regional Services has discussed the need to modify state legislation to take account of the industry-led phasing out of mulesing. I wish to add to that answer a little. Although mulesing remains an accepted practice within the code of practice, its existence as an accepted practice within the code is an automatic guarantee—an automatic defence—against prosecution. Although my answer referred to the primary industries standing committee, which is the CEO equivalent of a ministerial council—in our case, the Primary Industries Ministerial Council—that body makes recommendations for consideration only by the Primary Industries Ministerial Council. That council ultimately decides what is in the code of practice. At this stage, mulesing remains within the code of practice and remains a legal defence and is likely to remain so for some time. The 2010 position was effectively taken by industry and was not led by the government. Indeed, the government is quite concerned about the outcome of the mulesing ban.
(1) The Wool Industry Task Force, which comprises industry representatives, announced in November 2004 that the wool industry would phase out mulesing by the end of 2010. To this end, the Department of Agriculture and Food Western Australia is undertaking research to assist the industry to seek alternatives, as well as assessing management options to allow producers to protect their flocks against breech strike and supply the market with wool from un-mulesed sheep. The cessation of mulesing on DAFWA research stations is a proactive move aimed at assessing different strategies to prevent flystrike, thereby providing wool growers with best-practice extension packages. It follows from that that we do not expect that the whole Western Australian woolclip can be bred from bare-breeched sheep in that time line. (2) A recent survey of producers indicated that 30 per cent were intending to phase out mulesing this year. The decision about when to cease mulesing prior to 2010 is for the individual producer. However, a heavy focus on extension and support will enable producers to change their practices with minimal disruption. (3) The commitment to phase out mulesing by 2010 has been reaffirmed since November 2004 by the Wool Industry Taskforce and Australian Wool Innovation Ltd. AWI is providing producers throughout Australia with information on strategies to reduce the risk of flystrike without mulesing, including management, strategic chemical usage and genetic selection. (4) Industry has accepted that mulesing will be phased out by 2010, and research and extension activities will continue to support industry to achieve this. It is likely that mulesing will in time become an unacceptable practice given that the Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Regional Services has discussed the need to modify state legislation to take account of the industry-led phasing out of mulesing. I wish to add to that answer a little. Although mulesing remains an accepted practice within the code of practice, its existence as an accepted practice within the code is an automatic guarantee—an automatic defence—against prosecution. Although my answer referred to the primary industries standing committee, which is the CEO equivalent of a ministerial council—in our case, the Primary Industries Ministerial Council—that body makes recommendations for consideration only by the Primary Industries Ministerial Council. That council ultimately decides what is in the code of practice. At this stage, mulesing remains within the code of practice and remains a legal defence and is likely to remain so for some time. The 2010 position was effectively taken by industry and was not led by the government. Indeed, the government is quite concerned about the outcome of the mulesing ban.
(2) A recent survey of producers indicated that 30 per cent were intending to phase out mulesing this year. The decision about when to cease mulesing prior to 2010 is for the individual producer. However, a heavy focus on extension and support will enable producers to change their practices with minimal disruption. (3) The commitment to phase out mulesing by 2010 has been reaffirmed since November 2004 by the Wool Industry Taskforce and Australian Wool Innovation Ltd. AWI is providing producers throughout Australia with information on strategies to reduce the risk of flystrike without mulesing, including management, strategic chemical usage and genetic selection. (4) Industry has accepted that mulesing will be phased out by 2010, and research and extension activities will continue to support industry to achieve this. It is likely that mulesing will in time become an unacceptable practice given that the Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Regional Services has discussed the need to modify state legislation to take account of the industry-led phasing out of mulesing. I wish to add to that answer a little. Although mulesing remains an accepted practice within the code of practice, its existence as an accepted practice within the code is an automatic guarantee—an automatic defence—against prosecution. Although my answer referred to the primary industries standing committee, which is the CEO equivalent of a ministerial council—in our case, the Primary Industries Ministerial Council—that body makes recommendations for consideration only by the Primary Industries Ministerial Council. That council ultimately decides what is in the code of practice. At this stage, mulesing remains within the code of practice and remains a legal defence and is likely to remain so for some time. The 2010 position was effectively taken by industry and was not led by the government. Indeed, the government is quite concerned about the outcome of the mulesing ban.
(3) The commitment to phase out mulesing by 2010 has been reaffirmed since November 2004 by the Wool Industry Taskforce and Australian Wool Innovation Ltd. AWI is providing producers throughout Australia with information on strategies to reduce the risk of flystrike without mulesing, including management, strategic chemical usage and genetic selection. (4) Industry has accepted that mulesing will be phased out by 2010, and research and extension activities will continue to support industry to achieve this. It is likely that mulesing will in time become an unacceptable practice given that the Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Regional Services has discussed the need to modify state legislation to take account of the industry-led phasing out of mulesing. I wish to add to that answer a little. Although mulesing remains an accepted practice within the code of practice, its existence as an accepted practice within the code is an automatic guarantee—an automatic defence—against prosecution. Although my answer referred to the primary industries standing committee, which is the CEO equivalent of a ministerial council—in our case, the Primary Industries Ministerial Council—that body makes recommendations for consideration only by the Primary Industries Ministerial Council. That council ultimately decides what is in the code of practice. At this stage, mulesing remains within the code of practice and remains a legal defence and is likely to remain so for some time. The 2010 position was effectively taken by industry and was not led by the government. Indeed, the government is quite concerned about the outcome of the mulesing ban.
(4) Industry has accepted that mulesing will be phased out by 2010, and research and extension activities will continue to support industry to achieve this. It is likely that mulesing will in time become an unacceptable practice given that the Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Regional Services has discussed the need to modify state legislation to take account of the industry-led phasing out of mulesing. I wish to add to that answer a little. Although mulesing remains an accepted practice within the code of practice, its existence as an accepted practice within the code is an automatic guarantee—an automatic defence—against prosecution. Although my answer referred to the primary industries standing committee, which is the CEO equivalent of a ministerial council—in our case, the Primary Industries Ministerial Council—that body makes recommendations for consideration only by the Primary Industries Ministerial Council. That council ultimately decides what is in the code of practice. At this stage, mulesing remains within the code of practice and remains a legal defence and is likely to remain so for some time. The 2010 position was effectively taken by industry and was not led by the government. Indeed, the government is quite concerned about the outcome of the mulesing ban.
(1) I am becoming increasingly concerned about the effect this group is having on our wool production, with 30 international retailers refusing to buy Australian wool. What is this government doing to counteract the impact of this group? (2) Will Western Australians farmers meet the deadline of 2010 for phasing out mulesing? (3) Does the minister really believe that every wool producer in Australia will be producing bare-breeched sheep by the end of 2013? (4) Mulesing is an acceptable farm practice. Why are we being dictated to by this unethical group? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: Can I say that I absolutely agree with the term used by Hon Robyn McSweeney. Indeed, I have been known to have used some stronger terms in the past. The PRESIDENT : Order, members! Parts of the question were contrary to standing orders. I am sure the Leader of the House is not alluding to those. Hon KIM CHANCE : No. I am sure I will manage not to do that, Mr President. The tactics used by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals worldwide are standover tactics and qualify in my view as the practice of commercial terrorism. I have no time for PETA whatever. The answer is as follows — (1) The Wool Industry Task Force, which comprises industry representatives, announced in November 2004 that the wool industry would phase out mulesing by the end of 2010. To this end, the Department of Agriculture and Food Western Australia is undertaking research to assist the industry to seek alternatives, as well as assessing management options to allow producers to protect their flocks against breech strike and supply the market with wool from un-mulesed sheep. The cessation of mulesing on DAFWA research stations is a proactive move aimed at assessing different strategies to prevent flystrike, thereby providing wool growers with best-practice extension packages. It follows from that that we do not expect that the whole Western Australian woolclip can be bred from bare-breeched sheep in that time line. (2) A recent survey of producers indicated that 30 per cent were intending to phase out mulesing this year. The decision about when to cease mulesing prior to 2010 is for the individual producer. However, a heavy focus on extension and support will enable producers to change their practices with minimal disruption. (3) The commitment to phase out mulesing by 2010 has been reaffirmed since November 2004 by the Wool Industry Taskforce and Australian Wool Innovation Ltd. AWI is providing producers throughout Australia with information on strategies to reduce the risk of flystrike without mulesing, including management, strategic chemical usage and genetic selection. (4) Industry has accepted that mulesing will be phased out by 2010, and research and extension activities will continue to support industry to achieve this. It is likely that mulesing will in time become an unacceptable practice given that the Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Regional Services has discussed the need to modify state legislation to take account of the industry-led phasing out of mulesing. I wish to add to that answer a little. Although mulesing remains an accepted practice within the code of practice, its existence as an accepted practice within the code is an automatic guarantee—an automatic defence—against prosecution. Although my answer referred to the primary industries standing committee, which is the CEO equivalent of a ministerial council—in our case, the Primary Industries Ministerial Council—that body makes recommendations for consideration only by the Primary Industries Ministerial Council. That council ultimately decides what is in the code of practice. At this stage, mulesing remains within the code of practice and remains a legal defence and is likely to remain so for some time. The 2010 position was effectively taken by industry and was not led by the government. Indeed, the government is quite concerned about the outcome of the mulesing ban.
(2) Will Western Australians farmers meet the deadline of 2010 for phasing out mulesing? (3) Does the minister really believe that every wool producer in Australia will be producing bare-breeched sheep by the end of 2013? (4) Mulesing is an acceptable farm practice. Why are we being dictated to by this unethical group? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: Can I say that I absolutely agree with the term used by Hon Robyn McSweeney. Indeed, I have been known to have used some stronger terms in the past. The PRESIDENT : Order, members! Parts of the question were contrary to standing orders. I am sure the Leader of the House is not alluding to those. Hon KIM CHANCE : No. I am sure I will manage not to do that, Mr President. The tactics used by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals worldwide are standover tactics and qualify in my view as the practice of commercial terrorism. I have no time for PETA whatever. The answer is as follows — (1) The Wool Industry Task Force, which comprises industry representatives, announced in November 2004 that the wool industry would phase out mulesing by the end of 2010. To this end, the Department of Agriculture and Food Western Australia is undertaking research to assist the industry to seek alternatives, as well as assessing management options to allow producers to protect their flocks against breech strike and supply the market with wool from un-mulesed sheep. The cessation of mulesing on DAFWA research stations is a proactive move aimed at assessing different strategies to prevent flystrike, thereby providing wool growers with best-practice extension packages. It follows from that that we do not expect that the whole Western Australian woolclip can be bred from bare-breeched sheep in that time line. (2) A recent survey of producers indicated that 30 per cent were intending to phase out mulesing this year. The decision about when to cease mulesing prior to 2010 is for the individual producer. However, a heavy focus on extension and support will enable producers to change their practices with minimal disruption. (3) The commitment to phase out mulesing by 2010 has been reaffirmed since November 2004 by the Wool Industry Taskforce and Australian Wool Innovation Ltd. AWI is providing producers throughout Australia with information on strategies to reduce the risk of flystrike without mulesing, including management, strategic chemical usage and genetic selection. (4) Industry has accepted that mulesing will be phased out by 2010, and research and extension activities will continue to support industry to achieve this. It is likely that mulesing will in time become an unacceptable practice given that the Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Regional Services has discussed the need to modify state legislation to take account of the industry-led phasing out of mulesing. I wish to add to that answer a little. Although mulesing remains an accepted practice within the code of practice, its existence as an accepted practice within the code is an automatic guarantee—an automatic defence—against prosecution. Although my answer referred to the primary industries standing committee, which is the CEO equivalent of a ministerial council—in our case, the Primary Industries Ministerial Council—that body makes recommendations for consideration only by the Primary Industries Ministerial Council. That council ultimately decides what is in the code of practice. At this stage, mulesing remains within the code of practice and remains a legal defence and is likely to remain so for some time. The 2010 position was effectively taken by industry and was not led by the government. Indeed, the government is quite concerned about the outcome of the mulesing ban.
(3) Does the minister really believe that every wool producer in Australia will be producing bare-breeched sheep by the end of 2013? (4) Mulesing is an acceptable farm practice. Why are we being dictated to by this unethical group? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: Can I say that I absolutely agree with the term used by Hon Robyn McSweeney. Indeed, I have been known to have used some stronger terms in the past. The PRESIDENT : Order, members! Parts of the question were contrary to standing orders. I am sure the Leader of the House is not alluding to those. Hon KIM CHANCE : No. I am sure I will manage not to do that, Mr President. The tactics used by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals worldwide are standover tactics and qualify in my view as the practice of commercial terrorism. I have no time for PETA whatever. The answer is as follows — (1) The Wool Industry Task Force, which comprises industry representatives, announced in November 2004 that the wool industry would phase out mulesing by the end of 2010. To this end, the Department of Agriculture and Food Western Australia is undertaking research to assist the industry to seek alternatives, as well as assessing management options to allow producers to protect their flocks against breech strike and supply the market with wool from un-mulesed sheep. The cessation of mulesing on DAFWA research stations is a proactive move aimed at assessing different strategies to prevent flystrike, thereby providing wool growers with best-practice extension packages. It follows from that that we do not expect that the whole Western Australian woolclip can be bred from bare-breeched sheep in that time line. (2) A recent survey of producers indicated that 30 per cent were intending to phase out mulesing this year. The decision about when to cease mulesing prior to 2010 is for the individual producer. However, a heavy focus on extension and support will enable producers to change their practices with minimal disruption. (3) The commitment to phase out mulesing by 2010 has been reaffirmed since November 2004 by the Wool Industry Taskforce and Australian Wool Innovation Ltd. AWI is providing producers throughout Australia with information on strategies to reduce the risk of flystrike without mulesing, including management, strategic chemical usage and genetic selection. (4) Industry has accepted that mulesing will be phased out by 2010, and research and extension activities will continue to support industry to achieve this. It is likely that mulesing will in time become an unacceptable practice given that the Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Regional Services has discussed the need to modify state legislation to take account of the industry-led phasing out of mulesing. I wish to add to that answer a little. Although mulesing remains an accepted practice within the code of practice, its existence as an accepted practice within the code is an automatic guarantee—an automatic defence—against prosecution. Although my answer referred to the primary industries standing committee, which is the CEO equivalent of a ministerial council—in our case, the Primary Industries Ministerial Council—that body makes recommendations for consideration only by the Primary Industries Ministerial Council. That council ultimately decides what is in the code of practice. At this stage, mulesing remains within the code of practice and remains a legal defence and is likely to remain so for some time. The 2010 position was effectively taken by industry and was not led by the government. Indeed, the government is quite concerned about the outcome of the mulesing ban.
(4) Mulesing is an acceptable farm practice. Why are we being dictated to by this unethical group? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: Can I say that I absolutely agree with the term used by Hon Robyn McSweeney. Indeed, I have been known to have used some stronger terms in the past. The PRESIDENT : Order, members! Parts of the question were contrary to standing orders. I am sure the Leader of the House is not alluding to those. Hon KIM CHANCE : No. I am sure I will manage not to do that, Mr President. The tactics used by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals worldwide are standover tactics and qualify in my view as the practice of commercial terrorism. I have no time for PETA whatever. The answer is as follows — (1) The Wool Industry Task Force, which comprises industry representatives, announced in November 2004 that the wool industry would phase out mulesing by the end of 2010. To this end, the Department of Agriculture and Food Western Australia is undertaking research to assist the industry to seek alternatives, as well as assessing management options to allow producers to protect their flocks against breech strike and supply the market with wool from un-mulesed sheep. The cessation of mulesing on DAFWA research stations is a proactive move aimed at assessing different strategies to prevent flystrike, thereby providing wool growers with best-practice extension packages. It follows from that that we do not expect that the whole Western Australian woolclip can be bred from bare-breeched sheep in that time line. (2) A recent survey of producers indicated that 30 per cent were intending to phase out mulesing this year. The decision about when to cease mulesing prior to 2010 is for the individual producer. However, a heavy focus on extension and support will enable producers to change their practices with minimal disruption. (3) The commitment to phase out mulesing by 2010 has been reaffirmed since November 2004 by the Wool Industry Taskforce and Australian Wool Innovation Ltd. AWI is providing producers throughout Australia with information on strategies to reduce the risk of flystrike without mulesing, including management, strategic chemical usage and genetic selection. (4) Industry has accepted that mulesing will be phased out by 2010, and research and extension activities will continue to support industry to achieve this. It is likely that mulesing will in time become an unacceptable practice given that the Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Regional Services has discussed the need to modify state legislation to take account of the industry-led phasing out of mulesing. I wish to add to that answer a little. Although mulesing remains an accepted practice within the code of practice, its existence as an accepted practice within the code is an automatic guarantee—an automatic defence—against prosecution. Although my answer referred to the primary industries standing committee, which is the CEO equivalent of a ministerial council—in our case, the Primary Industries Ministerial Council—that body makes recommendations for consideration only by the Primary Industries Ministerial Council. That council ultimately decides what is in the code of practice. At this stage, mulesing remains within the code of practice and remains a legal defence and is likely to remain so for some time. The 2010 position was effectively taken by industry and was not led by the government. Indeed, the government is quite concerned about the outcome of the mulesing ban.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: Can I say that I absolutely agree with the term used by Hon Robyn McSweeney. Indeed, I have been known to have used some stronger terms in the past. The PRESIDENT : Order, members! Parts of the question were contrary to standing orders. I am sure the Leader of the House is not alluding to those. Hon KIM CHANCE : No. I am sure I will manage not to do that, Mr President. The tactics used by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals worldwide are standover tactics and qualify in my view as the practice of commercial terrorism. I have no time for PETA whatever. The answer is as follows — (1) The Wool Industry Task Force, which comprises industry representatives, announced in November 2004 that the wool industry would phase out mulesing by the end of 2010. To this end, the Department of Agriculture and Food Western Australia is undertaking research to assist the industry to seek alternatives, as well as assessing management options to allow producers to protect their flocks against breech strike and supply the market with wool from un-mulesed sheep. The cessation of mulesing on DAFWA research stations is a proactive move aimed at assessing different strategies to prevent flystrike, thereby providing wool growers with best-practice extension packages. It follows from that that we do not expect that the whole Western Australian woolclip can be bred from bare-breeched sheep in that time line. (2) A recent survey of producers indicated that 30 per cent were intending to phase out mulesing this year. The decision about when to cease mulesing prior to 2010 is for the individual producer. However, a heavy focus on extension and support will enable producers to change their practices with minimal disruption. (3) The commitment to phase out mulesing by 2010 has been reaffirmed since November 2004 by the Wool Industry Taskforce and Australian Wool Innovation Ltd. AWI is providing producers throughout Australia with information on strategies to reduce the risk of flystrike without mulesing, including management, strategic chemical usage and genetic selection. (4) Industry has accepted that mulesing will be phased out by 2010, and research and extension activities will continue to support industry to achieve this. It is likely that mulesing will in time become an unacceptable practice given that the Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Regional Services has discussed the need to modify state legislation to take account of the industry-led phasing out of mulesing. I wish to add to that answer a little. Although mulesing remains an accepted practice within the code of practice, its existence as an accepted practice within the code is an automatic guarantee—an automatic defence—against prosecution. Although my answer referred to the primary industries standing committee, which is the CEO equivalent of a ministerial council—in our case, the Primary Industries Ministerial Council—that body makes recommendations for consideration only by the Primary Industries Ministerial Council. That council ultimately decides what is in the code of practice. At this stage, mulesing remains within the code of practice and remains a legal defence and is likely to remain so for some time. The 2010 position was effectively taken by industry and was not led by the government. Indeed, the government is quite concerned about the outcome of the mulesing ban.
Can I say that I absolutely agree with the term used by Hon Robyn McSweeney. Indeed, I have been known to have used some stronger terms in the past. The PRESIDENT : Order, members! Parts of the question were contrary to standing orders. I am sure the Leader of the House is not alluding to those. Hon KIM CHANCE : No. I am sure I will manage not to do that, Mr President. The tactics used by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals worldwide are standover tactics and qualify in my view as the practice of commercial terrorism. I have no time for PETA whatever. The answer is as follows — (1) The Wool Industry Task Force, which comprises industry representatives, announced in November 2004 that the wool industry would phase out mulesing by the end of 2010. To this end, the Department of Agriculture and Food Western Australia is undertaking research to assist the industry to seek alternatives, as well as assessing management options to allow producers to protect their flocks against breech strike and supply the market with wool from un-mulesed sheep. The cessation of mulesing on DAFWA research stations is a proactive move aimed at assessing different strategies to prevent flystrike, thereby providing wool growers with best-practice extension packages. It follows from that that we do not expect that the whole Western Australian woolclip can be bred from bare-breeched sheep in that time line. (2) A recent survey of producers indicated that 30 per cent were intending to phase out mulesing this year. The decision about when to cease mulesing prior to 2010 is for the individual producer. However, a heavy focus on extension and support will enable producers to change their practices with minimal disruption. (3) The commitment to phase out mulesing by 2010 has been reaffirmed since November 2004 by the Wool Industry Taskforce and Australian Wool Innovation Ltd. AWI is providing producers throughout Australia with information on strategies to reduce the risk of flystrike without mulesing, including management, strategic chemical usage and genetic selection. (4) Industry has accepted that mulesing will be phased out by 2010, and research and extension activities will continue to support industry to achieve this. It is likely that mulesing will in time become an unacceptable practice given that the Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Regional Services has discussed the need to modify state legislation to take account of the industry-led phasing out of mulesing. I wish to add to that answer a little. Although mulesing remains an accepted practice within the code of practice, its existence as an accepted practice within the code is an automatic guarantee—an automatic defence—against prosecution. Although my answer referred to the primary industries standing committee, which is the CEO equivalent of a ministerial council—in our case, the Primary Industries Ministerial Council—that body makes recommendations for consideration only by the Primary Industries Ministerial Council. That council ultimately decides what is in the code of practice. At this stage, mulesing remains within the code of practice and remains a legal defence and is likely to remain so for some time. The 2010 position was effectively taken by industry and was not led by the government. Indeed, the government is quite concerned about the outcome of the mulesing ban.
The PRESIDENT : Order, members! Parts of the question were contrary to standing orders. I am sure the Leader of the House is not alluding to those. Hon KIM CHANCE : No. I am sure I will manage not to do that, Mr President. The tactics used by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals worldwide are standover tactics and qualify in my view as the practice of commercial terrorism. I have no time for PETA whatever. The answer is as follows — (1) The Wool Industry Task Force, which comprises industry representatives, announced in November 2004 that the wool industry would phase out mulesing by the end of 2010. To this end, the Department of Agriculture and Food Western Australia is undertaking research to assist the industry to seek alternatives, as well as assessing management options to allow producers to protect their flocks against breech strike and supply the market with wool from un-mulesed sheep. The cessation of mulesing on DAFWA research stations is a proactive move aimed at assessing different strategies to prevent flystrike, thereby providing wool growers with best-practice extension packages. It follows from that that we do not expect that the whole Western Australian woolclip can be bred from bare-breeched sheep in that time line. (2) A recent survey of producers indicated that 30 per cent were intending to phase out mulesing this year. The decision about when to cease mulesing prior to 2010 is for the individual producer. However, a heavy focus on extension and support will enable producers to change their practices with minimal disruption. (3) The commitment to phase out mulesing by 2010 has been reaffirmed since November 2004 by the Wool Industry Taskforce and Australian Wool Innovation Ltd. AWI is providing producers throughout Australia with information on strategies to reduce the risk of flystrike without mulesing, including management, strategic chemical usage and genetic selection. (4) Industry has accepted that mulesing will be phased out by 2010, and research and extension activities will continue to support industry to achieve this. It is likely that mulesing will in time become an unacceptable practice given that the Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Regional Services has discussed the need to modify state legislation to take account of the industry-led phasing out of mulesing. I wish to add to that answer a little. Although mulesing remains an accepted practice within the code of practice, its existence as an accepted practice within the code is an automatic guarantee—an automatic defence—against prosecution. Although my answer referred to the primary industries standing committee, which is the CEO equivalent of a ministerial council—in our case, the Primary Industries Ministerial Council—that body makes recommendations for consideration only by the Primary Industries Ministerial Council. That council ultimately decides what is in the code of practice. At this stage, mulesing remains within the code of practice and remains a legal defence and is likely to remain so for some time. The 2010 position was effectively taken by industry and was not led by the government. Indeed, the government is quite concerned about the outcome of the mulesing ban.
Hon KIM CHANCE : No. I am sure I will manage not to do that, Mr President. The tactics used by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals worldwide are standover tactics and qualify in my view as the practice of commercial terrorism. I have no time for PETA whatever. The answer is as follows — (1) The Wool Industry Task Force, which comprises industry representatives, announced in November 2004 that the wool industry would phase out mulesing by the end of 2010. To this end, the Department of Agriculture and Food Western Australia is undertaking research to assist the industry to seek alternatives, as well as assessing management options to allow producers to protect their flocks against breech strike and supply the market with wool from un-mulesed sheep. The cessation of mulesing on DAFWA research stations is a proactive move aimed at assessing different strategies to prevent flystrike, thereby providing wool growers with best-practice extension packages. It follows from that that we do not expect that the whole Western Australian woolclip can be bred from bare-breeched sheep in that time line. (2) A recent survey of producers indicated that 30 per cent were intending to phase out mulesing this year. The decision about when to cease mulesing prior to 2010 is for the individual producer. However, a heavy focus on extension and support will enable producers to change their practices with minimal disruption. (3) The commitment to phase out mulesing by 2010 has been reaffirmed since November 2004 by the Wool Industry Taskforce and Australian Wool Innovation Ltd. AWI is providing producers throughout Australia with information on strategies to reduce the risk of flystrike without mulesing, including management, strategic chemical usage and genetic selection. (4) Industry has accepted that mulesing will be phased out by 2010, and research and extension activities will continue to support industry to achieve this. It is likely that mulesing will in time become an unacceptable practice given that the Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Regional Services has discussed the need to modify state legislation to take account of the industry-led phasing out of mulesing. I wish to add to that answer a little. Although mulesing remains an accepted practice within the code of practice, its existence as an accepted practice within the code is an automatic guarantee—an automatic defence—against prosecution. Although my answer referred to the primary industries standing committee, which is the CEO equivalent of a ministerial council—in our case, the Primary Industries Ministerial Council—that body makes recommendations for consideration only by the Primary Industries Ministerial Council. That council ultimately decides what is in the code of practice. At this stage, mulesing remains within the code of practice and remains a legal defence and is likely to remain so for some time. The 2010 position was effectively taken by industry and was not led by the government. Indeed, the government is quite concerned about the outcome of the mulesing ban.
The tactics used by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals worldwide are standover tactics and qualify in my view as the practice of commercial terrorism. I have no time for PETA whatever. The answer is as follows — (1) The Wool Industry Task Force, which comprises industry representatives, announced in November 2004 that the wool industry would phase out mulesing by the end of 2010. To this end, the Department of Agriculture and Food Western Australia is undertaking research to assist the industry to seek alternatives, as well as assessing management options to allow producers to protect their flocks against breech strike and supply the market with wool from un-mulesed sheep. The cessation of mulesing on DAFWA research stations is a proactive move aimed at assessing different strategies to prevent flystrike, thereby providing wool growers with best-practice extension packages. It follows from that that we do not expect that the whole Western Australian woolclip can be bred from bare-breeched sheep in that time line. (2) A recent survey of producers indicated that 30 per cent were intending to phase out mulesing this year. The decision about when to cease mulesing prior to 2010 is for the individual producer. However, a heavy focus on extension and support will enable producers to change their practices with minimal disruption. (3) The commitment to phase out mulesing by 2010 has been reaffirmed since November 2004 by the Wool Industry Taskforce and Australian Wool Innovation Ltd. AWI is providing producers throughout Australia with information on strategies to reduce the risk of flystrike without mulesing, including management, strategic chemical usage and genetic selection. (4) Industry has accepted that mulesing will be phased out by 2010, and research and extension activities will continue to support industry to achieve this. It is likely that mulesing will in time become an unacceptable practice given that the Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Regional Services has discussed the need to modify state legislation to take account of the industry-led phasing out of mulesing. I wish to add to that answer a little. Although mulesing remains an accepted practice within the code of practice, its existence as an accepted practice within the code is an automatic guarantee—an automatic defence—against prosecution. Although my answer referred to the primary industries standing committee, which is the CEO equivalent of a ministerial council—in our case, the Primary Industries Ministerial Council—that body makes recommendations for consideration only by the Primary Industries Ministerial Council. That council ultimately decides what is in the code of practice. At this stage, mulesing remains within the code of practice and remains a legal defence and is likely to remain so for some time. The 2010 position was effectively taken by industry and was not led by the government. Indeed, the government is quite concerned about the outcome of the mulesing ban.
(1) The Wool Industry Task Force, which comprises industry representatives, announced in November 2004 that the wool industry would phase out mulesing by the end of 2010. To this end, the Department of Agriculture and Food Western Australia is undertaking research to assist the industry to seek alternatives, as well as assessing management options to allow producers to protect their flocks against breech strike and supply the market with wool from un-mulesed sheep. The cessation of mulesing on DAFWA research stations is a proactive move aimed at assessing different strategies to prevent flystrike, thereby providing wool growers with best-practice extension packages. It follows from that that we do not expect that the whole Western Australian woolclip can be bred from bare-breeched sheep in that time line. (2) A recent survey of producers indicated that 30 per cent were intending to phase out mulesing this year. The decision about when to cease mulesing prior to 2010 is for the individual producer. However, a heavy focus on extension and support will enable producers to change their practices with minimal disruption. (3) The commitment to phase out mulesing by 2010 has been reaffirmed since November 2004 by the Wool Industry Taskforce and Australian Wool Innovation Ltd. AWI is providing producers throughout Australia with information on strategies to reduce the risk of flystrike without mulesing, including management, strategic chemical usage and genetic selection. (4) Industry has accepted that mulesing will be phased out by 2010, and research and extension activities will continue to support industry to achieve this. It is likely that mulesing will in time become an unacceptable practice given that the Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Regional Services has discussed the need to modify state legislation to take account of the industry-led phasing out of mulesing. I wish to add to that answer a little. Although mulesing remains an accepted practice within the code of practice, its existence as an accepted practice within the code is an automatic guarantee—an automatic defence—against prosecution. Although my answer referred to the primary industries standing committee, which is the CEO equivalent of a ministerial council—in our case, the Primary Industries Ministerial Council—that body makes recommendations for consideration only by the Primary Industries Ministerial Council. That council ultimately decides what is in the code of practice. At this stage, mulesing remains within the code of practice and remains a legal defence and is likely to remain so for some time. The 2010 position was effectively taken by industry and was not led by the government. Indeed, the government is quite concerned about the outcome of the mulesing ban.
(2) A recent survey of producers indicated that 30 per cent were intending to phase out mulesing this year. The decision about when to cease mulesing prior to 2010 is for the individual producer. However, a heavy focus on extension and support will enable producers to change their practices with minimal disruption. (3) The commitment to phase out mulesing by 2010 has been reaffirmed since November 2004 by the Wool Industry Taskforce and Australian Wool Innovation Ltd. AWI is providing producers throughout Australia with information on strategies to reduce the risk of flystrike without mulesing, including management, strategic chemical usage and genetic selection. (4) Industry has accepted that mulesing will be phased out by 2010, and research and extension activities will continue to support industry to achieve this. It is likely that mulesing will in time become an unacceptable practice given that the Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Regional Services has discussed the need to modify state legislation to take account of the industry-led phasing out of mulesing. I wish to add to that answer a little. Although mulesing remains an accepted practice within the code of practice, its existence as an accepted practice within the code is an automatic guarantee—an automatic defence—against prosecution. Although my answer referred to the primary industries standing committee, which is the CEO equivalent of a ministerial council—in our case, the Primary Industries Ministerial Council—that body makes recommendations for consideration only by the Primary Industries Ministerial Council. That council ultimately decides what is in the code of practice. At this stage, mulesing remains within the code of practice and remains a legal defence and is likely to remain so for some time. The 2010 position was effectively taken by industry and was not led by the government. Indeed, the government is quite concerned about the outcome of the mulesing ban.
(3) The commitment to phase out mulesing by 2010 has been reaffirmed since November 2004 by the Wool Industry Taskforce and Australian Wool Innovation Ltd. AWI is providing producers throughout Australia with information on strategies to reduce the risk of flystrike without mulesing, including management, strategic chemical usage and genetic selection. (4) Industry has accepted that mulesing will be phased out by 2010, and research and extension activities will continue to support industry to achieve this. It is likely that mulesing will in time become an unacceptable practice given that the Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Regional Services has discussed the need to modify state legislation to take account of the industry-led phasing out of mulesing. I wish to add to that answer a little. Although mulesing remains an accepted practice within the code of practice, its existence as an accepted practice within the code is an automatic guarantee—an automatic defence—against prosecution. Although my answer referred to the primary industries standing committee, which is the CEO equivalent of a ministerial council—in our case, the Primary Industries Ministerial Council—that body makes recommendations for consideration only by the Primary Industries Ministerial Council. That council ultimately decides what is in the code of practice. At this stage, mulesing remains within the code of practice and remains a legal defence and is likely to remain so for some time. The 2010 position was effectively taken by industry and was not led by the government. Indeed, the government is quite concerned about the outcome of the mulesing ban.
(4) Industry has accepted that mulesing will be phased out by 2010, and research and extension activities will continue to support industry to achieve this. It is likely that mulesing will in time become an unacceptable practice given that the Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Regional Services has discussed the need to modify state legislation to take account of the industry-led phasing out of mulesing. I wish to add to that answer a little. Although mulesing remains an accepted practice within the code of practice, its existence as an accepted practice within the code is an automatic guarantee—an automatic defence—against prosecution. Although my answer referred to the primary industries standing committee, which is the CEO equivalent of a ministerial council—in our case, the Primary Industries Ministerial Council—that body makes recommendations for consideration only by the Primary Industries Ministerial Council. That council ultimately decides what is in the code of practice. At this stage, mulesing remains within the code of practice and remains a legal defence and is likely to remain so for some time. The 2010 position was effectively taken by industry and was not led by the government. Indeed, the government is quite concerned about the outcome of the mulesing ban.
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.