❓ A parliamentary question regarding ambiguity in the Animal Welfare Act 2002, potential amendments, and conflicting statements made by the Minister. The Minister's response indicates a wait-and-see approach pending a court decision.
AnsweredQoN 537Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
ANIMAL WELFARE ACT - AMBIGUITY
I refer to the minister’s letter to the Countryman of 22 June 2006, in which he referred to his comments to the Pastoralists and Graziers Association conference addressing concerns raised by the industry about the ambiguity of the Animal Welfare Act 2002. (1) What action is the minister undertaking to amend the Animal Welfare Act 2002 to remove the ambiguity from its wording? (2) What action is the minister undertaking to extend the number of defences available under this act? (3) How does the minister reconcile the differences between the comments made by him in his letter to the Countryman published on 22 June and his comment in the Legislative Council on 20 June, “I talked to the Pastoralists and Graziers Association the day before yesterday and it told me that the matter has not been brought to its attention as a concern”? Hon JON FORD
I refer to the minister’s letter to the Countryman of 22 June 2006, in which he referred to his comments to the Pastoralists and Graziers Association conference addressing concerns raised by the industry about the ambiguity of the Animal Welfare Act 2002. (1) What action is the minister undertaking to amend the Animal Welfare Act 2002 to remove the ambiguity from its wording? (2) What action is the minister undertaking to extend the number of defences available under this act? (3) How does the minister reconcile the differences between the comments made by him in his letter to the Countryman published on 22 June and his comment in the Legislative Council on 20 June, “I talked to the Pastoralists and Graziers Association the day before yesterday and it told me that the matter has not been brought to its attention as a concern”? Hon JON FORD
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question. Unfortunately, I do not have the answer with me, but I think I can answer the question without it. (1)-(3) I should put it in context. A heap of concern was raised at the Pastoralists and Graziers Association meeting about live animal exports. To that end, I made the commitment that basically the government, its agencies and the industry had to work together to ensure that we were all singing from the same song sheet. Certain people have concerns about the live animal export industry. Some information is being taken completely out of context, and that puts industry under a tremendous amount of public pressure. This government supports the industry and thinks it is doing a reasonable job. I understand that the Countryman asked my office whether I was carrying out a major review of the act, but it did not provide a context for the question. The answer from my office was no. One of the results of that meeting was that a working group of representatives from government agencies, interested parties and associations was formed. It has had a number of meetings. Prior to that question being asked by the Countryman , the matter had not been raised with me as a specific issue. There was talk that if there were any problems with the act, we would deal with them. The problem with dealing with that specific question is that it is before the court at the moment. Some people are making the assumption that because it is before the court, there is somehow a deficiency in the way in which animal cruelty is defined in the act. Hon Anthony Fels : It is not defined in the act. Hon JON FORD : The definition is ambiguous. The assumption is that cruelty is defined. Once the court has made its decision, we will see. The net result of the decision might be that there is no ambiguity. Once we find what happens as a result of the court case, we will carry out a review. I have received some correspondence. If people want to talk about specific issues, a number of forums are available. They can come to the workshop and raise the issues. We will treat them all on an issue by issue basis. People can also write to me to seek an appointment, and I will address the issues. I need to wait to see what the court decides. We will then see whether we need to do something. The most important thing is that the government and industry work together to ensure that the industry survives and the welfare of the animals is looked after. This is a very important industry for the government, and the government supports it.
(1) What action is the minister undertaking to amend the Animal Welfare Act 2002 to remove the ambiguity from its wording? (2) What action is the minister undertaking to extend the number of defences available under this act? (3) How does the minister reconcile the differences between the comments made by him in his letter to the Countryman published on 22 June and his comment in the Legislative Council on 20 June, “I talked to the Pastoralists and Graziers Association the day before yesterday and it told me that the matter has not been brought to its attention as a concern”? Hon JON FORD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. Unfortunately, I do not have the answer with me, but I think I can answer the question without it. (1)-(3) I should put it in context. A heap of concern was raised at the Pastoralists and Graziers Association meeting about live animal exports. To that end, I made the commitment that basically the government, its agencies and the industry had to work together to ensure that we were all singing from the same song sheet. Certain people have concerns about the live animal export industry. Some information is being taken completely out of context, and that puts industry under a tremendous amount of public pressure. This government supports the industry and thinks it is doing a reasonable job. I understand that the Countryman asked my office whether I was carrying out a major review of the act, but it did not provide a context for the question. The answer from my office was no. One of the results of that meeting was that a working group of representatives from government agencies, interested parties and associations was formed. It has had a number of meetings. Prior to that question being asked by the Countryman , the matter had not been raised with me as a specific issue. There was talk that if there were any problems with the act, we would deal with them. The problem with dealing with that specific question is that it is before the court at the moment. Some people are making the assumption that because it is before the court, there is somehow a deficiency in the way in which animal cruelty is defined in the act. Hon Anthony Fels : It is not defined in the act. Hon JON FORD : The definition is ambiguous. The assumption is that cruelty is defined. Once the court has made its decision, we will see. The net result of the decision might be that there is no ambiguity. Once we find what happens as a result of the court case, we will carry out a review. I have received some correspondence. If people want to talk about specific issues, a number of forums are available. They can come to the workshop and raise the issues. We will treat them all on an issue by issue basis. People can also write to me to seek an appointment, and I will address the issues. I need to wait to see what the court decides. We will then see whether we need to do something. The most important thing is that the government and industry work together to ensure that the industry survives and the welfare of the animals is looked after. This is a very important industry for the government, and the government supports it.
(2) What action is the minister undertaking to extend the number of defences available under this act? (3) How does the minister reconcile the differences between the comments made by him in his letter to the Countryman published on 22 June and his comment in the Legislative Council on 20 June, “I talked to the Pastoralists and Graziers Association the day before yesterday and it told me that the matter has not been brought to its attention as a concern”? Hon JON FORD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. Unfortunately, I do not have the answer with me, but I think I can answer the question without it. (1)-(3) I should put it in context. A heap of concern was raised at the Pastoralists and Graziers Association meeting about live animal exports. To that end, I made the commitment that basically the government, its agencies and the industry had to work together to ensure that we were all singing from the same song sheet. Certain people have concerns about the live animal export industry. Some information is being taken completely out of context, and that puts industry under a tremendous amount of public pressure. This government supports the industry and thinks it is doing a reasonable job. I understand that the Countryman asked my office whether I was carrying out a major review of the act, but it did not provide a context for the question. The answer from my office was no. One of the results of that meeting was that a working group of representatives from government agencies, interested parties and associations was formed. It has had a number of meetings. Prior to that question being asked by the Countryman , the matter had not been raised with me as a specific issue. There was talk that if there were any problems with the act, we would deal with them. The problem with dealing with that specific question is that it is before the court at the moment. Some people are making the assumption that because it is before the court, there is somehow a deficiency in the way in which animal cruelty is defined in the act. Hon Anthony Fels : It is not defined in the act. Hon JON FORD : The definition is ambiguous. The assumption is that cruelty is defined. Once the court has made its decision, we will see. The net result of the decision might be that there is no ambiguity. Once we find what happens as a result of the court case, we will carry out a review. I have received some correspondence. If people want to talk about specific issues, a number of forums are available. They can come to the workshop and raise the issues. We will treat them all on an issue by issue basis. People can also write to me to seek an appointment, and I will address the issues. I need to wait to see what the court decides. We will then see whether we need to do something. The most important thing is that the government and industry work together to ensure that the industry survives and the welfare of the animals is looked after. This is a very important industry for the government, and the government supports it.
(3) How does the minister reconcile the differences between the comments made by him in his letter to the Countryman published on 22 June and his comment in the Legislative Council on 20 June, “I talked to the Pastoralists and Graziers Association the day before yesterday and it told me that the matter has not been brought to its attention as a concern”? Hon JON FORD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. Unfortunately, I do not have the answer with me, but I think I can answer the question without it. (1)-(3) I should put it in context. A heap of concern was raised at the Pastoralists and Graziers Association meeting about live animal exports. To that end, I made the commitment that basically the government, its agencies and the industry had to work together to ensure that we were all singing from the same song sheet. Certain people have concerns about the live animal export industry. Some information is being taken completely out of context, and that puts industry under a tremendous amount of public pressure. This government supports the industry and thinks it is doing a reasonable job. I understand that the Countryman asked my office whether I was carrying out a major review of the act, but it did not provide a context for the question. The answer from my office was no. One of the results of that meeting was that a working group of representatives from government agencies, interested parties and associations was formed. It has had a number of meetings. Prior to that question being asked by the Countryman , the matter had not been raised with me as a specific issue. There was talk that if there were any problems with the act, we would deal with them. The problem with dealing with that specific question is that it is before the court at the moment. Some people are making the assumption that because it is before the court, there is somehow a deficiency in the way in which animal cruelty is defined in the act. Hon Anthony Fels : It is not defined in the act. Hon JON FORD : The definition is ambiguous. The assumption is that cruelty is defined. Once the court has made its decision, we will see. The net result of the decision might be that there is no ambiguity. Once we find what happens as a result of the court case, we will carry out a review. I have received some correspondence. If people want to talk about specific issues, a number of forums are available. They can come to the workshop and raise the issues. We will treat them all on an issue by issue basis. People can also write to me to seek an appointment, and I will address the issues. I need to wait to see what the court decides. We will then see whether we need to do something. The most important thing is that the government and industry work together to ensure that the industry survives and the welfare of the animals is looked after. This is a very important industry for the government, and the government supports it.
Hon JON FORD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. Unfortunately, I do not have the answer with me, but I think I can answer the question without it. (1)-(3) I should put it in context. A heap of concern was raised at the Pastoralists and Graziers Association meeting about live animal exports. To that end, I made the commitment that basically the government, its agencies and the industry had to work together to ensure that we were all singing from the same song sheet. Certain people have concerns about the live animal export industry. Some information is being taken completely out of context, and that puts industry under a tremendous amount of public pressure. This government supports the industry and thinks it is doing a reasonable job. I understand that the Countryman asked my office whether I was carrying out a major review of the act, but it did not provide a context for the question. The answer from my office was no. One of the results of that meeting was that a working group of representatives from government agencies, interested parties and associations was formed. It has had a number of meetings. Prior to that question being asked by the Countryman , the matter had not been raised with me as a specific issue. There was talk that if there were any problems with the act, we would deal with them. The problem with dealing with that specific question is that it is before the court at the moment. Some people are making the assumption that because it is before the court, there is somehow a deficiency in the way in which animal cruelty is defined in the act. Hon Anthony Fels : It is not defined in the act. Hon JON FORD : The definition is ambiguous. The assumption is that cruelty is defined. Once the court has made its decision, we will see. The net result of the decision might be that there is no ambiguity. Once we find what happens as a result of the court case, we will carry out a review. I have received some correspondence. If people want to talk about specific issues, a number of forums are available. They can come to the workshop and raise the issues. We will treat them all on an issue by issue basis. People can also write to me to seek an appointment, and I will address the issues. I need to wait to see what the court decides. We will then see whether we need to do something. The most important thing is that the government and industry work together to ensure that the industry survives and the welfare of the animals is looked after. This is a very important industry for the government, and the government supports it.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. Unfortunately, I do not have the answer with me, but I think I can answer the question without it. (1)-(3) I should put it in context. A heap of concern was raised at the Pastoralists and Graziers Association meeting about live animal exports. To that end, I made the commitment that basically the government, its agencies and the industry had to work together to ensure that we were all singing from the same song sheet. Certain people have concerns about the live animal export industry. Some information is being taken completely out of context, and that puts industry under a tremendous amount of public pressure. This government supports the industry and thinks it is doing a reasonable job. I understand that the Countryman asked my office whether I was carrying out a major review of the act, but it did not provide a context for the question. The answer from my office was no. One of the results of that meeting was that a working group of representatives from government agencies, interested parties and associations was formed. It has had a number of meetings. Prior to that question being asked by the Countryman , the matter had not been raised with me as a specific issue. There was talk that if there were any problems with the act, we would deal with them. The problem with dealing with that specific question is that it is before the court at the moment. Some people are making the assumption that because it is before the court, there is somehow a deficiency in the way in which animal cruelty is defined in the act. Hon Anthony Fels : It is not defined in the act. Hon JON FORD : The definition is ambiguous. The assumption is that cruelty is defined. Once the court has made its decision, we will see. The net result of the decision might be that there is no ambiguity. Once we find what happens as a result of the court case, we will carry out a review. I have received some correspondence. If people want to talk about specific issues, a number of forums are available. They can come to the workshop and raise the issues. We will treat them all on an issue by issue basis. People can also write to me to seek an appointment, and I will address the issues. I need to wait to see what the court decides. We will then see whether we need to do something. The most important thing is that the government and industry work together to ensure that the industry survives and the welfare of the animals is looked after. This is a very important industry for the government, and the government supports it.
(1)-(3) I should put it in context. A heap of concern was raised at the Pastoralists and Graziers Association meeting about live animal exports. To that end, I made the commitment that basically the government, its agencies and the industry had to work together to ensure that we were all singing from the same song sheet. Certain people have concerns about the live animal export industry. Some information is being taken completely out of context, and that puts industry under a tremendous amount of public pressure. This government supports the industry and thinks it is doing a reasonable job. I understand that the Countryman asked my office whether I was carrying out a major review of the act, but it did not provide a context for the question. The answer from my office was no. One of the results of that meeting was that a working group of representatives from government agencies, interested parties and associations was formed. It has had a number of meetings. Prior to that question being asked by the Countryman , the matter had not been raised with me as a specific issue. There was talk that if there were any problems with the act, we would deal with them. The problem with dealing with that specific question is that it is before the court at the moment. Some people are making the assumption that because it is before the court, there is somehow a deficiency in the way in which animal cruelty is defined in the act. Hon Anthony Fels : It is not defined in the act. Hon JON FORD : The definition is ambiguous. The assumption is that cruelty is defined. Once the court has made its decision, we will see. The net result of the decision might be that there is no ambiguity. Once we find what happens as a result of the court case, we will carry out a review. I have received some correspondence. If people want to talk about specific issues, a number of forums are available. They can come to the workshop and raise the issues. We will treat them all on an issue by issue basis. People can also write to me to seek an appointment, and I will address the issues. I need to wait to see what the court decides. We will then see whether we need to do something. The most important thing is that the government and industry work together to ensure that the industry survives and the welfare of the animals is looked after. This is a very important industry for the government, and the government supports it.
Hon JON FORD : The definition is ambiguous. The assumption is that cruelty is defined. Once the court has made its decision, we will see. The net result of the decision might be that there is no ambiguity. Once we find what happens as a result of the court case, we will carry out a review. I have received some correspondence. If people want to talk about specific issues, a number of forums are available. They can come to the workshop and raise the issues. We will treat them all on an issue by issue basis. People can also write to me to seek an appointment, and I will address the issues. I need to wait to see what the court decides. We will then see whether we need to do something. The most important thing is that the government and industry work together to ensure that the industry survives and the welfare of the animals is looked after. This is a very important industry for the government, and the government supports it.
(1) What action is the minister undertaking to amend the Animal Welfare Act 2002 to remove the ambiguity from its wording? (2) What action is the minister undertaking to extend the number of defences available under this act? (3) How does the minister reconcile the differences between the comments made by him in his letter to the Countryman published on 22 June and his comment in the Legislative Council on 20 June, “I talked to the Pastoralists and Graziers Association the day before yesterday and it told me that the matter has not been brought to its attention as a concern”? Hon JON FORD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. Unfortunately, I do not have the answer with me, but I think I can answer the question without it. (1)-(3) I should put it in context. A heap of concern was raised at the Pastoralists and Graziers Association meeting about live animal exports. To that end, I made the commitment that basically the government, its agencies and the industry had to work together to ensure that we were all singing from the same song sheet. Certain people have concerns about the live animal export industry. Some information is being taken completely out of context, and that puts industry under a tremendous amount of public pressure. This government supports the industry and thinks it is doing a reasonable job. I understand that the Countryman asked my office whether I was carrying out a major review of the act, but it did not provide a context for the question. The answer from my office was no. One of the results of that meeting was that a working group of representatives from government agencies, interested parties and associations was formed. It has had a number of meetings. Prior to that question being asked by the Countryman , the matter had not been raised with me as a specific issue. There was talk that if there were any problems with the act, we would deal with them. The problem with dealing with that specific question is that it is before the court at the moment. Some people are making the assumption that because it is before the court, there is somehow a deficiency in the way in which animal cruelty is defined in the act. Hon Anthony Fels : It is not defined in the act. Hon JON FORD : The definition is ambiguous. The assumption is that cruelty is defined. Once the court has made its decision, we will see. The net result of the decision might be that there is no ambiguity. Once we find what happens as a result of the court case, we will carry out a review. I have received some correspondence. If people want to talk about specific issues, a number of forums are available. They can come to the workshop and raise the issues. We will treat them all on an issue by issue basis. People can also write to me to seek an appointment, and I will address the issues. I need to wait to see what the court decides. We will then see whether we need to do something. The most important thing is that the government and industry work together to ensure that the industry survives and the welfare of the animals is looked after. This is a very important industry for the government, and the government supports it.
(2) What action is the minister undertaking to extend the number of defences available under this act? (3) How does the minister reconcile the differences between the comments made by him in his letter to the Countryman published on 22 June and his comment in the Legislative Council on 20 June, “I talked to the Pastoralists and Graziers Association the day before yesterday and it told me that the matter has not been brought to its attention as a concern”? Hon JON FORD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. Unfortunately, I do not have the answer with me, but I think I can answer the question without it. (1)-(3) I should put it in context. A heap of concern was raised at the Pastoralists and Graziers Association meeting about live animal exports. To that end, I made the commitment that basically the government, its agencies and the industry had to work together to ensure that we were all singing from the same song sheet. Certain people have concerns about the live animal export industry. Some information is being taken completely out of context, and that puts industry under a tremendous amount of public pressure. This government supports the industry and thinks it is doing a reasonable job. I understand that the Countryman asked my office whether I was carrying out a major review of the act, but it did not provide a context for the question. The answer from my office was no. One of the results of that meeting was that a working group of representatives from government agencies, interested parties and associations was formed. It has had a number of meetings. Prior to that question being asked by the Countryman , the matter had not been raised with me as a specific issue. There was talk that if there were any problems with the act, we would deal with them. The problem with dealing with that specific question is that it is before the court at the moment. Some people are making the assumption that because it is before the court, there is somehow a deficiency in the way in which animal cruelty is defined in the act. Hon Anthony Fels : It is not defined in the act. Hon JON FORD : The definition is ambiguous. The assumption is that cruelty is defined. Once the court has made its decision, we will see. The net result of the decision might be that there is no ambiguity. Once we find what happens as a result of the court case, we will carry out a review. I have received some correspondence. If people want to talk about specific issues, a number of forums are available. They can come to the workshop and raise the issues. We will treat them all on an issue by issue basis. People can also write to me to seek an appointment, and I will address the issues. I need to wait to see what the court decides. We will then see whether we need to do something. The most important thing is that the government and industry work together to ensure that the industry survives and the welfare of the animals is looked after. This is a very important industry for the government, and the government supports it.
(3) How does the minister reconcile the differences between the comments made by him in his letter to the Countryman published on 22 June and his comment in the Legislative Council on 20 June, “I talked to the Pastoralists and Graziers Association the day before yesterday and it told me that the matter has not been brought to its attention as a concern”? Hon JON FORD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. Unfortunately, I do not have the answer with me, but I think I can answer the question without it. (1)-(3) I should put it in context. A heap of concern was raised at the Pastoralists and Graziers Association meeting about live animal exports. To that end, I made the commitment that basically the government, its agencies and the industry had to work together to ensure that we were all singing from the same song sheet. Certain people have concerns about the live animal export industry. Some information is being taken completely out of context, and that puts industry under a tremendous amount of public pressure. This government supports the industry and thinks it is doing a reasonable job. I understand that the Countryman asked my office whether I was carrying out a major review of the act, but it did not provide a context for the question. The answer from my office was no. One of the results of that meeting was that a working group of representatives from government agencies, interested parties and associations was formed. It has had a number of meetings. Prior to that question being asked by the Countryman , the matter had not been raised with me as a specific issue. There was talk that if there were any problems with the act, we would deal with them. The problem with dealing with that specific question is that it is before the court at the moment. Some people are making the assumption that because it is before the court, there is somehow a deficiency in the way in which animal cruelty is defined in the act. Hon Anthony Fels : It is not defined in the act. Hon JON FORD : The definition is ambiguous. The assumption is that cruelty is defined. Once the court has made its decision, we will see. The net result of the decision might be that there is no ambiguity. Once we find what happens as a result of the court case, we will carry out a review. I have received some correspondence. If people want to talk about specific issues, a number of forums are available. They can come to the workshop and raise the issues. We will treat them all on an issue by issue basis. People can also write to me to seek an appointment, and I will address the issues. I need to wait to see what the court decides. We will then see whether we need to do something. The most important thing is that the government and industry work together to ensure that the industry survives and the welfare of the animals is looked after. This is a very important industry for the government, and the government supports it.
Hon JON FORD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. Unfortunately, I do not have the answer with me, but I think I can answer the question without it. (1)-(3) I should put it in context. A heap of concern was raised at the Pastoralists and Graziers Association meeting about live animal exports. To that end, I made the commitment that basically the government, its agencies and the industry had to work together to ensure that we were all singing from the same song sheet. Certain people have concerns about the live animal export industry. Some information is being taken completely out of context, and that puts industry under a tremendous amount of public pressure. This government supports the industry and thinks it is doing a reasonable job. I understand that the Countryman asked my office whether I was carrying out a major review of the act, but it did not provide a context for the question. The answer from my office was no. One of the results of that meeting was that a working group of representatives from government agencies, interested parties and associations was formed. It has had a number of meetings. Prior to that question being asked by the Countryman , the matter had not been raised with me as a specific issue. There was talk that if there were any problems with the act, we would deal with them. The problem with dealing with that specific question is that it is before the court at the moment. Some people are making the assumption that because it is before the court, there is somehow a deficiency in the way in which animal cruelty is defined in the act. Hon Anthony Fels : It is not defined in the act. Hon JON FORD : The definition is ambiguous. The assumption is that cruelty is defined. Once the court has made its decision, we will see. The net result of the decision might be that there is no ambiguity. Once we find what happens as a result of the court case, we will carry out a review. I have received some correspondence. If people want to talk about specific issues, a number of forums are available. They can come to the workshop and raise the issues. We will treat them all on an issue by issue basis. People can also write to me to seek an appointment, and I will address the issues. I need to wait to see what the court decides. We will then see whether we need to do something. The most important thing is that the government and industry work together to ensure that the industry survives and the welfare of the animals is looked after. This is a very important industry for the government, and the government supports it.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. Unfortunately, I do not have the answer with me, but I think I can answer the question without it. (1)-(3) I should put it in context. A heap of concern was raised at the Pastoralists and Graziers Association meeting about live animal exports. To that end, I made the commitment that basically the government, its agencies and the industry had to work together to ensure that we were all singing from the same song sheet. Certain people have concerns about the live animal export industry. Some information is being taken completely out of context, and that puts industry under a tremendous amount of public pressure. This government supports the industry and thinks it is doing a reasonable job. I understand that the Countryman asked my office whether I was carrying out a major review of the act, but it did not provide a context for the question. The answer from my office was no. One of the results of that meeting was that a working group of representatives from government agencies, interested parties and associations was formed. It has had a number of meetings. Prior to that question being asked by the Countryman , the matter had not been raised with me as a specific issue. There was talk that if there were any problems with the act, we would deal with them. The problem with dealing with that specific question is that it is before the court at the moment. Some people are making the assumption that because it is before the court, there is somehow a deficiency in the way in which animal cruelty is defined in the act. Hon Anthony Fels : It is not defined in the act. Hon JON FORD : The definition is ambiguous. The assumption is that cruelty is defined. Once the court has made its decision, we will see. The net result of the decision might be that there is no ambiguity. Once we find what happens as a result of the court case, we will carry out a review. I have received some correspondence. If people want to talk about specific issues, a number of forums are available. They can come to the workshop and raise the issues. We will treat them all on an issue by issue basis. People can also write to me to seek an appointment, and I will address the issues. I need to wait to see what the court decides. We will then see whether we need to do something. The most important thing is that the government and industry work together to ensure that the industry survives and the welfare of the animals is looked after. This is a very important industry for the government, and the government supports it.
(1)-(3) I should put it in context. A heap of concern was raised at the Pastoralists and Graziers Association meeting about live animal exports. To that end, I made the commitment that basically the government, its agencies and the industry had to work together to ensure that we were all singing from the same song sheet. Certain people have concerns about the live animal export industry. Some information is being taken completely out of context, and that puts industry under a tremendous amount of public pressure. This government supports the industry and thinks it is doing a reasonable job. I understand that the Countryman asked my office whether I was carrying out a major review of the act, but it did not provide a context for the question. The answer from my office was no. One of the results of that meeting was that a working group of representatives from government agencies, interested parties and associations was formed. It has had a number of meetings. Prior to that question being asked by the Countryman , the matter had not been raised with me as a specific issue. There was talk that if there were any problems with the act, we would deal with them. The problem with dealing with that specific question is that it is before the court at the moment. Some people are making the assumption that because it is before the court, there is somehow a deficiency in the way in which animal cruelty is defined in the act. Hon Anthony Fels : It is not defined in the act. Hon JON FORD : The definition is ambiguous. The assumption is that cruelty is defined. Once the court has made its decision, we will see. The net result of the decision might be that there is no ambiguity. Once we find what happens as a result of the court case, we will carry out a review. I have received some correspondence. If people want to talk about specific issues, a number of forums are available. They can come to the workshop and raise the issues. We will treat them all on an issue by issue basis. People can also write to me to seek an appointment, and I will address the issues. I need to wait to see what the court decides. We will then see whether we need to do something. The most important thing is that the government and industry work together to ensure that the industry survives and the welfare of the animals is looked after. This is a very important industry for the government, and the government supports it.
Hon JON FORD : The definition is ambiguous. The assumption is that cruelty is defined. Once the court has made its decision, we will see. The net result of the decision might be that there is no ambiguity. Once we find what happens as a result of the court case, we will carry out a review. I have received some correspondence. If people want to talk about specific issues, a number of forums are available. They can come to the workshop and raise the issues. We will treat them all on an issue by issue basis. People can also write to me to seek an appointment, and I will address the issues. I need to wait to see what the court decides. We will then see whether we need to do something. The most important thing is that the government and industry work together to ensure that the industry survives and the welfare of the animals is looked after. This is a very important industry for the government, and the government supports it.
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.