Government correspondence
On this page is VALE's correspondence to and from the Australian Government Department of Agriculture and Water Resources.
Dept strings VALE out on an FOI request: May to August 2020
4 August 2020: FOI request finally accepted. Yep....exporters can have an exemption to a Govt order overturned in under a week but it takes VALE, 2 requests, 6 revisions and 3 months to request documents that we should be able to access in a democracy. Now lets wait and see how much it is redacted
30 July 2020: Revision No 6
| foi_vale_revised_2020.07.30.pdf |
30 July 2020: still no luck - DEPT to VALE
Thank you for your revised FOI request. We wish to clarify that the attachments are part of the final draft report and not the first draft report. Accordingly, excluding the attachments from the first draft report will not alter the documents within the scope of your request. On this basis, do you wish to exclude the attachments from the final draft report?
We note that today is the last day of the consultation period. However, the department would be open to extending the consultation period if you consider it is necessary. If you wish to extend the consultation period, please let us know today.
Thank you for your revised FOI request. We wish to clarify that the attachments are part of the final draft report and not the first draft report. Accordingly, excluding the attachments from the first draft report will not alter the documents within the scope of your request. On this basis, do you wish to exclude the attachments from the final draft report?
We note that today is the last day of the consultation period. However, the department would be open to extending the consultation period if you consider it is necessary. If you wish to extend the consultation period, please let us know today.
28 July 2020: we try yet again - VALE to Dept:
It is difficult to understand how an attachment to the first draft could be so large when we have excluded photographs and videos from our request. However, as per your advice, please see the 5th revision of our request (attached) excluding the attachment.
It is difficult to understand how an attachment to the first draft could be so large when we have excluded photographs and videos from our request. However, as per your advice, please see the 5th revision of our request (attached) excluding the attachment.
| foi_vale_revised_2020.07.23.pdf |
22 July 2020: still no luck
Thank you for your revised Freedom of Information (FOI) request. We have made some further enquires, and your revised request is likely to still be too big for the department to process. This is largely due to the size of the attachment to the report and the number of third parties the department would need to consult.
If you were to revise your FOI request to exclude the attachment to the report then this may help us to process the request....
Thank you for your revised Freedom of Information (FOI) request. We have made some further enquires, and your revised request is likely to still be too big for the department to process. This is largely due to the size of the attachment to the report and the number of third parties the department would need to consult.
If you were to revise your FOI request to exclude the attachment to the report then this may help us to process the request....
18 July 2020: we try again
Dear FOI Team, In response to your advice (LEX-4467-24AA) that our current FOI request will be refused unless revised, VALE has revised the request, scaling it back to the bare miminum (see attached)....
Dear FOI Team, In response to your advice (LEX-4467-24AA) that our current FOI request will be refused unless revised, VALE has revised the request, scaling it back to the bare miminum (see attached)....
| foi_vale_revised_2020.07.18.pdf |
16 July 2020: Advised request too large again
| lex-4467_-_24aa_notice.pdf |
29 June 2020: FOI request resubmitted by VALE removing one voyage
| vale_foi_request_29.06.20.pdf |
18 June 2020: FOI request refused after revision
| lex-4226_-_decision_-_signed.pdf |
29 May 2020: refusal with offer for a scaled request:
| lex-4226_consultation_notice.pdf |
18 May 2020: requested two voyages with IO reports that appeared to have Dept sanitisation
| foi_two_voyages_vale_may_2020.pdf |
17 June 2020: VALE follows up request and get a response:
VALE has not received your reply despite the assurance below. It may interest you that despite the intense spotlight and public interest, there were certainly sheep on the trucks going to Fremantle Port yesterday that had wool length >20mm (http://www.vale.org.au/blog/good-to-see-conditions-being-observed).
In addition to observing sheep with >20mm wool length, I observed the excellent body condition of the majority of the sheep. Prolonged feedlotting is likely to reduce inanition/salmonellosis but the flipside is that A class wethers are often the highest risk sheep during a heat stress event due to their fat cover.
The combination of greater wool length than the original shipment due to 2 week loading delay (ie wool continues to grow so this would be abnormally long for any routine shipment at loading), sheep with >20mm wool length, A class wethers and a Govt acknowledged high risk time of year makes it imperative that VALE’s request for an independent observer and publicly available CCTV footage is granted.
VALE has not received your reply despite the assurance below. It may interest you that despite the intense spotlight and public interest, there were certainly sheep on the trucks going to Fremantle Port yesterday that had wool length >20mm (http://www.vale.org.au/blog/good-to-see-conditions-being-observed).
In addition to observing sheep with >20mm wool length, I observed the excellent body condition of the majority of the sheep. Prolonged feedlotting is likely to reduce inanition/salmonellosis but the flipside is that A class wethers are often the highest risk sheep during a heat stress event due to their fat cover.
The combination of greater wool length than the original shipment due to 2 week loading delay (ie wool continues to grow so this would be abnormally long for any routine shipment at loading), sheep with >20mm wool length, A class wethers and a Govt acknowledged high risk time of year makes it imperative that VALE’s request for an independent observer and publicly available CCTV footage is granted.
| letter_from_deputy_secretary_david_hazlehurst.pdf |
13 June 2020: VALE requests Dept apply conditions to their Al Kuwait decision
| vale_letter_to_dept_secretary_13_june_2020.pdf |
5 March 2020: Dept replies taking umbrage at the suggestion of IO report sanitisation!
Thank you for your email. We are aware of the issues with the vessels as identified by the independent observers, and work closely with AMSA on matters that cross over into their responsibilities. The department is analysing the information obtained through IO reports, as you suggest. I would note that I don't agree with your characterisation that IO reports are sanitised.
The department is continuing to work on the IO program, including consistency of information capture and reporting, with temperature recording and reporting being an example of one area of focus. Thank you for your suggested approach to managing issues such as ventilation, hot spots and drainage - there are a number of ways we follow up on these issues; directly with specific exporters, generally with all exporters and with AMSA and vessel operators. There are multiple ways some of these issues can be addressed, and the department follows up with targeted observations to review any strategies put in place.
As I mentioned, we continue to work on both the program and our reporting on the program, and will continue to utilise the information gained from IO observations in policy review and development of standards for the regulation of the industry.
Thank you for your email. We are aware of the issues with the vessels as identified by the independent observers, and work closely with AMSA on matters that cross over into their responsibilities. The department is analysing the information obtained through IO reports, as you suggest. I would note that I don't agree with your characterisation that IO reports are sanitised.
The department is continuing to work on the IO program, including consistency of information capture and reporting, with temperature recording and reporting being an example of one area of focus. Thank you for your suggested approach to managing issues such as ventilation, hot spots and drainage - there are a number of ways we follow up on these issues; directly with specific exporters, generally with all exporters and with AMSA and vessel operators. There are multiple ways some of these issues can be addressed, and the department follows up with targeted observations to review any strategies put in place.
As I mentioned, we continue to work on both the program and our reporting on the program, and will continue to utilise the information gained from IO observations in policy review and development of standards for the regulation of the industry.
4 March 2020: VALE raises concerns about repetitive issues on voyages
Analysing the Independent Observer (IO) reports closely, it is very obvious that particular vessels, or particular areas in certain vessels have issues that are noted repetitively. For example, MV Yangtze Fortune has had repeated reports of water infrastructure issues such as clip on domestic hose fittings dislodging or breaking with leaks, flooding and lack of water delivery in addition to troughs being easily displaced due to shape with the issue resulting in food and/or water deprivation and spillage. MV Ocean Drover has some drainage issues and has had these historically also. MV Gloucester Express has had exhaust fumes noted in some areas. MV Al Shuwaikh has significant heat issues in selected parts of the vessel as do many other vessels, usually in the areas closest to the engine room (eg Decks 4 and 5 on MV Greyman Express and Deck 4 on the MV Rahmeh (renamed Gulf LIvestock 1)). In addition, other management issues sometimes get reported repeatedly eg pilot sheep on the MV Maysora reported on a number of occasions to be deprived of food and water.
VALE could compile a list of these repetitive issues from the IO reports 2018 and 2019 but as you know, the IO reports available in the public domain are summarised, sanitised and variable in quality and quantity of data provided (eg even basic information such as maximum and minimum dry bulb temperature (DBT) are not routinely provided and maximum wet bulb temperature rarely; 11/35 available IO summaries for voyages to China have no maximum DBT or humidity provided and 21/35 have no minimum DBT provided - an issue for northern winter Chine voyages). Any compilation we did would thus be incomplete and would fail to capture all available data. The Dept is far better placed to accurately analyse which decks or pens are an issue for each ship and also which ships are repetitively problematic. The fact that some stand out even on the scarce data available eg the MV Yangtze Fortune is concerning and we believe all IO reports (original reports and summaries) from this vessel should be immediately analysed and forwarded to AMSA for assessment.
Until such time as a full audit is available, could we suggest that load plans are altered to avoid placing animals in any IO-documented areas of increased heat and humidity, poor ventilation or poor drainage for each vessel? This information should also be included as part of the routine HSRA and load planning for each vessel.
Analysing the Independent Observer (IO) reports closely, it is very obvious that particular vessels, or particular areas in certain vessels have issues that are noted repetitively. For example, MV Yangtze Fortune has had repeated reports of water infrastructure issues such as clip on domestic hose fittings dislodging or breaking with leaks, flooding and lack of water delivery in addition to troughs being easily displaced due to shape with the issue resulting in food and/or water deprivation and spillage. MV Ocean Drover has some drainage issues and has had these historically also. MV Gloucester Express has had exhaust fumes noted in some areas. MV Al Shuwaikh has significant heat issues in selected parts of the vessel as do many other vessels, usually in the areas closest to the engine room (eg Decks 4 and 5 on MV Greyman Express and Deck 4 on the MV Rahmeh (renamed Gulf LIvestock 1)). In addition, other management issues sometimes get reported repeatedly eg pilot sheep on the MV Maysora reported on a number of occasions to be deprived of food and water.
VALE could compile a list of these repetitive issues from the IO reports 2018 and 2019 but as you know, the IO reports available in the public domain are summarised, sanitised and variable in quality and quantity of data provided (eg even basic information such as maximum and minimum dry bulb temperature (DBT) are not routinely provided and maximum wet bulb temperature rarely; 11/35 available IO summaries for voyages to China have no maximum DBT or humidity provided and 21/35 have no minimum DBT provided - an issue for northern winter Chine voyages). Any compilation we did would thus be incomplete and would fail to capture all available data. The Dept is far better placed to accurately analyse which decks or pens are an issue for each ship and also which ships are repetitively problematic. The fact that some stand out even on the scarce data available eg the MV Yangtze Fortune is concerning and we believe all IO reports (original reports and summaries) from this vessel should be immediately analysed and forwarded to AMSA for assessment.
Until such time as a full audit is available, could we suggest that load plans are altered to avoid placing animals in any IO-documented areas of increased heat and humidity, poor ventilation or poor drainage for each vessel? This information should also be included as part of the routine HSRA and load planning for each vessel.
23 August 2018: VALE's offer to government rejected.
| hon_littleproud_to_vale.pdf |
11 April 2018: Letter to Minister David Littleproud re our offer of scientific veterinary assistance.
| vale_hon_d_littleproud_18.4.11.pdf |
3 April 2018: Letter to CVO Mark Schipp re Department heat stress thresholds not being supported by scientific and field data.
| vale_to_dr_mark_schipp.pdf |
5 February 2018: Letter to Mark Schipp re incorrect figures in high mortality voyage report. The investigation report was re-written to reflect correct figures but the figures were not changed in the Parliamentary report. Also below is the letter from Narelle Clegg that prompted our response.
|
| ||||
7 February 2018: More FOI docs obtained after querying their withholding.
|
| ||||
6 December 2017: Letter to the department seeking review of the decision to withhold two crucial reports under FOI.
| vale_foi_december_2017.pdf |
23 November 2017: Response from the department re FOI request.
| foi_access_decision.pdf |
23 October2017: Letter to Mark Schipp (DAFF) highlighting concerns about discrepancies in high mortality voyage report.
| 20171023_vale_letter_to_dr_mark_schipp.pdf |
Freedom of Information request regarding the July 2016 voyage of Emanuel Exports Pty Ltd with 4.35% sheep mortality (3027 deaths).
| 20170517_foi_request_high_mortality_voyage_.pdf |
14 August 2014: Letter to DAFF and analysis of information in the public domain re High Mortality Voyage 46 (MV Bader III) in September 2013
| 140814_letter_to_dr_mark_schipp.pdf |
| vale_analysis_of_voyage_46_14.8.13.pdf |
Response from DAFF
| 140814_response_to_vale_letter_of_14_aug_14.pdf |
14 December 2014: Follow-up letter to Dr Schipp with Addendum to initial analysis
| 141214_letter_to_dr_mark_schipp_14_december_2014.pdf |
| 141214_vale_addendum_voyage.pdf |
Subsequent email trail between VALE and Dr Schipp
Summary: no response despite two requests; still nothing as at 14 April 2015
Summary: no response despite two requests; still nothing as at 14 April 2015
| email_trail_to_mark_schipp.pdf |
12 May 2015: Response from Dr Schipp
| 150512_response_from_dr_schipp.pdf |
13 December 2013: Letter to DAFF requesting a "show cause notice" after LSS breaches. Still no response.
| 131213_paul_grimes.pdf |
24 December 2014: Letter from Phillip Glyde on behalf of Dr Grimes
| 131224_glyde_letter_to_vale.pdf |
Minster for Agriculture acknowledges that he is aware of the evidence presented in a Federal Court to demonstrate routine overstocking on LE voyages.
22 January 2014: House of Representatives question for the Minister for Agriculture
| 140122_questions_to_mr_joyce.pdf |
A sequence of letters and correspondence to and from DAFF regarding the substitution of vets for accredited stockpersons on live export voyages and contravention of ASEL requirements for such. It's taken 12 months to get the admission that it happens – now to see why the exporters weren't penalised for breaking the law.
(Reverse chronological order)
(Reverse chronological order)
16 April 2014
From: Tim Naylor
Re: Further questions re lack of accredited stockperson, Port Kembla to Madagascar voyage
Possibly qualifies as a response ... though a blank piece of paper would serve equally well.
From: Tim Naylor
Re: Further questions re lack of accredited stockperson, Port Kembla to Madagascar voyage
Possibly qualifies as a response ... though a blank piece of paper would serve equally well.
| 140416_daff_response.png |
17 March 2014
To: Jenny Cupit
Re: Further questions re lack of accredited stockperson, Port Kembla to Madagascar voyages
To: Jenny Cupit
Re: Further questions re lack of accredited stockperson, Port Kembla to Madagascar voyages
| 140317_stockperson_substitution.pdf |
3 March 2014
From: Jenny Cupit (DAFF)
Re: Further questions: Port Kembla to Madagascar voyage
DAFF explain their penalties are "outcome based" ie no penalty applied for breaking the law if no adverse outcome. Interesting. Would like to try that argument on a random breath test: "Yes officer Im drunk but I never caused a crash so you cant prosecute"!!!! And anyhow, when has a high mortality voyage NOT been an adverse outcome?
From: Jenny Cupit (DAFF)
Re: Further questions: Port Kembla to Madagascar voyage
DAFF explain their penalties are "outcome based" ie no penalty applied for breaking the law if no adverse outcome. Interesting. Would like to try that argument on a random breath test: "Yes officer Im drunk but I never caused a crash so you cant prosecute"!!!! And anyhow, when has a high mortality voyage NOT been an adverse outcome?
| 140303_stockperson_substitution.pdf |
1 February 2014
To: Rebecca Irwin (DAFF)
Re: Further questions: Port Kembla to Madagascar voyage
DAFF's misinformation about their licensing of the relevant exporter is pointed out and based on this, DAFF asked to explain the lack of penalties
To: Rebecca Irwin (DAFF)
Re: Further questions: Port Kembla to Madagascar voyage
DAFF's misinformation about their licensing of the relevant exporter is pointed out and based on this, DAFF asked to explain the lack of penalties
| 140201_stockperson_substitution.pdf |
12 December 2013
To: VALE
From: Rebecca Irwin (DAFF)
An admission from DAFF that there had been voyages without stockpersons with reasons as to why no penalties applied: exporter no longer holds a licence (WRONG).
Still no answer to our original question though!
To: VALE
From: Rebecca Irwin (DAFF)
An admission from DAFF that there had been voyages without stockpersons with reasons as to why no penalties applied: exporter no longer holds a licence (WRONG).
Still no answer to our original question though!
| 131212_stockperson_substitution.pdf |
24 April 2013
To: Jonathan Benyei (DAFF)
Re: Substitution of vets for accredited stockpersons on live export voyages
We ask again “How many occasions have exporters been allowed by your
department to waive the requirement for a stockperson to be on board a live
export ship, and on what legal basis has that waiver has been granted?”
We provide examples of suspected or known voyages that proceeded without a stockperson as requested by DAFF.
To: Jonathan Benyei (DAFF)
Re: Substitution of vets for accredited stockpersons on live export voyages
We ask again “How many occasions have exporters been allowed by your
department to waive the requirement for a stockperson to be on board a live
export ship, and on what legal basis has that waiver has been granted?”
We provide examples of suspected or known voyages that proceeded without a stockperson as requested by DAFF.
| 130424_third_vale_letter.pdf |
28 March 2013
To: VALE
From: Jonathan Benyei (DAFF)
To: VALE
From: Jonathan Benyei (DAFF)
| 130328_second_daff_response.pdf |
5 February 2013
To: Rebecca Irwin (DAFF)
Re: Substitution of vets for accredited stockpersons on live export voyages
To: Rebecca Irwin (DAFF)
Re: Substitution of vets for accredited stockpersons on live export voyages
| 130205_second_vale_letter.pdf |
5 February 2013
To: VALE
From: Rebecca Irwin (DAFF)
To: VALE
From: Rebecca Irwin (DAFF)
| 130205_first_daff_response.pdf |
5 December 2012
To: Rebecca Irwin (DAFF)
Re: Substitution of vets for accredited stockpersons on live export voyages
To: Rebecca Irwin (DAFF)
Re: Substitution of vets for accredited stockpersons on live export voyages
| 121205_stockperson_substitution.pdf |
Questions on ASEL breaches: more unanswered correspondence
6 March 2013
To: Rebecca Irwin
Re: Dr Lynn Simpson's submission to DAFF
To: Rebecca Irwin
Re: Dr Lynn Simpson's submission to DAFF
| 130306_dr_lynn_simpson_submission.pdf |