Key points
- The Bill renames the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Act 2019 as the Inspector-General of Animal Welfare and Live Exports Act 2019. The title of the Inspector-General is similarly renamed.
- The Inspector-General’s functions are expanded to include the conduct of reviews of, amongst other things, the performance of functions, or exercise of powers by livestock export officials under live animal export legislation and standards. The objects of the Inspector-General of Animal Welfare and Live Exports Act are amended to reflect the new functions.
- The Bill expressly states that the Inspector-General is independent and has complete discretion in the performance of their functions and the exercise of their powers.
- In acknowledgement of the expanded functions, the Bill provides for officers and employees of the Commonwealth public service to assist the Inspector-General and for consultants to be engaged.
- The Bill requires the Inspector-General to prepare and publish an annual work plan for each financial year.
- Animal protection organisations have raised concerns in relation to the scope of the Inspector-General’s functions and have called for the expansion of the role to include oversight of animal welfare standards in all Commonwealth-regulated fields. Industry bodies support the Bill’s restriction of oversight to animal welfare in the context of live export.
Introductory Info
Date introduced: 24 May 2023
House: House of Representatives
Portfolio: Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
Commencement: The day after Royal Assent
Purpose of
the Bill
The purpose of the Inspector-General
of Live Animal Exports Amendment (Animal Welfare) Bill 2023 (the Bill) is:
- to rename
the Inspector-General
of Live Animal Exports Act 2019 (Live Animal
Exports Act) as the Inspector-General of Animal Welfare and Live
Exports Act 2019
- to rename
the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports (Inspector-General) as the
Inspector-General of Animal Welfare and Live Exports
- to
expand the functions of the Inspector-General to include increased oversight,
accountability and transparency for animal welfare of exported livestock.[1]
Structure
of the Bill
The Bill comprises three Parts:
- Part
1 contains the main amendments to the Live Animal Exports Act
- Part
2 sets out other amendments including amendments to the National
Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2022 (NACC Act)
- Part
3 contains saving, application and transitional provisions.
Background
Australia has a long history of exporting
livestock beginning as early as 1845 with small shipments of live sheep being
exported from Western Australia to Mauritius and Singapore.[2]
The development of the modern live export trade has been
accompanied by continuing and significant public and veterinary concern for the
health and welfare of transported livestock. Following accidents on livestock
carriers in the 1980s, reviews into the trade reported shortcomings in animal
husbandry practices and facilities on board export ships. These recommended
greater veterinary oversight, more comprehensive standards and mandatory
reporting of incidents.[3]
A 1985 Senate Select Committee report on the Export of Live Sheep from
Australia concluded that ‘if a decision were to be made on the future of the
trade purely on animal welfare grounds, there is enough evidence to stop the
trade. The trade is, in many respects, inimical to good animal welfare’.[4]
Despite those reviews and recommendations for improvement,
in 2018 Sixty Minutes broadcast footage obtained by Animals Australia
from the Awassi Express en route to the Middle East in August 2017, run
by Perth exporter Emanuel Exports.[5]
The footage showed the extreme suffering of sheep on board the vessel, on which
approximately 2,400 sheep died from heat stress (3.76 per cent of the total
number on board).[6]
The subsequent Review
of the Regulatory Capability and Culture of the Department of Agriculture and
Water Resources in the Regulation of Live Animal Exports conducted by
Philip Moss in 2018 (Moss Review) acknowledged the tension between the economic
value of live exports and animal welfare concerns stating:
The live animal export industry is important to the
Australian economy, especially to producers and rural communities. However, the
welfare of exported animals is also a priority to the Australian community.
Members of the public provide Australian agriculture with the social licence to
operate and want good animal welfare outcomes. Furthermore, trading partners
will continue to require high standards for exports in terms of environmental
sustainability and animal welfare practices.
By its nature, live animal exports present a high risk to
animal health and welfare. There have been instances of non-compliance with
animal welfare standards and instances of animal cruelty that have not been
anticipated by the regulatory framework or evoked an appropriate regulatory
response.[7]
The Moss
Review was the impetus for the enactment of the Live Animal Exports Act,[8]
the purpose of which was to establish an independent Inspector-General of Live
Animal Exports, responsible for oversight of the Department of Agriculture in
its role as the regulator of the Australian live-stock export industry.[9]
In March 2019 Mr Ross Carter took on the role of Interim Inspector-General, pending the commencement
of the Live Animal Exports Act.[10]
In 2016, prior to the Moss Review, the Productivity
Commission recommended the establishment of an Australian Commission for Animal
Welfare, with responsibility for developing national standards and guidelines
relating to farmed animal welfare. It also recommended that this independent
statutory body play a role in live export regulation:
At a minimum, this role should involve reviewing the
performance of the ESCAS, including the performance, independence and
effectiveness of the auditing arrangements, and making recommendations for
reform… It should also review other aspects of the regulatory system for live
exports, including the Australian Standards for the Export of Livestock.
Although not a focus of analysis of this inquiry, the Commission notes concerns
raised about these standards, including with respect to the accreditation and independence
of veterinarians on board live export vessels. …
Regular, independent reviews will help to address any
perceived or actual conflict of interest in livestock export regulatory
arrangements, and ultimately help to further improve the welfare of Australian
live exports. It is important that the live export regulatory system is
independently reviewed irrespective of whether the Australian Government
establishes an independent organisation for farm animal welfare.[11]
The Live Animals Exports Act contains two
references to animal welfare—one in section 3, which provides that one of the
objects of the Act is to ‘ensure that live‑stock export officials, in
performing functions and exercising powers, consider the welfare of animals in
Australia’s live‑stock exports’. The other is contained in subsection
10(1A), which provides that in reviewing the performance of functions, or
exercise of powers, by live‑stock export officials in relation to the
export of live‑stock, the Inspector-General ‘must consider the welfare of
animals in relation to Australia’s live‑stock exports’. These provisions
are the result of Government amendments to the original Bill, which, as
introduced, did not contain any reference to animal welfare.[12]
Ongoing
tension
The ongoing tension in the debate about the live animal
export industry—in particular the export of live cattle—is that it has value to
the Australian economy but the welfare of exported animals is also a priority.
Value of
live animal exports
The table below sets out the numbers of livestock exported
in 2022 and their total value.
Table 1: Livestock exports 2022
| |
Number exported |
Value |
| Cattle |
590,098 |
$1.2 billion |
| Sheep |
524, 908 |
$82 million |
| Goats |
4,895 |
$3.9 million |
| Buffalo |
5,155 |
$4.8 million |
| Total |
1,126,584 |
$1.3 billion |
Source: Livecorp website, Industry statistics.
Animal
welfare issues
Every six
months, the Minister must table in Parliament a report from the department that
includes livestock mortalities on every sea voyage. The report is
compiled from information provided to the department by the ships' masters, as
required by the Marine Order 43 (Cargo and cargo handling—livestock)
2018 (made under the Navigation Act 2012). In accordance with the requirements of
the Export
Control Act 2020, the report
relates only to information provided to the Secretary or a delegate during the
reporting period, whether or not the voyages occurred during the reporting
period.[13]
According to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and
Forestry website, no reportable mortalities occurred in the period 1
January 2022 to 31 December 2022.[14]
Submissions to the Department’s recent consultation on the Inspector-General’s
expanded role (discussed below) called for more detailed reporting and a
reconsideration of the appropriateness of the current reporting parameters,
such as ‘whether indicators other than mortality may be warranted’.[15]
Role of the
Inspector-General
Currently, the role of the independent Inspector-General
of Live Animal Exports is to ‘oversee the regulator of live-stock exports: the
Department of Agriculture’.[16]
The Inspector-General is to:
… promote continual improvements in the regulatory practice,
performance and culture of the Department’s function as the authority
responsible for the administration and operation of the export regulatory
system as it applies to the export of live-stock from Australia … [and] … provide
an additional layer of accountability and assurance over the regulation of
Australia’s live-stock exports.[17]
This is to be achieved by way of conducting reviews. According to the revised Explanatory Memorandum to the
originating Bill:
The review powers will contribute to Australia's live-stock
export regulatory systems by providing for an independent review of the
performance of functions and exercise of powers by live-stock export officials.
The scope of the role will enable the Inspector-General to examine the
effectiveness of the operation of the live-stock export regulatory systems,
identify shortcomings and make recommendations for improvement. It is intended
that any issue or recommendation by the Inspector-General will be considered by
the regulator and Government with a view to making necessary improvements to
the live-stock export regulatory system as well as to provide an assurance
framework for stakeholders of the system. This will ensure that Australia's
live-stock export regulatory system maintains its integrity and continues to
improve into the future.[18]
For
example, in November 2021, the Inspector-General published the report on
the review into the ‘Livestock
export permits systems and processes’. The review found that the department
has made important progress in several areas and has a range of further
relevant projects in-train. However, the review also found a range of concerns
that should be addressed to ensure the progression of the department to a
modern, effective and efficient regulator of livestock exports. The review
report made 7 recommendations that the department supported or supported in principle.
The Inspector-General’s role does not include on-the-ground
review of animal welfare in live export, either in Australia or overseas. Past
breaches of live export standards and poor animal welfare outcomes have tended
to come to light through investigations conducted by non-government
organisations or media reporting.[19]
Election commitment
In the lead-up to the 2022 Federal election, the
Australian Labor Party (ALP) announced that it would establish the office of
the independent Inspector-General for Animal Welfare and increase
accountability and transparency for reporting of animal welfare breaches
stating:
The Inspector-General of Animal Welfare will strengthen
reports to the Parliament on:
- New and emerging live export
markets.
- The number of head exported and
mortalities.
- Any allegations of breaches of
animal welfare standards and investigations undertaken.
- Any sanctions or other action
taken for breaches of Australia’s animal welfare standards.[20]
This is consistent with previous
election pledges by the ALP to make respecting
animal welfare standards a top priority for every industry that works with
animals, although commitments made prior to 2022 foresaw a wider role for the
Inspector-General of Animal Welfare, being to advise ‘on the protection of
animals in all Commonwealth-regulated activities’, rather than being confined
to live export. The scope of the Inspector-General’s role was raised in
submissions to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (the
Department) in recent consultations, as discussed below.[21]
Consultation
on proposal for Inspector-General of Animal Welfare and Live Animal Exports
From 2 February to 9 March 2023, the Department of
Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (the Department) consulted
on the proposal to expand the current role of the Inspector-General of Live
Animal Exports.[22]
The consultation
paper advised that the Government has committed to ‘establish an
Inspector-General of Animal Welfare to strengthen animal welfare and increase
accountability and transparency for animal welfare in livestock exports’ and
that this would be implemented by ‘expanding the current office of the
Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports to include animal welfare related
objectives and expertise, forming an Inspector General of Animal Welfare and
Live Animal Exports (IGAWLAE)’.[23]
The consultation paper sought feedback on 6 questions:
- What animal welfare objectives related to livestock
exports would be most valuable and why?
- What other objectives related to livestock exports
could be considered within the scope of the IGAWLAE’s work?
- How should the objectives related to livestock exports
be prioritised (if not all could be included)?
- What animal welfare information related to livestock
exports would be valuable to be included in reports to the Parliament?
- What animal welfare information related to livestock
exports would be valuable to be published on the department’s website?[24]
- Considering the objectives of the IGAWLAE, what
experience, skills and capabilities would be desirable in recruiting animal
welfare expertise/staff into the office?[25]
In a thematic
consultation summary, the Department advised that it received 24
submissions from industry groups, animal welfare organisations and other
interested parties. While the submissions do not appear to be available on the
Department’s website, some are available on submitters’ websites and are
discussed below under ‘Position of major interest groups’.
The Department’s consultation
summary looks at four main themes raised in submissions and states the
Department’s position on each of the following issues: scope of the
Inspector-General, animal welfare reporting, qualifications and expertise, and independence.
Scope of
the proposed Inspector-General’s role
The consultation
summary advises that a range of feedback was received on the proposed expanded
scope of the Inspector-General position, including:
- that
the scope of the Inspector-General should remain contained to the export of livestock
- that
the Inspector-General’s scope should be expanded to include the animal welfare
of all live animal exports, such as trade in non-livestock and wildlife
- that
the Inspector-General’s scope should be expanded beyond exports, including that
the position should play some role in the forthcoming renewal of the Australian
Animal Welfare Strategy (AAWS).[26]
The Department clarified:
The government has announced the [Inspector General of Animal
Welfare and Live Animal Exports] IGAWLAE will expand on the current
Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports (IGLAE), and include additional animal
welfare objectives for exported livestock. This is the basis upon which the
consultation paper was developed.
Expanding on the IGLAE’s established role will help to ensure
that that the IGAWLAE focusses on the Commonwealth’s regulatory
responsibilities for animal welfare in livestock exports.
As Australia's states and territories regulate domestic
animal production and welfare laws, the IGAWLAE’s responsibilities will not
encompass state and territory responsibilities.
The Australian Government is committed to strengthening
animal welfare and has committed to renew the Australian Animal Welfare
Strategy (AAWS). This is being progressed separately to the establishment of
the IGAWLAE, given the IGAWLAE’s scope and the domestic-focussed role of the
AAWS.[27]
Submissions on the
scope of the Inspector-General’s role are discussed in ‘Position of major
interest groups’, below.
Animal
welfare reporting
As set out above, every six months the Minister must table
in Parliament a report from the Department that includes reportable livestock
mortality on every sea voyage. The Department advises that many submissions
to its consultation ‘called for more granular and detailed reporting relating
to animal welfare’, either by the Inspector-General or the Department.[28]
Submissions also called for ‘a reconsideration of what reporting currently
occurs, for example, whether indicators other than mortality may be warranted’.[29]
LiveCorp advised that through a collaboration with Meat & Livestock
Australia, it had:
invested in research projects aimed at identifying
meaningful, objective and standardised animal welfare indicators to complement
the current use and recording of mortality. These include a university project
that identified standardised indicators of animal welfare that moved beyond
mortality as the primary measure used by industry … and the Shipboard Animal
Welfare Surveillance (SAWS) project which developed practical measurement
protocols for implementing the animal welfare indicators on livestock voyages.[30]
Other submissions ‘recommended careful consideration
before amending current reporting arrangements, and a view that any current or
future reporting must guarantee privacy and confidentiality’.[31]
The Department clarified that the expanded remit of the
Inspector-General would include reviewing the Commonwealth’s reporting on
livestock exports under the Export Control Act.[32]
Inspector-General
qualifications and expertise
The Live Animal Exports Act does not require the
Inspector-General to have any specific qualifications or expertise. Submissions
to the consultation:
were consistent with the view that practical
and demonstrated animal welfare understanding and experience was necessary,
either through past experience within the livestock export supply chain, and/or
post-graduate experience in animal welfare science, law or policy. Memberships
to professional organisations, such as the Australian and New Zealand College
of Veterinary Scientists, were also suggested.[33]
The Bill maintains the current position and does not
impose any qualification or expertise requirements that must be met before an
Inspector-General may be appointed.
The Department advises that ‘a process to recruit an
IGAWLAE will commence once the role is established. The feedback on
qualifications and expertise will be considered as part of the ensuing process’.[34]
Independence
The Department reports that the importance of ensuring the
Inspector-General’s independence from the Department and Government was a
consistent concern raised in submissions, with this considered to be key to
ensuring public confidence through independent oversight of the regulator. In
response, the Department advises that ‘implementation of the IGAWLAE will
clarify independence and transparency as much as practicable’.[35]
Committee consideration
Selection
of Bills Committee
At the time of writing this Bills Digest, the Bill has not
been referred to Committee for inquiry and report.
Senate
Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills
At the time of writing this Bills Digest, the Senate
Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills has not commented on the Bill.
Policy
position of non-government parties/independents
At the time of writing, no comments on the Bill from
non-government parties or independents could be identified. However, Australian
Greens Senator Mehreen Faruqi has questioned the remit of the proposed Inspector-General
of Animal Welfare being confined to live export, rather than animal welfare
within the Commonwealth’s jurisdiction more broadly:
Labor did promise an independent office of an
Inspector-General for Animal Welfare, and Labor's election policy which was
titled 'Strengthening animal welfare' states that the Inspector-General of
Animal Welfare's functions would 'strengthen reports to the parliament,
including on allegations of breaches of animal welfare standards and
investigations undertaken and any sanctions or other actions taken for breaches
of Australia's animal welfare standards'. I think that gave a very clear
indication to voters that the role was much broader and much more far reaching
than the live export industry. [36]
The Greens have previously introduced private member’s
Bills to establish an Independent Office of Animal Welfare.[37]
Under their proposal, the Office would be responsible for reviewing and
monitoring livestock export standards; preparing reports about a range of
animal welfare issues including live animal export and the commercial kangaroo
industry; and reviewing the activities of the Department in relation to the
monitoring, enforcement and effectiveness of the Commonwealth’s animal welfare
laws.[38]
Independent Andrew Wilkie has also previously introduced a
Bill to establish an Independent Office of Animal Welfare.[39]
In addition to oversight of the live export trade, under Mr Wilkie’s proposal,
the Office would ‘undertake inquiries, commission research and prepare reports
about a range of issues including the commercial killing of kangaroos,
importation of animals and animal products, introduced species, and development
of Commonwealth animal welfare policy’.[40]
Position of
major interest groups
Industry
groups
The Australian Livestock Export Corporation (LiveCorp)
advised that animal welfare ‘is a core focus for the livestock export industry
and addressing its complexity has been a priority program of work for LiveCorp
and the Livestock Export RD&E Program’.[41]
LiveCorp stated that its research on community views on live export
suggest that the general public are not necessarily seeking
specific or granular details about the industry’s performance; rather, they
perceive good regulation itself as a driver of trust, providing assurance that
standards are being applied and met. This can be achieved through the
development of evidence-based standards and regulation based on science and the
meaningful interpretation of data.[42]
WoolProducers Australia expressed support for the scope of
the proposed change to the Inspector-General’s remit being targeted to animal
welfare issues relating to live animal exports, but was concerned with the
consultation paper’s suggestion that the role could include ‘reviewing/reporting
on the Commonwealth’s interaction with state and territory animal welfare
enforcement agencies’.[43]
WoolProducers considered that this would not align with the Commonwealth’s
legislative responsibilities and ‘would not contribute to the enhanced
reporting of animal welfare standards outcomes with respect to live animal
exports’.[44]
Animal
protection organisations
The Australian Alliance for Animals (the Alliance), which
comprises Australia’s key animal protection organisations: Animals Australia,
World Animal Protection, Compassion in World Farming, Humane Society
International, Four Paws and Voiceless, expressed disappointment with the
proposed expansion of the role of the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports
to encompass animal welfare:
During the 2022 Federal Election, the Australian Labor Party
committed to establishing the “office of the independent Inspector-General for
Animal Welfare” in recognition of Labor’s support for strong animal welfare
standards and belief that all animals should be treated humanely. The
Government’s subsequent October Budget indicated that this would be delivered
by simply “expanding the functions” of the current Inspector-General of Live
Animal Exports (IGLAE). This was disappointing to the animal welfare sector
as we understood Labor’s commitment to encompass the establishment of a new
statutory office. Nevertheless, we remained open minded about the potential
for achieving the outcome of expanding the functions of the IGLAE through the
existing structure.
However, the model proposed in the consultation paper fails
to achieve this. The proposed role and objectives for the new Inspector-General
for Animal Welfare (IGAW) add nothing new to the role and objectives of the
current IGLAE. Reviewing and reporting on the Department’s approval of
regulated entities, detection of non-compliance, conduct of investigations,
interaction with state territory enforcement agencies, and reporting on animal
welfare breaches are all topics the current IGLAE has the power to review. The
only substantive difference under the consultation paper’s proposed model
appears to be the change in name.
We strongly encourage the Government to review this
proposed model with a view to enacting more meaningful reform. At a time
when Australia is facing increasing international pressure from trade partners
to lift its animal welfare standards and strengthen its assurances, limiting
the scope of the IGAW in such a way would be a missed opportunity [emphasis
added].[45]
The Alliance called for the establishment of an office
that would deal with animal welfare at the Commonwealth-level broadly, rather
than being confined to animal welfare in the context of live export only:
Expanding the [Inspector-General for Animal Welfare’s] IGAW’s
role to include oversight of animal welfare standards in all
Commonwealth-regulated fields, including animal welfare standards at export
abattoirs and the international trade in wildlife and wildlife products,
and reporting on the implementation of national animal welfare standards,
would be a far more meaningful reform. There is a great need for further
consistency in the Australian Government’s approach to animal welfare policy,
The benefits of the IGAW’s role should not be siloed to one particular area of
one portfolio [emphasis added].[46]
The Alliance also called for the immediate establishment
of a national Animal Welfare Commission 'to provide national leadership in the
development of Australia’s animal welfare standards’.[47]
Financial
implications
According to the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill ‘the
Australian Government is providing $4 million over four years from 2022–2023
to support the expanded functions of the Inspector-General’.[48]
Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights
As required under Part 3 of the Human Rights
(Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 (Cth), the Government has assessed
the Bill’s compatibility with the human rights and freedoms recognised or
declared in the international instruments listed in section 3 of that Act. The
Government considers that the Bill is compatible.[49]
Parliamentary
Joint Committee on Human Rights
At the time of writing this Bills Digest, Parliamentary
Joint Committee on Human Rights has not commented on the Bill.
Key issues and provisions
Changing
the name
Items 1 and 2 in Part 1 of the Bill change the name
of the long title and short title of the Live Animal Exports Act
respectively to include references to animal welfare.
Similarly, items 5 to 8 make consequential
amendments to reflect the proposed renaming of the Inspector-General of Live
Animal Exports to the Inspector-General of Animal Welfare and Live Animal
Exports.
Expanding
the functions
Item 11 repeals and replaces subsection 10(1) of
the Live Animal Exports Act. Currently subsection 10(1) provides that
the Inspector-General may review the performance of functions, or exercise of
powers, by live-stock export officials under the Export Control Act
2020, or an instrument made under that Act, in relation to the export
of live-stock. Proposed subsection 10(1) sets out an expanded list of matters
which may be the subject of a review by the Inspector-General being:
- the
performance of functions, or exercise of powers, by livestock export officials
under the animal welfare and live animal export legislation
and standards in relation to the export of livestock[50]
- the
effectiveness of Commonwealth systems, including the Australian
Standards for the Export of Livestock (ASEL), for the
administration of livestock exports under the relevant legislation and
standards for maintaining and enhancing the welfare of exported livestock
- the
effectiveness of Commonwealth reporting of any or all of the following:
- the
welfare of exported livestock
- livestock
export investigations related to animal welfare
- non-compliance
with the animal welfare and live animal export legislation and standards in
relation to the export of livestock
- the
information required in the Inspector-General’s report to Parliament about
export of livestock
- potential
non-compliance with state and territory laws relating to animal welfare, as reported
to state and territory Governments.
The inclusion of references to the ASEL is
important.
It sets the standards for the conduct of the livestock export
trade, as required by the Australian Government. It covers the sourcing,
preparation, transport and onboard management of exported livestock. Exporters
must comply with the ASEL in order to be permitted to export livestock.[51]
Updating
the objects
These functions are complemented by updated animal
welfare-related objects to the Live Animal Exports Act. Item 3
repeals and replaces sections 3 and 4 of the Live Animal Exports Act which
contain the objects and the simplified outline respectively.
The existing objects are retained and renumbered. Proposed paragraph 3(1)(a) updates the objects
stating that they are to enable monitoring, investigation and reporting on the
implementation, by the Commonwealth Government, of the animal welfare and
live animal export legislation and standards in relation to the export
of livestock, and the outcomes of such implementation, and, in doing so:
- to
increase accountability for, and the transparency of, compliance with such
legislation and standards and
- to
increase accountability for those outcomes.
Proposed paragraph 3(1)(b) would expand upon
paragraph 3(1)(a), which provides that an object of the Live Animal Exports
Act is to ‘promote
continual improvements in the regulatory practice, performance and culture of
the Department in its role as the regulator of Australia’s live‑stock
exports’. The proposed paragraph would expand on this to include promoting
improvements in the development of ASEL. The Explanatory Memorandum states:
As the ASEL is a critical part of Australia’s regulatory
system for the welfare of exported livestock, new paragraph 3(1)(b) would
provide independent oversight over the development of the ASEL and as such,
ensure that improvements to the ASEL are promoted.[52]
Proposed subsection 3(2) specifies that the
expanded objects are to be achieved with a view to ensuring that the animal
welfare and live animal export legislation and standards in relation to the
export of livestock are complied with.
Independence
of the Inspector-General
Item 13 inserts proposed section 10C into
the Live Animal Exports Act. Proposed subsection 10C(1) specifies
that the Inspector-General has complete discretion in the performance of their functions
and the exercise of their powers and is not subject to direction by any person
in relation to the performance or exercise of those functions or powers.
Proposed subsection 10C(2) puts the independence of
the Inspector-General beyond doubt by stating that the Inspector-General is not
subject to direction in relation to:
- whether
or not a particular outcome or priority is to be included in a work plan for a
financial year
- the
conduct of a review, including matters such as the terms of reference, how a
review is to be conducted, its timing or its priority or
- the
content of the report of the review.
Under proposed section 10D, there are three ways in
which reviews may be commenced. First, the Inspector-General may conduct
a review on their own initiative: proposed subsection 10D(1).
Second, the Minister may direct the
Inspector-General, in writing, to conduct a review. This is called a directed
review. In that case the Inspector-General must comply with the
Minister’s direction and must consult with the Minister about the terms of
reference and the priority to be given to the directed review: proposed
subsections 10D(2)-(5). However, the independence of the Inspector-General
in the manner in which the review is conducted and the outcome of the review is
preserved.
Third, the Secretary or a Minister that administers
a law relating to the export of livestock may request (that is, a Minister
other than the Minister for Agriculture), in writing, that a review be
conducted. In such circumstances the Inspector-General is not required to
comply with the request: proposed subsections 10D(7) and (8).
Qualifications
for appointment as Inspector-General
As discussed above, currently the Live Animal Exports
Act does not impose any requirements in relation to the qualifications or
expertise of the Inspector-General or persons assisting them. The Bill does not
change this position. In its summary of the consultations on the proposed
changes to the Inspector-General’s role, the Department advised that
submissions were consistent in the view that ‘practical and demonstrated animal
welfare understanding and experience was necessary’ for such roles.
The Alliance stated:
Staff appointed to the office of the IGAW must have animal
welfare qualifications. A veterinary degree on its own is not a qualification
in animal welfare nor is a degree in veterinary science the only pathway to an
understanding of animal welfare science. Officers appointed to the office
should have post-graduate qualifications in animal welfare science, law or
policy, such as an MSc Animal Welfare Science, Ethics and Law, be a member of
the Animal Welfare Chapter of the Australian and New Zealand College of
Veterinary Scientists (MANZCVS (Animal Welfare)) or hold other higher degree
research qualifications in animal welfare.[53]
Annual work
plans
Item 14 in Part 1 of the Bill requires the
Inspector-General to prepare and publish an annual work plan for each financial
year: proposed subsections 11A(1) and (4).
The work plan for a financial year must set out the key
outcomes and priorities for the Inspector-General for the financial year,
including the details and timing of the reviews that are to be conducted: proposed
subsection 11A(2).
The Inspector-General must consult the Minister in
preparing a work plan for a financial year and may consult additional persons
who the Inspector-General considers appropriate: proposed subsection 11A(3).