Lets see how Mr Hazlehursts predictions panned out....

Quotes from Mr Hazelhursts Exemption Reasons:

1. "In his updated opinion, Dr Buckley stated that voluntary observing ship data... shows that the 98th percentile WBT for June is 30.5oC...  and 31.0oC for July. Dr Buckley opined that the worst case WBTs, assuming light wind conditions for the transit of the ship, would be 1oC higher.”
CORRECT. And as 29 is the danger zone why was this ignored?

2. "In that respect, I also took into account the expert opinion of Dr John McBride dated 1 June 2020 that there was a very high probability of WBTs in the Persian Gulf exceeding 29oC in June 2020. On the totality of the evidence in respect of the forecast temperatures, I proceeded on the basis that the ambient WBT would be between 28.3oC to 29.8oC, and possibly up to 30oC in this region. I noted that RETWA submitted that the time transiting Strait of Hormuz is relatively short and that it estimated this time to be some 12-13 hours. 
INCORRECT. Environmental WBT exceeded 30 in the geographic location and WBTs were higher onboard. In addition transit time of the Straits took more than12-13h (ship was probably zigzagging!).

3. "As noted above, Dr Buckley considered that the likelihood is that the highest WBT in this region should be 30oC or lower on the basis of an actively managed ship"
INCORRECT - temperatures onboard went to 32.

4. "Overall, I was satisfied that the meteorological data indicated that the MV Al Kuwait might encounter ambient WBTs in the Strait of Hormuz and surrounding areas between 28.3oC to 29.8oC, and possibly up to 30oC.
INCORRECT

5. "As set out in the Department’s RIS, WBTs found on the decks inside of live-stock export vessels are typically 1oC to 3oC above the ambient WBT of the air surrounding the ship (see p 58). The better the ventilation on a vessel, the smaller the difference between ambient temperature and deck temperature. In its current application, RETWA indicated that with the superior ventilation of the MV Al Kuwait and the lower stocking density (additional 10% than what is required by EAN 2018-06), the MV Al Kuwait’s wet bulb rise will be approximately 1oC.
INCORRECT - the average deck WBT rise was up to 1.5 degrees on this ship and some spots would have been hotter.

6. "The Department’s Animal Welfare Branch reviewed logger data from the 19 April 2020 voyage of the MV Al Kuwait held by the Department which showed a difference of 2.2oC, and at times in excess of 3oC, between the lowest average WBT (kestrel 1) and the highest average WBT (kestrel 16) onboard the MV Al Kuwait. This information was put to RETWA for comment on 10 June 2020. In response, RETWA submitted that neither the logger data nor the AAV voyage data that it has also reviewed could be relied on, in particular because of anomalies in the data. In the further explanatory notes and information provided on 12 June 2020, RETWA accepted that >1.5oC would be the upper limit of the wet bulb rise for the MV Al Kuwait given the limitations of the existing data."
PARTIALLY CORRECT: RETWA were correct in the AVERAGE WBT rise but should not have been allowed to over-ride both the AAV (apparently they are the Govt representative on the ship) and the Kestrel data for this ship which would represent all areas on the ship rather than an average.

7. "In light of the limitations identified in the logger data for the MV Al Kuwait’s last voyage, I placed no weight on the T-deltas between Kestrel 1 WBTs (the coolest) and Kestrel 16 WBTs (the hottest). I gave weight to RETWA’s confirmation that the hottest deck, Deck 5 Aft (Special 5), would not be used for the proposed voyage. Overall, I was satisfied that 1.4oC was a reasonable estimate of the wet bulb rise onboard the MV Al Kuwait."
INCORRECT in terms of both WBT rise and that Deck 5 was the hottest deck (clearly not the case). It may be that Deck 5 Aft did not figure in the Deck 5 temperature calculations provided but other decks were clearly hotter than Deck 5 itself.

8. "The average WBTs that a typical vessel might encounter in the Strait of Hormuz if it departs Fremantle on 31 May are 27oC to 28oC. Assuming a wet bulb rise of between 1oC and 3oC, this would mean that the vessel could face deck WBTs between 28oC and 31oC. Given that the estimated deck WBT for the MV Al Kuwait in the Strait of Hormuz is between 29.7oC and 31.4oC, I found that the upper limit of the range is similar to the upper range of the risk of higher WBTs for a vessel departing on 31 May that was contemplated in the RIS. Having regard to the totality of the weather information including RETWA’s submissions and Dr Buckley’s reports, I found that the deck WBTs onboard the MV Al Kuwait could be expected to reach between 29.7oC and 31.4oC, but that this was not a materially greater risk than what was contemplated in the RIS that informed the making of the Northern Summer Order."
INCORRECT: temperature went to 32

9. "I had regard to the other expert material provided by RETWA. However, I preferred the findings in the RIS that informed the introduction of the Northern Summer Order and give weight to the assessment in the LiveCorp and MLA Veterinary Handbook for Cattle, Sheep and Goats that WBTs above 29oC are considered the ‘danger’ zone for sheep."
NOTE: WBT were above 29 with no respite for numerous days.

10. "On the basis of the above information, I found that an MV Al Kuwait departure date between 15 and 17 June 2020 posed a risk of heat stress, when the vessel would transit through the Gulf of Oman, Strait of Hormuz and adjacent Persian Gulf. However, I gave weight to Dr Buckley’s assessment that this period was likely to be some 24 hours and that the WBTs should not exceed 28ᵒC anywhere across the Arabian Sea. I also gave weight to the WRI predictions of around 25-26ᵒC. This suggested that notwithstanding that sheep experience cumulative heat load, deck WBTs would not rise above 29ᵒC during the days before the MV Al Kuwait transits through the Gulf of Oman, the Strait and the adjacent Persian Gulf."
INCORRECT. The sheep experienced WBT>29 with no respite for a number of days.

11. "I noted that duration was a consideration in determining the overall animal welfare impact of exposing sheep to high WBTs. As noted by Professor Maloney, the impact of the duration of continuous exposure to heat stress thresholds is still under investigation (HSRA review). However, sheep cope better if periods of high WBT are broken by periods where the WBTs drop for a number of hours. This is most commonly seen where WBTs follow a diurnal pattern, i.e. routinely drop each 24 hour period (typically at night). The AWB analysis notes that the WBTs in the Strait of Hormuz (and in Middle East maritime locations generally) show minimal diurnal variation, with the average minimum WBTs in mid/late June being less than 2oC lower than the average maximum temperature. In light of this, I was not satisfied that the risk of heat stress in the Strait of Hormuz would be mitigated by any diurnal variation and consider it likely that the sheep will have little diurnal respite during this part of the voyage. However, I was satisfied that the risk of heat stress in Kuwait Port for a departure on or after 15 June 2020 was very low."
CORRECT ASSESSMENT so why was it considered acceptable?

Perhaps listen to Tina next time??