❓ A parliamentary question regarding the Minister's decision to allow interstate horses into WA during the Equine Influenza outbreak. The Minister defends the decision based on veterinary advice and national consistency, arguing the risk comes from infected areas, not EI-free horses from EI-free zones.
AnsweredQoN 822Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
EQUINE INFLUENZA
(1) Why is the minister prepared to take the risk of equine influenza spreading to Western Australia? (2) Did the minister consult the thoroughbred industry peak bodies of Racing and Wagering Western Australia, West Australian Bloodhorse Breeders Association, Western Australian Racing Trainers’ Association and WA Jockeys Association, and do they support his decision to allow interstate horses into WA while the equine influenza is still spreading? (3) Will the minister take responsibility for the consequences on WA, good or bad, for that decision? Hon KIM CHANCE
(1) Why is the minister prepared to take the risk of equine influenza spreading to Western Australia? (2) Did the minister consult the thoroughbred industry peak bodies of Racing and Wagering Western Australia, West Australian Bloodhorse Breeders Association, Western Australian Racing Trainers’ Association and WA Jockeys Association, and do they support his decision to allow interstate horses into WA while the equine influenza is still spreading? (3) Will the minister take responsibility for the consequences on WA, good or bad, for that decision? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
I thank Hon Helen Morton for the question. (1) The question assumes that there is a risk of importation of equine influenza as a result of the importation of EI-free horses from declared EI-free jurisdictions. Somebody else can work out the logic of that. Why on earth is the importation of an EI-free horse from a declared EI-free jurisdiction a movement that imposes greater risk than the movement of horses within that jurisdiction? In other words, people are suggesting that there is a greater risk of importing a healthy horse from Victoria, where there is no EI, than importing the horse from Geraldton, which is also EI free. That logic can be extended. The whole of New Zealand is an EI-free jurisdiction; in fact, the last in the world alongside Iceland. At the moment Iceland and New Zealand are the only two countries in the world that do not have EI. Last week I approved the importation of 15 horses from New Zealand and was told that I was imposing an EI risk. How? I am not having a shot at the honourable member who asked the question. It is a reasonable question to ask because people want her to ask it, and I am glad she did. I am asking people to consider the logic of the statement that the risk of infection from EI is increased by that action. Hon Helen Morton : It is still spreading throughout the eastern states. Hon KIM CHANCE : That is infection between an infected area and a non-infected area. That is what is happening in New South Wales and Queensland, where a week ago there were 1 063 infected properties. What is happening there is quite scary. That is the result of a movement between an infected area and a non-infected area. What we are talking about here is the movement of an animal between an uninfected area and another uninfected area. Do the state boundaries, or even national boundaries concerning New Zealand, have any bearing on it? Logically, no. I can understand people being concerned. I am certainly not guaranteeing that Western Australia will never get EI. Indeed, we could have EI in Western Australia tomorrow, but it will not be a horse that brings it in. There is a much greater likelihood that the vector will be a human. It probably will not be a human in the professional racing industry. It is much more likely to be an amateur contact, somebody with some mucous on their jacket going from an infected area to an uninfected area. We are doing our best to involve all the industries and associations that deal in horses to educate them on the necessary hygiene requirements. Is there a risk from an uninfected horse from an uninfected area? No. Let me just say also that this is not my whim. I am not pretending to be a vet and I do not have scientific qualifications. My advice comes from highly qualified veterinarians represented by the Western Australian chief veterinarian who, in turn, is relaying to me the advice of the Consultative Committee on Emergency Animal Disease. Hon Helen Morton : They’ve changed their advice today, I understand. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT : Order! We do not want a debate on this because other members are waiting to ask questions. I respect the minister’s right to answer it. Hon KIM CHANCE : We have made a nationally consistent decision to which I am bound. If I make a different decision from that recommended by the CCEAD, I am in breach at least of the spirit of that agreement, possibly also in breach to the extent that it would be a justiciable matter under the Mutual Recognition (Western Australia) Act 2001. I could be legally in breach. We have made a nationally consistent decision. I am abiding by the nationally consistent decision. What happens in Western Australia is not different from what happens in Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania. (2)-(3) The answer to the second part of the question is yes. The Department of Agriculture and Food has, I believe, met with all horseracing codes. My understanding is that they have attended, or certainly the organisations have had the capacity to attend, public meetings that the Department of Agriculture and Food has organised. If they have not, I recommend they call the Western Australian chief vet, Dr Buckman, or Dr Ashley Mercy at the Department of Agriculture and Food. Do all those organisations support the decision I have made? No, they do not, and we have had quite a lot of contact from the horse industry over the past couple of days. A number of them have been quite critical of our decision to abide by the national agreement. A number of people have been quite critical of our decision to abide by the national agreement for the other reason, in that they want to bring horses into Western Australia, and they see our observance of the national protocols as being too restrictive. Some are saying it is not restrictive enough; others are saying it is too restrictive. Therefore, on that basis, I think we have made about the right decision. What is important in this is that we need to be consistent nationally and that we can say to people right across the country, “These are the conditions you can expect if these are your circumstances.”
(2) Did the minister consult the thoroughbred industry peak bodies of Racing and Wagering Western Australia, West Australian Bloodhorse Breeders Association, Western Australian Racing Trainers’ Association and WA Jockeys Association, and do they support his decision to allow interstate horses into WA while the equine influenza is still spreading? (3) Will the minister take responsibility for the consequences on WA, good or bad, for that decision? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Helen Morton for the question. (1) The question assumes that there is a risk of importation of equine influenza as a result of the importation of EI-free horses from declared EI-free jurisdictions. Somebody else can work out the logic of that. Why on earth is the importation of an EI-free horse from a declared EI-free jurisdiction a movement that imposes greater risk than the movement of horses within that jurisdiction? In other words, people are suggesting that there is a greater risk of importing a healthy horse from Victoria, where there is no EI, than importing the horse from Geraldton, which is also EI free. That logic can be extended. The whole of New Zealand is an EI-free jurisdiction; in fact, the last in the world alongside Iceland. At the moment Iceland and New Zealand are the only two countries in the world that do not have EI. Last week I approved the importation of 15 horses from New Zealand and was told that I was imposing an EI risk. How? I am not having a shot at the honourable member who asked the question. It is a reasonable question to ask because people want her to ask it, and I am glad she did. I am asking people to consider the logic of the statement that the risk of infection from EI is increased by that action. Hon Helen Morton : It is still spreading throughout the eastern states. Hon KIM CHANCE : That is infection between an infected area and a non-infected area. That is what is happening in New South Wales and Queensland, where a week ago there were 1 063 infected properties. What is happening there is quite scary. That is the result of a movement between an infected area and a non-infected area. What we are talking about here is the movement of an animal between an uninfected area and another uninfected area. Do the state boundaries, or even national boundaries concerning New Zealand, have any bearing on it? Logically, no. I can understand people being concerned. I am certainly not guaranteeing that Western Australia will never get EI. Indeed, we could have EI in Western Australia tomorrow, but it will not be a horse that brings it in. There is a much greater likelihood that the vector will be a human. It probably will not be a human in the professional racing industry. It is much more likely to be an amateur contact, somebody with some mucous on their jacket going from an infected area to an uninfected area. We are doing our best to involve all the industries and associations that deal in horses to educate them on the necessary hygiene requirements. Is there a risk from an uninfected horse from an uninfected area? No. Let me just say also that this is not my whim. I am not pretending to be a vet and I do not have scientific qualifications. My advice comes from highly qualified veterinarians represented by the Western Australian chief veterinarian who, in turn, is relaying to me the advice of the Consultative Committee on Emergency Animal Disease. Hon Helen Morton : They’ve changed their advice today, I understand. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT : Order! We do not want a debate on this because other members are waiting to ask questions. I respect the minister’s right to answer it. Hon KIM CHANCE : We have made a nationally consistent decision to which I am bound. If I make a different decision from that recommended by the CCEAD, I am in breach at least of the spirit of that agreement, possibly also in breach to the extent that it would be a justiciable matter under the Mutual Recognition (Western Australia) Act 2001. I could be legally in breach. We have made a nationally consistent decision. I am abiding by the nationally consistent decision. What happens in Western Australia is not different from what happens in Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania. (2)-(3) The answer to the second part of the question is yes. The Department of Agriculture and Food has, I believe, met with all horseracing codes. My understanding is that they have attended, or certainly the organisations have had the capacity to attend, public meetings that the Department of Agriculture and Food has organised. If they have not, I recommend they call the Western Australian chief vet, Dr Buckman, or Dr Ashley Mercy at the Department of Agriculture and Food. Do all those organisations support the decision I have made? No, they do not, and we have had quite a lot of contact from the horse industry over the past couple of days. A number of them have been quite critical of our decision to abide by the national agreement. A number of people have been quite critical of our decision to abide by the national agreement for the other reason, in that they want to bring horses into Western Australia, and they see our observance of the national protocols as being too restrictive. Some are saying it is not restrictive enough; others are saying it is too restrictive. Therefore, on that basis, I think we have made about the right decision. What is important in this is that we need to be consistent nationally and that we can say to people right across the country, “These are the conditions you can expect if these are your circumstances.”
(3) Will the minister take responsibility for the consequences on WA, good or bad, for that decision? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Helen Morton for the question. (1) The question assumes that there is a risk of importation of equine influenza as a result of the importation of EI-free horses from declared EI-free jurisdictions. Somebody else can work out the logic of that. Why on earth is the importation of an EI-free horse from a declared EI-free jurisdiction a movement that imposes greater risk than the movement of horses within that jurisdiction? In other words, people are suggesting that there is a greater risk of importing a healthy horse from Victoria, where there is no EI, than importing the horse from Geraldton, which is also EI free. That logic can be extended. The whole of New Zealand is an EI-free jurisdiction; in fact, the last in the world alongside Iceland. At the moment Iceland and New Zealand are the only two countries in the world that do not have EI. Last week I approved the importation of 15 horses from New Zealand and was told that I was imposing an EI risk. How? I am not having a shot at the honourable member who asked the question. It is a reasonable question to ask because people want her to ask it, and I am glad she did. I am asking people to consider the logic of the statement that the risk of infection from EI is increased by that action. Hon Helen Morton : It is still spreading throughout the eastern states. Hon KIM CHANCE : That is infection between an infected area and a non-infected area. That is what is happening in New South Wales and Queensland, where a week ago there were 1 063 infected properties. What is happening there is quite scary. That is the result of a movement between an infected area and a non-infected area. What we are talking about here is the movement of an animal between an uninfected area and another uninfected area. Do the state boundaries, or even national boundaries concerning New Zealand, have any bearing on it? Logically, no. I can understand people being concerned. I am certainly not guaranteeing that Western Australia will never get EI. Indeed, we could have EI in Western Australia tomorrow, but it will not be a horse that brings it in. There is a much greater likelihood that the vector will be a human. It probably will not be a human in the professional racing industry. It is much more likely to be an amateur contact, somebody with some mucous on their jacket going from an infected area to an uninfected area. We are doing our best to involve all the industries and associations that deal in horses to educate them on the necessary hygiene requirements. Is there a risk from an uninfected horse from an uninfected area? No. Let me just say also that this is not my whim. I am not pretending to be a vet and I do not have scientific qualifications. My advice comes from highly qualified veterinarians represented by the Western Australian chief veterinarian who, in turn, is relaying to me the advice of the Consultative Committee on Emergency Animal Disease. Hon Helen Morton : They’ve changed their advice today, I understand. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT : Order! We do not want a debate on this because other members are waiting to ask questions. I respect the minister’s right to answer it. Hon KIM CHANCE : We have made a nationally consistent decision to which I am bound. If I make a different decision from that recommended by the CCEAD, I am in breach at least of the spirit of that agreement, possibly also in breach to the extent that it would be a justiciable matter under the Mutual Recognition (Western Australia) Act 2001. I could be legally in breach. We have made a nationally consistent decision. I am abiding by the nationally consistent decision. What happens in Western Australia is not different from what happens in Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania. (2)-(3) The answer to the second part of the question is yes. The Department of Agriculture and Food has, I believe, met with all horseracing codes. My understanding is that they have attended, or certainly the organisations have had the capacity to attend, public meetings that the Department of Agriculture and Food has organised. If they have not, I recommend they call the Western Australian chief vet, Dr Buckman, or Dr Ashley Mercy at the Department of Agriculture and Food. Do all those organisations support the decision I have made? No, they do not, and we have had quite a lot of contact from the horse industry over the past couple of days. A number of them have been quite critical of our decision to abide by the national agreement. A number of people have been quite critical of our decision to abide by the national agreement for the other reason, in that they want to bring horses into Western Australia, and they see our observance of the national protocols as being too restrictive. Some are saying it is not restrictive enough; others are saying it is too restrictive. Therefore, on that basis, I think we have made about the right decision. What is important in this is that we need to be consistent nationally and that we can say to people right across the country, “These are the conditions you can expect if these are your circumstances.”
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Helen Morton for the question. (1) The question assumes that there is a risk of importation of equine influenza as a result of the importation of EI-free horses from declared EI-free jurisdictions. Somebody else can work out the logic of that. Why on earth is the importation of an EI-free horse from a declared EI-free jurisdiction a movement that imposes greater risk than the movement of horses within that jurisdiction? In other words, people are suggesting that there is a greater risk of importing a healthy horse from Victoria, where there is no EI, than importing the horse from Geraldton, which is also EI free. That logic can be extended. The whole of New Zealand is an EI-free jurisdiction; in fact, the last in the world alongside Iceland. At the moment Iceland and New Zealand are the only two countries in the world that do not have EI. Last week I approved the importation of 15 horses from New Zealand and was told that I was imposing an EI risk. How? I am not having a shot at the honourable member who asked the question. It is a reasonable question to ask because people want her to ask it, and I am glad she did. I am asking people to consider the logic of the statement that the risk of infection from EI is increased by that action. Hon Helen Morton : It is still spreading throughout the eastern states. Hon KIM CHANCE : That is infection between an infected area and a non-infected area. That is what is happening in New South Wales and Queensland, where a week ago there were 1 063 infected properties. What is happening there is quite scary. That is the result of a movement between an infected area and a non-infected area. What we are talking about here is the movement of an animal between an uninfected area and another uninfected area. Do the state boundaries, or even national boundaries concerning New Zealand, have any bearing on it? Logically, no. I can understand people being concerned. I am certainly not guaranteeing that Western Australia will never get EI. Indeed, we could have EI in Western Australia tomorrow, but it will not be a horse that brings it in. There is a much greater likelihood that the vector will be a human. It probably will not be a human in the professional racing industry. It is much more likely to be an amateur contact, somebody with some mucous on their jacket going from an infected area to an uninfected area. We are doing our best to involve all the industries and associations that deal in horses to educate them on the necessary hygiene requirements. Is there a risk from an uninfected horse from an uninfected area? No. Let me just say also that this is not my whim. I am not pretending to be a vet and I do not have scientific qualifications. My advice comes from highly qualified veterinarians represented by the Western Australian chief veterinarian who, in turn, is relaying to me the advice of the Consultative Committee on Emergency Animal Disease. Hon Helen Morton : They’ve changed their advice today, I understand. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT : Order! We do not want a debate on this because other members are waiting to ask questions. I respect the minister’s right to answer it. Hon KIM CHANCE : We have made a nationally consistent decision to which I am bound. If I make a different decision from that recommended by the CCEAD, I am in breach at least of the spirit of that agreement, possibly also in breach to the extent that it would be a justiciable matter under the Mutual Recognition (Western Australia) Act 2001. I could be legally in breach. We have made a nationally consistent decision. I am abiding by the nationally consistent decision. What happens in Western Australia is not different from what happens in Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania. (2)-(3) The answer to the second part of the question is yes. The Department of Agriculture and Food has, I believe, met with all horseracing codes. My understanding is that they have attended, or certainly the organisations have had the capacity to attend, public meetings that the Department of Agriculture and Food has organised. If they have not, I recommend they call the Western Australian chief vet, Dr Buckman, or Dr Ashley Mercy at the Department of Agriculture and Food. Do all those organisations support the decision I have made? No, they do not, and we have had quite a lot of contact from the horse industry over the past couple of days. A number of them have been quite critical of our decision to abide by the national agreement. A number of people have been quite critical of our decision to abide by the national agreement for the other reason, in that they want to bring horses into Western Australia, and they see our observance of the national protocols as being too restrictive. Some are saying it is not restrictive enough; others are saying it is too restrictive. Therefore, on that basis, I think we have made about the right decision. What is important in this is that we need to be consistent nationally and that we can say to people right across the country, “These are the conditions you can expect if these are your circumstances.”
I thank Hon Helen Morton for the question. (1) The question assumes that there is a risk of importation of equine influenza as a result of the importation of EI-free horses from declared EI-free jurisdictions. Somebody else can work out the logic of that. Why on earth is the importation of an EI-free horse from a declared EI-free jurisdiction a movement that imposes greater risk than the movement of horses within that jurisdiction? In other words, people are suggesting that there is a greater risk of importing a healthy horse from Victoria, where there is no EI, than importing the horse from Geraldton, which is also EI free. That logic can be extended. The whole of New Zealand is an EI-free jurisdiction; in fact, the last in the world alongside Iceland. At the moment Iceland and New Zealand are the only two countries in the world that do not have EI. Last week I approved the importation of 15 horses from New Zealand and was told that I was imposing an EI risk. How? I am not having a shot at the honourable member who asked the question. It is a reasonable question to ask because people want her to ask it, and I am glad she did. I am asking people to consider the logic of the statement that the risk of infection from EI is increased by that action. Hon Helen Morton : It is still spreading throughout the eastern states. Hon KIM CHANCE : That is infection between an infected area and a non-infected area. That is what is happening in New South Wales and Queensland, where a week ago there were 1 063 infected properties. What is happening there is quite scary. That is the result of a movement between an infected area and a non-infected area. What we are talking about here is the movement of an animal between an uninfected area and another uninfected area. Do the state boundaries, or even national boundaries concerning New Zealand, have any bearing on it? Logically, no. I can understand people being concerned. I am certainly not guaranteeing that Western Australia will never get EI. Indeed, we could have EI in Western Australia tomorrow, but it will not be a horse that brings it in. There is a much greater likelihood that the vector will be a human. It probably will not be a human in the professional racing industry. It is much more likely to be an amateur contact, somebody with some mucous on their jacket going from an infected area to an uninfected area. We are doing our best to involve all the industries and associations that deal in horses to educate them on the necessary hygiene requirements. Is there a risk from an uninfected horse from an uninfected area? No. Let me just say also that this is not my whim. I am not pretending to be a vet and I do not have scientific qualifications. My advice comes from highly qualified veterinarians represented by the Western Australian chief veterinarian who, in turn, is relaying to me the advice of the Consultative Committee on Emergency Animal Disease. Hon Helen Morton : They’ve changed their advice today, I understand. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT : Order! We do not want a debate on this because other members are waiting to ask questions. I respect the minister’s right to answer it. Hon KIM CHANCE : We have made a nationally consistent decision to which I am bound. If I make a different decision from that recommended by the CCEAD, I am in breach at least of the spirit of that agreement, possibly also in breach to the extent that it would be a justiciable matter under the Mutual Recognition (Western Australia) Act 2001. I could be legally in breach. We have made a nationally consistent decision. I am abiding by the nationally consistent decision. What happens in Western Australia is not different from what happens in Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania. (2)-(3) The answer to the second part of the question is yes. The Department of Agriculture and Food has, I believe, met with all horseracing codes. My understanding is that they have attended, or certainly the organisations have had the capacity to attend, public meetings that the Department of Agriculture and Food has organised. If they have not, I recommend they call the Western Australian chief vet, Dr Buckman, or Dr Ashley Mercy at the Department of Agriculture and Food. Do all those organisations support the decision I have made? No, they do not, and we have had quite a lot of contact from the horse industry over the past couple of days. A number of them have been quite critical of our decision to abide by the national agreement. A number of people have been quite critical of our decision to abide by the national agreement for the other reason, in that they want to bring horses into Western Australia, and they see our observance of the national protocols as being too restrictive. Some are saying it is not restrictive enough; others are saying it is too restrictive. Therefore, on that basis, I think we have made about the right decision. What is important in this is that we need to be consistent nationally and that we can say to people right across the country, “These are the conditions you can expect if these are your circumstances.”
(1) The question assumes that there is a risk of importation of equine influenza as a result of the importation of EI-free horses from declared EI-free jurisdictions. Somebody else can work out the logic of that. Why on earth is the importation of an EI-free horse from a declared EI-free jurisdiction a movement that imposes greater risk than the movement of horses within that jurisdiction? In other words, people are suggesting that there is a greater risk of importing a healthy horse from Victoria, where there is no EI, than importing the horse from Geraldton, which is also EI free. That logic can be extended. The whole of New Zealand is an EI-free jurisdiction; in fact, the last in the world alongside Iceland. At the moment Iceland and New Zealand are the only two countries in the world that do not have EI. Last week I approved the importation of 15 horses from New Zealand and was told that I was imposing an EI risk. How? I am not having a shot at the honourable member who asked the question. It is a reasonable question to ask because people want her to ask it, and I am glad she did. I am asking people to consider the logic of the statement that the risk of infection from EI is increased by that action. Hon Helen Morton : It is still spreading throughout the eastern states. Hon KIM CHANCE : That is infection between an infected area and a non-infected area. That is what is happening in New South Wales and Queensland, where a week ago there were 1 063 infected properties. What is happening there is quite scary. That is the result of a movement between an infected area and a non-infected area. What we are talking about here is the movement of an animal between an uninfected area and another uninfected area. Do the state boundaries, or even national boundaries concerning New Zealand, have any bearing on it? Logically, no. I can understand people being concerned. I am certainly not guaranteeing that Western Australia will never get EI. Indeed, we could have EI in Western Australia tomorrow, but it will not be a horse that brings it in. There is a much greater likelihood that the vector will be a human. It probably will not be a human in the professional racing industry. It is much more likely to be an amateur contact, somebody with some mucous on their jacket going from an infected area to an uninfected area. We are doing our best to involve all the industries and associations that deal in horses to educate them on the necessary hygiene requirements. Is there a risk from an uninfected horse from an uninfected area? No. Let me just say also that this is not my whim. I am not pretending to be a vet and I do not have scientific qualifications. My advice comes from highly qualified veterinarians represented by the Western Australian chief veterinarian who, in turn, is relaying to me the advice of the Consultative Committee on Emergency Animal Disease. Hon Helen Morton : They’ve changed their advice today, I understand. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT : Order! We do not want a debate on this because other members are waiting to ask questions. I respect the minister’s right to answer it. Hon KIM CHANCE : We have made a nationally consistent decision to which I am bound. If I make a different decision from that recommended by the CCEAD, I am in breach at least of the spirit of that agreement, possibly also in breach to the extent that it would be a justiciable matter under the Mutual Recognition (Western Australia) Act 2001. I could be legally in breach. We have made a nationally consistent decision. I am abiding by the nationally consistent decision. What happens in Western Australia is not different from what happens in Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania. (2)-(3) The answer to the second part of the question is yes. The Department of Agriculture and Food has, I believe, met with all horseracing codes. My understanding is that they have attended, or certainly the organisations have had the capacity to attend, public meetings that the Department of Agriculture and Food has organised. If they have not, I recommend they call the Western Australian chief vet, Dr Buckman, or Dr Ashley Mercy at the Department of Agriculture and Food. Do all those organisations support the decision I have made? No, they do not, and we have had quite a lot of contact from the horse industry over the past couple of days. A number of them have been quite critical of our decision to abide by the national agreement. A number of people have been quite critical of our decision to abide by the national agreement for the other reason, in that they want to bring horses into Western Australia, and they see our observance of the national protocols as being too restrictive. Some are saying it is not restrictive enough; others are saying it is too restrictive. Therefore, on that basis, I think we have made about the right decision. What is important in this is that we need to be consistent nationally and that we can say to people right across the country, “These are the conditions you can expect if these are your circumstances.”
Hon Helen Morton : It is still spreading throughout the eastern states. Hon KIM CHANCE : That is infection between an infected area and a non-infected area. That is what is happening in New South Wales and Queensland, where a week ago there were 1 063 infected properties. What is happening there is quite scary. That is the result of a movement between an infected area and a non-infected area. What we are talking about here is the movement of an animal between an uninfected area and another uninfected area. Do the state boundaries, or even national boundaries concerning New Zealand, have any bearing on it? Logically, no. I can understand people being concerned. I am certainly not guaranteeing that Western Australia will never get EI. Indeed, we could have EI in Western Australia tomorrow, but it will not be a horse that brings it in. There is a much greater likelihood that the vector will be a human. It probably will not be a human in the professional racing industry. It is much more likely to be an amateur contact, somebody with some mucous on their jacket going from an infected area to an uninfected area. We are doing our best to involve all the industries and associations that deal in horses to educate them on the necessary hygiene requirements. Is there a risk from an uninfected horse from an uninfected area? No. Let me just say also that this is not my whim. I am not pretending to be a vet and I do not have scientific qualifications. My advice comes from highly qualified veterinarians represented by the Western Australian chief veterinarian who, in turn, is relaying to me the advice of the Consultative Committee on Emergency Animal Disease. Hon Helen Morton : They’ve changed their advice today, I understand. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT : Order! We do not want a debate on this because other members are waiting to ask questions. I respect the minister’s right to answer it. Hon KIM CHANCE : We have made a nationally consistent decision to which I am bound. If I make a different decision from that recommended by the CCEAD, I am in breach at least of the spirit of that agreement, possibly also in breach to the extent that it would be a justiciable matter under the Mutual Recognition (Western Australia) Act 2001. I could be legally in breach. We have made a nationally consistent decision. I am abiding by the nationally consistent decision. What happens in Western Australia is not different from what happens in Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania. (2)-(3) The answer to the second part of the question is yes. The Department of Agriculture and Food has, I believe, met with all horseracing codes. My understanding is that they have attended, or certainly the organisations have had the capacity to attend, public meetings that the Department of Agriculture and Food has organised. If they have not, I recommend they call the Western Australian chief vet, Dr Buckman, or Dr Ashley Mercy at the Department of Agriculture and Food. Do all those organisations support the decision I have made? No, they do not, and we have had quite a lot of contact from the horse industry over the past couple of days. A number of them have been quite critical of our decision to abide by the national agreement. A number of people have been quite critical of our decision to abide by the national agreement for the other reason, in that they want to bring horses into Western Australia, and they see our observance of the national protocols as being too restrictive. Some are saying it is not restrictive enough; others are saying it is too restrictive. Therefore, on that basis, I think we have made about the right decision. What is important in this is that we need to be consistent nationally and that we can say to people right across the country, “These are the conditions you can expect if these are your circumstances.”
Hon KIM CHANCE : That is infection between an infected area and a non-infected area. That is what is happening in New South Wales and Queensland, where a week ago there were 1 063 infected properties. What is happening there is quite scary. That is the result of a movement between an infected area and a non-infected area. What we are talking about here is the movement of an animal between an uninfected area and another uninfected area. Do the state boundaries, or even national boundaries concerning New Zealand, have any bearing on it? Logically, no. I can understand people being concerned. I am certainly not guaranteeing that Western Australia will never get EI. Indeed, we could have EI in Western Australia tomorrow, but it will not be a horse that brings it in. There is a much greater likelihood that the vector will be a human. It probably will not be a human in the professional racing industry. It is much more likely to be an amateur contact, somebody with some mucous on their jacket going from an infected area to an uninfected area. We are doing our best to involve all the industries and associations that deal in horses to educate them on the necessary hygiene requirements. Is there a risk from an uninfected horse from an uninfected area? No. Let me just say also that this is not my whim. I am not pretending to be a vet and I do not have scientific qualifications. My advice comes from highly qualified veterinarians represented by the Western Australian chief veterinarian who, in turn, is relaying to me the advice of the Consultative Committee on Emergency Animal Disease. Hon Helen Morton : They’ve changed their advice today, I understand. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT : Order! We do not want a debate on this because other members are waiting to ask questions. I respect the minister’s right to answer it. Hon KIM CHANCE : We have made a nationally consistent decision to which I am bound. If I make a different decision from that recommended by the CCEAD, I am in breach at least of the spirit of that agreement, possibly also in breach to the extent that it would be a justiciable matter under the Mutual Recognition (Western Australia) Act 2001. I could be legally in breach. We have made a nationally consistent decision. I am abiding by the nationally consistent decision. What happens in Western Australia is not different from what happens in Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania. (2)-(3) The answer to the second part of the question is yes. The Department of Agriculture and Food has, I believe, met with all horseracing codes. My understanding is that they have attended, or certainly the organisations have had the capacity to attend, public meetings that the Department of Agriculture and Food has organised. If they have not, I recommend they call the Western Australian chief vet, Dr Buckman, or Dr Ashley Mercy at the Department of Agriculture and Food. Do all those organisations support the decision I have made? No, they do not, and we have had quite a lot of contact from the horse industry over the past couple of days. A number of them have been quite critical of our decision to abide by the national agreement. A number of people have been quite critical of our decision to abide by the national agreement for the other reason, in that they want to bring horses into Western Australia, and they see our observance of the national protocols as being too restrictive. Some are saying it is not restrictive enough; others are saying it is too restrictive. Therefore, on that basis, I think we have made about the right decision. What is important in this is that we need to be consistent nationally and that we can say to people right across the country, “These are the conditions you can expect if these are your circumstances.”
Hon Helen Morton : They’ve changed their advice today, I understand. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT : Order! We do not want a debate on this because other members are waiting to ask questions. I respect the minister’s right to answer it. Hon KIM CHANCE : We have made a nationally consistent decision to which I am bound. If I make a different decision from that recommended by the CCEAD, I am in breach at least of the spirit of that agreement, possibly also in breach to the extent that it would be a justiciable matter under the Mutual Recognition (Western Australia) Act 2001. I could be legally in breach. We have made a nationally consistent decision. I am abiding by the nationally consistent decision. What happens in Western Australia is not different from what happens in Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania. (2)-(3) The answer to the second part of the question is yes. The Department of Agriculture and Food has, I believe, met with all horseracing codes. My understanding is that they have attended, or certainly the organisations have had the capacity to attend, public meetings that the Department of Agriculture and Food has organised. If they have not, I recommend they call the Western Australian chief vet, Dr Buckman, or Dr Ashley Mercy at the Department of Agriculture and Food. Do all those organisations support the decision I have made? No, they do not, and we have had quite a lot of contact from the horse industry over the past couple of days. A number of them have been quite critical of our decision to abide by the national agreement. A number of people have been quite critical of our decision to abide by the national agreement for the other reason, in that they want to bring horses into Western Australia, and they see our observance of the national protocols as being too restrictive. Some are saying it is not restrictive enough; others are saying it is too restrictive. Therefore, on that basis, I think we have made about the right decision. What is important in this is that we need to be consistent nationally and that we can say to people right across the country, “These are the conditions you can expect if these are your circumstances.”
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT : Order! We do not want a debate on this because other members are waiting to ask questions. I respect the minister’s right to answer it. Hon KIM CHANCE : We have made a nationally consistent decision to which I am bound. If I make a different decision from that recommended by the CCEAD, I am in breach at least of the spirit of that agreement, possibly also in breach to the extent that it would be a justiciable matter under the Mutual Recognition (Western Australia) Act 2001. I could be legally in breach. We have made a nationally consistent decision. I am abiding by the nationally consistent decision. What happens in Western Australia is not different from what happens in Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania. (2)-(3) The answer to the second part of the question is yes. The Department of Agriculture and Food has, I believe, met with all horseracing codes. My understanding is that they have attended, or certainly the organisations have had the capacity to attend, public meetings that the Department of Agriculture and Food has organised. If they have not, I recommend they call the Western Australian chief vet, Dr Buckman, or Dr Ashley Mercy at the Department of Agriculture and Food. Do all those organisations support the decision I have made? No, they do not, and we have had quite a lot of contact from the horse industry over the past couple of days. A number of them have been quite critical of our decision to abide by the national agreement. A number of people have been quite critical of our decision to abide by the national agreement for the other reason, in that they want to bring horses into Western Australia, and they see our observance of the national protocols as being too restrictive. Some are saying it is not restrictive enough; others are saying it is too restrictive. Therefore, on that basis, I think we have made about the right decision. What is important in this is that we need to be consistent nationally and that we can say to people right across the country, “These are the conditions you can expect if these are your circumstances.”
Hon KIM CHANCE : We have made a nationally consistent decision to which I am bound. If I make a different decision from that recommended by the CCEAD, I am in breach at least of the spirit of that agreement, possibly also in breach to the extent that it would be a justiciable matter under the Mutual Recognition (Western Australia) Act 2001. I could be legally in breach. We have made a nationally consistent decision. I am abiding by the nationally consistent decision. What happens in Western Australia is not different from what happens in Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania. (2)-(3) The answer to the second part of the question is yes. The Department of Agriculture and Food has, I believe, met with all horseracing codes. My understanding is that they have attended, or certainly the organisations have had the capacity to attend, public meetings that the Department of Agriculture and Food has organised. If they have not, I recommend they call the Western Australian chief vet, Dr Buckman, or Dr Ashley Mercy at the Department of Agriculture and Food. Do all those organisations support the decision I have made? No, they do not, and we have had quite a lot of contact from the horse industry over the past couple of days. A number of them have been quite critical of our decision to abide by the national agreement. A number of people have been quite critical of our decision to abide by the national agreement for the other reason, in that they want to bring horses into Western Australia, and they see our observance of the national protocols as being too restrictive. Some are saying it is not restrictive enough; others are saying it is too restrictive. Therefore, on that basis, I think we have made about the right decision. What is important in this is that we need to be consistent nationally and that we can say to people right across the country, “These are the conditions you can expect if these are your circumstances.”
(2)-(3) The answer to the second part of the question is yes. The Department of Agriculture and Food has, I believe, met with all horseracing codes. My understanding is that they have attended, or certainly the organisations have had the capacity to attend, public meetings that the Department of Agriculture and Food has organised. If they have not, I recommend they call the Western Australian chief vet, Dr Buckman, or Dr Ashley Mercy at the Department of Agriculture and Food. Do all those organisations support the decision I have made? No, they do not, and we have had quite a lot of contact from the horse industry over the past couple of days. A number of them have been quite critical of our decision to abide by the national agreement. A number of people have been quite critical of our decision to abide by the national agreement for the other reason, in that they want to bring horses into Western Australia, and they see our observance of the national protocols as being too restrictive. Some are saying it is not restrictive enough; others are saying it is too restrictive. Therefore, on that basis, I think we have made about the right decision. What is important in this is that we need to be consistent nationally and that we can say to people right across the country, “These are the conditions you can expect if these are your circumstances.”
(2) Did the minister consult the thoroughbred industry peak bodies of Racing and Wagering Western Australia, West Australian Bloodhorse Breeders Association, Western Australian Racing Trainers’ Association and WA Jockeys Association, and do they support his decision to allow interstate horses into WA while the equine influenza is still spreading? (3) Will the minister take responsibility for the consequences on WA, good or bad, for that decision? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Helen Morton for the question. (1) The question assumes that there is a risk of importation of equine influenza as a result of the importation of EI-free horses from declared EI-free jurisdictions. Somebody else can work out the logic of that. Why on earth is the importation of an EI-free horse from a declared EI-free jurisdiction a movement that imposes greater risk than the movement of horses within that jurisdiction? In other words, people are suggesting that there is a greater risk of importing a healthy horse from Victoria, where there is no EI, than importing the horse from Geraldton, which is also EI free. That logic can be extended. The whole of New Zealand is an EI-free jurisdiction; in fact, the last in the world alongside Iceland. At the moment Iceland and New Zealand are the only two countries in the world that do not have EI. Last week I approved the importation of 15 horses from New Zealand and was told that I was imposing an EI risk. How? I am not having a shot at the honourable member who asked the question. It is a reasonable question to ask because people want her to ask it, and I am glad she did. I am asking people to consider the logic of the statement that the risk of infection from EI is increased by that action. Hon Helen Morton : It is still spreading throughout the eastern states. Hon KIM CHANCE : That is infection between an infected area and a non-infected area. That is what is happening in New South Wales and Queensland, where a week ago there were 1 063 infected properties. What is happening there is quite scary. That is the result of a movement between an infected area and a non-infected area. What we are talking about here is the movement of an animal between an uninfected area and another uninfected area. Do the state boundaries, or even national boundaries concerning New Zealand, have any bearing on it? Logically, no. I can understand people being concerned. I am certainly not guaranteeing that Western Australia will never get EI. Indeed, we could have EI in Western Australia tomorrow, but it will not be a horse that brings it in. There is a much greater likelihood that the vector will be a human. It probably will not be a human in the professional racing industry. It is much more likely to be an amateur contact, somebody with some mucous on their jacket going from an infected area to an uninfected area. We are doing our best to involve all the industries and associations that deal in horses to educate them on the necessary hygiene requirements. Is there a risk from an uninfected horse from an uninfected area? No. Let me just say also that this is not my whim. I am not pretending to be a vet and I do not have scientific qualifications. My advice comes from highly qualified veterinarians represented by the Western Australian chief veterinarian who, in turn, is relaying to me the advice of the Consultative Committee on Emergency Animal Disease. Hon Helen Morton : They’ve changed their advice today, I understand. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT : Order! We do not want a debate on this because other members are waiting to ask questions. I respect the minister’s right to answer it. Hon KIM CHANCE : We have made a nationally consistent decision to which I am bound. If I make a different decision from that recommended by the CCEAD, I am in breach at least of the spirit of that agreement, possibly also in breach to the extent that it would be a justiciable matter under the Mutual Recognition (Western Australia) Act 2001. I could be legally in breach. We have made a nationally consistent decision. I am abiding by the nationally consistent decision. What happens in Western Australia is not different from what happens in Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania. (2)-(3) The answer to the second part of the question is yes. The Department of Agriculture and Food has, I believe, met with all horseracing codes. My understanding is that they have attended, or certainly the organisations have had the capacity to attend, public meetings that the Department of Agriculture and Food has organised. If they have not, I recommend they call the Western Australian chief vet, Dr Buckman, or Dr Ashley Mercy at the Department of Agriculture and Food. Do all those organisations support the decision I have made? No, they do not, and we have had quite a lot of contact from the horse industry over the past couple of days. A number of them have been quite critical of our decision to abide by the national agreement. A number of people have been quite critical of our decision to abide by the national agreement for the other reason, in that they want to bring horses into Western Australia, and they see our observance of the national protocols as being too restrictive. Some are saying it is not restrictive enough; others are saying it is too restrictive. Therefore, on that basis, I think we have made about the right decision. What is important in this is that we need to be consistent nationally and that we can say to people right across the country, “These are the conditions you can expect if these are your circumstances.”
(3) Will the minister take responsibility for the consequences on WA, good or bad, for that decision? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Helen Morton for the question. (1) The question assumes that there is a risk of importation of equine influenza as a result of the importation of EI-free horses from declared EI-free jurisdictions. Somebody else can work out the logic of that. Why on earth is the importation of an EI-free horse from a declared EI-free jurisdiction a movement that imposes greater risk than the movement of horses within that jurisdiction? In other words, people are suggesting that there is a greater risk of importing a healthy horse from Victoria, where there is no EI, than importing the horse from Geraldton, which is also EI free. That logic can be extended. The whole of New Zealand is an EI-free jurisdiction; in fact, the last in the world alongside Iceland. At the moment Iceland and New Zealand are the only two countries in the world that do not have EI. Last week I approved the importation of 15 horses from New Zealand and was told that I was imposing an EI risk. How? I am not having a shot at the honourable member who asked the question. It is a reasonable question to ask because people want her to ask it, and I am glad she did. I am asking people to consider the logic of the statement that the risk of infection from EI is increased by that action. Hon Helen Morton : It is still spreading throughout the eastern states. Hon KIM CHANCE : That is infection between an infected area and a non-infected area. That is what is happening in New South Wales and Queensland, where a week ago there were 1 063 infected properties. What is happening there is quite scary. That is the result of a movement between an infected area and a non-infected area. What we are talking about here is the movement of an animal between an uninfected area and another uninfected area. Do the state boundaries, or even national boundaries concerning New Zealand, have any bearing on it? Logically, no. I can understand people being concerned. I am certainly not guaranteeing that Western Australia will never get EI. Indeed, we could have EI in Western Australia tomorrow, but it will not be a horse that brings it in. There is a much greater likelihood that the vector will be a human. It probably will not be a human in the professional racing industry. It is much more likely to be an amateur contact, somebody with some mucous on their jacket going from an infected area to an uninfected area. We are doing our best to involve all the industries and associations that deal in horses to educate them on the necessary hygiene requirements. Is there a risk from an uninfected horse from an uninfected area? No. Let me just say also that this is not my whim. I am not pretending to be a vet and I do not have scientific qualifications. My advice comes from highly qualified veterinarians represented by the Western Australian chief veterinarian who, in turn, is relaying to me the advice of the Consultative Committee on Emergency Animal Disease. Hon Helen Morton : They’ve changed their advice today, I understand. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT : Order! We do not want a debate on this because other members are waiting to ask questions. I respect the minister’s right to answer it. Hon KIM CHANCE : We have made a nationally consistent decision to which I am bound. If I make a different decision from that recommended by the CCEAD, I am in breach at least of the spirit of that agreement, possibly also in breach to the extent that it would be a justiciable matter under the Mutual Recognition (Western Australia) Act 2001. I could be legally in breach. We have made a nationally consistent decision. I am abiding by the nationally consistent decision. What happens in Western Australia is not different from what happens in Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania. (2)-(3) The answer to the second part of the question is yes. The Department of Agriculture and Food has, I believe, met with all horseracing codes. My understanding is that they have attended, or certainly the organisations have had the capacity to attend, public meetings that the Department of Agriculture and Food has organised. If they have not, I recommend they call the Western Australian chief vet, Dr Buckman, or Dr Ashley Mercy at the Department of Agriculture and Food. Do all those organisations support the decision I have made? No, they do not, and we have had quite a lot of contact from the horse industry over the past couple of days. A number of them have been quite critical of our decision to abide by the national agreement. A number of people have been quite critical of our decision to abide by the national agreement for the other reason, in that they want to bring horses into Western Australia, and they see our observance of the national protocols as being too restrictive. Some are saying it is not restrictive enough; others are saying it is too restrictive. Therefore, on that basis, I think we have made about the right decision. What is important in this is that we need to be consistent nationally and that we can say to people right across the country, “These are the conditions you can expect if these are your circumstances.”
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Helen Morton for the question. (1) The question assumes that there is a risk of importation of equine influenza as a result of the importation of EI-free horses from declared EI-free jurisdictions. Somebody else can work out the logic of that. Why on earth is the importation of an EI-free horse from a declared EI-free jurisdiction a movement that imposes greater risk than the movement of horses within that jurisdiction? In other words, people are suggesting that there is a greater risk of importing a healthy horse from Victoria, where there is no EI, than importing the horse from Geraldton, which is also EI free. That logic can be extended. The whole of New Zealand is an EI-free jurisdiction; in fact, the last in the world alongside Iceland. At the moment Iceland and New Zealand are the only two countries in the world that do not have EI. Last week I approved the importation of 15 horses from New Zealand and was told that I was imposing an EI risk. How? I am not having a shot at the honourable member who asked the question. It is a reasonable question to ask because people want her to ask it, and I am glad she did. I am asking people to consider the logic of the statement that the risk of infection from EI is increased by that action. Hon Helen Morton : It is still spreading throughout the eastern states. Hon KIM CHANCE : That is infection between an infected area and a non-infected area. That is what is happening in New South Wales and Queensland, where a week ago there were 1 063 infected properties. What is happening there is quite scary. That is the result of a movement between an infected area and a non-infected area. What we are talking about here is the movement of an animal between an uninfected area and another uninfected area. Do the state boundaries, or even national boundaries concerning New Zealand, have any bearing on it? Logically, no. I can understand people being concerned. I am certainly not guaranteeing that Western Australia will never get EI. Indeed, we could have EI in Western Australia tomorrow, but it will not be a horse that brings it in. There is a much greater likelihood that the vector will be a human. It probably will not be a human in the professional racing industry. It is much more likely to be an amateur contact, somebody with some mucous on their jacket going from an infected area to an uninfected area. We are doing our best to involve all the industries and associations that deal in horses to educate them on the necessary hygiene requirements. Is there a risk from an uninfected horse from an uninfected area? No. Let me just say also that this is not my whim. I am not pretending to be a vet and I do not have scientific qualifications. My advice comes from highly qualified veterinarians represented by the Western Australian chief veterinarian who, in turn, is relaying to me the advice of the Consultative Committee on Emergency Animal Disease. Hon Helen Morton : They’ve changed their advice today, I understand. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT : Order! We do not want a debate on this because other members are waiting to ask questions. I respect the minister’s right to answer it. Hon KIM CHANCE : We have made a nationally consistent decision to which I am bound. If I make a different decision from that recommended by the CCEAD, I am in breach at least of the spirit of that agreement, possibly also in breach to the extent that it would be a justiciable matter under the Mutual Recognition (Western Australia) Act 2001. I could be legally in breach. We have made a nationally consistent decision. I am abiding by the nationally consistent decision. What happens in Western Australia is not different from what happens in Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania. (2)-(3) The answer to the second part of the question is yes. The Department of Agriculture and Food has, I believe, met with all horseracing codes. My understanding is that they have attended, or certainly the organisations have had the capacity to attend, public meetings that the Department of Agriculture and Food has organised. If they have not, I recommend they call the Western Australian chief vet, Dr Buckman, or Dr Ashley Mercy at the Department of Agriculture and Food. Do all those organisations support the decision I have made? No, they do not, and we have had quite a lot of contact from the horse industry over the past couple of days. A number of them have been quite critical of our decision to abide by the national agreement. A number of people have been quite critical of our decision to abide by the national agreement for the other reason, in that they want to bring horses into Western Australia, and they see our observance of the national protocols as being too restrictive. Some are saying it is not restrictive enough; others are saying it is too restrictive. Therefore, on that basis, I think we have made about the right decision. What is important in this is that we need to be consistent nationally and that we can say to people right across the country, “These are the conditions you can expect if these are your circumstances.”
I thank Hon Helen Morton for the question. (1) The question assumes that there is a risk of importation of equine influenza as a result of the importation of EI-free horses from declared EI-free jurisdictions. Somebody else can work out the logic of that. Why on earth is the importation of an EI-free horse from a declared EI-free jurisdiction a movement that imposes greater risk than the movement of horses within that jurisdiction? In other words, people are suggesting that there is a greater risk of importing a healthy horse from Victoria, where there is no EI, than importing the horse from Geraldton, which is also EI free. That logic can be extended. The whole of New Zealand is an EI-free jurisdiction; in fact, the last in the world alongside Iceland. At the moment Iceland and New Zealand are the only two countries in the world that do not have EI. Last week I approved the importation of 15 horses from New Zealand and was told that I was imposing an EI risk. How? I am not having a shot at the honourable member who asked the question. It is a reasonable question to ask because people want her to ask it, and I am glad she did. I am asking people to consider the logic of the statement that the risk of infection from EI is increased by that action. Hon Helen Morton : It is still spreading throughout the eastern states. Hon KIM CHANCE : That is infection between an infected area and a non-infected area. That is what is happening in New South Wales and Queensland, where a week ago there were 1 063 infected properties. What is happening there is quite scary. That is the result of a movement between an infected area and a non-infected area. What we are talking about here is the movement of an animal between an uninfected area and another uninfected area. Do the state boundaries, or even national boundaries concerning New Zealand, have any bearing on it? Logically, no. I can understand people being concerned. I am certainly not guaranteeing that Western Australia will never get EI. Indeed, we could have EI in Western Australia tomorrow, but it will not be a horse that brings it in. There is a much greater likelihood that the vector will be a human. It probably will not be a human in the professional racing industry. It is much more likely to be an amateur contact, somebody with some mucous on their jacket going from an infected area to an uninfected area. We are doing our best to involve all the industries and associations that deal in horses to educate them on the necessary hygiene requirements. Is there a risk from an uninfected horse from an uninfected area? No. Let me just say also that this is not my whim. I am not pretending to be a vet and I do not have scientific qualifications. My advice comes from highly qualified veterinarians represented by the Western Australian chief veterinarian who, in turn, is relaying to me the advice of the Consultative Committee on Emergency Animal Disease. Hon Helen Morton : They’ve changed their advice today, I understand. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT : Order! We do not want a debate on this because other members are waiting to ask questions. I respect the minister’s right to answer it. Hon KIM CHANCE : We have made a nationally consistent decision to which I am bound. If I make a different decision from that recommended by the CCEAD, I am in breach at least of the spirit of that agreement, possibly also in breach to the extent that it would be a justiciable matter under the Mutual Recognition (Western Australia) Act 2001. I could be legally in breach. We have made a nationally consistent decision. I am abiding by the nationally consistent decision. What happens in Western Australia is not different from what happens in Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania. (2)-(3) The answer to the second part of the question is yes. The Department of Agriculture and Food has, I believe, met with all horseracing codes. My understanding is that they have attended, or certainly the organisations have had the capacity to attend, public meetings that the Department of Agriculture and Food has organised. If they have not, I recommend they call the Western Australian chief vet, Dr Buckman, or Dr Ashley Mercy at the Department of Agriculture and Food. Do all those organisations support the decision I have made? No, they do not, and we have had quite a lot of contact from the horse industry over the past couple of days. A number of them have been quite critical of our decision to abide by the national agreement. A number of people have been quite critical of our decision to abide by the national agreement for the other reason, in that they want to bring horses into Western Australia, and they see our observance of the national protocols as being too restrictive. Some are saying it is not restrictive enough; others are saying it is too restrictive. Therefore, on that basis, I think we have made about the right decision. What is important in this is that we need to be consistent nationally and that we can say to people right across the country, “These are the conditions you can expect if these are your circumstances.”
(1) The question assumes that there is a risk of importation of equine influenza as a result of the importation of EI-free horses from declared EI-free jurisdictions. Somebody else can work out the logic of that. Why on earth is the importation of an EI-free horse from a declared EI-free jurisdiction a movement that imposes greater risk than the movement of horses within that jurisdiction? In other words, people are suggesting that there is a greater risk of importing a healthy horse from Victoria, where there is no EI, than importing the horse from Geraldton, which is also EI free. That logic can be extended. The whole of New Zealand is an EI-free jurisdiction; in fact, the last in the world alongside Iceland. At the moment Iceland and New Zealand are the only two countries in the world that do not have EI. Last week I approved the importation of 15 horses from New Zealand and was told that I was imposing an EI risk. How? I am not having a shot at the honourable member who asked the question. It is a reasonable question to ask because people want her to ask it, and I am glad she did. I am asking people to consider the logic of the statement that the risk of infection from EI is increased by that action. Hon Helen Morton : It is still spreading throughout the eastern states. Hon KIM CHANCE : That is infection between an infected area and a non-infected area. That is what is happening in New South Wales and Queensland, where a week ago there were 1 063 infected properties. What is happening there is quite scary. That is the result of a movement between an infected area and a non-infected area. What we are talking about here is the movement of an animal between an uninfected area and another uninfected area. Do the state boundaries, or even national boundaries concerning New Zealand, have any bearing on it? Logically, no. I can understand people being concerned. I am certainly not guaranteeing that Western Australia will never get EI. Indeed, we could have EI in Western Australia tomorrow, but it will not be a horse that brings it in. There is a much greater likelihood that the vector will be a human. It probably will not be a human in the professional racing industry. It is much more likely to be an amateur contact, somebody with some mucous on their jacket going from an infected area to an uninfected area. We are doing our best to involve all the industries and associations that deal in horses to educate them on the necessary hygiene requirements. Is there a risk from an uninfected horse from an uninfected area? No. Let me just say also that this is not my whim. I am not pretending to be a vet and I do not have scientific qualifications. My advice comes from highly qualified veterinarians represented by the Western Australian chief veterinarian who, in turn, is relaying to me the advice of the Consultative Committee on Emergency Animal Disease. Hon Helen Morton : They’ve changed their advice today, I understand. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT : Order! We do not want a debate on this because other members are waiting to ask questions. I respect the minister’s right to answer it. Hon KIM CHANCE : We have made a nationally consistent decision to which I am bound. If I make a different decision from that recommended by the CCEAD, I am in breach at least of the spirit of that agreement, possibly also in breach to the extent that it would be a justiciable matter under the Mutual Recognition (Western Australia) Act 2001. I could be legally in breach. We have made a nationally consistent decision. I am abiding by the nationally consistent decision. What happens in Western Australia is not different from what happens in Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania. (2)-(3) The answer to the second part of the question is yes. The Department of Agriculture and Food has, I believe, met with all horseracing codes. My understanding is that they have attended, or certainly the organisations have had the capacity to attend, public meetings that the Department of Agriculture and Food has organised. If they have not, I recommend they call the Western Australian chief vet, Dr Buckman, or Dr Ashley Mercy at the Department of Agriculture and Food. Do all those organisations support the decision I have made? No, they do not, and we have had quite a lot of contact from the horse industry over the past couple of days. A number of them have been quite critical of our decision to abide by the national agreement. A number of people have been quite critical of our decision to abide by the national agreement for the other reason, in that they want to bring horses into Western Australia, and they see our observance of the national protocols as being too restrictive. Some are saying it is not restrictive enough; others are saying it is too restrictive. Therefore, on that basis, I think we have made about the right decision. What is important in this is that we need to be consistent nationally and that we can say to people right across the country, “These are the conditions you can expect if these are your circumstances.”
Hon Helen Morton : It is still spreading throughout the eastern states. Hon KIM CHANCE : That is infection between an infected area and a non-infected area. That is what is happening in New South Wales and Queensland, where a week ago there were 1 063 infected properties. What is happening there is quite scary. That is the result of a movement between an infected area and a non-infected area. What we are talking about here is the movement of an animal between an uninfected area and another uninfected area. Do the state boundaries, or even national boundaries concerning New Zealand, have any bearing on it? Logically, no. I can understand people being concerned. I am certainly not guaranteeing that Western Australia will never get EI. Indeed, we could have EI in Western Australia tomorrow, but it will not be a horse that brings it in. There is a much greater likelihood that the vector will be a human. It probably will not be a human in the professional racing industry. It is much more likely to be an amateur contact, somebody with some mucous on their jacket going from an infected area to an uninfected area. We are doing our best to involve all the industries and associations that deal in horses to educate them on the necessary hygiene requirements. Is there a risk from an uninfected horse from an uninfected area? No. Let me just say also that this is not my whim. I am not pretending to be a vet and I do not have scientific qualifications. My advice comes from highly qualified veterinarians represented by the Western Australian chief veterinarian who, in turn, is relaying to me the advice of the Consultative Committee on Emergency Animal Disease. Hon Helen Morton : They’ve changed their advice today, I understand. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT : Order! We do not want a debate on this because other members are waiting to ask questions. I respect the minister’s right to answer it. Hon KIM CHANCE : We have made a nationally consistent decision to which I am bound. If I make a different decision from that recommended by the CCEAD, I am in breach at least of the spirit of that agreement, possibly also in breach to the extent that it would be a justiciable matter under the Mutual Recognition (Western Australia) Act 2001. I could be legally in breach. We have made a nationally consistent decision. I am abiding by the nationally consistent decision. What happens in Western Australia is not different from what happens in Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania. (2)-(3) The answer to the second part of the question is yes. The Department of Agriculture and Food has, I believe, met with all horseracing codes. My understanding is that they have attended, or certainly the organisations have had the capacity to attend, public meetings that the Department of Agriculture and Food has organised. If they have not, I recommend they call the Western Australian chief vet, Dr Buckman, or Dr Ashley Mercy at the Department of Agriculture and Food. Do all those organisations support the decision I have made? No, they do not, and we have had quite a lot of contact from the horse industry over the past couple of days. A number of them have been quite critical of our decision to abide by the national agreement. A number of people have been quite critical of our decision to abide by the national agreement for the other reason, in that they want to bring horses into Western Australia, and they see our observance of the national protocols as being too restrictive. Some are saying it is not restrictive enough; others are saying it is too restrictive. Therefore, on that basis, I think we have made about the right decision. What is important in this is that we need to be consistent nationally and that we can say to people right across the country, “These are the conditions you can expect if these are your circumstances.”
Hon KIM CHANCE : That is infection between an infected area and a non-infected area. That is what is happening in New South Wales and Queensland, where a week ago there were 1 063 infected properties. What is happening there is quite scary. That is the result of a movement between an infected area and a non-infected area. What we are talking about here is the movement of an animal between an uninfected area and another uninfected area. Do the state boundaries, or even national boundaries concerning New Zealand, have any bearing on it? Logically, no. I can understand people being concerned. I am certainly not guaranteeing that Western Australia will never get EI. Indeed, we could have EI in Western Australia tomorrow, but it will not be a horse that brings it in. There is a much greater likelihood that the vector will be a human. It probably will not be a human in the professional racing industry. It is much more likely to be an amateur contact, somebody with some mucous on their jacket going from an infected area to an uninfected area. We are doing our best to involve all the industries and associations that deal in horses to educate them on the necessary hygiene requirements. Is there a risk from an uninfected horse from an uninfected area? No. Let me just say also that this is not my whim. I am not pretending to be a vet and I do not have scientific qualifications. My advice comes from highly qualified veterinarians represented by the Western Australian chief veterinarian who, in turn, is relaying to me the advice of the Consultative Committee on Emergency Animal Disease. Hon Helen Morton : They’ve changed their advice today, I understand. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT : Order! We do not want a debate on this because other members are waiting to ask questions. I respect the minister’s right to answer it. Hon KIM CHANCE : We have made a nationally consistent decision to which I am bound. If I make a different decision from that recommended by the CCEAD, I am in breach at least of the spirit of that agreement, possibly also in breach to the extent that it would be a justiciable matter under the Mutual Recognition (Western Australia) Act 2001. I could be legally in breach. We have made a nationally consistent decision. I am abiding by the nationally consistent decision. What happens in Western Australia is not different from what happens in Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania. (2)-(3) The answer to the second part of the question is yes. The Department of Agriculture and Food has, I believe, met with all horseracing codes. My understanding is that they have attended, or certainly the organisations have had the capacity to attend, public meetings that the Department of Agriculture and Food has organised. If they have not, I recommend they call the Western Australian chief vet, Dr Buckman, or Dr Ashley Mercy at the Department of Agriculture and Food. Do all those organisations support the decision I have made? No, they do not, and we have had quite a lot of contact from the horse industry over the past couple of days. A number of them have been quite critical of our decision to abide by the national agreement. A number of people have been quite critical of our decision to abide by the national agreement for the other reason, in that they want to bring horses into Western Australia, and they see our observance of the national protocols as being too restrictive. Some are saying it is not restrictive enough; others are saying it is too restrictive. Therefore, on that basis, I think we have made about the right decision. What is important in this is that we need to be consistent nationally and that we can say to people right across the country, “These are the conditions you can expect if these are your circumstances.”
Hon Helen Morton : They’ve changed their advice today, I understand. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT : Order! We do not want a debate on this because other members are waiting to ask questions. I respect the minister’s right to answer it. Hon KIM CHANCE : We have made a nationally consistent decision to which I am bound. If I make a different decision from that recommended by the CCEAD, I am in breach at least of the spirit of that agreement, possibly also in breach to the extent that it would be a justiciable matter under the Mutual Recognition (Western Australia) Act 2001. I could be legally in breach. We have made a nationally consistent decision. I am abiding by the nationally consistent decision. What happens in Western Australia is not different from what happens in Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania. (2)-(3) The answer to the second part of the question is yes. The Department of Agriculture and Food has, I believe, met with all horseracing codes. My understanding is that they have attended, or certainly the organisations have had the capacity to attend, public meetings that the Department of Agriculture and Food has organised. If they have not, I recommend they call the Western Australian chief vet, Dr Buckman, or Dr Ashley Mercy at the Department of Agriculture and Food. Do all those organisations support the decision I have made? No, they do not, and we have had quite a lot of contact from the horse industry over the past couple of days. A number of them have been quite critical of our decision to abide by the national agreement. A number of people have been quite critical of our decision to abide by the national agreement for the other reason, in that they want to bring horses into Western Australia, and they see our observance of the national protocols as being too restrictive. Some are saying it is not restrictive enough; others are saying it is too restrictive. Therefore, on that basis, I think we have made about the right decision. What is important in this is that we need to be consistent nationally and that we can say to people right across the country, “These are the conditions you can expect if these are your circumstances.”
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT : Order! We do not want a debate on this because other members are waiting to ask questions. I respect the minister’s right to answer it. Hon KIM CHANCE : We have made a nationally consistent decision to which I am bound. If I make a different decision from that recommended by the CCEAD, I am in breach at least of the spirit of that agreement, possibly also in breach to the extent that it would be a justiciable matter under the Mutual Recognition (Western Australia) Act 2001. I could be legally in breach. We have made a nationally consistent decision. I am abiding by the nationally consistent decision. What happens in Western Australia is not different from what happens in Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania. (2)-(3) The answer to the second part of the question is yes. The Department of Agriculture and Food has, I believe, met with all horseracing codes. My understanding is that they have attended, or certainly the organisations have had the capacity to attend, public meetings that the Department of Agriculture and Food has organised. If they have not, I recommend they call the Western Australian chief vet, Dr Buckman, or Dr Ashley Mercy at the Department of Agriculture and Food. Do all those organisations support the decision I have made? No, they do not, and we have had quite a lot of contact from the horse industry over the past couple of days. A number of them have been quite critical of our decision to abide by the national agreement. A number of people have been quite critical of our decision to abide by the national agreement for the other reason, in that they want to bring horses into Western Australia, and they see our observance of the national protocols as being too restrictive. Some are saying it is not restrictive enough; others are saying it is too restrictive. Therefore, on that basis, I think we have made about the right decision. What is important in this is that we need to be consistent nationally and that we can say to people right across the country, “These are the conditions you can expect if these are your circumstances.”
Hon KIM CHANCE : We have made a nationally consistent decision to which I am bound. If I make a different decision from that recommended by the CCEAD, I am in breach at least of the spirit of that agreement, possibly also in breach to the extent that it would be a justiciable matter under the Mutual Recognition (Western Australia) Act 2001. I could be legally in breach. We have made a nationally consistent decision. I am abiding by the nationally consistent decision. What happens in Western Australia is not different from what happens in Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania. (2)-(3) The answer to the second part of the question is yes. The Department of Agriculture and Food has, I believe, met with all horseracing codes. My understanding is that they have attended, or certainly the organisations have had the capacity to attend, public meetings that the Department of Agriculture and Food has organised. If they have not, I recommend they call the Western Australian chief vet, Dr Buckman, or Dr Ashley Mercy at the Department of Agriculture and Food. Do all those organisations support the decision I have made? No, they do not, and we have had quite a lot of contact from the horse industry over the past couple of days. A number of them have been quite critical of our decision to abide by the national agreement. A number of people have been quite critical of our decision to abide by the national agreement for the other reason, in that they want to bring horses into Western Australia, and they see our observance of the national protocols as being too restrictive. Some are saying it is not restrictive enough; others are saying it is too restrictive. Therefore, on that basis, I think we have made about the right decision. What is important in this is that we need to be consistent nationally and that we can say to people right across the country, “These are the conditions you can expect if these are your circumstances.”
(2)-(3) The answer to the second part of the question is yes. The Department of Agriculture and Food has, I believe, met with all horseracing codes. My understanding is that they have attended, or certainly the organisations have had the capacity to attend, public meetings that the Department of Agriculture and Food has organised. If they have not, I recommend they call the Western Australian chief vet, Dr Buckman, or Dr Ashley Mercy at the Department of Agriculture and Food. Do all those organisations support the decision I have made? No, they do not, and we have had quite a lot of contact from the horse industry over the past couple of days. A number of them have been quite critical of our decision to abide by the national agreement. A number of people have been quite critical of our decision to abide by the national agreement for the other reason, in that they want to bring horses into Western Australia, and they see our observance of the national protocols as being too restrictive. Some are saying it is not restrictive enough; others are saying it is too restrictive. Therefore, on that basis, I think we have made about the right decision. What is important in this is that we need to be consistent nationally and that we can say to people right across the country, “These are the conditions you can expect if these are your circumstances.”
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.