2 The regulations may prescribe the matters to which the Secretary is to have regard for the purpose of
satisfying himself or herself about the matters referred to in subsection 1.
It seems, therefore, that the Secretary is only required to have regard to the regulations
22
and might not be prevented from granting a license, should the exporter be unable to demonstrate that they are
accredited by LiveCorp. Legal opinion, sought by LiveCorp, refutes this possibility as follows: • The Secretary must take into account whether or not LiveCorp has granted accreditation to an
exporter; • There is no other mechanism for an exporter to establish competency;
• The Secretary may refuse an export licence even if LiveCorp grants the exporter accreditation; and
• LiveCorp must give procedural fairness to exporters in respect of LiveCorp’s decisions regarding accreditation
23
.
SUMMARY: The Secretary must take into account whether or not LiveCorp has granted accreditation to an exporter but he she may refuse an export licence even if
LiveCorp grants the exporter accreditation.
5.2.4 Cessation of accreditation and formal undertakings
5.2.4.1 The current penalty system
Under the current system, penalties available to LASC and LiveCorp include: • downgrading in accreditation category; and
• complete withdrawal of accreditation.
24
Such penalties are available, and would be considered where an exporter is unable to show cause as to why their accreditation should not be downgraded or withdrawn. Furthermore, the process for
considering such a withdrawal or downgrading of accreditation provides for: • An exporter to be provided with a show cause notice;
• the exporter to make written submissions; • LASC to give due consideration to the submissions made; and
• to recommend, if necessary, withdrawal of the exporter’s accreditation.
25
In the past, action taken by LASC against exporters for non-compliance with the standards has been limited. Since 2000 it is understood that:
• only two exporters have had their accreditation withdrawn; and • one exporter has had their export license revoked.
Although it is not currently possible to link failure to apply sanctions to the mortality problem, the above record of limited activity occurred during a period when the number of shipments reporting
22
AMLI Regulations Reg 66a
23
Legal opinion from Ebsworth Ebsworth lawyers obtained in writing on 29 July 2003.
24
Rules for Accreditation – 10.0 Cessation of Accreditation
25
Rules For Accreditation - 10.2.8
76
unacceptable mortality rates increased from 16 in 2000 to 18 in 2002.
26
. In addition, sheep mortalities have continued to increase – approximately 29,000 more sheep died during shipment in
2001-02 than in 1999-2000.
27
. A reason put to this review by LiveCorp regarding the limited action taken by LASC, has been the
impact that withdrawal of accreditation would have on an exporter’s ability to operate as an exporter of livestock. Whilst accreditation assists an exporter’s application for an export license, failing to be
accredited does not, of itself, prevent an exporter from having an export license granted by AQIS. Accordingly, given this background and recognising the importance of ensuring procedural fairness
when assessing an exporter’s accreditation status, it is recommended that the independent LESCO should not be constrained in its ability to withdraw or downgrade an exporter’s accreditation.
SUMMARY: Under the current system, the penalties available to LiveCorp have included downgrading in accreditation category and complete withdrawal of
accreditation. However, these penalties have rarely been enacted in recent times, despite sizeable increases in the relative and absolute numbers of incident events.
5.2.4.2 The introduction of additional powers – formal undertakings
