❓ Hon. Kate Doust asks about implications raised by Four Corners regarding the WA government blackmailing the RSPCA over live sheep trade. Hon. Kim Chance denies the allegations, criticizes the program's bias, and states they weren't given a chance to respond.
AnsweredQoN 442Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
Last night Four Corners contained the implication that the Western Australia Government, acting on behalf of the live sheep trade, has effectively blackmailed the RSPCA to ensure that it does not prosecute cases relating to the live export industry. (1) Will the minister comment on the implication? (2) Did Four Corners approach the minister for comment on the implication? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(2) I did see Four Corners last light. I had been warned about its broadcast and I made a particular effort to watch a program that I do not normally waste my time on. As with other similar attempts to degrade the industry, mostly based on populism - 60 Minutes is an example - I formed the view that the show was biased, superficial and deliberately misleading in its content. It certainly did little to advance the cause that the Government is keen on advancing, which is the improvement of animal welfare conditions in Western Australia. As the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development said, with which I concur, I specifically deny that the Government has sought to blackmail the RSPCA in any way. I spoke to the RSPCA about the live sheep trade once, which was about two years ago. To allow that implication to run unchallenged in the way that it did was irresponsible reporting. Did Four Corners provide the Government or me, in particular, with the opportunity to rebut the implication that the Government had in some way blackmailed the RSPCA? The answer is no. It is an amazing implication. Even though Four Corners allowed the implication to run without challenge - no challenge was made to the allegation by the producers - having received that allegation, Four Corners did not put that allegation to me or - through inquiries I have been able to determine - the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development, to allow the Government to comment on the implication. That, more than anything else, indicates that Four Corners was determined to run a particular point of view. It was determined that, no matter what allegations were made, it would run them without challenge. Hon Barry House: It is not like the ABC to run a leftie-green agenda! Hon KIM CHANCE: Surely not! It particularly did not want to give the responsible ministers any opportunity to rebut the allegations made. I do not think I have seen a program like this on the ABC for many years, if at all. It is not something that the ABC has a history of. The ABC needs to look very carefully at the producers of Four Corners because the program, if anything, fell below the level of 60 Minutes , which is something I thought I would never say.
(1) Will the minister comment on the implication? (2) Did Four Corners approach the minister for comment on the implication? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : (1)-(2) I did see Four Corners last light. I had been warned about its broadcast and I made a particular effort to watch a program that I do not normally waste my time on. As with other similar attempts to degrade the industry, mostly based on populism - 60 Minutes is an example - I formed the view that the show was biased, superficial and deliberately misleading in its content. It certainly did little to advance the cause that the Government is keen on advancing, which is the improvement of animal welfare conditions in Western Australia. As the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development said, with which I concur, I specifically deny that the Government has sought to blackmail the RSPCA in any way. I spoke to the RSPCA about the live sheep trade once, which was about two years ago. To allow that implication to run unchallenged in the way that it did was irresponsible reporting. Did Four Corners provide the Government or me, in particular, with the opportunity to rebut the implication that the Government had in some way blackmailed the RSPCA? The answer is no. It is an amazing implication. Even though Four Corners allowed the implication to run without challenge - no challenge was made to the allegation by the producers - having received that allegation, Four Corners did not put that allegation to me or - through inquiries I have been able to determine - the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development, to allow the Government to comment on the implication. That, more than anything else, indicates that Four Corners was determined to run a particular point of view. It was determined that, no matter what allegations were made, it would run them without challenge. Hon Barry House: It is not like the ABC to run a leftie-green agenda! Hon KIM CHANCE: Surely not! It particularly did not want to give the responsible ministers any opportunity to rebut the allegations made. I do not think I have seen a program like this on the ABC for many years, if at all. It is not something that the ABC has a history of. The ABC needs to look very carefully at the producers of Four Corners because the program, if anything, fell below the level of 60 Minutes , which is something I thought I would never say.
(2) Did Four Corners approach the minister for comment on the implication? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : (1)-(2) I did see Four Corners last light. I had been warned about its broadcast and I made a particular effort to watch a program that I do not normally waste my time on. As with other similar attempts to degrade the industry, mostly based on populism - 60 Minutes is an example - I formed the view that the show was biased, superficial and deliberately misleading in its content. It certainly did little to advance the cause that the Government is keen on advancing, which is the improvement of animal welfare conditions in Western Australia. As the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development said, with which I concur, I specifically deny that the Government has sought to blackmail the RSPCA in any way. I spoke to the RSPCA about the live sheep trade once, which was about two years ago. To allow that implication to run unchallenged in the way that it did was irresponsible reporting. Did Four Corners provide the Government or me, in particular, with the opportunity to rebut the implication that the Government had in some way blackmailed the RSPCA? The answer is no. It is an amazing implication. Even though Four Corners allowed the implication to run without challenge - no challenge was made to the allegation by the producers - having received that allegation, Four Corners did not put that allegation to me or - through inquiries I have been able to determine - the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development, to allow the Government to comment on the implication. That, more than anything else, indicates that Four Corners was determined to run a particular point of view. It was determined that, no matter what allegations were made, it would run them without challenge. Hon Barry House: It is not like the ABC to run a leftie-green agenda! Hon KIM CHANCE: Surely not! It particularly did not want to give the responsible ministers any opportunity to rebut the allegations made. I do not think I have seen a program like this on the ABC for many years, if at all. It is not something that the ABC has a history of. The ABC needs to look very carefully at the producers of Four Corners because the program, if anything, fell below the level of 60 Minutes , which is something I thought I would never say.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied : (1)-(2) I did see Four Corners last light. I had been warned about its broadcast and I made a particular effort to watch a program that I do not normally waste my time on. As with other similar attempts to degrade the industry, mostly based on populism - 60 Minutes is an example - I formed the view that the show was biased, superficial and deliberately misleading in its content. It certainly did little to advance the cause that the Government is keen on advancing, which is the improvement of animal welfare conditions in Western Australia. As the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development said, with which I concur, I specifically deny that the Government has sought to blackmail the RSPCA in any way. I spoke to the RSPCA about the live sheep trade once, which was about two years ago. To allow that implication to run unchallenged in the way that it did was irresponsible reporting. Did Four Corners provide the Government or me, in particular, with the opportunity to rebut the implication that the Government had in some way blackmailed the RSPCA? The answer is no. It is an amazing implication. Even though Four Corners allowed the implication to run without challenge - no challenge was made to the allegation by the producers - having received that allegation, Four Corners did not put that allegation to me or - through inquiries I have been able to determine - the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development, to allow the Government to comment on the implication. That, more than anything else, indicates that Four Corners was determined to run a particular point of view. It was determined that, no matter what allegations were made, it would run them without challenge. Hon Barry House: It is not like the ABC to run a leftie-green agenda! Hon KIM CHANCE: Surely not! It particularly did not want to give the responsible ministers any opportunity to rebut the allegations made. I do not think I have seen a program like this on the ABC for many years, if at all. It is not something that the ABC has a history of. The ABC needs to look very carefully at the producers of Four Corners because the program, if anything, fell below the level of 60 Minutes , which is something I thought I would never say.
(1)-(2) I did see Four Corners last light. I had been warned about its broadcast and I made a particular effort to watch a program that I do not normally waste my time on. As with other similar attempts to degrade the industry, mostly based on populism - 60 Minutes is an example - I formed the view that the show was biased, superficial and deliberately misleading in its content. It certainly did little to advance the cause that the Government is keen on advancing, which is the improvement of animal welfare conditions in Western Australia. As the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development said, with which I concur, I specifically deny that the Government has sought to blackmail the RSPCA in any way. I spoke to the RSPCA about the live sheep trade once, which was about two years ago. To allow that implication to run unchallenged in the way that it did was irresponsible reporting. Did Four Corners provide the Government or me, in particular, with the opportunity to rebut the implication that the Government had in some way blackmailed the RSPCA? The answer is no. It is an amazing implication. Even though Four Corners allowed the implication to run without challenge - no challenge was made to the allegation by the producers - having received that allegation, Four Corners did not put that allegation to me or - through inquiries I have been able to determine - the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development, to allow the Government to comment on the implication. That, more than anything else, indicates that Four Corners was determined to run a particular point of view. It was determined that, no matter what allegations were made, it would run them without challenge. Hon Barry House: It is not like the ABC to run a leftie-green agenda! Hon KIM CHANCE: Surely not! It particularly did not want to give the responsible ministers any opportunity to rebut the allegations made. I do not think I have seen a program like this on the ABC for many years, if at all. It is not something that the ABC has a history of. The ABC needs to look very carefully at the producers of Four Corners because the program, if anything, fell below the level of 60 Minutes , which is something I thought I would never say.
Hon Barry House: It is not like the ABC to run a leftie-green agenda! Hon KIM CHANCE: Surely not! It particularly did not want to give the responsible ministers any opportunity to rebut the allegations made. I do not think I have seen a program like this on the ABC for many years, if at all. It is not something that the ABC has a history of. The ABC needs to look very carefully at the producers of Four Corners because the program, if anything, fell below the level of 60 Minutes , which is something I thought I would never say.
Hon KIM CHANCE: Surely not! It particularly did not want to give the responsible ministers any opportunity to rebut the allegations made. I do not think I have seen a program like this on the ABC for many years, if at all. It is not something that the ABC has a history of. The ABC needs to look very carefully at the producers of Four Corners because the program, if anything, fell below the level of 60 Minutes , which is something I thought I would never say.
(1) Will the minister comment on the implication? (2) Did Four Corners approach the minister for comment on the implication? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : (1)-(2) I did see Four Corners last light. I had been warned about its broadcast and I made a particular effort to watch a program that I do not normally waste my time on. As with other similar attempts to degrade the industry, mostly based on populism - 60 Minutes is an example - I formed the view that the show was biased, superficial and deliberately misleading in its content. It certainly did little to advance the cause that the Government is keen on advancing, which is the improvement of animal welfare conditions in Western Australia. As the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development said, with which I concur, I specifically deny that the Government has sought to blackmail the RSPCA in any way. I spoke to the RSPCA about the live sheep trade once, which was about two years ago. To allow that implication to run unchallenged in the way that it did was irresponsible reporting. Did Four Corners provide the Government or me, in particular, with the opportunity to rebut the implication that the Government had in some way blackmailed the RSPCA? The answer is no. It is an amazing implication. Even though Four Corners allowed the implication to run without challenge - no challenge was made to the allegation by the producers - having received that allegation, Four Corners did not put that allegation to me or - through inquiries I have been able to determine - the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development, to allow the Government to comment on the implication. That, more than anything else, indicates that Four Corners was determined to run a particular point of view. It was determined that, no matter what allegations were made, it would run them without challenge. Hon Barry House: It is not like the ABC to run a leftie-green agenda! Hon KIM CHANCE: Surely not! It particularly did not want to give the responsible ministers any opportunity to rebut the allegations made. I do not think I have seen a program like this on the ABC for many years, if at all. It is not something that the ABC has a history of. The ABC needs to look very carefully at the producers of Four Corners because the program, if anything, fell below the level of 60 Minutes , which is something I thought I would never say.
(2) Did Four Corners approach the minister for comment on the implication? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : (1)-(2) I did see Four Corners last light. I had been warned about its broadcast and I made a particular effort to watch a program that I do not normally waste my time on. As with other similar attempts to degrade the industry, mostly based on populism - 60 Minutes is an example - I formed the view that the show was biased, superficial and deliberately misleading in its content. It certainly did little to advance the cause that the Government is keen on advancing, which is the improvement of animal welfare conditions in Western Australia. As the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development said, with which I concur, I specifically deny that the Government has sought to blackmail the RSPCA in any way. I spoke to the RSPCA about the live sheep trade once, which was about two years ago. To allow that implication to run unchallenged in the way that it did was irresponsible reporting. Did Four Corners provide the Government or me, in particular, with the opportunity to rebut the implication that the Government had in some way blackmailed the RSPCA? The answer is no. It is an amazing implication. Even though Four Corners allowed the implication to run without challenge - no challenge was made to the allegation by the producers - having received that allegation, Four Corners did not put that allegation to me or - through inquiries I have been able to determine - the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development, to allow the Government to comment on the implication. That, more than anything else, indicates that Four Corners was determined to run a particular point of view. It was determined that, no matter what allegations were made, it would run them without challenge. Hon Barry House: It is not like the ABC to run a leftie-green agenda! Hon KIM CHANCE: Surely not! It particularly did not want to give the responsible ministers any opportunity to rebut the allegations made. I do not think I have seen a program like this on the ABC for many years, if at all. It is not something that the ABC has a history of. The ABC needs to look very carefully at the producers of Four Corners because the program, if anything, fell below the level of 60 Minutes , which is something I thought I would never say.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied : (1)-(2) I did see Four Corners last light. I had been warned about its broadcast and I made a particular effort to watch a program that I do not normally waste my time on. As with other similar attempts to degrade the industry, mostly based on populism - 60 Minutes is an example - I formed the view that the show was biased, superficial and deliberately misleading in its content. It certainly did little to advance the cause that the Government is keen on advancing, which is the improvement of animal welfare conditions in Western Australia. As the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development said, with which I concur, I specifically deny that the Government has sought to blackmail the RSPCA in any way. I spoke to the RSPCA about the live sheep trade once, which was about two years ago. To allow that implication to run unchallenged in the way that it did was irresponsible reporting. Did Four Corners provide the Government or me, in particular, with the opportunity to rebut the implication that the Government had in some way blackmailed the RSPCA? The answer is no. It is an amazing implication. Even though Four Corners allowed the implication to run without challenge - no challenge was made to the allegation by the producers - having received that allegation, Four Corners did not put that allegation to me or - through inquiries I have been able to determine - the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development, to allow the Government to comment on the implication. That, more than anything else, indicates that Four Corners was determined to run a particular point of view. It was determined that, no matter what allegations were made, it would run them without challenge. Hon Barry House: It is not like the ABC to run a leftie-green agenda! Hon KIM CHANCE: Surely not! It particularly did not want to give the responsible ministers any opportunity to rebut the allegations made. I do not think I have seen a program like this on the ABC for many years, if at all. It is not something that the ABC has a history of. The ABC needs to look very carefully at the producers of Four Corners because the program, if anything, fell below the level of 60 Minutes , which is something I thought I would never say.
(1)-(2) I did see Four Corners last light. I had been warned about its broadcast and I made a particular effort to watch a program that I do not normally waste my time on. As with other similar attempts to degrade the industry, mostly based on populism - 60 Minutes is an example - I formed the view that the show was biased, superficial and deliberately misleading in its content. It certainly did little to advance the cause that the Government is keen on advancing, which is the improvement of animal welfare conditions in Western Australia. As the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development said, with which I concur, I specifically deny that the Government has sought to blackmail the RSPCA in any way. I spoke to the RSPCA about the live sheep trade once, which was about two years ago. To allow that implication to run unchallenged in the way that it did was irresponsible reporting. Did Four Corners provide the Government or me, in particular, with the opportunity to rebut the implication that the Government had in some way blackmailed the RSPCA? The answer is no. It is an amazing implication. Even though Four Corners allowed the implication to run without challenge - no challenge was made to the allegation by the producers - having received that allegation, Four Corners did not put that allegation to me or - through inquiries I have been able to determine - the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development, to allow the Government to comment on the implication. That, more than anything else, indicates that Four Corners was determined to run a particular point of view. It was determined that, no matter what allegations were made, it would run them without challenge. Hon Barry House: It is not like the ABC to run a leftie-green agenda! Hon KIM CHANCE: Surely not! It particularly did not want to give the responsible ministers any opportunity to rebut the allegations made. I do not think I have seen a program like this on the ABC for many years, if at all. It is not something that the ABC has a history of. The ABC needs to look very carefully at the producers of Four Corners because the program, if anything, fell below the level of 60 Minutes , which is something I thought I would never say.
Hon Barry House: It is not like the ABC to run a leftie-green agenda! Hon KIM CHANCE: Surely not! It particularly did not want to give the responsible ministers any opportunity to rebut the allegations made. I do not think I have seen a program like this on the ABC for many years, if at all. It is not something that the ABC has a history of. The ABC needs to look very carefully at the producers of Four Corners because the program, if anything, fell below the level of 60 Minutes , which is something I thought I would never say.
Hon KIM CHANCE: Surely not! It particularly did not want to give the responsible ministers any opportunity to rebut the allegations made. I do not think I have seen a program like this on the ABC for many years, if at all. It is not something that the ABC has a history of. The ABC needs to look very carefully at the producers of Four Corners because the program, if anything, fell below the level of 60 Minutes , which is something I thought I would never say.
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.