SupplementaryInformation *;11.70 illPagenumbersrefertohearingtranscript ;.*, Adj

Page 1-1was also the Manager Animal Welfare at DLG between 2003-2011. '<(?7191;, *;"Page I- Asthe Hon Lynn MacLaren said, Iwas'there during the changeoverfromLocal Government to DAFWA'. It is relevant for me to add here that the transfer

process wasflawed from the start. My complaint on this matter under the Publi^SectorMon09ement(Breoches of PublicSectorStondords) Re9ulotions2005wasupheld by Public Sector Commissioner MalWauchope on 30 Iune 2011. He wrote(see letter attached):

'It is evidentthat you were not genuinely consulted prior to the transfer decisionbeing made and you were not provided with a reasonable opportunity to haveyour interests considered'.

This flawed process prevented an informed handover of the AnimolWe!foreAct2002 (AWA)from DLG to DAFWA, and setthescenefor manyproblemsincludingDAFWA's perception of howthe RSPCA General Inspectors (Gl's) were enforcingthe AWA. Had DAFWAbeen more experienced in animal welfareand theenforcement of the AWA, orwillingto listen and include stafffrom the AnimalWelfare Branch (AWB) at DLG, the transfer could have been much smoother andpublic monies saved (and those of the RSPCA). Instead, the 'babywasthrown outwith the bathwater'in the rush to create a more 'farmer friendly' enforcementmodel. People with no experience in administering the AWA, and littleexperience in enforcing it(ifany), were putin charge by DAFWA's DirectorGeneral, Mr Rob Delane.

As Manager Animal Welfare, the Government's chiefGenerallnspector, and theState's only Scientific Inspector, I was initially included in discussions regardingthe mooted transfer of the AWAin 2009 (from memory), when my ExecutiveDirectorwasthe late Mr Quentin Harrington. Itshould be noted that Ihad anexcellentworking relationship with my first Executive Director, Mr Ian Cowie,and also with Mr Harrington. Mr Cowie was experienced with the AWA, as he hada major role in its drafting and implementation, and was the DLG'srepresentative on the RSPCA Board. He is nowVice President and hassat on theRSPCA Board for a number of yearsin his own right. Mr Harrington had aMasters' degree in Agriculture from UWA and had worked at DAFWA. He took anactive interest in animal welfare and respected my professional advice andexperience, especially with the AWA.

After Mr Harrington resigned due to poor health, the person-in-charge of thetransfer process on a day-to-daybasis was my line manager, Executive Director(Governance & Legislation), Mr Brad jolly. Although he did not have abackground in animalsciences orwelfare, he formed views very quickly on thesesubjects without consultation with me. On one occasion he threatened me with adirective to return from an investigation at Peellive export feedlot in Baldivis to

I

compose a routine Ministerial briefing note. This was despite the factl and staffmembers were with WAPoland the RSPCA dealing with an urgentwelfare issue.

Initially my working relationship with Mrjolly was acceptable, but his attitude tomy work and me changed forthe worse in the period leading up to and duringthe transfer. It became clear that Mrjollywas engaged in discussions withDAFWA to facilitate the transfer, but denied he was when Ienquired abouttheprocess during our regular meetings. Mrjolly seemed very confidentthatDAFWA had the expertise required to administer the AWA, and wasrefractorytoany of the concerns, including DAFWA's conflicts of interest, that Iraised withhim.

In the months priorto the AWA being transferred to DAFWA, a verbal complaintwas made in relation to the Westpork prosecution by Mr Russell Cox, who wasthen the CEO of the WesternAustralian Pig Producers' Association (WAPPA), inwhich he accused the AWB of leaking information aboutthe case to welfaregroups, and in particular, the Humane Society International. While Iwasn'tnamed in the complaint, Mrjollytold me there was a strong inference that theleak came from me.

Naturally, Ifound this very upsetting as there was no truth to the allegation, andit was evidentto me and othersthatthis was part of smearcampaign by the pigindustry to derailthe case againstWestpork, which was the state's largestpiggery. When Mr Cox provided the complaintin writing, Mrjolly referred thecomplaintfor internal investigation without advising me he had received it.Contrary to procedural fairness, Iwas never shown the complaint despite askingrepeatedly for this procedural fairness to be afforded to me. The complaint'disappeared' following the PSC decision referred to above.

After the PSC decision, Mr jolly became so hostile towards me that the DirectorGeneral decided that Iwould no longer answer to him. One example of this wasMr jolly's verbal rejection to me of the Commissioner's findings. Instead, he toldme I had been 'extremely difficult'. Soon after this, Iwas advised by Mr A1anShaw, Executive Director Strategic Business Management, that Mrjollywas'conflicted', and that instead, during the period of the reinediation by DLG inwhich 'genuine consultation' about my transfer was attempted, Mr Shawwouldbe taking over as my line manager instead. During these discussions, Iwas toldby Mr Holger Phillip (Acting HR Manager) that DAFWA had 'bullied' DLG and thiswasthe reason whygenuine consultation with me aboutthe transfer had notoccurred when itshould have.

A complaintregardingthe Westpork case was also referred by DAFWA and sentto the DLG Director General, Msjennifer Mathews, who then wrote to me on 3August 2011. Iwas advised that the complaintwasfrom the Chairman ofWestpork, Dr Rob Wilson, following a presentation Igave to the Australian PigVeterinarians' Association in Melbourne on 24 Iuly 2011. Ms Mathews'lettercontained an excerpt of the complaintshowingthat DrWilson emailed hiscomplaint about my presentation to 'DAFWA' at 11.01pm on 26 Iuly 2011.

2

Iwas never provided with a copy of the complaint, but it wassuggested to methat the person DrWilson had emailed wasthe DAFWA's Director General, MrDelane. In summary, Iwas accused of using footage from the Westporkinvestigations without departmentalpermission. This wasincorrect as Mr Shawhad given me this permission, but later said he could 'not recall' doing so. On 25August 2011, Ms Mathews advised me that'Given this inconsistency Ihaveelected not to pursue the matter further'.

Whatconcerned me then, and now, is that the Chairman of a companythatwasfacing serious animal cruelty charges had enough sway with DAFWA's DirectorGeneral, either directly or indirectly, for a late night emailto trigger a swiftcomplaintto the Director General ofDLG. DrWilsonwas not even at the talk Igave, but veterinariansforWestporkwere. Despite the factthatlhad never beenwarned or received disciplinary action ever in my career at DLG, Iwas treated asguilty. The factlwas never shown the original complaint in its entiretyconstituted procedural unfairness.

It was hardly surprising then that when Iwas eventually transferred to DAFWA, Iwas advised my appointment as a Glwould not be renewed and Iwasrestrictedto duties relating to the scientific section of the AWA. Iwas not permitted toinputany of the cases that IPreviously had led including Westpork and Peel PetMeats. A number of cases that had previously been supported by the SSO werediscontinued. The AWB that operated at DLG, on very sparse funds, wasdisbanded with a huge loss of expertise. It was replaced at DAFWA by theLivestock Compliance Unit(LCU), which wasfunded and resourced at a levelthatcould only be dreamt of at DLG.

Despite this, there was a marked lack of expertise and experience in animalwelfare and in administering and enforcing the AWA, and a lack of political willto ensure the latter. Coupled with this exclusion of me and the bullying of me andmy former Senior Inspector, Ms Louise Broun, by the Director of the LCU, DrSarah Wylie, there was an unjustified confidence, including by the DirectorGeneral, that DAFWAknewwhatitwas doing, and did notneed anyhelp fromme or my former Senior Gl. The fact DAFWA chose to remove any reference to'animal welfare' from the title of the unitwhose aim wasto enforce the AWA,indicated the sudden and huge change of culture that occurred posttransfer ofthis legislation.

I note in Mr Delane's transcript he admitted in relation DAFWA's administrationof the AWA:'Ithink the policy-let us callitthe policy and proceduraldemands-have been greater than, perhaps, we thought originally'. Ifind thisextraordinary given the number of discussions Ihad with Mr Delane on thissubject, prior to the deterioration of our very good working relationship inMarch 2010. This deterioration came about after Mr Delane wrote a letter of

complaintto Ms Mathews regarding my investigation of DAFWA'srole in aKimberley Indigenous Management Support Service (KIMSS) projectregardingthe Gibb River Station. It should be noted that this station, now calledNgallagunda, has recently been in the news regarding allegations of violence and

3

animal abuse htt

embroiled-in-animal-abuse-claims 6764272

Ihad firstcontacted Mr Delane a fewyears before this when he was DeputyDirector General at DAFWA. Idid so after advice from Dr SarahWylie. She toldme she had been relentlessly bullied by the 'boys' club' at DAFWA and that as Iwas experiencing the same Ishould contact Mr Delane, as he seemed reasonable.IPhoned him with details of the obstruction Iwas meeting from several of hisstaffin my attemptsto investigate wide ranging possible breaches of the AWA inrelation to DAFWA'slicence under the AWAto use animalsforresearch and

teaching.

WWW. abc. net. au news 2015-09-10 kimberle -station

On my recommendation to DLG's DG, DAFWA had several conditions placed onits licence in response to breaches of its scientific licence. Itrusted Mr Delane,and he appeared to trustme. He putin place reformsto minimise the risk ofrepeatbreaches, and in 2010 the conditions were removed by the DirectorGeneral DLG on my recommendation. These reformsthough seemed to lead togreater resentment from key DAFWA staff, assome seniorstaffhad beentransferred to other positions. This came to a head during my attempttoinvestigate allegations of animal abuse on the Gibb River Station.

Mr Delane had delegated handling of this issue to Mr EricWright, who wasfrommemory then Acting Deputy Director General Biosecurity. lagreed to a meetingat DAFWA in March 2010 on DAFWA's educative/supportrole at Gibb RiverStation. Two other people were presentatthe meeting, Mr Mark Chinielewski(Manager Indigenous Agriculture), and Dr Chris Chilcott (Regional ManagerRangelands). Mr Tony Higgs (ChiefVeterinary Officer, Manager Animal Welfare,and Deputy Chair DAFWA's Animal Ethics Committee (AEC))joined byteleconference for a short period. Unfortunately, we were so shortstaffed at DLGIhad had to attend the meeting alone. MrWrightled the meeting in an extremelyaggressive manner. At one stage Mr Chinielewskishouted at me and accused meof notcaring aboutlndigenous people. This behaviourwent unchecked by MrWright. Notwithstanding this, Ithoughtwe had made some progress on thematter.

On 22 March 2010, Ihad a meeting with Mr Delane in his office to discuss animalwelfare issues. He did notraise any concerns with me aboutthe Gibb Riverstation investigation. Despite the fact as Scientific Inspector I had broad powersunder the AWA, including to suspend research and teaching projects usinganimals, Ihad always brought my concerns about DAFWA's poor performancetoMr Delane's attention and allowed him the courtesy of attempting to rectify thesematters himselfbefore Iconsidered further action. In hindsightthis was amistake and allowed DAFWA's poor performance to continue. Further, MrDelane did notpay me the same professional courtesy. On 29 March 2010 aletter from Mr Delane to Msjennifer Mathews, DLG Director General, wasaccidentally delivered to my desk and not hers.

This letter was damning of my investigation and hinged on the factthat MrDelane had taken on face value that Ihad relied on promotional material about

4

the KIMMS projectto reach my conclusions. Iwas never afforded theopportunity to explain that Mr Chinielewskihad in fact provided me with thepromotional material in response to my requests for information to assist me inthe case. While this complaint never appeared on my personnelfile, it furtherweakened my position at DLG at the timethetransferto DAFWAwas beingcontemplated by Government. It also demonstrated that bullying at DAFWAwasallowed to flourish under Mr Delane, and that Mr Dejane had a poorunderstanding or acceptance of procedural fairness. As with his allegationsabout RSPCA ChieflnspectorAmanda Swift, he accepted on face value his staffmembers' complaints about a regulator.

Itshould be noted that the 3 complaints referred to above are to my knowledgethe only complaints made aboutme between 2003 and 2011. Ialso asked to seemy personnelfile before Ileft DLG and there was nothing to suggest that Iwasanything but an exemplary employee. As part of the reinedIation process, MsMathews agreed to allow me to apply for a personal reclassification to aSpecified Callings Level 5 Veterinary Scientist. An Independent Committee wasconvened by DLG to assess whether the reclassification was warranted and itfound unanimously in my favour. While lain unable to locate the Committee'sreport, the gist of it was that I metthe requirements for national andinternational recognition of my skills as a veterinary scientist and was, of course,regarded as highly competentin my field.

Despite this, after my transfer to DAFWA on 15 August 2011, Iwas barred fromanyinputwith anygeneralcruelty cases or policy development. My appointmentas a Glwas notrenewed by the Director General, and Iwas restricted to the roleof a Scientific Inspector, and even then Iwas excluded from inputto policydevelopment.

Dr Wylie, assisted by Mr Mark Stuart, a plantscientist, appeared hell bent oncreating a newsystem to administer and enforcetheAWA at DAFWA. Therewasno informed reviewto assess whatwas being done wellat DLG, and what neededto be changed. Instead, there was wholesale rejection of processes that had beenused successfully at DLG in the administration and enforcement of the AWA. Iwas, in fact, actively excluded from these discussions. An excellent opportunitywas missed to review and advance whatwe had done at DLG on a skeleton staff

and little funding. On a few occasions when Iwas asked about a topic, it was clearthat DAFWA staffhad expended unnecessary time trying to locate theanswer/documents etc, when iflhad been part of the process ICOuld haveprovided the information immediately.

Iexperienced severe bullying and harassment by DrWylie and lodgedcomplaints. Because Dr Wylie was the LCU Director, and Iwas an 'outsider', Iwasignored by several members of her staff, including Mr Stuart, who was openlyrude and dismissive. DrWylie wasremoved as my line manager and Ithenanswered directly to Mrjohn Ruprecht, Executive Director BIOSecurity andRegulation (who was also Dr Wylie's line manager). Irepeatedly raised thebullying issues with him and while he appeared sympathetic at times, he made itclearto me that DrWylie enjoyed Mr Delane'sfullsupport. Mediation attempts

5

by DAFWA failed when the mediator'sspouse died and the bullying simplycontinued.

It is worth noting that when Senior GIMr Lance Sgro left DAFWA, he came to meto apologise forthe bullying and said he had no choice-that working for DrWyliehad been the worst experience of his life. He also said that he would deny tellingme this ifhe was ever asked to corroborate it. jinformed Mr Ruprecht of thisconversation and he attempted to raise the issue with Mr Sgro at his exitinterview, but unfortunately Mr Sgro would notcomment. Ihave also beenadvised that the former police officer, Mr Peter Brewster, who replaced Mr Sgroputin bullying complaints about DrWylie before leaving DAFWA quite quickly. Iprovide these detailsto demonstrate a longstanding bullying culture at DAFWA.It is wellrecognised that such a culture is the hallmark of a dysfunctionalorganisation and that bullying reduces workplace morale and efficiency, as wellas consuming time and resources to dealwith through mediation and thecomplaints' process.

The fact DAFWA is being cutto the bone under Mr Delane, it is hardly surprisingthat people are anxious abouttheirjobs. Not reporting bullying and poorbehaviouris one way of'not making waves'. IfDAFWA had ever been able toadminister and enforce the AWA, that time is not now.

It was devastating to watch the chaosthatwas being created in the LCU. Withoutan electronicrecords managementsystem (ERMS)that held whole documents,and notjusttitles, this was hardly surprising. The titles were meantto relate tohard documents stored in physical files. Unfortunately, this system was flawedand files and documents were kept all over the place. Ifound different copies ofthe same document on file and raised my concerns aboutthe need for an ERMSthat did more than store document names. Ironically, the DLG moved to a'paperless office' at 140 William St in 2011with a state of the art ERMS systemthat Iwas highly proficientin using. Ihave serious concerns that DAFWA is stillnotcompliant with theStote RecordsAct2000, as evidenced by a differentversion of a letter being released under FOlthan the version sentto Ms Swift byMr Delane.

In addition, a number of livestock investigationsthathad commenced at DLGwere dropped, or notproceeded with. In one case, the SSO had previouslyrecommended charges but after the moveto DAFWA, it was notproceededwithon public interest grounds. Cases that Ihad led at DLG were removed from meand Iwas no longer even permitted access to the files or to discussions as totheir progress and strategy. One example of this involved a major investigationundertaken by DLGwith assistancefrom the RSPCAWAand WAPolinto crueltyto about 50 sheep at PeelPet Meatsin Baldivisin December 2009.

The case was handed to Mr Colin Hyde, who was not experienced ininvestigations, was not a veterinarian or animal scientist, and had littleunderstanding of the matter. Indeed Ido notthink Mr Hyde had anytertiaryqualifications. The case was sensitive because it involved sheep that hadallegedIy been transported from the Peellive exportfeedlot with chronic disease

6

and injuries when they were notfitto transport. Some of the sheep bore greenrejectstamps on their fleece indicating that they had been rejected from loadingonto a live export vessel at Fremantle Port and transported back to the feedlotand then onto PeelPet Meats, when they should have been humanely destroyedmuch earlier.

Despite the factlwas being called as a chiefwitness offact, Iwas not advised byDAFWA thatcharges had been dropped against Mr Dale Collins, the owner ofPeel Pet Meats, untila few days before the trial. My request to Mr Hyde fordetails of howthe case was proceeding were ignored or metwith by emailsinforming me he was not authorised to share this information with me. The casewasto be prosecuted by alawyerfrom theSSO, but when she becameunavailable due to in health, the Magistrate declined a request by the SSO for anew trial date. A barnsterfrom outside the SSO, Ms Lisa Tovey, was briefed bythe SSO to conductthe prosecution at short notice on the groundsthat no onewas available from the SSO.

When Ms Toveybriefed me as a witness, she advised thatcharges had beendropped against Mr Collins. My understanding wasthatthis had occurred aftershe took overthe case. Iasked her why and she said DAFWA had requested that Inotbe given such information. Iwas extremely disappointed as previously SSOhad advised that the case against Mr Collins was very strong-given we found thesick and injured sheep at his knackery. This was a case that had taken upresources, including payment made by DLG to DAFWAto post inortem the sheep.At the time, DrWylie wasthe Manager of the Pathology services at DAFWA.When she discovered we had delivered more sheep carcasesthan she had agreedto process, she called me at home and asked me 'iflwas f. .. ing stupid or what?'Iadvised Mr Dejane of this phone call.

Both the Chieflnspector of the RSPCA and myselfagreed the sheep needed postinortem reports to provide solid evidence of the chronicity and severity oflesions (these included broken limbs, advanced fly strike, and eye disease).Despite being paid, DAFWAhad said it couldn't handle more than 5 sheep postinortems at a time. This of course begsthe question asto how DAFWA canundertake large-scale investigations at all, or dealwith major biosecurity issues.

Iasked Ms Toveywhetherthe charges were dropped against Mr Collins becauseof anything we had done, or failed to do in our original investigation at DLG .MsTovey said 'No. Not at all. It had nothing to do with your handling of the case'-orwords to that effect. She said there had been 'technical'issues with the case. Whythese were only discovered at late notice by an outside barnster when the SSOhad been handling the case for over 2 years, is also worrying. Notsurprisingly,the remaining charges against personnel at the Peelfeedlotwere unsuccessful.

To understand whyexcludingtheAWB from the newLCU at DAFWAwasillfated, you need to consider that DLG was notheavilywedded to the AWA-it wasnot core business, it wasn't funded properly, and it was contentious. Historically,the AWB ran as a semi-independentbranch within DLG and as Manager Iwastreated with a great deal of professional respect by the previous Director General

7

Ms CherylGwilliam. Iwas permitted to work at a levelofindependent decisionmaking in animal welfare related issues. Of course this was within the properbounds of the department's ethos and business plan. The abruptchange in thisby Mrjolly, coupled with his ill-founded confidence that he knewthe area,contributed to the poorfoundation forthe administration of the AWA byDAFWA.

Page 4- Further to my comments regarding the differing roles of the DPP and theSSO, and the suggestion that the RSPCA somehow should have to seekadvicefrom the SSO. As Iexplained, the SSO cannot give advice outside Government,and indeed lawyers at the SSO do not have to hold practising certificates aslawyers. The SSO is notthe recognized authority on the AWA, and providesadvice that is no better orworse than private firms with an interest andexperience in the area. Indeed, as mentioned above, it appearsthe SSO may wellhave erred in its handling of the PeelPet Meatprosecution. This would not be thefirsttime a major errorwas made by the SSO. A serious charge of cruelty againstWestporkbased on alleged events in 2007 had to be dropped at the last minuteby the SSO. An apology and explanation forthis was provided to me at the timeby Mr Craig Bydder at the SSO.

It is also worth noting that the ultimate authority on the interpretation oflegislation, including the AWA, is the Courts. Hence the criticism that the RSPCAneeds some controls by the SSO is ill-founded. The RSPCA receives advice fromlawyers, many of whom are highly experienced and qualified, asto whetherthere is a prima focie case and it is in the public interest to prosecute, includingwhether or notthere is a reasonable prospect of success. Ifthe RSPCA wasbringing baseless matters before the Courts, the Courts have ample power todealwith this. In fact, it is the RSPCA and notthe Government or DAFWAthathasto pay costs ifa prosecution by the RSPCA fails.

Page 5-in my evidence Ireferred to a number of reports Iwrote regardingbreaches by DAFWA of its scientificlicence, and hence the AWA. From memorythese included:

. SEMBIG wethertria12007- was a DAFWA project undertaken on privatefarms near ESPerance in which about 60 sheep disappeared, with thestrong suggestion they had died (possibly from fly strike). Contrary toreporting requirements the project's Chieflnvestigator Drjohan Greefffailed to inform DAFWA's AEC of the missing sheep. DAFWA's internalinvestigation wasflawed in that blame was placed on a juniorfemale staffmember, Ms Sandra Prosser, when the farmers in directcharge of thesheep had never been interviewed, and the overallresponsibility for theprojectlay with the Chieflnvestigator.

. DAFWAAnimalHealth Laboratories (AHL) Albany office deformedneonatal calfincident 2009-the use of the calffor teaching purposes was'unlicensed' under the AWA, and the veryvulnerable calfsufferedunnecessary harm whilstin DAFWA's care. Irecallconcluding that ifasimilar incident occurred again, there may be little option other than to

8

pursue the matter and seekpenalties under both Part 2 (Use of animalsfor scientific purposes) and Part 3 (Offences against animals) of the AWA(the complainantin this case was a final yearveterinary studentwho wasupsetbywhatshe saw during her practical experience work at AHL).

. Mt Barker Research Station Iupinosis deaths 2012-from memory therewere multiple failures by DAFWAthatled to unnecessary sheep sufferingand deaths. The same weaknesses that had allowed other incidents in the

pastto occur, were stilla problem at DAFWA even after it wasadministering the AWA. These weaknesses included: approval by the AECof an inadequate application to use animals;inadequate compliance withthe terms of the AEC approval; poor on ground monitoring and basic careof the sheep by DAFWA staff;inadequate adverse event documentationand reporting to AEC; confused reporting lines to the ABC; poor efficiencyand record keeping of the AEC office; and use of Treatment EuthanasiaGuidelines not approved by the AEC.

In 2008, under my authority as Scientific Inspector, DAFWAwas asked toundergo an external review following ongoing poor performance in complyingwith its scientific licence to use animals. The breaches were notjusttechnical oradministrative in nature, and animals suffered unnecessary harm. The reportwas undertaken by Ms Susan Lewis (MastersinAgriculture) and Ms DeirdreBourke (veterinarian) from UWA. Ms Lewisinvestigated a sheep experiment atMt Barker Research Station in which over 130 young sheep were found deadovernight after heavy rain. Some sheep were underweight. She reported a litanyof shortcomingsin compliance with the requirements of the AWA. Ms Bourkeinvestigated the deaths of about 15 pigs and the unplanned destruction onhumane grounds of another 60 orso pigsin an experiment at the MedinaResearch Station. From memory her findingsincluded poor reporting andcommunication, and a failure to identify the importance of animal welfare andthe scientific code. Both Ms Lewis and Dr Bourke did notfind intentional crueltyoccurred, but both urged urgentreforms.

The pattern that played outtime and time again wasthe failure of DAFWA staff,even senior staff, to comply with their obligations under Part 2 of the AWA. Forexample, Dr Greg Sawyer wasthe named Institutional Licence holder in 2009-2010. During this period he made a decision to authorize sheep to be moved to adecommissioned shearing shed, withoutthe requisite AEC approval to do so. Onesheep died of asphyxiation and 2 others became ill-(one requiring humanedestruction). There was also another incidentlrecallinwhich DAFWAresearcherstransported moribund sheep to the AlbanyAHL. Such transportwasnotapproved by the AEC, and was extremely unlikely to be approved on humanegrounds.

Page 10-in relation to my comments about Mr Delane's apology to the RSPCAChieflnspector. My understanding is that Ms Swift made a complaintto theOmbudsman aboutbullying by DAFWA, and in particular by DrWylie and MrStuart, and interference in her cases, and that this complaint was upheld. I

9

believe this is whatled to the removal of DrWylie and Mr Stuartfrom theirpositions in the LCU and to Mr Delane's apologyto Ms Swift.

Page 13-in relation to the figures I gave for the DPP, these relate to matters thatproceed to trial.

10

^..GOVERNMENTOF

WESTERNAUSTMLIA

Our Ref:

PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIALDr Jennifer Hood

65928

Dear Dr Hood

BREACH OF STANDARD CLAIM - DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT -EMPLOYMENTSTANDARD

I refer to your claim of a breach of standard received on 9 June 2014. The claim wasreviewed by the Public Sector Commission in accordance with regulation 43 of thePublic Sector Management(Breaches of Public Sector Standards) Regulations 2005(the Regulations).

The key issue you raised was that you were riot adequately consulted prior to beingformally advised of your transfer to the Department of Agriculture and Food, and thatthe transfer decision did not consider your interests.

A thorough and careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of your claim hasbeen undertaken. On the basis of the material considered the Employment Standardhas been breached and therefore your claim has been upheld. In making this finding Ihave given weight to the following.

. The Interest Principle within the Standard requires that transfer decisions takeinto account employee interests. This places the onus on a public sectoragency to inform itself of these interests before a final decision is made totransfer an employee.

. The review indicates that you were firstinformed of the decision to transfer yourposition in a meeting on 13 May 2044. You were subsequently provided withformal documentation on 19 May 2014 advising you that your position wasbeing transferred.

. It is evidentthat you were riot genuinely consulted prior to the transfer decisionbeing made and you were not provided with a reasonable opportunity to haveyour interests considered.

I have advised the Department of my determination that the process did not meettherequirements of the Standard, and I am currently Iiaising with them regarding the mostappropriate course of action. You will be informed once a course of action has beendecided upon.

You raised issues in your claim in relation to your belief that the Equity Principle of theEmployment Standard had also not been complied with. The intent of the EquityPrinciple is to ensure that employees are transferred at a coinparable classification

197 SI George's Terrace, Perili WeSIern Australia 6000Telephone (08) 9219 6000 Facsimile (08) 9219 6001

admin@PSG. wagov. auvrww. publicsector. wagov. au

.PSG;^^^:^:;Office of the Commissioner

level and that a transfer does riot alter an employee's tenure or continuity of service.These issues raised in your claim relate more to your interests and have beenreflected in the breach finding in relation to the Interest Principle,

The issues you raised in relation to the potential reclassification of your position andthe future of current cases do riot relate to the requirements of the EmploymentStandard as it applies to this transfer decision. These issues are operational in natureand should be pursued directly with the Department.

If you would like to discuss this letter please contact Ms Rachel Beard, SeniorConsultant, on 9219 6306.

2

Yours sincerely

M CWauchopePUBLIC SECTOR COMMISSIONER

.3"6 June 2014

Copy to Department of Local Government

Errors offactin transcript-corrections

Page3Dr Hood: Yes. The case was worked up by us as a team at the department of localgovernment. lain fairly sure there were two investigations against Westpork;one relating to issues in 2007 and another to a raft of charges that related to2009. The 2009 charges were, from memory, finally heard in 2013 and they werecharged, I believe, in 1201211think, from memor -lain not clear on this oint- ,,-that the actual charges were laid by the epartmentofagricultur4 whichwasgreat;linean the charges went ahead. In factthatmusthave been the casebecause when we had puttogetherthe case at the department of localgovernment, the charges pertained to some individuals as wellasthe company,but, at the end, the charges againstthe individuals were dropped. One of thosepeople who had the charges dropped was NeilFerguson, who remains to this dayas chairperson of the Pork Producers' Committee inside the department ofagriculture. Westpork was fined nearly $250 000 for cruelty to about 10 pigs. ..

Page9Dr Hood: Yes; and also livestock. The act makes no distinction between species,but at the moment there are codes of practice in the livestock industries thatprovide defences. So itsomeone is actually abiding by the code of practice, thenthat is an automatic defence to a charge of cruelty under the act. Unfortunately,andthisharksbacktolLynn'SIquestion. .. ,,-

Page It

Horn SALLYTALBOT: They are already, aren't they, under FOl?

Dr Hood: ^es, they are. Yes. Okay. I

Page 1.3

Dr Hood: I think it is a bargain. The DPP, between 2010 and 2014, aimed athaving a success rate in its forOSecution^ between 58 and 68 er cent, and Ithink ,,--------------

Mrvan 00ran said the other day that Ithink it wassomething phenomenal-likethere had been 50 prosecutions, allsuccessful.

Page 1.4

Dr Hood: IdealIy, and this is unlikely to happen, an independent office of animalwelfare. I wrote the policy on that for federal Labor, and the federal Greens arealso pushing for an independent office of animal welfare at a national level. But,idealIy, we would have independent agencies that had no conflicts that wouldrun this. Ithink that, given we really only got a modern Animal Welfare Act in2002, that is unlikely to happen in this political climate. But I think giving it tothe IRSPCAl, _particularly in a state where they did not have any background or ,,-experience in this, was also a mistake. Ithink other agencies that would be moreindependentwould be the police. ..

Comment[JHl]: My correction-itwas 2011

Comment[JH2]: My correction-thecharges were laid byDLG butDAFWAhadcaniagewhenmatterwas settled

Comment[JH3]: My correction-theHonLynnMacLaren

,Comment[JH4]: My correction-thelettersent to inlanda Swift was not

obtained under FOl-she provided it tome

Comment[JH5]: My correction-Ishould have saidprosecutions that goto trial

Comment pH61: My correction-Imeant to sayDAFWA!

I

Page 19

Dr Hood: Of course, you would use the department of agriculture. You wouldring them and contact them and say, "Listen, what's your policy on this? What'syour scientific advice on this? What do you think of that?" But you would alsocontact people who are animal welfare scientists. You would get a range ofadvices, not just the advice from an agency whose core business is to promoteagriculture. The IBureau of Animal Welfare at University of Melbourne has ,,-eminent livestock scientists. ..

Pages 19-20

Dr Hood: Yes, I am sure you are. Ithink RSPCA and, indeed, Animals Australiahave applauded the improvements that have been made-for example, withESCAS. This idea that we have had big breakthroughs-there are two majorconditions that affect the welfare of animals during live export, just as in broadterms.

<011> 212:59:28PM

Now this is my scientific view;it is not my "whatever" view, okay. This is basedon having read the peer reviewed information, mortality re orts, and theinformationthatcomesfromtheDepartmentof IAgricultur. ,,-

Page20

Dr Hood: Well, some of them have been recently retired. Ihave certainly been onboard MV A1Kuwoit, which was operating until quite recently, but I am notsuggesting that that was registered in Panama. But, you know, many of the shipsdo not have to be registered under Australian flags, and live exportis a verticallyintegrated trade and that is how it operates.You made a very importantpointaboutthe independentvets. This again raises-and this is probably where Idisagree with you, with greatrespect, the most andit brings me back to conflicts of interest. These are notindependentvets. Theseare vets who are accredited by the Department of IAgricultur^_but are contractedand paid directly by the exporters. ..

Transcriptionalerrors

Please also note that the transcript contains transcriptionalerrors that Ihopewill be corrected for clarity. While it is not a major point, the transcript refers tothe Animal Welfare Act 2003 (siC), when it should be the AnimolWe!foreAct2002 (which is whatlthoughtlhad said).

Comment[JH7]: My correction-Ithoughtlsaid the Animal WelfareScience Centre at Monash University

Comment[JH8]: Iwasreferringhere to the Commonwealth DA

CommenttJH9j: Again lamreferting here to the CommonwealthDA

2