❓ Question regarding satisfaction with the uptake of the National Livestock Identification Scheme (NLIS) by WA beef cattle growers and the possibility of a voluntary scheme. The Minister expresses satisfaction with the current uptake and defends the mandatory approach to maintain a competitive edge in the international market.
AnsweredQoN 211Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
My question is without notice so I will pass a copy of it to the minister. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : That is very nice of you. You always do that. Hon BILL STRETCH : He might prefer that I not do that because my writing might be harder to understand than my speech! I refer to the national livestock identification scheme. (1) Is the minister satisfied with the current rate of uptake of the scheme by Western Australian beef cattle growers? (2) Has he been requested to make the use of the identification scheme voluntary so that the marketplace can put its own pressure on growers to conform? (3) If not, will the minister consider a non-compulsory option; and, if not, why not? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for passing me a copy of the question. I offer him the use of the computer in my office should he want to type a question! (1) Yes, I am. I have recently reviewed the progress we are making. Indeed, Western Australia’s progress has also been reviewed at a national level. That was the subject of the recent Primary Industries Ministerial Council meeting in Darwin. Although different states have different views on our rate of progress and that of the Northern Territory and Queensland, the consensus view and, I am happy to say, the commonwealth view, is that Western Australia’s progress is satisfactory. Indeed, we are well and truly on schedule. (2) I have but not to the extent that it has caused me to change my views on wanting Western Australia to achieve the national standard on uptake of the national livestock identification scheme. I do not think we should allow the industry to get into a position in which we can be wrong-footed by our competitors. We have to be very serious about the nature of our competitors and the quality of their livestock. The United States is about to knock on the door to re-enter the Japanese market. Egypt is still out of the live-cattle market because of the imbalance between the Egyptian pound and the Australian dollar. The beef industry is still buoyant at the moment but, in some senses, it hangs by a fairly delicate thread with a fairly narrow market footprint because the United States may become a substantial competitor in Japan. I am concerned about future acceptance, particularly of our live cattle and carcasses vis-a-vis the competition we can expect from South American countries, particularly Uruguay, Brazil and Argentina. We all have great respect for the quality of cattle from South America. It is only logistics and biosecurity issues that have given us a significant advantage over South America. It far outnumbers us in the cattle industry. Brazil’s production on its own far outnumbers ours. I do not want to slip behind in this; we have an advantage and we should not take it for granted. (3) No. I indicated at the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia conference at El Questro last winter that the northern cattle industry has a particular end market. In the main, I was thinking of the live-cattle market into Indonesia. Although that market is demonstrably not seeking NLIS implementation in its full expression, I will be prepared to consider going on with the pathways project, in which we still have whole-of-life identification, but that whole-of-life identification is done by transaction tag rather than electronic tag. I have always been prepared to consider that, but I do not see that as backsliding from the NLIS ideals. Hon Bill Stretch : Does that cover delivering directly to local abattoirs? Hon KIM CHANCE : Yes, pathways provides for direct delivery only.
Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : That is very nice of you. You always do that. Hon BILL STRETCH : He might prefer that I not do that because my writing might be harder to understand than my speech! I refer to the national livestock identification scheme. (1) Is the minister satisfied with the current rate of uptake of the scheme by Western Australian beef cattle growers? (2) Has he been requested to make the use of the identification scheme voluntary so that the marketplace can put its own pressure on growers to conform? (3) If not, will the minister consider a non-compulsory option; and, if not, why not? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for passing me a copy of the question. I offer him the use of the computer in my office should he want to type a question! (1) Yes, I am. I have recently reviewed the progress we are making. Indeed, Western Australia’s progress has also been reviewed at a national level. That was the subject of the recent Primary Industries Ministerial Council meeting in Darwin. Although different states have different views on our rate of progress and that of the Northern Territory and Queensland, the consensus view and, I am happy to say, the commonwealth view, is that Western Australia’s progress is satisfactory. Indeed, we are well and truly on schedule. (2) I have but not to the extent that it has caused me to change my views on wanting Western Australia to achieve the national standard on uptake of the national livestock identification scheme. I do not think we should allow the industry to get into a position in which we can be wrong-footed by our competitors. We have to be very serious about the nature of our competitors and the quality of their livestock. The United States is about to knock on the door to re-enter the Japanese market. Egypt is still out of the live-cattle market because of the imbalance between the Egyptian pound and the Australian dollar. The beef industry is still buoyant at the moment but, in some senses, it hangs by a fairly delicate thread with a fairly narrow market footprint because the United States may become a substantial competitor in Japan. I am concerned about future acceptance, particularly of our live cattle and carcasses vis-a-vis the competition we can expect from South American countries, particularly Uruguay, Brazil and Argentina. We all have great respect for the quality of cattle from South America. It is only logistics and biosecurity issues that have given us a significant advantage over South America. It far outnumbers us in the cattle industry. Brazil’s production on its own far outnumbers ours. I do not want to slip behind in this; we have an advantage and we should not take it for granted. (3) No. I indicated at the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia conference at El Questro last winter that the northern cattle industry has a particular end market. In the main, I was thinking of the live-cattle market into Indonesia. Although that market is demonstrably not seeking NLIS implementation in its full expression, I will be prepared to consider going on with the pathways project, in which we still have whole-of-life identification, but that whole-of-life identification is done by transaction tag rather than electronic tag. I have always been prepared to consider that, but I do not see that as backsliding from the NLIS ideals. Hon Bill Stretch : Does that cover delivering directly to local abattoirs? Hon KIM CHANCE : Yes, pathways provides for direct delivery only.
Hon BILL STRETCH : He might prefer that I not do that because my writing might be harder to understand than my speech! I refer to the national livestock identification scheme. (1) Is the minister satisfied with the current rate of uptake of the scheme by Western Australian beef cattle growers? (2) Has he been requested to make the use of the identification scheme voluntary so that the marketplace can put its own pressure on growers to conform? (3) If not, will the minister consider a non-compulsory option; and, if not, why not? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for passing me a copy of the question. I offer him the use of the computer in my office should he want to type a question! (1) Yes, I am. I have recently reviewed the progress we are making. Indeed, Western Australia’s progress has also been reviewed at a national level. That was the subject of the recent Primary Industries Ministerial Council meeting in Darwin. Although different states have different views on our rate of progress and that of the Northern Territory and Queensland, the consensus view and, I am happy to say, the commonwealth view, is that Western Australia’s progress is satisfactory. Indeed, we are well and truly on schedule. (2) I have but not to the extent that it has caused me to change my views on wanting Western Australia to achieve the national standard on uptake of the national livestock identification scheme. I do not think we should allow the industry to get into a position in which we can be wrong-footed by our competitors. We have to be very serious about the nature of our competitors and the quality of their livestock. The United States is about to knock on the door to re-enter the Japanese market. Egypt is still out of the live-cattle market because of the imbalance between the Egyptian pound and the Australian dollar. The beef industry is still buoyant at the moment but, in some senses, it hangs by a fairly delicate thread with a fairly narrow market footprint because the United States may become a substantial competitor in Japan. I am concerned about future acceptance, particularly of our live cattle and carcasses vis-a-vis the competition we can expect from South American countries, particularly Uruguay, Brazil and Argentina. We all have great respect for the quality of cattle from South America. It is only logistics and biosecurity issues that have given us a significant advantage over South America. It far outnumbers us in the cattle industry. Brazil’s production on its own far outnumbers ours. I do not want to slip behind in this; we have an advantage and we should not take it for granted. (3) No. I indicated at the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia conference at El Questro last winter that the northern cattle industry has a particular end market. In the main, I was thinking of the live-cattle market into Indonesia. Although that market is demonstrably not seeking NLIS implementation in its full expression, I will be prepared to consider going on with the pathways project, in which we still have whole-of-life identification, but that whole-of-life identification is done by transaction tag rather than electronic tag. I have always been prepared to consider that, but I do not see that as backsliding from the NLIS ideals. Hon Bill Stretch : Does that cover delivering directly to local abattoirs? Hon KIM CHANCE : Yes, pathways provides for direct delivery only.
I refer to the national livestock identification scheme. (1) Is the minister satisfied with the current rate of uptake of the scheme by Western Australian beef cattle growers? (2) Has he been requested to make the use of the identification scheme voluntary so that the marketplace can put its own pressure on growers to conform? (3) If not, will the minister consider a non-compulsory option; and, if not, why not? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for passing me a copy of the question. I offer him the use of the computer in my office should he want to type a question! (1) Yes, I am. I have recently reviewed the progress we are making. Indeed, Western Australia’s progress has also been reviewed at a national level. That was the subject of the recent Primary Industries Ministerial Council meeting in Darwin. Although different states have different views on our rate of progress and that of the Northern Territory and Queensland, the consensus view and, I am happy to say, the commonwealth view, is that Western Australia’s progress is satisfactory. Indeed, we are well and truly on schedule. (2) I have but not to the extent that it has caused me to change my views on wanting Western Australia to achieve the national standard on uptake of the national livestock identification scheme. I do not think we should allow the industry to get into a position in which we can be wrong-footed by our competitors. We have to be very serious about the nature of our competitors and the quality of their livestock. The United States is about to knock on the door to re-enter the Japanese market. Egypt is still out of the live-cattle market because of the imbalance between the Egyptian pound and the Australian dollar. The beef industry is still buoyant at the moment but, in some senses, it hangs by a fairly delicate thread with a fairly narrow market footprint because the United States may become a substantial competitor in Japan. I am concerned about future acceptance, particularly of our live cattle and carcasses vis-a-vis the competition we can expect from South American countries, particularly Uruguay, Brazil and Argentina. We all have great respect for the quality of cattle from South America. It is only logistics and biosecurity issues that have given us a significant advantage over South America. It far outnumbers us in the cattle industry. Brazil’s production on its own far outnumbers ours. I do not want to slip behind in this; we have an advantage and we should not take it for granted. (3) No. I indicated at the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia conference at El Questro last winter that the northern cattle industry has a particular end market. In the main, I was thinking of the live-cattle market into Indonesia. Although that market is demonstrably not seeking NLIS implementation in its full expression, I will be prepared to consider going on with the pathways project, in which we still have whole-of-life identification, but that whole-of-life identification is done by transaction tag rather than electronic tag. I have always been prepared to consider that, but I do not see that as backsliding from the NLIS ideals. Hon Bill Stretch : Does that cover delivering directly to local abattoirs? Hon KIM CHANCE : Yes, pathways provides for direct delivery only.
(1) Is the minister satisfied with the current rate of uptake of the scheme by Western Australian beef cattle growers? (2) Has he been requested to make the use of the identification scheme voluntary so that the marketplace can put its own pressure on growers to conform? (3) If not, will the minister consider a non-compulsory option; and, if not, why not? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for passing me a copy of the question. I offer him the use of the computer in my office should he want to type a question! (1) Yes, I am. I have recently reviewed the progress we are making. Indeed, Western Australia’s progress has also been reviewed at a national level. That was the subject of the recent Primary Industries Ministerial Council meeting in Darwin. Although different states have different views on our rate of progress and that of the Northern Territory and Queensland, the consensus view and, I am happy to say, the commonwealth view, is that Western Australia’s progress is satisfactory. Indeed, we are well and truly on schedule. (2) I have but not to the extent that it has caused me to change my views on wanting Western Australia to achieve the national standard on uptake of the national livestock identification scheme. I do not think we should allow the industry to get into a position in which we can be wrong-footed by our competitors. We have to be very serious about the nature of our competitors and the quality of their livestock. The United States is about to knock on the door to re-enter the Japanese market. Egypt is still out of the live-cattle market because of the imbalance between the Egyptian pound and the Australian dollar. The beef industry is still buoyant at the moment but, in some senses, it hangs by a fairly delicate thread with a fairly narrow market footprint because the United States may become a substantial competitor in Japan. I am concerned about future acceptance, particularly of our live cattle and carcasses vis-a-vis the competition we can expect from South American countries, particularly Uruguay, Brazil and Argentina. We all have great respect for the quality of cattle from South America. It is only logistics and biosecurity issues that have given us a significant advantage over South America. It far outnumbers us in the cattle industry. Brazil’s production on its own far outnumbers ours. I do not want to slip behind in this; we have an advantage and we should not take it for granted. (3) No. I indicated at the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia conference at El Questro last winter that the northern cattle industry has a particular end market. In the main, I was thinking of the live-cattle market into Indonesia. Although that market is demonstrably not seeking NLIS implementation in its full expression, I will be prepared to consider going on with the pathways project, in which we still have whole-of-life identification, but that whole-of-life identification is done by transaction tag rather than electronic tag. I have always been prepared to consider that, but I do not see that as backsliding from the NLIS ideals. Hon Bill Stretch : Does that cover delivering directly to local abattoirs? Hon KIM CHANCE : Yes, pathways provides for direct delivery only.
(2) Has he been requested to make the use of the identification scheme voluntary so that the marketplace can put its own pressure on growers to conform? (3) If not, will the minister consider a non-compulsory option; and, if not, why not? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for passing me a copy of the question. I offer him the use of the computer in my office should he want to type a question! (1) Yes, I am. I have recently reviewed the progress we are making. Indeed, Western Australia’s progress has also been reviewed at a national level. That was the subject of the recent Primary Industries Ministerial Council meeting in Darwin. Although different states have different views on our rate of progress and that of the Northern Territory and Queensland, the consensus view and, I am happy to say, the commonwealth view, is that Western Australia’s progress is satisfactory. Indeed, we are well and truly on schedule. (2) I have but not to the extent that it has caused me to change my views on wanting Western Australia to achieve the national standard on uptake of the national livestock identification scheme. I do not think we should allow the industry to get into a position in which we can be wrong-footed by our competitors. We have to be very serious about the nature of our competitors and the quality of their livestock. The United States is about to knock on the door to re-enter the Japanese market. Egypt is still out of the live-cattle market because of the imbalance between the Egyptian pound and the Australian dollar. The beef industry is still buoyant at the moment but, in some senses, it hangs by a fairly delicate thread with a fairly narrow market footprint because the United States may become a substantial competitor in Japan. I am concerned about future acceptance, particularly of our live cattle and carcasses vis-a-vis the competition we can expect from South American countries, particularly Uruguay, Brazil and Argentina. We all have great respect for the quality of cattle from South America. It is only logistics and biosecurity issues that have given us a significant advantage over South America. It far outnumbers us in the cattle industry. Brazil’s production on its own far outnumbers ours. I do not want to slip behind in this; we have an advantage and we should not take it for granted. (3) No. I indicated at the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia conference at El Questro last winter that the northern cattle industry has a particular end market. In the main, I was thinking of the live-cattle market into Indonesia. Although that market is demonstrably not seeking NLIS implementation in its full expression, I will be prepared to consider going on with the pathways project, in which we still have whole-of-life identification, but that whole-of-life identification is done by transaction tag rather than electronic tag. I have always been prepared to consider that, but I do not see that as backsliding from the NLIS ideals. Hon Bill Stretch : Does that cover delivering directly to local abattoirs? Hon KIM CHANCE : Yes, pathways provides for direct delivery only.
(3) If not, will the minister consider a non-compulsory option; and, if not, why not? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for passing me a copy of the question. I offer him the use of the computer in my office should he want to type a question! (1) Yes, I am. I have recently reviewed the progress we are making. Indeed, Western Australia’s progress has also been reviewed at a national level. That was the subject of the recent Primary Industries Ministerial Council meeting in Darwin. Although different states have different views on our rate of progress and that of the Northern Territory and Queensland, the consensus view and, I am happy to say, the commonwealth view, is that Western Australia’s progress is satisfactory. Indeed, we are well and truly on schedule. (2) I have but not to the extent that it has caused me to change my views on wanting Western Australia to achieve the national standard on uptake of the national livestock identification scheme. I do not think we should allow the industry to get into a position in which we can be wrong-footed by our competitors. We have to be very serious about the nature of our competitors and the quality of their livestock. The United States is about to knock on the door to re-enter the Japanese market. Egypt is still out of the live-cattle market because of the imbalance between the Egyptian pound and the Australian dollar. The beef industry is still buoyant at the moment but, in some senses, it hangs by a fairly delicate thread with a fairly narrow market footprint because the United States may become a substantial competitor in Japan. I am concerned about future acceptance, particularly of our live cattle and carcasses vis-a-vis the competition we can expect from South American countries, particularly Uruguay, Brazil and Argentina. We all have great respect for the quality of cattle from South America. It is only logistics and biosecurity issues that have given us a significant advantage over South America. It far outnumbers us in the cattle industry. Brazil’s production on its own far outnumbers ours. I do not want to slip behind in this; we have an advantage and we should not take it for granted. (3) No. I indicated at the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia conference at El Questro last winter that the northern cattle industry has a particular end market. In the main, I was thinking of the live-cattle market into Indonesia. Although that market is demonstrably not seeking NLIS implementation in its full expression, I will be prepared to consider going on with the pathways project, in which we still have whole-of-life identification, but that whole-of-life identification is done by transaction tag rather than electronic tag. I have always been prepared to consider that, but I do not see that as backsliding from the NLIS ideals. Hon Bill Stretch : Does that cover delivering directly to local abattoirs? Hon KIM CHANCE : Yes, pathways provides for direct delivery only.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for passing me a copy of the question. I offer him the use of the computer in my office should he want to type a question! (1) Yes, I am. I have recently reviewed the progress we are making. Indeed, Western Australia’s progress has also been reviewed at a national level. That was the subject of the recent Primary Industries Ministerial Council meeting in Darwin. Although different states have different views on our rate of progress and that of the Northern Territory and Queensland, the consensus view and, I am happy to say, the commonwealth view, is that Western Australia’s progress is satisfactory. Indeed, we are well and truly on schedule. (2) I have but not to the extent that it has caused me to change my views on wanting Western Australia to achieve the national standard on uptake of the national livestock identification scheme. I do not think we should allow the industry to get into a position in which we can be wrong-footed by our competitors. We have to be very serious about the nature of our competitors and the quality of their livestock. The United States is about to knock on the door to re-enter the Japanese market. Egypt is still out of the live-cattle market because of the imbalance between the Egyptian pound and the Australian dollar. The beef industry is still buoyant at the moment but, in some senses, it hangs by a fairly delicate thread with a fairly narrow market footprint because the United States may become a substantial competitor in Japan. I am concerned about future acceptance, particularly of our live cattle and carcasses vis-a-vis the competition we can expect from South American countries, particularly Uruguay, Brazil and Argentina. We all have great respect for the quality of cattle from South America. It is only logistics and biosecurity issues that have given us a significant advantage over South America. It far outnumbers us in the cattle industry. Brazil’s production on its own far outnumbers ours. I do not want to slip behind in this; we have an advantage and we should not take it for granted. (3) No. I indicated at the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia conference at El Questro last winter that the northern cattle industry has a particular end market. In the main, I was thinking of the live-cattle market into Indonesia. Although that market is demonstrably not seeking NLIS implementation in its full expression, I will be prepared to consider going on with the pathways project, in which we still have whole-of-life identification, but that whole-of-life identification is done by transaction tag rather than electronic tag. I have always been prepared to consider that, but I do not see that as backsliding from the NLIS ideals. Hon Bill Stretch : Does that cover delivering directly to local abattoirs? Hon KIM CHANCE : Yes, pathways provides for direct delivery only.
I thank the member for passing me a copy of the question. I offer him the use of the computer in my office should he want to type a question! (1) Yes, I am. I have recently reviewed the progress we are making. Indeed, Western Australia’s progress has also been reviewed at a national level. That was the subject of the recent Primary Industries Ministerial Council meeting in Darwin. Although different states have different views on our rate of progress and that of the Northern Territory and Queensland, the consensus view and, I am happy to say, the commonwealth view, is that Western Australia’s progress is satisfactory. Indeed, we are well and truly on schedule. (2) I have but not to the extent that it has caused me to change my views on wanting Western Australia to achieve the national standard on uptake of the national livestock identification scheme. I do not think we should allow the industry to get into a position in which we can be wrong-footed by our competitors. We have to be very serious about the nature of our competitors and the quality of their livestock. The United States is about to knock on the door to re-enter the Japanese market. Egypt is still out of the live-cattle market because of the imbalance between the Egyptian pound and the Australian dollar. The beef industry is still buoyant at the moment but, in some senses, it hangs by a fairly delicate thread with a fairly narrow market footprint because the United States may become a substantial competitor in Japan. I am concerned about future acceptance, particularly of our live cattle and carcasses vis-a-vis the competition we can expect from South American countries, particularly Uruguay, Brazil and Argentina. We all have great respect for the quality of cattle from South America. It is only logistics and biosecurity issues that have given us a significant advantage over South America. It far outnumbers us in the cattle industry. Brazil’s production on its own far outnumbers ours. I do not want to slip behind in this; we have an advantage and we should not take it for granted. (3) No. I indicated at the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia conference at El Questro last winter that the northern cattle industry has a particular end market. In the main, I was thinking of the live-cattle market into Indonesia. Although that market is demonstrably not seeking NLIS implementation in its full expression, I will be prepared to consider going on with the pathways project, in which we still have whole-of-life identification, but that whole-of-life identification is done by transaction tag rather than electronic tag. I have always been prepared to consider that, but I do not see that as backsliding from the NLIS ideals. Hon Bill Stretch : Does that cover delivering directly to local abattoirs? Hon KIM CHANCE : Yes, pathways provides for direct delivery only.
(1) Yes, I am. I have recently reviewed the progress we are making. Indeed, Western Australia’s progress has also been reviewed at a national level. That was the subject of the recent Primary Industries Ministerial Council meeting in Darwin. Although different states have different views on our rate of progress and that of the Northern Territory and Queensland, the consensus view and, I am happy to say, the commonwealth view, is that Western Australia’s progress is satisfactory. Indeed, we are well and truly on schedule. (2) I have but not to the extent that it has caused me to change my views on wanting Western Australia to achieve the national standard on uptake of the national livestock identification scheme. I do not think we should allow the industry to get into a position in which we can be wrong-footed by our competitors. We have to be very serious about the nature of our competitors and the quality of their livestock. The United States is about to knock on the door to re-enter the Japanese market. Egypt is still out of the live-cattle market because of the imbalance between the Egyptian pound and the Australian dollar. The beef industry is still buoyant at the moment but, in some senses, it hangs by a fairly delicate thread with a fairly narrow market footprint because the United States may become a substantial competitor in Japan. I am concerned about future acceptance, particularly of our live cattle and carcasses vis-a-vis the competition we can expect from South American countries, particularly Uruguay, Brazil and Argentina. We all have great respect for the quality of cattle from South America. It is only logistics and biosecurity issues that have given us a significant advantage over South America. It far outnumbers us in the cattle industry. Brazil’s production on its own far outnumbers ours. I do not want to slip behind in this; we have an advantage and we should not take it for granted. (3) No. I indicated at the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia conference at El Questro last winter that the northern cattle industry has a particular end market. In the main, I was thinking of the live-cattle market into Indonesia. Although that market is demonstrably not seeking NLIS implementation in its full expression, I will be prepared to consider going on with the pathways project, in which we still have whole-of-life identification, but that whole-of-life identification is done by transaction tag rather than electronic tag. I have always been prepared to consider that, but I do not see that as backsliding from the NLIS ideals. Hon Bill Stretch : Does that cover delivering directly to local abattoirs? Hon KIM CHANCE : Yes, pathways provides for direct delivery only.
(2) I have but not to the extent that it has caused me to change my views on wanting Western Australia to achieve the national standard on uptake of the national livestock identification scheme. I do not think we should allow the industry to get into a position in which we can be wrong-footed by our competitors. We have to be very serious about the nature of our competitors and the quality of their livestock. The United States is about to knock on the door to re-enter the Japanese market. Egypt is still out of the live-cattle market because of the imbalance between the Egyptian pound and the Australian dollar. The beef industry is still buoyant at the moment but, in some senses, it hangs by a fairly delicate thread with a fairly narrow market footprint because the United States may become a substantial competitor in Japan. I am concerned about future acceptance, particularly of our live cattle and carcasses vis-a-vis the competition we can expect from South American countries, particularly Uruguay, Brazil and Argentina. We all have great respect for the quality of cattle from South America. It is only logistics and biosecurity issues that have given us a significant advantage over South America. It far outnumbers us in the cattle industry. Brazil’s production on its own far outnumbers ours. I do not want to slip behind in this; we have an advantage and we should not take it for granted. (3) No. I indicated at the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia conference at El Questro last winter that the northern cattle industry has a particular end market. In the main, I was thinking of the live-cattle market into Indonesia. Although that market is demonstrably not seeking NLIS implementation in its full expression, I will be prepared to consider going on with the pathways project, in which we still have whole-of-life identification, but that whole-of-life identification is done by transaction tag rather than electronic tag. I have always been prepared to consider that, but I do not see that as backsliding from the NLIS ideals. Hon Bill Stretch : Does that cover delivering directly to local abattoirs? Hon KIM CHANCE : Yes, pathways provides for direct delivery only.
(3) No. I indicated at the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia conference at El Questro last winter that the northern cattle industry has a particular end market. In the main, I was thinking of the live-cattle market into Indonesia. Although that market is demonstrably not seeking NLIS implementation in its full expression, I will be prepared to consider going on with the pathways project, in which we still have whole-of-life identification, but that whole-of-life identification is done by transaction tag rather than electronic tag. I have always been prepared to consider that, but I do not see that as backsliding from the NLIS ideals. Hon Bill Stretch : Does that cover delivering directly to local abattoirs? Hon KIM CHANCE : Yes, pathways provides for direct delivery only.
Hon Bill Stretch : Does that cover delivering directly to local abattoirs? Hon KIM CHANCE : Yes, pathways provides for direct delivery only.
Hon KIM CHANCE : Yes, pathways provides for direct delivery only.
Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : That is very nice of you. You always do that. Hon BILL STRETCH : He might prefer that I not do that because my writing might be harder to understand than my speech! I refer to the national livestock identification scheme. (1) Is the minister satisfied with the current rate of uptake of the scheme by Western Australian beef cattle growers? (2) Has he been requested to make the use of the identification scheme voluntary so that the marketplace can put its own pressure on growers to conform? (3) If not, will the minister consider a non-compulsory option; and, if not, why not? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for passing me a copy of the question. I offer him the use of the computer in my office should he want to type a question! (1) Yes, I am. I have recently reviewed the progress we are making. Indeed, Western Australia’s progress has also been reviewed at a national level. That was the subject of the recent Primary Industries Ministerial Council meeting in Darwin. Although different states have different views on our rate of progress and that of the Northern Territory and Queensland, the consensus view and, I am happy to say, the commonwealth view, is that Western Australia’s progress is satisfactory. Indeed, we are well and truly on schedule. (2) I have but not to the extent that it has caused me to change my views on wanting Western Australia to achieve the national standard on uptake of the national livestock identification scheme. I do not think we should allow the industry to get into a position in which we can be wrong-footed by our competitors. We have to be very serious about the nature of our competitors and the quality of their livestock. The United States is about to knock on the door to re-enter the Japanese market. Egypt is still out of the live-cattle market because of the imbalance between the Egyptian pound and the Australian dollar. The beef industry is still buoyant at the moment but, in some senses, it hangs by a fairly delicate thread with a fairly narrow market footprint because the United States may become a substantial competitor in Japan. I am concerned about future acceptance, particularly of our live cattle and carcasses vis-a-vis the competition we can expect from South American countries, particularly Uruguay, Brazil and Argentina. We all have great respect for the quality of cattle from South America. It is only logistics and biosecurity issues that have given us a significant advantage over South America. It far outnumbers us in the cattle industry. Brazil’s production on its own far outnumbers ours. I do not want to slip behind in this; we have an advantage and we should not take it for granted. (3) No. I indicated at the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia conference at El Questro last winter that the northern cattle industry has a particular end market. In the main, I was thinking of the live-cattle market into Indonesia. Although that market is demonstrably not seeking NLIS implementation in its full expression, I will be prepared to consider going on with the pathways project, in which we still have whole-of-life identification, but that whole-of-life identification is done by transaction tag rather than electronic tag. I have always been prepared to consider that, but I do not see that as backsliding from the NLIS ideals. Hon Bill Stretch : Does that cover delivering directly to local abattoirs? Hon KIM CHANCE : Yes, pathways provides for direct delivery only.
Hon BILL STRETCH : He might prefer that I not do that because my writing might be harder to understand than my speech! I refer to the national livestock identification scheme. (1) Is the minister satisfied with the current rate of uptake of the scheme by Western Australian beef cattle growers? (2) Has he been requested to make the use of the identification scheme voluntary so that the marketplace can put its own pressure on growers to conform? (3) If not, will the minister consider a non-compulsory option; and, if not, why not? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for passing me a copy of the question. I offer him the use of the computer in my office should he want to type a question! (1) Yes, I am. I have recently reviewed the progress we are making. Indeed, Western Australia’s progress has also been reviewed at a national level. That was the subject of the recent Primary Industries Ministerial Council meeting in Darwin. Although different states have different views on our rate of progress and that of the Northern Territory and Queensland, the consensus view and, I am happy to say, the commonwealth view, is that Western Australia’s progress is satisfactory. Indeed, we are well and truly on schedule. (2) I have but not to the extent that it has caused me to change my views on wanting Western Australia to achieve the national standard on uptake of the national livestock identification scheme. I do not think we should allow the industry to get into a position in which we can be wrong-footed by our competitors. We have to be very serious about the nature of our competitors and the quality of their livestock. The United States is about to knock on the door to re-enter the Japanese market. Egypt is still out of the live-cattle market because of the imbalance between the Egyptian pound and the Australian dollar. The beef industry is still buoyant at the moment but, in some senses, it hangs by a fairly delicate thread with a fairly narrow market footprint because the United States may become a substantial competitor in Japan. I am concerned about future acceptance, particularly of our live cattle and carcasses vis-a-vis the competition we can expect from South American countries, particularly Uruguay, Brazil and Argentina. We all have great respect for the quality of cattle from South America. It is only logistics and biosecurity issues that have given us a significant advantage over South America. It far outnumbers us in the cattle industry. Brazil’s production on its own far outnumbers ours. I do not want to slip behind in this; we have an advantage and we should not take it for granted. (3) No. I indicated at the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia conference at El Questro last winter that the northern cattle industry has a particular end market. In the main, I was thinking of the live-cattle market into Indonesia. Although that market is demonstrably not seeking NLIS implementation in its full expression, I will be prepared to consider going on with the pathways project, in which we still have whole-of-life identification, but that whole-of-life identification is done by transaction tag rather than electronic tag. I have always been prepared to consider that, but I do not see that as backsliding from the NLIS ideals. Hon Bill Stretch : Does that cover delivering directly to local abattoirs? Hon KIM CHANCE : Yes, pathways provides for direct delivery only.
I refer to the national livestock identification scheme. (1) Is the minister satisfied with the current rate of uptake of the scheme by Western Australian beef cattle growers? (2) Has he been requested to make the use of the identification scheme voluntary so that the marketplace can put its own pressure on growers to conform? (3) If not, will the minister consider a non-compulsory option; and, if not, why not? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for passing me a copy of the question. I offer him the use of the computer in my office should he want to type a question! (1) Yes, I am. I have recently reviewed the progress we are making. Indeed, Western Australia’s progress has also been reviewed at a national level. That was the subject of the recent Primary Industries Ministerial Council meeting in Darwin. Although different states have different views on our rate of progress and that of the Northern Territory and Queensland, the consensus view and, I am happy to say, the commonwealth view, is that Western Australia’s progress is satisfactory. Indeed, we are well and truly on schedule. (2) I have but not to the extent that it has caused me to change my views on wanting Western Australia to achieve the national standard on uptake of the national livestock identification scheme. I do not think we should allow the industry to get into a position in which we can be wrong-footed by our competitors. We have to be very serious about the nature of our competitors and the quality of their livestock. The United States is about to knock on the door to re-enter the Japanese market. Egypt is still out of the live-cattle market because of the imbalance between the Egyptian pound and the Australian dollar. The beef industry is still buoyant at the moment but, in some senses, it hangs by a fairly delicate thread with a fairly narrow market footprint because the United States may become a substantial competitor in Japan. I am concerned about future acceptance, particularly of our live cattle and carcasses vis-a-vis the competition we can expect from South American countries, particularly Uruguay, Brazil and Argentina. We all have great respect for the quality of cattle from South America. It is only logistics and biosecurity issues that have given us a significant advantage over South America. It far outnumbers us in the cattle industry. Brazil’s production on its own far outnumbers ours. I do not want to slip behind in this; we have an advantage and we should not take it for granted. (3) No. I indicated at the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia conference at El Questro last winter that the northern cattle industry has a particular end market. In the main, I was thinking of the live-cattle market into Indonesia. Although that market is demonstrably not seeking NLIS implementation in its full expression, I will be prepared to consider going on with the pathways project, in which we still have whole-of-life identification, but that whole-of-life identification is done by transaction tag rather than electronic tag. I have always been prepared to consider that, but I do not see that as backsliding from the NLIS ideals. Hon Bill Stretch : Does that cover delivering directly to local abattoirs? Hon KIM CHANCE : Yes, pathways provides for direct delivery only.
(1) Is the minister satisfied with the current rate of uptake of the scheme by Western Australian beef cattle growers? (2) Has he been requested to make the use of the identification scheme voluntary so that the marketplace can put its own pressure on growers to conform? (3) If not, will the minister consider a non-compulsory option; and, if not, why not? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for passing me a copy of the question. I offer him the use of the computer in my office should he want to type a question! (1) Yes, I am. I have recently reviewed the progress we are making. Indeed, Western Australia’s progress has also been reviewed at a national level. That was the subject of the recent Primary Industries Ministerial Council meeting in Darwin. Although different states have different views on our rate of progress and that of the Northern Territory and Queensland, the consensus view and, I am happy to say, the commonwealth view, is that Western Australia’s progress is satisfactory. Indeed, we are well and truly on schedule. (2) I have but not to the extent that it has caused me to change my views on wanting Western Australia to achieve the national standard on uptake of the national livestock identification scheme. I do not think we should allow the industry to get into a position in which we can be wrong-footed by our competitors. We have to be very serious about the nature of our competitors and the quality of their livestock. The United States is about to knock on the door to re-enter the Japanese market. Egypt is still out of the live-cattle market because of the imbalance between the Egyptian pound and the Australian dollar. The beef industry is still buoyant at the moment but, in some senses, it hangs by a fairly delicate thread with a fairly narrow market footprint because the United States may become a substantial competitor in Japan. I am concerned about future acceptance, particularly of our live cattle and carcasses vis-a-vis the competition we can expect from South American countries, particularly Uruguay, Brazil and Argentina. We all have great respect for the quality of cattle from South America. It is only logistics and biosecurity issues that have given us a significant advantage over South America. It far outnumbers us in the cattle industry. Brazil’s production on its own far outnumbers ours. I do not want to slip behind in this; we have an advantage and we should not take it for granted. (3) No. I indicated at the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia conference at El Questro last winter that the northern cattle industry has a particular end market. In the main, I was thinking of the live-cattle market into Indonesia. Although that market is demonstrably not seeking NLIS implementation in its full expression, I will be prepared to consider going on with the pathways project, in which we still have whole-of-life identification, but that whole-of-life identification is done by transaction tag rather than electronic tag. I have always been prepared to consider that, but I do not see that as backsliding from the NLIS ideals. Hon Bill Stretch : Does that cover delivering directly to local abattoirs? Hon KIM CHANCE : Yes, pathways provides for direct delivery only.
(2) Has he been requested to make the use of the identification scheme voluntary so that the marketplace can put its own pressure on growers to conform? (3) If not, will the minister consider a non-compulsory option; and, if not, why not? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for passing me a copy of the question. I offer him the use of the computer in my office should he want to type a question! (1) Yes, I am. I have recently reviewed the progress we are making. Indeed, Western Australia’s progress has also been reviewed at a national level. That was the subject of the recent Primary Industries Ministerial Council meeting in Darwin. Although different states have different views on our rate of progress and that of the Northern Territory and Queensland, the consensus view and, I am happy to say, the commonwealth view, is that Western Australia’s progress is satisfactory. Indeed, we are well and truly on schedule. (2) I have but not to the extent that it has caused me to change my views on wanting Western Australia to achieve the national standard on uptake of the national livestock identification scheme. I do not think we should allow the industry to get into a position in which we can be wrong-footed by our competitors. We have to be very serious about the nature of our competitors and the quality of their livestock. The United States is about to knock on the door to re-enter the Japanese market. Egypt is still out of the live-cattle market because of the imbalance between the Egyptian pound and the Australian dollar. The beef industry is still buoyant at the moment but, in some senses, it hangs by a fairly delicate thread with a fairly narrow market footprint because the United States may become a substantial competitor in Japan. I am concerned about future acceptance, particularly of our live cattle and carcasses vis-a-vis the competition we can expect from South American countries, particularly Uruguay, Brazil and Argentina. We all have great respect for the quality of cattle from South America. It is only logistics and biosecurity issues that have given us a significant advantage over South America. It far outnumbers us in the cattle industry. Brazil’s production on its own far outnumbers ours. I do not want to slip behind in this; we have an advantage and we should not take it for granted. (3) No. I indicated at the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia conference at El Questro last winter that the northern cattle industry has a particular end market. In the main, I was thinking of the live-cattle market into Indonesia. Although that market is demonstrably not seeking NLIS implementation in its full expression, I will be prepared to consider going on with the pathways project, in which we still have whole-of-life identification, but that whole-of-life identification is done by transaction tag rather than electronic tag. I have always been prepared to consider that, but I do not see that as backsliding from the NLIS ideals. Hon Bill Stretch : Does that cover delivering directly to local abattoirs? Hon KIM CHANCE : Yes, pathways provides for direct delivery only.
(3) If not, will the minister consider a non-compulsory option; and, if not, why not? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for passing me a copy of the question. I offer him the use of the computer in my office should he want to type a question! (1) Yes, I am. I have recently reviewed the progress we are making. Indeed, Western Australia’s progress has also been reviewed at a national level. That was the subject of the recent Primary Industries Ministerial Council meeting in Darwin. Although different states have different views on our rate of progress and that of the Northern Territory and Queensland, the consensus view and, I am happy to say, the commonwealth view, is that Western Australia’s progress is satisfactory. Indeed, we are well and truly on schedule. (2) I have but not to the extent that it has caused me to change my views on wanting Western Australia to achieve the national standard on uptake of the national livestock identification scheme. I do not think we should allow the industry to get into a position in which we can be wrong-footed by our competitors. We have to be very serious about the nature of our competitors and the quality of their livestock. The United States is about to knock on the door to re-enter the Japanese market. Egypt is still out of the live-cattle market because of the imbalance between the Egyptian pound and the Australian dollar. The beef industry is still buoyant at the moment but, in some senses, it hangs by a fairly delicate thread with a fairly narrow market footprint because the United States may become a substantial competitor in Japan. I am concerned about future acceptance, particularly of our live cattle and carcasses vis-a-vis the competition we can expect from South American countries, particularly Uruguay, Brazil and Argentina. We all have great respect for the quality of cattle from South America. It is only logistics and biosecurity issues that have given us a significant advantage over South America. It far outnumbers us in the cattle industry. Brazil’s production on its own far outnumbers ours. I do not want to slip behind in this; we have an advantage and we should not take it for granted. (3) No. I indicated at the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia conference at El Questro last winter that the northern cattle industry has a particular end market. In the main, I was thinking of the live-cattle market into Indonesia. Although that market is demonstrably not seeking NLIS implementation in its full expression, I will be prepared to consider going on with the pathways project, in which we still have whole-of-life identification, but that whole-of-life identification is done by transaction tag rather than electronic tag. I have always been prepared to consider that, but I do not see that as backsliding from the NLIS ideals. Hon Bill Stretch : Does that cover delivering directly to local abattoirs? Hon KIM CHANCE : Yes, pathways provides for direct delivery only.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for passing me a copy of the question. I offer him the use of the computer in my office should he want to type a question! (1) Yes, I am. I have recently reviewed the progress we are making. Indeed, Western Australia’s progress has also been reviewed at a national level. That was the subject of the recent Primary Industries Ministerial Council meeting in Darwin. Although different states have different views on our rate of progress and that of the Northern Territory and Queensland, the consensus view and, I am happy to say, the commonwealth view, is that Western Australia’s progress is satisfactory. Indeed, we are well and truly on schedule. (2) I have but not to the extent that it has caused me to change my views on wanting Western Australia to achieve the national standard on uptake of the national livestock identification scheme. I do not think we should allow the industry to get into a position in which we can be wrong-footed by our competitors. We have to be very serious about the nature of our competitors and the quality of their livestock. The United States is about to knock on the door to re-enter the Japanese market. Egypt is still out of the live-cattle market because of the imbalance between the Egyptian pound and the Australian dollar. The beef industry is still buoyant at the moment but, in some senses, it hangs by a fairly delicate thread with a fairly narrow market footprint because the United States may become a substantial competitor in Japan. I am concerned about future acceptance, particularly of our live cattle and carcasses vis-a-vis the competition we can expect from South American countries, particularly Uruguay, Brazil and Argentina. We all have great respect for the quality of cattle from South America. It is only logistics and biosecurity issues that have given us a significant advantage over South America. It far outnumbers us in the cattle industry. Brazil’s production on its own far outnumbers ours. I do not want to slip behind in this; we have an advantage and we should not take it for granted. (3) No. I indicated at the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia conference at El Questro last winter that the northern cattle industry has a particular end market. In the main, I was thinking of the live-cattle market into Indonesia. Although that market is demonstrably not seeking NLIS implementation in its full expression, I will be prepared to consider going on with the pathways project, in which we still have whole-of-life identification, but that whole-of-life identification is done by transaction tag rather than electronic tag. I have always been prepared to consider that, but I do not see that as backsliding from the NLIS ideals. Hon Bill Stretch : Does that cover delivering directly to local abattoirs? Hon KIM CHANCE : Yes, pathways provides for direct delivery only.
I thank the member for passing me a copy of the question. I offer him the use of the computer in my office should he want to type a question! (1) Yes, I am. I have recently reviewed the progress we are making. Indeed, Western Australia’s progress has also been reviewed at a national level. That was the subject of the recent Primary Industries Ministerial Council meeting in Darwin. Although different states have different views on our rate of progress and that of the Northern Territory and Queensland, the consensus view and, I am happy to say, the commonwealth view, is that Western Australia’s progress is satisfactory. Indeed, we are well and truly on schedule. (2) I have but not to the extent that it has caused me to change my views on wanting Western Australia to achieve the national standard on uptake of the national livestock identification scheme. I do not think we should allow the industry to get into a position in which we can be wrong-footed by our competitors. We have to be very serious about the nature of our competitors and the quality of their livestock. The United States is about to knock on the door to re-enter the Japanese market. Egypt is still out of the live-cattle market because of the imbalance between the Egyptian pound and the Australian dollar. The beef industry is still buoyant at the moment but, in some senses, it hangs by a fairly delicate thread with a fairly narrow market footprint because the United States may become a substantial competitor in Japan. I am concerned about future acceptance, particularly of our live cattle and carcasses vis-a-vis the competition we can expect from South American countries, particularly Uruguay, Brazil and Argentina. We all have great respect for the quality of cattle from South America. It is only logistics and biosecurity issues that have given us a significant advantage over South America. It far outnumbers us in the cattle industry. Brazil’s production on its own far outnumbers ours. I do not want to slip behind in this; we have an advantage and we should not take it for granted. (3) No. I indicated at the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia conference at El Questro last winter that the northern cattle industry has a particular end market. In the main, I was thinking of the live-cattle market into Indonesia. Although that market is demonstrably not seeking NLIS implementation in its full expression, I will be prepared to consider going on with the pathways project, in which we still have whole-of-life identification, but that whole-of-life identification is done by transaction tag rather than electronic tag. I have always been prepared to consider that, but I do not see that as backsliding from the NLIS ideals. Hon Bill Stretch : Does that cover delivering directly to local abattoirs? Hon KIM CHANCE : Yes, pathways provides for direct delivery only.
(1) Yes, I am. I have recently reviewed the progress we are making. Indeed, Western Australia’s progress has also been reviewed at a national level. That was the subject of the recent Primary Industries Ministerial Council meeting in Darwin. Although different states have different views on our rate of progress and that of the Northern Territory and Queensland, the consensus view and, I am happy to say, the commonwealth view, is that Western Australia’s progress is satisfactory. Indeed, we are well and truly on schedule. (2) I have but not to the extent that it has caused me to change my views on wanting Western Australia to achieve the national standard on uptake of the national livestock identification scheme. I do not think we should allow the industry to get into a position in which we can be wrong-footed by our competitors. We have to be very serious about the nature of our competitors and the quality of their livestock. The United States is about to knock on the door to re-enter the Japanese market. Egypt is still out of the live-cattle market because of the imbalance between the Egyptian pound and the Australian dollar. The beef industry is still buoyant at the moment but, in some senses, it hangs by a fairly delicate thread with a fairly narrow market footprint because the United States may become a substantial competitor in Japan. I am concerned about future acceptance, particularly of our live cattle and carcasses vis-a-vis the competition we can expect from South American countries, particularly Uruguay, Brazil and Argentina. We all have great respect for the quality of cattle from South America. It is only logistics and biosecurity issues that have given us a significant advantage over South America. It far outnumbers us in the cattle industry. Brazil’s production on its own far outnumbers ours. I do not want to slip behind in this; we have an advantage and we should not take it for granted. (3) No. I indicated at the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia conference at El Questro last winter that the northern cattle industry has a particular end market. In the main, I was thinking of the live-cattle market into Indonesia. Although that market is demonstrably not seeking NLIS implementation in its full expression, I will be prepared to consider going on with the pathways project, in which we still have whole-of-life identification, but that whole-of-life identification is done by transaction tag rather than electronic tag. I have always been prepared to consider that, but I do not see that as backsliding from the NLIS ideals. Hon Bill Stretch : Does that cover delivering directly to local abattoirs? Hon KIM CHANCE : Yes, pathways provides for direct delivery only.
(2) I have but not to the extent that it has caused me to change my views on wanting Western Australia to achieve the national standard on uptake of the national livestock identification scheme. I do not think we should allow the industry to get into a position in which we can be wrong-footed by our competitors. We have to be very serious about the nature of our competitors and the quality of their livestock. The United States is about to knock on the door to re-enter the Japanese market. Egypt is still out of the live-cattle market because of the imbalance between the Egyptian pound and the Australian dollar. The beef industry is still buoyant at the moment but, in some senses, it hangs by a fairly delicate thread with a fairly narrow market footprint because the United States may become a substantial competitor in Japan. I am concerned about future acceptance, particularly of our live cattle and carcasses vis-a-vis the competition we can expect from South American countries, particularly Uruguay, Brazil and Argentina. We all have great respect for the quality of cattle from South America. It is only logistics and biosecurity issues that have given us a significant advantage over South America. It far outnumbers us in the cattle industry. Brazil’s production on its own far outnumbers ours. I do not want to slip behind in this; we have an advantage and we should not take it for granted. (3) No. I indicated at the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia conference at El Questro last winter that the northern cattle industry has a particular end market. In the main, I was thinking of the live-cattle market into Indonesia. Although that market is demonstrably not seeking NLIS implementation in its full expression, I will be prepared to consider going on with the pathways project, in which we still have whole-of-life identification, but that whole-of-life identification is done by transaction tag rather than electronic tag. I have always been prepared to consider that, but I do not see that as backsliding from the NLIS ideals. Hon Bill Stretch : Does that cover delivering directly to local abattoirs? Hon KIM CHANCE : Yes, pathways provides for direct delivery only.
(3) No. I indicated at the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia conference at El Questro last winter that the northern cattle industry has a particular end market. In the main, I was thinking of the live-cattle market into Indonesia. Although that market is demonstrably not seeking NLIS implementation in its full expression, I will be prepared to consider going on with the pathways project, in which we still have whole-of-life identification, but that whole-of-life identification is done by transaction tag rather than electronic tag. I have always been prepared to consider that, but I do not see that as backsliding from the NLIS ideals. Hon Bill Stretch : Does that cover delivering directly to local abattoirs? Hon KIM CHANCE : Yes, pathways provides for direct delivery only.
Hon Bill Stretch : Does that cover delivering directly to local abattoirs? Hon KIM CHANCE : Yes, pathways provides for direct delivery only.
Hon KIM CHANCE : Yes, pathways provides for direct delivery only.
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.