Tuesday, 8 February 2022

Bills

Livestock Management Amendment (Animal Activism) Bill 2021

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Ms THOMAS:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Mr WALSH (Murray Plains) (16:03): Thank you very much, Acting Speaker Blackwood. Can I congratulate you on your elevation to the roster for chairs. I look forward to some more balanced rulings from the Chair with your inclusion on the list.

The Livestock Management Amendment (Animal Activism) Bill 2021: at the start of this debate can I put on the public record the Liberal and National parties’ tribute to the men and women of this state who produce the food that we eat, who produce the fibre that clothes us and who produce the fibre that we live in—

Ms Britnell: Shelter.

Mr WALSH: and receive shelter from. They deserve the support of every member of this house for what they do, for those things that I said. I was very disappointed to hear in the debate about the government’s business program that the Greens say they are going to oppose this legislation because they believe people have a right to demonstrate, irrespective of how much harm that may cause to other people. I would remind the Greens members of this house: how would they feel if 70 activists at 6.30 in the morning, before they were out of bed, stormed into their house and actually demonstrated about something that they were doing that the demonstrators felt was wrong, even though they were living in their own home and they were not breaking any laws, they were just going about their business. What is good for one is good for the other. You cannot say people can invade properties, can cause chaos, can cause a biosecurity risk and can cause mental anguish to a family but on the other hand say, ‘Don’t come to Melbourne and do it to our particular house’. I would like the Greens members to reflect on those points before they get up and make a contribution and particularly before they vote on this legislation, because as I said, the men and women of this state who produce the food that we eat, the fibre we clothe ourselves with, the housing we have and the shelter that we have, deserve the support of every member of this Parliament to go about their lawful business and do those things that they do so well for this particular state.

Can I also put on the record a thankyou from our side of politics to Melina Bath. Melina Bath, in the other place, in response to the situation that happened at Gippy Goat, to John Gommans and his family, when they were invaded by about 70 activists at 6.30 in the morning and had some animals stolen—I will come back to some of John’s comments to the committee’s inquiry shortly—took up the challenge, took up the cause on behalf of John Gommans and on behalf of farmers in this state, particularly animal farmers in this state, and fought very, very hard to have an upper house inquiry into this particular issue, which is where we are at today with this legislation coming before the house.

Melina deserves the thanks of us as her colleagues, but I think more importantly she deserves thanks from all of those men and women who go about their daily business in Victoria of producing the food that we eat and the clothes that we wear and the houses that we live in that she was able to take up this cause and persevere all the way to get a motion through the upper house to have the inquiry, to organise people to come and give evidence and to then produce a minority report, because that committee is dominated by the government and independents up there and some of the recommendations were not supportive of the industries and the people that I have just talked about. Well done to Mel for the work that she did in getting that inquiry up and getting the recommendations up that came out of that inquiry that have led in part to this particular legislation before the house.

I think it is instructive to look at what some of the people that gave evidence to that inquiry said and particularly for the farmers of this state what some people think about them. Chris Delforce said:

As my personal ideal world, we would not be breeding and killing animals when we can live perfectly happily and healthily without doing so.

I think most people would argue that the protein that we get from animals, whether it be meat, whether it be milk, whether it be cheese, whether it be any of the other products, is actually a core part of our diet. It is a core part of human existence in this state. Particularly younger children, if they do not have a sufficient diet, we are finding now there are reports about vegetarians and veganism and they get serious health issues longer term. David Leyden said:

I think that the Government should impose a tax on meat products, particularly because animal agriculture is the leading cause of deforestation and the number one driver of climate change, and climate change is going to impact us all sooner rather than later.

I would like to see the Government assist farmers’ transition to more ethical systems of food production and for the Government to invest in R and D for plant-based meat substitutes and things that people would like to eat in place of animals.

That is again from someone that is so opposed to what our farmers do here. And Patricia Mark, the founder of Animal Liberation Victoria, said:

… with all our taxes, I know that is how I want my taxes to be used—to help these farmers to transition …

out of animal agriculture. These are the forces that were giving evidence at this inquiry. They are the forces that are behind the animal activists that invade these farms and cause so much angst to our primary producers in this state. One of the things that the farmers that then came along and gave evidence to this inquiry—I am going talk about one of the chicken farmers that gave evidence to this inquiry—said was:

We manage our farm under strict biosecurity … with locks on all gates and appropriate legal signage. We have footbaths to sanitise all footwear. We have a visitor’s declaration for contact with any avian species or pigs before they are allowed to enter our farm, and that is for disease control, particularly the H5N1 bird virus and ILT, which is rife in the industry and easily spread on people’s bodies.

This farm had been invaded by farm protesters, and the police were there. The chicken farmer said:

On approaching one of the protesters before the police asked us to return to the house, I asked them why they were there and what they hoped to achieve, and I said to the policeman who was beside me, ‘I hope you’re going to arrest these people’. And this gentleman—

the protestor—

said to me, ‘I’ve been arrested 17 times. I’ve never been charged’—and—

the farmer said—

excuse my language—

but this protestor said to him, ‘You can go and … yourself’.

And that was the attitude. We manage our farm under strict biosecurity. Our farm is biosecure, with locks on all gates and appropriate legal signage. We have footbaths to sanitise all footwear. We have a visitor’s declaration for contact with any avian species or pigs before they are allowed to enter our farm—

et cetera, et cetera—

So to have 70 people in our sheds was an enormous risk to the biosecurity of our farm. We also have hand sanitiser at each entry point to the shed and—even my wife and myself—every time we enter the shed we wash our boots and we wash our hands in sanitiser. However, these people walked through mud to get into our sheds—through cow paddocks and sheep paddocks, through a back entry into our farm—and that, again, posed a risk to biosecurity.

This is the issue that we are talking about with this particular legislation—that it is actually about protecting the ability of people to farm and protecting the biosecurity of that farm. The committee did recommend on-the-spot fines, and John Gommans stated in some of his evidence:

So, my recommendations to the Committee are that, because the courts appear reluctant to provide punishment, we should have on-the-spot substantive fines for trespass and breach of biosecurity. Activists are confident in their ability to ignore the police when it suits them. Drawing you to the New South Wales example, you can have an on-the-spot fine of $1000, $220 000 if you are an organiser, or $440 000 if you are a corporation. A similar process in Victoria would be helpful. I also would like to see minimum fines of 50 per cent of the maximum total levied.

I support John in that view that having a maximum fine is one thing; the more important thing is to have minimum fines, so that the courts actually make sure there is a severe penalty there into the future.

You then go on to the mental health and the stress that it causes to farmers around this. From the evidence the committee learned that the mental health of employers and their workers is greatly compromised when a business is targeted by protesters, and Daryl Bussell, the CEO of Luv-a-Duck, said:

I think the most disturbing thing is the mental state of the people that witnessed it and that have this ongoing fear that it is going to come back again …

into the future. A Mornington Peninsula chicken farmer gave evidence and said:

So, these people invaded our home, and when I got dressed and walked down with the police I was absolutely confronted. I was fearful.

These people had dark clothes. They had hoodies on. They did not want to be easily recognised. I did not know who they were. To all intents and purposes, they were terrorists. They presented like terrorists. They could have had baseball bats, they could have had knives, they could have had guns. I do not know. All I know is that there were 70 people in one of our sheds, which is a horrifying thing to confront. In their manner they are confrontational, they are abusive, and they wanted us to engage them to cause a scene, which we did not. So, we were frightened. The image was one of terrorism, and we were very fearful for our safety. They called us killers, they called us animal abusers and they called us criminals. They said that they would return, and they did, one week later. That is when they spray-painted the side of one of our sheds with the graffiti.

The ongoing anguish that these farmers have once they have been invaded is the fear that they will come back again. John Gommans, who I spoke about earlier, gave evidence about the harassment of his staff and the social media targeting his customers. He was forced to actually close the Gippy Goat Cafe. That had a turnover of $800 000 a year. I had been to John Gommans’s Gippy Goat before this issue arose and after that issue, a great cafe outlet, also with some areas where adults or particularly children could interact with the animals there. You could buy a bag of pellets and feed the goats and feed the sheep, and kids loved doing that. If you were not careful, they were that hungry they actually ate the bag you had it in as well. So you had to be very, very careful when you were doing it. But people loved going there, and that facility is now closed because of those animal activists and the invasion.

Brian Ahmed, an egg farmer, said about the economic cost to his business:

… on our occasion we suffered probably close to $10 000 in damages. That was to the doors that were broken into, disruption to our grading facilities and things like that.

Mr Ahmed said he received no compensation from the activists. There was a $750 fine ordered to be paid by the perpetrators to the animal welfare organisation of their choice.

So it was not even to the Consolidated Fund; it was not a significant fine at all.

We went to court, and they were given a $750 fine …

and that was then sent to the RSPCA, and they had no criminal record recorded against them. So again, no history into the future. That is where we come to some of the issues around what I think should be an increase in the amount of the fines in this particular piece of legislation. To the inquiry again, Cr Daniel Meade of Moyne shire said:

Agriculture is vital to our country’s food production—a huge role in the economy and a major employer for the Moyne shire. The annual output from the agricultural sector in Moyne shire alone is $618 million, and the sector supports nearly 3500 full-time jobs.

I am sure the member for South-West Coast, who represents that particular area, could reinforce the value of agriculture to that particular area. He went on to say:

Threats to the sustainability and security of this sector cannot be tolerated, and voluntary acts that create such threats should be penalised strongly by law.

Katherine Cain gave evidence as well to the inquiry, and she said:

Apart from the direct threat that activists pose to the welfare of livestock, themselves and other people, the indirect impact they pose is a threat to not only animal and personal welfare but to our state’s economy. To quote the Agriculture Victoria Strategy:

Victoria is the powerhouse of Australian food and fibre exports.

Our state is the biggest exporter by value nationally, and with over half the gross value of Victoria’s agricultural industry derived from livestock and a projected … increase in demand for Victoria’s animal-derived proteins, the future is exciting.

I cast those comments in light of the ones I started with, where the animal activists are saying we should close down all animal production agriculture in this state. And the contrast there, between them and Daniel Meade from the Moyne shire and Katherine Cain, could not be at two bigger extremes, the activists saying, ‘Shut this whole industry down’, and both of those people saying how valuable it is to the sector into the future.

It is just so important that with this legislation, with the Livestock Management Amendment (Animal Activism) Bill, a strong message is sent to animal activists: it is not all right to actually invade someone’s farm, it is not all right to steal someone’s animals, it is not all right to cause mental anguish to people just going around their lawful business into the future.

After that inquiry the majority report made some recommendations, but I would like to put on the record the opposition members, the Liberal and National Party opposition members on that upper house committee—the key issues out of their minority report as they saw them:

This Minority Report represents the position of the—

opposition members—

… of the Inquiry into the Impact of Animal Rights Activism on Victorian Agriculture.

Opposition members were:

… unable to support the final report of the Inquiry for the following reasons:

The … Report is biased in that it gives undue attention to the motivations of animal activists, conveying an impression of support towards the illegal actions of animal activists …

I put it to you that if the intent of someone robbing a bank is honourable because they need the money, does that mean it is not an illegal activity? Does that mean they should not go to jail or be fined? I think the equal thing applies. If there is a law, if someone believes the law is wrong, they should lobby their local MP to change the law. They should not take the law into their own hands to actually invade a farm and cause the grief they have over that.

Two:

The … Report gives credence to the claims of animal activists in regard to legal farming practices being cruel …

I think that again there is a lot of information out there. Farmers do an outstanding job in how they look after their animals. If you do not look after your animals, you do not get the best production out of them, and any farmer will tell you that. The animal activists I think do not understand agriculture and would do well to have a lesson in how agriculture actually works and how farmers do care for their animals and look after them.

Three, the report does not adequately discuss or acknowledge the impact of animal rights activism on Victorian agriculture. Again, as I said of some of the evidence that was given, I do not think the majority report gave credence to the value of animal agriculture to this state and the importance that it has.

Four, the report strayed from the terms of reference and failed to respect the intentions of the Parliament in establishing the inquiry. Because there were some independent animal activist MPs from the upper house, I think they gave more weight to the animal activists than they did to the facts in the inquiry.

Five, recommendation 1 provides additional legal protection for animal activists that illegally trespass on farming land. Animal activists should not have any legal rights if they are illegally trespassing on land into the future. So I condemn them for that particular recommendation.

Six, recommendations 10, 12, 13 and 14 are outside the terms of reference and were not adequately canvassed with industry representatives throughout the course of the inquiry. They do not respect the voice of industry. Some of the Labor Party or independent members of Parliament on that inquiry put their personal views forward and did not actually reflect the views of industry in those recommendations.

Seven, the report does not propose recommendations that adequately ensure animal activists are appropriately punished for wrongdoing, nor do they protect farmers from illegal animal activist activity. Again our side of politics, the Liberal-National members of that committee with their minority report, were very strong on the fact that there needed to be protections for farmers from illegal animal activist activity.

Eight, the report does not acknowledge Australia’s strong animal welfare laws and our international reputation as leaders in animal welfare. I think the member for South-West Coast, who is sitting at the table with me, as a former dairy farmer, former member of the United Dairyfarmers of Victoria and leader in the dairy industry, could attest to the fact that we do have some of the strongest animal welfare laws anywhere in the world. As I said earlier, farmers know that if they look after their animals, they get better production out of their animals and their animals are healthier and happier. They do not deliberately mistreat their animals at all, and if they do, there are laws there that can deal with those particular issues.

The last point that our minority report makes is that the report does not acknowledge that most farmers do the right thing and only a small minority of farmers engage in illegal practices. No-one supports farmers who engage in illegal practices. If they do something wrong with animal welfare, they should feel the full force of the law, the same as animal activists do if they break the law, because no measure should be spared in making sure that farmers do the right thing. As I said, the majority of farmers do do the right thing.

It has been just on two years since that report was tabled and recommendations came forward from that committee to have on-the-spot fines implemented. It is just on two years since that report was handed down. I know the wheels of Parliament turn slowly, I know the wheels of government turn slowly, but taking two years to bring a small piece of legislation forward to have on-the-spot fines for animal activists invading a farm I think is far too long. It could have been done a lot sooner if the minister had rolled her sleeves up and got on to it.

As the Manager of Opposition Business said in the debate on the government business program, it was only the fact that I asked the Minister for Agriculture a question in Parliament near the end of last year about where this legislation was that was supposed to have been done last year that we actually got some action. It was tabled in the last sitting week and obviously could not be debated until we came back here this week. I would hope that the government actually moves it to the upper house quickly after the debate here this week, gets it through, makes sure it gets royal assent and has it implemented as soon as possible.

Concurrently to that happening, the department is currently drafting the regulations that sit behind the bill, and I was assured in the bill briefing that they will be working diligently to make sure the regulations are ready when the bill receives royal assent. I hope that happens, particularly some of the regulations around signage. As part of the biosecurity plan that a farmer has, they will implement as part of their protection the clauses in this bill about an animal activist invading their farm, and the size of those signs, the design of those signs and the number of times and places those signs will need to be put up will come in the regulations, so we need those regulations as soon as possible. I propose on behalf of the Liberal and National parties two amendments to this bill, and I would ask that those amendments in my name be circulated to the house, please.

Opposition amendments circulated by Mr WALSH under standing orders.

Mr WALSH: The first amendment deals with page 7, clause 6, that lines 3 to 13 be omitted from the legislation. The way we read this legislation when we got it—and it was confirmed in the bill brief—for a farmer to have protection under this legislation from extreme animal activists invading their farm they need a biosecurity plan to show that they are doing the right thing and an animal activist invading the farm is breaching that biosecurity plan by going in there. This clause, if it stays in the bill, actually means that if it is a farm that has riverfrontage to lease, that riverfrontage lease land is excluded from the biosecurity plan and animal activists could come in along the riverfrontage and be right there on the farm. Now, because a farm is contiguous with the frontage—there is not necessarily a fence between the actual freehold farm and the riverfrontage—we believe there is no need for this clause in there. It does not matter what the tenure of the land is that the farmer farms, whether it is freehold land, whether it is Crown land lease or whether it is riverfrontage lease, it should all be treated the same from a biosecurity plan point of view so that they have the protection of this legislation from extreme animal activists invading their farm on their whole farm, irrespective. It effectively should be tenure blind for their particular farm. So I would move in my name that we have lines 3 to 13 omitted from the bill to achieve what I have just said, where the whole farm is part of that plan and part of that plan is not excluded.

The second amendment is to page 9, clause 10, where we would omit ‘60 penalty units’ for a natural person and insert ‘120 penalty units’. The logic behind this is that if you actually look at New South Wales and Queensland, they have more substantive fines against individuals than this legislation proposes. So if you go back to the quotes I took out of the parliamentary inquiry around all the farms that have been invaded and the threats that they had, they were all very strong in their evidence that they wanted to see substantial fines that were a real impediment. You would know yourself, Acting Speaker Blackwood, from a long-term involvement with the timber industry, that once you take away the personal cost to a protestor they believe they can do anything with impunity, because they actually do not have to pay anything. They just get a slap on the wrist, as the people who invaded Gippy Goat did, and there is no impediment to them coming back again. In Gippy Goat’s case the magistrate was almost, you could say, supportive of the animal activist, saying that he imposed a $1 fine because he had some sympathy for what she was doing, even though she broke the law. I would propose, on behalf of the Liberal and National parties, that we double the penalty units for natural persons so that if an animal activist invades a farm, they have a substantial penalty put against them that is a severe deterrent to them doing it into the future.

We have asked to go into consideration in detail on this particular bill. I think there was a very good debate on the government business program motion around the fact that we have not had a consideration-in-detail stage for any bill in the life of this Parliament so far. This is a very simple bill. We will not be opposing the legislation because it is something we fought very, very hard to get, with on-the-spot fines implemented. I believe the two amendments we have put forward are reasonable and sensible to improve the functionality of the bill in making sure that a farmer has a biosecurity plan across all the land that they farm and making sure that there is a severe enough penalty to discourage animal activists from breaking the law and entering farms. I would urge the minister to give some serious consideration to having a consideration-in-detail stage for this legislation.

I would, as I started, urge the Greens party to look into their conscience and think about their opposition to this legislation, think about the position that was articulated by the member for Melbourne in the debate on the government business program about opposing this legislation because people just have a right to protest no matter what harm they do to anyone else. I ask the Greens to seriously look at that position and support this legislation, because it is about people’s rights. It is about people’s rights to go about their normal business within the law. It is not about any farmer breaking the law; it is about their right to carry out their farming business within the law without extreme animal activists disrupting it, causing biosecurity risks, causing mental anguish, stealing animals and causing stress to animals. I seek the support of the Labor Party, the Greens and the independents for these amendments so farmers can have more protection into the future.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Blackwood): The member for Yan Yean.

Ms GREEN (Yan Yean) (16:32): Thank you, Acting Speaker, and it is good to see you back in the chair. I take great delight in joining the debate on the Livestock Management Amendment (Animal Activism) Bill 2021, and it is with great pleasure that I stand after the Leader of the National Party. He asked all members in this chamber to support his amendments, and I think what he was saying was that everyone should support this legislation including his amendments.

This is commonsense legislation that will benefit farmers. The question is: will The Nationals support it, or will they obstruct it so they can play political games? On the one hand the member for Murray Plains is trying to claim credit for these changes, but on the other hand he is trying to delay them in the Parliament. On the one hand he gave credit to Ms Bath in the other place for her work, but he is trying to frustrate the implementation of it. They opposed the government business program and now they are trying to frivolously slow down the passage of this important bill with amendments. The opposition needs to get out of the way.

There was an inquiry, and the government is supporting 13 of the 15 recommendations from that inquiry. You would have thought from the Leader of the National Party that the government was not supporting it. We are supporting it, and that is why have brought legislation before the house. The Leader of the National Party is playing politics with this, because he selectively quoted some of the most extreme citizens that presented to the inquiry. I would say every citizen in Victoria has the right to be heard before a parliamentary inquiry. That does not mean that people in this place have to agree with every submission. I think what he was trying to do was to say that maybe we as a government would support those extreme submissions that were put forward by people who have been targeting farmers, who have been risking biosecurity and who have been scaring the living daylights out of farmers and their families. But the Leader of the National Party is deliberately playing politics with this. He is telling untruths about it. He is implying that there are not on-the-spot fines.

Mr T Bull interjected.

Ms GREEN: You will get your chance. You hear what I have got to say. We listened to what he said, now you can listen to what I have got to say. And what I have got to say is that this press release from the Leader of the National Party says that farmers will not be better protected against illegal and traumatic farm trespass crime unless amendments to on-the-spot fine laws are passed in the Victorian Parliament—wrong.

Deliberately in the second paragraph of this, which actually shows what they are really up to, they are trying to conflate an issue with a small number of farmers that are probably his mates that have always liked to use Crown land for their own purposes. He is trying to sneak through an amendment under the guise of saying this is against animal activists, when in fact it is trying to break down conventions and common law forever. Crown land is for Crown land purposes. He did not provide any evidence about waterfronts that are Crown land that abut farms. He did not provide one scrap or scintilla of evidence to say that animal activists have been targeting Crown land and Crown land waterways. All the evidence that came before the inquiry and all the media around this and all the problems where animal activists have invaded farms have been on private land—not on public land, not on Crown land—and in places where those trespassers should not be. He is trying to conflate two issues where he has got a small number of mates who would like to keep their Crown land frontages on riverfronts just for themselves, and then he is trying to say that we are not targeting and introducing fines. Well, this bill contains the highest on-the-spot fines in Australia and significant penalties through the courts.

Mr T Bull interjected.

Ms GREEN: I should not respond to interjections, but the member for Gippsland East has said Queensland and New South Wales. Well, in this bill individuals will be able to be fined $1272 on the spot. In Queensland, member for Gippsland East, that figure is $689. In New South Wales the on-the-spot fine is $1000. And in Victoria we are actually saying that this will bring in the ability to fine corporations. Organisations, where they have specifically targeted farms and breached biosecurity, will be able to be fined $8178. Those on-the-spot fines do not exist in any other jurisdiction in the country, so just because the Leader of the National Party, the member for Murray Plains, says it and says it on the Country Hour does not make it the truth. It is not the truth.

Unlike when he was the minister, when there was not one strategic thing done in agriculture, we actually have an agriculture strategy—something that he never, ever had. And the previous minister, the minister in the other place, Minister Pulford, introduced world-best animal welfare legislation. The minister that we have now is carrying forward a strategy that will deliver and improve support for our farmers in this state, and I will not listen to the nonsense that comes from the National Party and some on this side that seem to say that they can be the only voice for farmers and that our government does not stand up for farmers. Well, we absolutely do.

My family comes from a primary production background. The Minister for Agriculture’s family is a primary production family, as is the Premier’s, and we have more regional members in our caucus than the other side have. The member for Buninyong, the chair of our country caucus, is another one with a primary production background. So do not compare us to those extremists. We are a government that is supporting 13 out of the 15 recommendations, and we are seeking speedy passage of this bill to protect biosecurity on our farms. We are not being disingenuous, like the member for Murray Plains, trying to conflate two issues. The issue around access to Crown land is not what is at issue in this bill, so I would urge all crossbenchers and the Greens to oppose those amendments, and I would urge everyone to support the bill.

The one area where I would agree with the member for Murray Plains is that the Greens party has it wrong. I do not understand the member for Melbourne, having grown up, like I did, in Mildura, not supporting farmers and thinking it is okay that trespassers go around willy-nilly. We are a government that does support the introduction of on-the-spot fines and treating this issue seriously. We are out talking to farmers all the time and we are looking at things that we can do. Unlike the member for Murray Plains, who, on his watch as the Minister for Agriculture, closed numerous worksites across this state, we are expanding the work that is being done to support our farmers. Only yesterday I was in Tatura at the SmartFarm and opening a new centre for horticultural study where students will be able to study AgSTEM. We are attracting our young people, whether they live on farms, in regions or in our cities, to say that you can study AgSTEM because there are great jobs in food and fibre. We back those jobs up by having good legislation, having a good economy and having the lowest unemployment anywhere in the country in our regions and the lowest on record. We are supporting jobs in the private sector and we are supporting jobs in the public sector. To see the work of those scientists in our SmartFarms, whether it is in Hamilton, whether it is in Tatura or whether it is in Cohuna in the member for Murray Plains’s electorate—we are supporting those scientists and the work that they are doing because they believe in climate change and responding to climate change, as do our farmers. I support this bill and I decry the opposition, who are trying to delay it and not support our farmers and play politics.

Mr T BULL (Gippsland East) (16:43): It is a pleasure to rise to talk on the Livestock Management Amendment (Animal Activism) Bill 2021. It is an interesting speaker to follow. I did not know that moving amendments was going to delay the bill. I think they either get adopted or they do not, and the bill will pass this house on Thursday due to the government having the numbers. So it is not a delaying tactic at all, it is a suggestion to improve protections for farmers.

Ms Green interjected.

Mr T BULL: The other matter is—the member for Yan Yean was telling me to be quiet when she was talking, so I will reciprocate there—that we were talking about the fines in this bill as compared to in other jurisdictions. Yes, the trespassing fines are comparable to the other jurisdictions, but the fines around biosecurity breaches are not. They are lower in Victoria. The trespass fines are comparable. The member for Murray Plains’s amendments relate to toughening up the fines that relate to biosecurity.

I want to say up-front that I support the amendments moved by the member for Murray Plains because they do further strengthen the penalties relating to biosecurity and the issue around riverfrontages is real. We have a situation where the government introduced camping on riverfronts and the ability to access riverfronts, but those farmers who have riverfront access should not be disadvantaged in relation to biosecurity levels, and that is what this amendment goes to the heart of. I will talk more about that later, but it is worth recapping how we arrived at this bill. We know that in 2019 Aussie Farms went out and created their website and created their Facebook page that included publications of maps that highlighted farming practices. It included in that data the nature of those farming operations, and it was all presented like this was some horrible thing, that these people were doing the wrong thing, that they were illegal practices. This is not the case, and that data and that map were subsequently used by animal activists to invade farms with no notice and cause much distress and much trauma. It really was disgraceful behaviour. Pleasingly, the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission investigated and revoked the charity status of Aussie Farms in late 2019, but appallingly it was revealed that one of these activists that had been charged and had fronted up to court—can you believe it?—got a $1 fine. Scaring the living daylights out of a farming family and a $1 fine for breaking biosecurity laws at a farm in Gippsland.

Following this a parliamentary inquiry was set up to investigate these matters, and my colleague Ms Bath in the other house did play a leading role in that and then played a leading role in the inquiry itself, and we got the outcomes that we arrived at. But then, I guess in true Labor fashion, they sat on it, and it was not until November last year, when questioned on the progress, that we saw a little bit of action. This is in stark contrast to Queensland and New South Wales. When this issue arose around Aussie Farms and these farm invasions they introduced stronger actions and stronger on-the-spot fines by the end of 2019. They were serious about it and more than two years ahead of when we are arriving at this same point.

Now, these changes are welcome news, and they will hopefully stop these activists from being a law unto themselves, waltzing onto farms and causing significant stress and significant trauma to law-abiding farmers. But what we need when we have new laws passed by any Parliament is a thirst to enact them. These new laws will come into play, and I would hope that the authorities that can enact these do so with the full force of law and do so to hold these people accountable to the strongest degree for their actions. The member for Murray Plains has moved one of the amendments that goes to the heart of increasing fines for trespassing—absolutely fantastic, I say. Let us be able to throw the book at these people and let them think twice before they go and invade farms and put at risk the biosecurity of those farms and terrorise these farming families. Now, in relation to the biosecurity matters, this will put the fines more in line with those in other states. We should not be more lenient here.

The other amendment is related to waterfrontages, and this bill has excluded these. It was seemingly to not conflict with the riverfront camping scheme, and I can understand that, but it is not right. Just because you have a farm that abuts a riverfrontage does not mean that you should have lower biosecurity protection put in place. You should be afforded the same level of protection as all other farmers. This riverfront camping was going to be all over the state—we will not go into the train wreck that it has turned out to be—but riverfront properties must be included and must be afforded the same level of protection as all farms.

I want to talk for a few moments to reference some comments from Mr Meddick from the Animal Justice Party in the other place. These are some comments that Mr Meddick made in relation to these activists that are at the heart of this legislation. Now, Mr Meddick defended these farm invaders as whistleblowers who were somehow doing this great service for our communities. He seemed to think that them invading farms unannounced and causing great trauma to our farming families was in some way okay because they were justifying it in relation to animal protectionism. Invading farms and invading people’s private homes and properties is not acceptable under any circumstance. There is some irony in the comments from Mr Meddick, because when activists targeted his home some months later due to his stance on the pandemic bill, Mr Meddick came out and said:

I understand why people disagree. People disagree in a vibrant democracy. But you don’t have the right to come to someone’s house and make their family feel physically in danger.

That was his comment when activists targeted his home and I agree with him. I agree with Mr Meddick 100 per cent: you do not have the right to come to somebody’s home and you do not have the right to make them feel in danger. We are 100 per cent in agreement. But I point out to Mr Meddick that you cannot run with the foxes and hunt with the hounds. You just cannot do that.

These farms are the farmers’ homes and these activists had these farming families feeling in danger and under threat in their homes, the very same feeling that Mr Meddick and his family experienced when they were targeted, and it is not on. It is not appropriate. These farming families, as the previous speaker on my side referred to, were yelled at, they were called killers and they were called murderers. They were told that these animal activists would return. But when Mr Meddick was exposed to this abhorrent behaviour himself—and, as I said, I am fully on the same page as him—he somehow justifies the animal activists but is outraged when he is the target. It is no different. They both felt very vulnerable. They both felt very, very scared. I am suggesting that it took that terrible experience that Mr Meddick had to have in his own home to realise that it is not a lot of fun when you are targeted in your own home like these animal activists were doing. It was okay when it suited his cause, but it was not okay when it was targeted at him. I would hope that that experience that he endured would now have him realising a little bit more that the actions of these people involved in these farm invasions were not appropriate at all and need much, much, much stronger action.

In concluding, I do support the amendments proposed by the member for Murray Plains, and I do support the changes that this bill presents in its entirety. It is a step in the right direction to afford farmers and farming families a much higher level of protection, and I do wish the bill a speedy package and enactment through the parliamentary system.

Ms SETTLE (Buninyong) (16:53): I am delighted to rise and speak on this bill. First of all, I would like to acknowledge my colleague the member for Yan Yean, who made a really impassioned contribution, and what really struck me about it is how committed this government is to regional and rural issues. As the member for Yan Yean pointed out, many of us represent regional seats—I think 18 seats overall, which is many, many more than the National Party—and I know that to some of us it is a whole lifetime’s worth of commitment. As the member for Yan Yean pointed out, she grew up in a farming community, our Premier grew up amongst farming communities and certainly I spent a good deal of my life on our family farm in the Western District. I was very, very proud to raise my young sons there. This government’s commitment to regional and rural Victoria is clear in the many bills that we have brought to Parliament to protect our farming community. Little was done by those on the other side about anything in their one and only time in recent years in government. There was no action anywhere. But of course this government continues to provide legislation that will make a real difference to regional and rural people.

I recently had the absolute honour of chairing a review into agricultural training for the minister in the other place. It was a fantastic opportunity because it brought together two of my loves, which are TAFE, as a TAFE alumni, and also really delving into the agricultural industry and its future needs to make sure that our wonderful TAFEs are meeting the needs of the workforce into the future. It was a fantastic opportunity to really sit down and talk to primary producers all across Victoria. I think that is something that this government continues to do very well. I see our wonderful Minister for Agriculture, the member for Macedon, every day out and about talking to our farming communities. That gives us a real insight into what it is that they need us as a government to provide. Of course this bill goes a long way to doing that. It is an incredibly important bill.

Victoria is Australia’s largest agricultural producer, with 29 per cent of Australia’s gross value of agricultural production at $17.8 billion in 2019–20. That was an increase of 12 per cent from 2018–19. The biggest contributors are the dairy industry, beef and sheep meat, grains, wool and other products. Our family farm was originally a fine merino farm, but we did go into lamb production and cropping. I remember very distinctly the stress that spring brought to farming families. I am sorry to say that sheep are not going to win any maternal awards because, sadly, they do not have a strong maternal instinct. That is difficult because when we are in lambing what can happen is that any kind of trespass into a paddock where your ewes are lambing can really cause an issue. What you can find is that ewes will desert their lambs. That was something we used to watch every spring with fear and concern about people going into the paddock. So it is a very, very real issue in my mind. But of course this inquiry came about after some very drastic actions taken against other farming families in different industries. This government has accepted virtually all of the inquiry’s recommendations, and I am very pleased that that has happened.

In my own electorate of Buninyong we have an enormous array of egg producers. Twenty-one per cent of Victorian eggs are produced in the Golden Plains shire, which is part of my electorate. In 2020 we did experience a pretty devastating avian flu outbreak. It was amidst the COVID pandemic. I do not know how many people really saw the devastation that went on during this outbreak of the avian flu in the Golden Plains shire. Wild birds can carry the virus without symptoms and, as I said, in 2020 there was an outbreak, and across six different farms in my electorate the avian flu was detected. It is a really serious disease for poultry that can cause very high death rates. The farmers, the businesses, local communities, the vets and this government acted very quickly to bring that outbreak under control, but it still had some pretty incredibly devastating impacts on some farms. One small farm alone, for example, lost 5100 of their birds, and for a small producer that would have had devastating impacts.

The biosecurity protection to farmers is incredibly important. Those on the other side have talked about farmers’ homes being invaded, and I absolutely agree that that should not happen, but it is also their businesses. I am not suggesting that those opposite do not agree with this, but it is also their businesses that are going to be really brutally impacted by any sort of breach of biosecurity. The avian flu was really a stark reminder to me about how important biosecurity is on a farm. We have seen some recent pretty drastic actions taken by animal activists. Look, I understand that people have a right to express their opinions, but I would agree with the Leader of The Nationals that that does not give someone a right to enter people’s homes and their farms, and that is why I completely support this bill.

Like those on the other side, I would ask that the Greens consider perhaps their objection to this bill. I know that animal activists talk about protecting animals, but really this bill in many cases is about protecting animals. What we found when activists, for example, stole 20 ducks and removed them from a facility was that we do not know what happened to those ducks going forward. They have been taken out of their environment. Some pretty gruesome things have happened to animals when farms have been invaded, and I talked earlier about spring lambing and what dreadful impacts that can have. So I would concur that farmers keep very close to their heart the welfare of their animals. I know certainly from my farming days the health of your flock is incredibly important to you—and not just for business reasons—because really that is who you spend your life with on the farm. So farmers really do have at their heart consideration of their livestock, and they work very hard to protect it. So, look, this government has shown a really strong record on animal welfare. We have taken many actions to increase animal welfare, and in some ways I can see this bill as being part of that.

As I say, as a farmer I would really like to see this bill go through and go through quickly. It is something that this government has stood by, bringing this bill to the house, and we would all like to see these protections in place. I think it is important for farmers, and I know looking at the amount of representatives that this government now has in regional Victoria that many farmers do see that this government continues to have their best interests at heart in creating legislation, and this bill speaks well to that. I commend it to the house.

Ms BRITNELL (South-West Coast) (17:03): I rise to speak on the Livestock Management Amendment (Animal Activism) Bill 2021, and I do so because this is a very important bill for many reasons. Agriculture is an incredibly important part of my electorate of South-West Coast, and when the incident occurred in Gippsland on the Gippy Goat farm it was the culmination, really, of the activities that had been going on for too long. People who think they understand farming and claim that it is violating or destroying or harming animals are so out of line. This resulted in a court case because activists had gone onto a farm, had invaded a person’s home where they farm and live, and they actually received a penalty of $1. Now, I think that is the most insulting act for the farmers to read about when they expect the law to look after them.

Farming is well regulated, and anybody who has any animal cruelty conviction feels, and should feel, the full force of the law. So we have farmers seeing that activists have a very different law applied to their actions of criminal offending and that they end up with a fine of $1, with no criminal record, yet when you are a farmer—and rightfully so—if you are not looking after your animals properly under the law you actually get such severe penalties you often cannot have anything to do with animals for several years. And that is absolutely as it should be. So there are such double standards. This bill has come two years after this incident, and it took the opposition to call out the minister late last year and say, ‘Where is this very important legislation that was recommended at the inquiry?’. And it was no surprise that after shaming them they actually put something on the table.

In my view this bill does not go far enough. One of the amendments the member for Murray Plains has put forward would double the penalty units currently proposed so that a natural person who was convicted would be given a penalty that really would make people think about doing this. I mean, having a $1 fine was no deterrent. This has to have a deterrent that makes people not want to do it. There are several people being funded to do these things by people who do not understand, who think farming is raping and pillaging the landscape and destroying animals’ welfare, and it is just so not true.

I am sure a member of the Greens will get up soon and speak and say they are against this bill, because I heard them say that in the government business program debate. You know, I look to the member for Brunswick and I really admire his brain. He comes from a medical background, and it is great to hear him speak on medical issues, but when I hear him speak on environmental issues I am absolutely mortified at his lack of understanding. I am not being disrespectful to him; I am just saying, ‘Please have a think and look at what really goes on’. I extend an invitation to the member for Brunswick, the member for Melbourne and the member for Prahran to come out and I happily will respectfully show you around some farms to meet the people. They are in the hardest working profession that I have ever seen. I have nursed and I have farmed and I have done a few other things—not too much more—but I really do think these are hardworking people who want to look after their animals and protect them and care for them.

I mean, I farmed for 20-something years. I never, ever thought of it as my workplace; I thought of it as my home. My kids—we all had our animals, our pets, our environments. The kids would get up and go and feed the calves before school if need be, you know, if someone was not able to come to work and we needed to all pull together. There was never a thought that you would not actually look after the animals. You know, if things were really tough financially, the animals came first. I used to say I would spend more on the animals than I did on my children. That was a true statement, because you really had to look after them to the best of your ability or they would not perform and not be happy. I really struggle when people do not understand just how much work and effort we put into making sure everything is going well—even research and environmental management. I really do put out an invitation: let me show you.

I do not like to just refer to the economic impact, but I will quote from Cr Meade, who was the Moyne shire mayor when the inquiry took place. He said at the animal inquiry:

Agriculture is vital to our country’s food production—a huge role in the economy and a major employer for the Moyne shire.

This is the shire in my electorate of South-West Coast.

The annual output from the agricultural sector in Moyne shire alone is $618 million, and the sector supports nearly 3500 full-time jobs. Threats to the sustainability and security of this sector cannot be tolerated, and voluntary acts that create such threats should be penalised strongly by law.

I am continually shocked at how people do not understand the food and fibre sector. It provides us with our nutrition, it provides us with food, it provides us with the clothes we wear, it provides us with shelter—the timber that builds our homes and this building itself, with the timber around.

Can you imagine if we stopped farming? Because that is what these ideological people think we should do. If we stopped farming, who would manage the landscape? We have been on this planet as humans for a very long time, and you cannot actually just get rid of animals and farm only plants. I do not know if you have been to Scotland, but you cannot really plant on the moors, and I do not know if you have been to South-West Coast, to the volcanic country, but you cannot grow crops on the stony country areas—but you can grow cattle and you can produce milk. We do need a balance of the ecosystem, and this provides it as long as we are doing it and researching and continually managing the environment. We have got 7 per cent of the earth’s crust left to be able to farm on.

We have got an increasing population, and by the time we get to 2050 we will struggle to have enough supply to meet the demand, so what we should be doing is supporting farmers who provide the actual sustenance that we need. We have gone so far away from an understanding of that in western society that sometimes I think it is good to just reflect on the challenge that is in front of us. Particularly in Australia and particularly in Victoria where we have beautiful countryside, we should be respecting that and doing everything we can.

On that note I would like to thank all the farmers, particularly in South-West Coast, who work so very hard every day and take that responsibility so very seriously. I would also like to thank the people who stood up in the inquiry from my part of the world—Ian Smith, Jim Doukas, Daniel Meade, Georgina Gubbins, Lisa Dwyer, Chris O’Keefe, Bernie Free and Oonagh Kilpatrick—and I would also like to mention Natalie Collard, who heads up Food and Fibre Great South Coast and who struggles to get the funds that they need to do the job that they are trying to do, which is to get people to get that understanding of how we should be growing agriculture, not harbouring its ability but harnessing the opportunity.

I do endorse this piece of legislation, but it does not go far enough. We do need real penalty points that will deter people from breaking the law. It makes no sense that the people who break the law are rewarded with a $1 fine; it should be double the penalty points it currently is now. And it makes no sense that there is no criminal record, yet that is completely different for other people who break the law. Let us remember that when activists go into people’s homes—into the environments where they live and where their children play—it is an illegal activity. It should never ever be endorsed or rewarded. It makes me angry and amazed that a member for Western Victoria in the upper house, Andy Meddick, the Animal Justice Party representative, cannot understand that in his electorate we rely on farming and we work hard to be good farmers. How can he actually be the representative who is against farming and encouraging animal activists? These animal activists risk biosecurity. They risk people having safe workplaces. This is not acceptable in today’s world. It is not acceptable in any workplace, let alone any home, so let us apply the same standard. My offer does go again to the Greens to come out to the farm—I will happily show you around.

Our farmers deserve the respect that they have not been given. We should be absolutely thanking them for the work they do. Not too many of us will get up at 2 o’clock tonight and go and check the cows that are calving. Not too many of us will get back up again at 6.00 am and go and get the cows and feed the calves and make sure they have got the immunoglobulin they need, but they do—the farmers do.

Ms CRUGNALE (Bass) (17:13): I rise to speak on the Livestock Management Amendment (Animal Activism) Bill 2021. I too would like to thank our farmers. They feed us, they clothe us and they work all hours. Most of us are still asleep when they are up working, as the member for South-West Coast was saying. They work incredibly hard, and we are absolutely thankful, more so in the last couple of years as well. They have kept going through this time.

I would also like to thank the former Minister for Agriculture, the Honourable Jaala Pulford, who delivered Victoria’s first animal welfare action plan alongside my colleague in the chamber the member for Pascoe Vale, and also the current Minister for Agriculture, the member for Macedon, for her tireless work in making our agricultural industry safer and more supported. As the member for Macedon she knows and understands the needs and concerns of farmers.

To cut to the chase with the need for this legislation, it has come to light because of an increase in instances of animal activists trespassing onto livestock properties, threatening legitimate livestock production, producers and their families and employees and causing potential biosecurity risks through the introduction and spread of pests and diseases. We all remember in 2018 and 2019 our Victorian ag community was subjected to a series of events involving animal activists intimidating farmers, stealing livestock and disrupting businesses, and it has been mentioned in the chamber today as well. The Gippy Goat Cafe and farm in Yarragon had 50 activists on site. Six were charged with theft. One offender was charged with a second offence under the Crimes Act 1958 and two further offences under the Livestock Disease Control Act 1994, and after this incident the activist was ordered to pay $250 compensation for the charge of theft and $1 on each of the three charges of stolen animals.

Through the inquiry they reported that this outcome would not provide a deterrent for similar illegal activities, and the farm has since closed to the public. During this time too in my electorate of Bass, which has quite a swathe of agribusinesses in it, many of my local farmers did contact me saying, ‘We don’t want this to happen to us, and we need to change how we do things’. In response to this, the Victorian Legislative Council’s Economy and Infrastructure Committee initiated a public inquiry into the impact of animal rights activism on Victorian agriculture, with a report tabled in 2020 outlining key findings and recommendations.

Firstly, the report expressed support for the animal agriculture industry and criticised the illegal actions of the activists. A total of 15 recommendations were made, which focused on building confidence in existing animal agricultural standards, modernising the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 and ensuring reports of animal cruelty are addressed appropriately. In the report the committee also expressed concern about the level of misinformation spread by activists regarding animal agriculture practices. Our government’s response supported 13 of the 15 recommendations in full, one was supported in principle, being:

That the Victorian Government instruct relevant regulatory bodies to collect data that distinguishes between livestock theft committed by animal rights activists and livestock theft committed by non‐activists.

One we did not support:

That in the context of the review of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986, the Victorian Government consider the need to codify public interest exemptions in the Surveillance Devices Act 1999.

Deciding whether the public interest exemption applies is a matter for the courts to determine on the merits of an individual case.

The report also recommended strengthening our biosecurity laws to address the risk of animal rights activists spreading pests and diseases at agriculture businesses. It recommended the creation of a new biosecurity offence requiring any person entering an animal agriculture business to adhere to the property’s biosecurity management plan, which farmers can opt in and out of, with those who fail to comply receiving an on-the-spot fine.

Agriculture Victoria continues to progress implementation and engagement on all 14 recommendations supported in full or in principle. This legislation seeks to give effect to recommendation 4 and recommendation 5. These recommendations deal with trespassers and a fine for this behaviour, because trespassing has become quite sinister. Our existing laws work to protect farmers against protesters unlawfully entering their property and damaging it. They are not sufficient for the biosecurity risks, which are potentially becoming worse, and they do not allow for tampering with fodder—in other words, poisoning animals to make a point or cast blame on innocent farmers. Our current laws are not sufficient for those who seek to leave gates open to euphemistically release animals into the natural environment. ‘Releasing’ is a word which seeks to bring a picture of freedom and liberty. The reality is that allowing animals to wander at night onto a road at the mercy of vehicles is not freedom, it is cruelty at best for the animal and the innocent vehicle driver as well. Our current laws are not sufficient to deter activists raiding multiple farms in a short time frame. Again, I come back to the point that these people do not actually care about the animals; they care about disruption and have an altogether different purpose.

This bill is consistent with the theme of protection in our Labor government’s strategy for agriculture in Victoria. Inherent in this is protection of biosecurity measures. We encourage agricultural business owners and managers to consider the biosecurity risks associated with their livestock operations and to develop a plan to mitigate these risks. Simply put, biosecurity is a set of measures to protect a farm from the spread of disease and pests, and we encourage agriculture businesses to develop biosecurity management plans for their businesses. Recommendation 4 will require visitors or trespassers to comply with this plan. This is about protection—protection of farmers and their animals.

The penalties for breaking these laws, for harming our farmers and their livestock, will be among the heaviest in Australia. We are serious about protecting the biosecurity of our vital agricultural business here in Victoria. We are serious because the consequences of disease being introduced can be disastrous. We have seen the effect of the contagious avian influenza: the devastation caused by the necessary humane killing of thousands of animals, the mental health and financial impact this has had on farmers and the fantastic effort by local communities, vets, farmers and businesses, which saw the containment of the outbreak and the eradication of the virus in Victoria.

As I was saying earlier, much of my electorate in Bass is rural. We have super rich soil in the swamplands around Koo Wee Rup, where we see over 90 per cent of our country’s asparagus grown and harvested. The Bass hills through to Gippsland is renowned dairy and beef country, producing such wonderful products as Bassine milk and Macca’s meats, local producers who have dedicated their working lives to good animal husbandry. Just imagine what could have happened if a trespasser had broken into a farm impacted by this virus and then spread it to other farms, all in the misguided belief that they were protecting animals.

This legislation also speaks to the heart of what we have learned over the past two years: we must prepare for outcomes we never thought imaginable. We have learned that we must plan and be realistic about pandemics, in both people and agriculture. Victoria is a leader in strengthening agricultural biosecurity—the first jurisdiction to roll out electronic identification tags for sheep and goats, and evaluation showed that just under 100 per cent of sheep were traceable with the new technology. We have learned the importance of tracing in a disease outbreak—the benefits of rapid, reliable contact tracing. Our Andrews government has backed up the transition to this technology by subsidising the cost of electronic tags to farmers through our livestock biosecurity fund: 51 million tags bought since 2017 and 35 million sheep and goat movements recorded on the national livestock identification system database. That is biosecurity at work, making our animals’ lives safer.

Lastly the largest overhaul of Victoria’s animal welfare legislation in decades is well underway. The new animal welfare act will be introduced to Parliament. Like all these measures, this amendment reflects how farming is changing. It speaks to our society’s expectations around the treatment of animals and biosecurity risks. I commend the bill to the house.

Ms McLEISH (Eildon) (17:22): I am pleased to be able to speak on the Livestock Management Amendment (Animal Activism) Bill 2021, and I will comment certainly that it is long overdue. We are way behind the eight ball compared to other states, and I think that is disappointing for farmers. One of the things that is so important in Victoria is our agricultural sector, and the strength of it needs to be protected. We rely on it very heavily for our own food and we also export significantly to other countries. We have such great product and it needs to be protected.

There is a significant backstory to this bill, but I will start with its purposes: to amend the Livestock Management Act 2010 to provide for biosecurity management plans and to provide for offences relating to the contravening of a prescribed biosecurity measure and other matters in response to growing animal activism. There are some other consequential and miscellaneous amendments.

I want to just outline the importance of agricultural production in Victoria. The gross value of agricultural production in 2019–20 was $17.8 billion, so that is very significant. Of that—I am going to confine myself to animals—dairy is $3 billion, beef $2.91 billion, sheep meat $2.21 billion and wool $770 million. Each of these sectors is very significant in its own right, and I think it is so important that farmers are able to continue to do their work without threats and without the invasions that have happened to date. One of the things that is also important to recognise is that 39 per cent of people in Australia working in agriculture are actually farm owners, so this really hits at the core of people who live on their farms and who own their farms and work in that field.

We have had increased animal activism not just in Victoria and Australia but also worldwide. It is becoming a little bit of a thing, and we certainly had an incident I guess that really sparked all of this. In January 2019 Aussie Farms, which was a registered charity, put out an interactive map directing activists to farms where there was supposed illegal activity, and this was distressing to many, many farmers who have great operations and do everything by the book.

Ms Britnell interjected.

Ms McLEISH: The member for South-West Coast was one of those. It is exceptionally stressful for not just those who own the farms but those who work on the farms and all of those people who are there to have their farms listed and to think, ‘I could be invaded. I could have 50 activists turn up to my farm to stress the animals, to seize animals and create a lot of anxiety for the families and the children that live there’. Now, after this happened—there was a bit of an outrage and the farmers fought back—there was a call for the ACNC, the Australian Charities and Not-for-profit Commission, to actually have a look at this, and they investigated and revoked the charity status of Aussie Farms. I will note that Aussie Farms has not gone away. It has been renamed now as the Farm Transparency Project, so we do know that they are out there.

In May 2019 there was a Legislative Council inquiry into the impact of animal rights activism on Victorian agriculture. They had some 500-plus submissions, many of which were from farmers, but I note that the activists were also submitters here. I think it was very disappointing to hear the response from the Greens senator Janet Rice in July 2019. She defended the rights of these vigilantes to invade farms, and those comments were made on the back of the New South Wales introduction of new laws to target farm trespassing. We knew straight up that the Greens actually endorsed this illegal behaviour, this threatening behaviour, and it was just appalling to see those comments. The report was tabled in February 2020, with the government response in June 2020. So it has taken quite some time to have the inquiry. Other states got on with it and introduced on-the-spot fines straightaway. Once the government put their response out and said they were going to do something, it took them a while to actually do something. I want to quote the Victorian Farmers Federation president, Emma Germano, who is well known to many people here:

They were a long time coming to the point we thought perhaps they weren’t going to put them into place …

They are meaningful fines and not only a deterrent, but they demonstrate we value farmers …

in Victoria. That was my bit, and:

… it’s not an appropriate form of protest to trespass onto farmers’ property.

I think that is important. It is not appropriate to trespass onto people’s properties. Now, we did have incidents; we had the Gippy Goat in Gippsland with the activists. And when it went to court, what an insult—to be given a $1 fine. Anybody and everybody who was involved in the agriculture sector was outraged by that. It is so important. They need to be protected. Poultry farmers were impacted. They packed up and left because it was too stressful. It is too stressful for the farmers and the families of the farmers. And, I will say, it is also very stressful for the animals. For those activists to think that they are looking after animals when they go in there and create a bit of an uproar and the animals do get stressed—chickens get stressed, goats get stressed, sheep get stressed; these animals do get stressed—I wonder if they do actually have their best interests at heart, because what they do is certainly very stressful.

What this bill does is introduce on-the-spot fines for individuals or organisations—$1272 for an individual, $8178 for an organisation—and there are greater penalties for some of the more serious things. I note that the Shadow Minister for Agriculture, the member for Murray Plains, has put an amendment, which I will endorse, to increase some of these fines. And certainly for an offence to contravene a prescribed biosecurity measure, we are proposing the penalty be increased from 60 penalty units to 120 to make sure that the message is heard well and clear.

Now, the other area that I am concerned about is the exclusion if you have licensed riverfrontages, and that you must have a biosecurity plan. Now, you could have property that is unfenced, and I know my family have them, and we also have places where we own to the river as well, and people do not know that our boundary is to the river and there are no licensed frontages there. Many farms do have that in place, but they are not always fenced off, and when you do not have them fenced off and you have a biosecurity plan for a farm that may be 500 hectares, may be 300 hectares, you expect that to be for the entire farm. Now, if that is part of the lease that you have, you expect that. Some issues here around section 401A of the Land Act 1958 and where the biosecurity management plan is inoperative in these instances do need to be looked at, and I think what we have put forward is actually sensible, because it is all of that farm that needs to be protected.

You can have a look at it. When people do come onto properties, if they come via the rivers, they can bring all sorts of diseases. This is a problem with the camping and licensed riverfrontages legislation. They can bring all sorts of diseases which are detrimental to cattle. Human faeces are very detrimental. You can get beef measles. You can have animals condemned at abattoirs because of these things. If you have got your biosecurity management plans in place, you think you are going to be protected from that, but if you are able to have people come from the rivers over that licensed frontage, I think it is very much a concern.

Ms Britnell: It makes it worthless.

Ms McLEISH: It absolutely does make it worthless. So whilst on one hand I am very pleased that the government has finally introduced long-overdue penalties for animal activists that really do so much damage for the farms, for the farmers and for the animals, on the other hand it has not quite gone far enough. I am very pleased, though, to see that these have been legislated, because it is long overdue. Queensland and New South Wales managed to get on with it a lot quicker than we did. We are behind the eight ball on that, and we have not had that protection for the last couple of years, but going forward farmers will know that we have that degree of protection.

The SPEAKER: The member for Bendigo West, who recently celebrated a milestone birthday—

Ms EDWARDS (Bendigo West) (17:32): Oh, stop it!

The SPEAKER: Happy birthday to the Deputy Speaker.

Ms EDWARDS: Well, thank you. As I remind people, you are only as young as you feel.

I also am pleased to rise to speak on the Livestock Management Amendment (Animal Activism) Bill 2021, and I thank the Minister for Agriculture for bringing this bill before the house, a very important bill for the agriculture sector across Victoria, which, as has been mentioned by many other members, is of importance to our economy and particularly to our export economy. The majority of people who work in our agricultural sector are mostly in Victoria. Across Australia Victoria has the largest number of food and fibre manufacturing outlets. You have got the farmers, many of whom are on family-owned farms, and I have heard a few members mention their family farms. Of course I have a daughter and a son-in-law who run a sheep and crop farm out at Woodstock, I have a sister and a brother-in-law who run a sheep and cropping farm over at Newstead and I have a cousin who runs a beef cattle farm just on the other side of Castlemaine. I could start my own farm, but apparently I am too old for that.

This bill is really important, and I think some members have already elaborated on why it is important and the history behind why this bill is before the house. I have heard many members refer to the animal activists that have prompted this bill to come before the house, but I also think that the language is a little bit misleading, because they are not activists, they are extremists. The extreme actions of those people when they have invaded people’s private homes and private properties cannot be condoned at all. It is really sad when people who are living and working and making a living and doing the right thing are then approached and attacked by extremists who have a single agenda, and that agenda really is not about protecting the animals or supporting the animals; it is actually about raising their own profile and why they are doing it. So they do not care about the families that they are invading or attacking, they just care about their own publicity. And I find that really sad.

I also support other members’ comments in relation to the Greens political party and also the Animal Justice Party. I have worked really closely with the member in the upper house from the Animal Justice Party, Andy Meddick, on the task force on rehoming pets just recently, and he is a decent guy. He understands that you have to sometimes have compromise, and I respect that he has come to those positions. But, at the same time, you cannot get your messages across by extreme measures that really impact people’s lives and livelihoods. It is just not on. It should be illegal, and this bill will make it illegal.

I also heard the member for Murray Plains referring to the Legislative Council Economy and Infrastructure Committee inquiry. He said that the committee focused a lot on the motives behind the activists or extremists, but what he failed to mention was that that inquiry actually really did highlight that animal rights activists caused physical and mental distress to many people in the agricultural industry, including farmers, their families and employees and that intimidating farmers, stealing livestock and disrupting business is not on. It really is extremism. It also highlighted of course that animal rights activists who trespass onto agricultural facilities pose a biosecurity risk. This is the main reason for the introduction of this bill, because biosecurity is so vital to the ongoing success of our agricultural industries. You cannot risk any breaches of biosecurity, particularly when you know that there are diseases out there that will impact significantly on your livestock or your crops. A strong biosecurity system across Victoria is not just about the farmers, it is about prosperity. It is about health and it is also about a way of life, so ensuring that we have those safeguards in place. It also underpins jobs and economic growth across the state, and it supports our trade and market access just as it protects our public health and our beautiful unique environment. We as a government really want to continue to work—and this has already been happening with the Minister for Agriculture—with industry and with the community, because it is through that partnership that we can get better outcomes.

The bill refers to a number of fines that are being put in place through this legislation for those who would choose to invade other people’s property and cause problems. I note that the member for Murray Plains also referred to the fact that he believed the fines were lower than in other jurisdictions, but I think the member was comparing the maximum penalty, which would require a court outcome. But the focus of this bill, which the member for Murray Plains did not mention, is the on-the-spot fines or the infringement offences, and this bill has a higher penalty. Also Victoria will be the only jurisdiction to have an on-the-spot fine for what is referred to as a body corporate but is in fact any activist organisation. That is an important point that the member for Murray Plains did not mention.

The government has been extremely supportive of the inquiry and 13 of the 15 recommendations will be implemented. Those fines are indeed amongst the heaviest in Australia, and they are really necessary to protect the biosecurity of our farms, our farming community and our agricultural sector. Without them, we would again go back to where we would see the courts putting in place $1 fines, which absolutely was inappropriate.

Our farmers work so jolly hard. I watch my son-in-law and my daughter rotating through the seasons and the different activities that are required on a farm, from shearing to crutching to planting and then harvesting. Month after month there is a cycle of activity, and it is jolly hard work. It is really hard work, and they work so hard 24/7. It is a big commitment to be a farmer—huge—and I want to give a big shout-out to all in our agricultural sector across Victoria. The last two years have been really challenging with COVID for a whole range of reasons, but even in light of that we rely on them so much and we should be thankful and grateful for everything that they do.

When the control orders provided for by this bill are put in place to restrict the movement of activists and extremists across the agricultural sector I think it will be a stark reminder of how extremism can really damage not just livelihoods but also our society. I will just give an example of extremism that has gone too far: a butterfly research facility on the border in Texas has had to close because of QAnon conspiracy theorists who are threatening that research facility. It is no different really in the sense that when any extremism takes activity too far, when it impacts on other people’s lives and their livelihoods and it is more than just trespass, it is actually an attack on a person’s life and livability, then we have to put these measures in place. That is why this bill is so important. I am really proud to support this bill, and I look forward to its passage through the house.

Ms SANDELL (Melbourne) (17:42): As I foreshadowed in my speech on the government business program, it is difficult for the Greens to support this bill, and I want to talk a little bit about why. It is a bill that is supposedly about biosecurity, but when you actually look at the detail, really using that term biosecurity is just a bit of a smokescreen for the government to introduce new laws to crack down on animal activists who are trying to put a spotlight on the horrible way that we often do treat the animals that we kill and eat. I know I will probably get quite a few howls and heckles from the Liberals, Nationals and Labor; I think we are the only party opposing this bill in this place. It is a bit disappointing that we see those three parties, Labor, Liberal and The Nationals, in lockstep on this and supporting big industry and big business over animal welfare, but that is where we are at.

In terms of a bit of history, this bill is part of the response to a parliamentary inquiry which was held into the impact of animal rights activism on Victorian agriculture. There was a study into it, an inquiry. Unfortunately the inquiry did have quite loaded terms of reference courtesy of the National Party, who brought it forward, and it was clearly designed from the outset to attack those community members who are trying to stand up against animal cruelty. You listen to the speeches in this place about it and it is pretty clear that the bill is brought before the house by Labor because for some reason they are scared of the National Party on this issue. I do not know if they are trying to bolster seats in regional Victoria; I am not really sure.

The inquiry happened, even though it had these quite questionable terms of reference and perhaps the place it was coming from was not quite genuine. It did actually make some pretty good recommendations about improving animal welfare standards across the industry, but what we are seeing today is that the government has brought in a bill that is just responding to those bits of the inquiry that recommended further penalising animal activists and not the other recommendations of the inquiry that are actually about animal welfare. A lot of people have stood up and said, ‘This is about animal welfare’, and, ‘We support animal welfare’, but I think you just need to look at the contents of the bill to see that it is very selective in which parts of the inquiry, which recommendations, have made their way into the bill, and they are those parts that penalise those community members.

In fact Labor has been out there bragging about introducing some of the heaviest fines in the country for animal activists. So we do have a government that on the one hand talks about how much it cares about animals but on the other hand comes down with a sledgehammer on people trying to protect animals from cruelty. The Greens absolutely understand that trespass is illegal and it causes significant distress to farmers and their families. There are many, many farmers out there who are absolutely doing the right thing, and there is also a real anxiety about the potential biosecurity risk that trespassers could pose. We also know there have been some isolated incidents of really poor behaviour on the part of animal activists, and some on the part of farmers as well, and we absolutely do not condone intimidation or harassment as part of any campaign or protest.

Ms Britnell interjected.

Ms SANDELL: Exactly. As the member for South-West Coast said, there are actually already laws to prevent that. It is not something that I have personally ever been involved in or have a desire to be involved in, but it is also important to remember—let us not forget—that it is through the work of community members and activists that we have learned about some of the truly horrific practices of cruelty within the agricultural industry, work that has led to change and practices that industry and big business have tried very, very hard to cover up. The community was outraged by them, and it has actually led to better standards. So there is a role for community members to stand up when they see that something is wrong and something is cruel.

In looking at this bill I also think there have been quite a lot of emotive speeches, but it is important to look at some of the facts rather than just the emotive stories about people being afraid, for example, of being invaded. The inquiry actually spent quite a bit of time discussing the threat of biosecurity breaches on farms. It did a lot of work on this, and it found there have been no reported outbreaks of disease caused by animal rights activists, there have been no biosecurity breaches or incidents as a result of activist activity, and that was through the parliamentary inquiry—that is not just me saying that. Yet now we have a bill that is creating a new offence to penalise activism that tries to stop cruelty to animals.

The bill allows a farmer or someone who manages livestock activity to develop a biosecurity management plan for their property, and that can include mandatory measures. Then if there is prescribed biosecurity signage around the property and someone breaches a measure in their biosecurity management plan—in other words, if they trespass on the property—they can be hit with fines of up to $10 904 for a person or over $54 000 for organisations and on-the-spot fines of over $1200.

I want to talk about why there are a few problems with this. Firstly, I believe it actually really devalues biosecurity protocols and the signage that comes with them. Personally I and the Greens believe that we should take biosecurity very, very seriously. It is an incredibly important issue. It is one which the Greens absolutely support strengthening. But this new law means that the public will not know if a biosecurity sign has been put up outside a farm because there is a very real and important biosecurity risk for entering that property, one that we should take very, very seriously and not contravene, or whether the sign has just been put up so that animal activists can be punished extra for entering that property. So it is a bit, in my mind, like the boy who cried wolf: if we devalue biosecurity warnings, if we undermine them like this, they will be taken less seriously. That is quite a dangerous thing and one that I think farmers and industry who genuinely care about biosecurity, which I know they do, should be quite worried about. It is like if every single beach in the country had a warning sign about crocodiles, you would not know which ones actually had crocodiles and which ones did not have crocodiles, and you would not know which ones were the very, very dangerous beaches and which ones were not the very dangerous beaches. I think it is a similar concept.

Strangely, I do not see The Nationals or the Liberal Party speaking up much about this. I personally think biosecurity is a very serious matter and it should not be used as an excuse or a smokescreen in other proxy battles because that undermines it, undervalues it and could lead to quite dangerous outcomes. That is a real concern.

But the second problem with these new offences is that offences already exist which cover what we are talking about here. The parliamentary inquiry actually spent quite a lot of time going through the existing offences that already apply to animal activists. Trespass is one of them, and wilful damage of property, use of listening or surveillance devices and potential privacy breaches. There are also offences under the Livestock Disease Control Act 1994 for entering or exiting declared areas and moving livestock in and out of those areas.

These offences can result in hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines. They can even result in imprisonment. They already exist, so it is a bit hard to see why extra offences in the bill are needed and whether this is actually just a political move—I do not know why, maybe by Labor to bolster some regional seats or throw a bone to a certain constituency or show that they are not as beholden to the Animal Justice Party as some people may think they are. I do not know why, but it is hard to justify extra offences when offences already exist and particularly when it has been shown through the inquiry there has never been a biosecurity breach on a farm due to activist activity. It just does not really make sense as to why this is needed. We cannot go around making laws for things that do not happen and that do not exist, especially when, actually, the behaviour is already criminalised.

A number of submissions to the inquiry, including from the Law Institute of Victoria, pointed out that the current penalties were already sufficient and that increasing them would do little to deter activists from trying to blow the whistle on disturbing activity in the agricultural industry. They did say through the inquiry that what would actually deter this behaviour—and if people in this chamber are genuine about wanting to deter this behaviour, maybe let us look at what we know will deter the behaviour—is increasing regulation and oversight in the industry to stamp out the worst animal cruelty practices in the first place, encourage better behaviour and reward farmers who are doing the right thing. So increasing oversight in the agricultural industry, improving animal welfare standards, increasing confidence that farm animals are actually being treated humanely and with care—all of these things would make a big difference.

The government, to their credit, did commit to a lot of the inquiry’s recommendations that related to improving animal welfare standards—things like introducing CCTV in abattoirs, updating codes of practice for the industry and modernising the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986—so hopefully those things come to fruition. We have also seen this government do a few things that are quite contrary to animal welfare: supporting a very low standard of free-range eggs, for example, which means what are essentially battery chicken farms can be classed as free range, and supporting and in fact giving public money to practices like duck shooting. I think these things kind of undermine that agenda of trying to protect animal welfare.

The government, I know, is currently in the process of developing new animal welfare legislation. I hope we see that before this house quite soon. It would have been nice to see that alongside this bill or before this bill. It says a bit about the priorities, but hopefully it comes to us soon. Those are the kinds of things—those are the kinds of reforms—that will actually deter protest activity, not the bill that we have before us.

I think also one of the concerns that we have is that it could be a step down a pretty slippery slope towards criminalising very specific forms of activism. So if we say that it is okay to single out animal activists for a new offence, who is to say that we will not then later say it is okay to single out other activist groups for very specific and additional punishment? We already have laws against trespass, harassment and things like that, but are we going to see a very specific offence for blockading a mining conference, for example? Are we going to see a special fine that is just for people who are sitting in a tree to stop our forests being destroyed? I think that if we are starting down that path it is a pretty dangerous precedent for how activists and campaigners will be treated in this state. We have already seen the government introduce laws that overly criminalise and penalise people trying to protect our forests just to protect this one specific industry, which does not make a lot of sense. It is just trying to protect the status quo in an industry that we know is very, very unpopular.

At the end of the day it is important to remember that activists are just community members who are concerned enough to go and take action, at personal risk, when they see something that they believe is gravely wrong. People do not really just do this for kicks. They do it because they see something that they believe is so fundamentally wrong that they want to do everything in their power to try and stop that, whether that is cruelty to humans or cruelty to animals. These community members are not the enemy; they are just community members who feel very strongly about something and stand up against it.

That is how change has been made throughout history, and a lot of us in this place stand up and commend a lot of the change that has been made in history because of activists. Let us not lose sight of that. It is the foundation of many of the most important reforms in our country and in our state. It is our whistleblowers who shine a light on unethical and immoral behaviour in various industries. It is our campaigners that push for change, and personally I am really proud to be a member of a party that has its own foundations in activism and community campaigning. I am proud to support a lot of what activists do, provided that it is not violent, provided that it is not harassment. I think that activism plays a very important role in our society. I am proud to support activists in the face of governments bragging about introducing some of the heaviest fines in the country.

It is not really surprising, unfortunately, to me that the government has introduced these new penalties. I know that a law and order approach is often the first go-to of this government where it can, but having the heaviest fines in the nation targeting activists, targeting whistleblowers, targeting community members for standing up for what they believe is right—I do not personally think that is something that Victoria should be proud of or that this Labor government should be proud of. In a democracy when we see something that we believe is cruel, that we believe is clearly and obviously wrong, that is hurting people or animals, we actually do have the right to protest and to campaign for change. It is only dictators and authoritarian regimes that try and squash that right. Where the protest is done illegally, such as trespassing on private property, our existing privacy and trespass laws can be and are used in those circumstances. Anything further really is just a blatant attack on community members’ rights to protest and on activists standing up for what they believe is right. We do not support any proposal to single out specific forms of activism or activists for additional very strong penalties, the strongest in the country, and really that is the justification for why we cannot support this bill.

Mr BRAYNE (Nepean) (17:58): I also rise today to speak on the Livestock Management Amendment (Animal Activism) Bill 2021. The Victorian government is committed to supporting our agricultural producers, and this means supporting farmers and agricultural businesses when their livelihoods come under attack from activists who put hardworking farming families and their animals at risk. Unfortunately instances of activists trespassing onto livestock farms have increased in recent years, with several agricultural producers being subject to trespasses by animal activists who have intimidated farmers, stolen livestock and disrupted businesses.

I can understand some of the passion behind some of these activists, and the overwhelming majority of activists do the right thing, often fighting for their beliefs through the courts. Additionally, this government has a good record of fighting for animal welfare issues. Our government’s consultation has shown Victorians support modernising the animal welfare act and support proposals that will further strengthen animal welfare provisions. Animal sentience will be recognised for the first time in Victoria’s animal welfare laws. The consultation that the government undertook there allowed a range of stakeholders to be involved, including allowing agricultural, animal welfare, recreational and other organisations to provide their views on this reform, with overwhelming support for modernising it. We banned puppy farms.

Our government’s record is clear, but farmers and agricultural businesses should also be free to do their work without fear of being targeted by these activists who put not only farmers and animals at risk but also Victoria’s biosecurity. The biosecurity risk created by animal rights activists trespassing onto livestock farms can have significant impacts on the health of animals. Furthermore, with Victoria having a reputation as a producer of high-quality produce, these biosecurity risks can impact market access for our farmers and agricultural businesses. Most Victorians understand these risks and are shocked by the actions of a minority of these activists who engage in this reckless behaviour.

While difference of opinion is of course always healthy in a democracy, it is never okay to resort to trespass and disruption that intimidates fellow Victorians and risks the health and safety of our livestock. That is why the Economy and Infrastructure Committee’s public inquiry into these matters was so important. This inquiry considered the effectiveness of legislation and other measures in preventing and deterring disruptive activities by animal rights activists on agricultural industries. The report that the committee produced expressed support for our farmers and agricultural businesses and criticised the illegal actions of animal rights activists. It also found that acts of trespass by activists have caused physical and mental distress to many in the agricultural industry. The inquiry found that animal rights activists who trespassed onto livestock farms posed a biosecurity risk. The inquiry also found that the penalties given in certain incidents of trespass did not necessarily meet the expectations of stakeholders and some sections of the community.

Ultimately the report made 15 recommendations to address these issues, with these recommendations focusing on building confidence in existing agricultural standards as well as strengthening Victoria’s biosecurity laws. As I said, this government is committed to supporting our agricultural producers and our rural and regional communities. The government is also committed to protecting Victorians from the biosecurity risks that result from trespass onto livestock farms. That is why this government supported 13 of the 15 recommendations of the committee’s report in full, including recommendations to incorporate on-the-spot fines for biosecurity breaches caused by trespassers. Two of the recommendations from the committee are being given full effect in this bill, with this being another example of the government’s continued commitment to our farmers, their families and their livestock.

I will turn to the specifics of this legislation. The bill will give full effect to recommendations 4 and 5 of the report. This will reduce the biosecurity risk caused by illegal entry onto livestock premises and provide additional means of prosecuting trespassers. On-the-spot fines will now be issued to people who trespass onto a livestock farm, with a fine of up to $1272 per person or $8178 for a corporation. Where the trespass is of a serious nature and this matter goes to the Magistrates Court a fine of up to $10 904 per person or up to $54 222 for a corporation can be issued. These fines are among the most severe in Australia and will go a long way to deterring the disruptive actions that led to farmers and their families being intimidated as well as the biosecurity of Victoria being threatened. These are necessary measures to protect the biosecurity of our farms and agricultural businesses.

The introduction of diseases to farms can have a terrible impact on animal welfare and Victoria’s market access. For example, if a disease has infected a farm’s livestock, farmers may need to de-populate their stock, which can have tremendously adverse financial and animal welfare impacts. It is for this reason that farmers work so hard to protect their livestock from biosecurity risks. Not long ago we saw how disease outbreaks can affect livestock populations, with the outbreak of avian influenza in 2020 having a severe impact on the poultry populations of several farms. One farm alone lost 5100 birds to this disease, and had the virus spread to more farms the entire industry could have been devastated by this biosecurity risk. Thankfully the outbreak was contained and the virus has been eradicated from Victoria, and this was because of the hard work of farmers, businesses, local communities and vets who came together to address the crisis. However, this outbreak was a stark reminder of how vital biosecurity is to our farms and highlights the need for legislation like this.

Trespassing onto a farm in the middle of an outbreak can lead to dire consequences. That is why it is so important that the penalties for this illegal behaviour reflect the severity of endangering Victoria’s biosecurity. This government recognises this. It is committed to strengthening the biosecurity of farms and the agricultural industry at large. As it did with the rollout of electronic identification tags for sheep and goats, Victoria is leading the way on critical biosecurity reform. These reforms often set an example for the rest of the country on how to enhance biosecurity defences.

As I said earlier, Victoria is also leading the way on animal welfare. This government recognises that animal welfare is becoming increasingly important to both consumers and trade partners. Despite the claims of some of the animal rights activists, many farmers do take great care in the welfare of their animals. That is why this government is, as I said earlier, committed to strengthening and supporting animal welfare in Victoria. The government has already delivered Victoria’s first animal welfare action plan as well as establishing Animal Welfare Victoria. This government has also been actively developing new national animal welfare standards, with the development of the animal welfare standards and guidelines for poultry currently underway. Finally, this government has also reformed the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee to ensure that it is receiving the best advice to support our animal welfare agenda.

All Victorians love animals and want to do what is best for their welfare, and these initiatives reflect this concern for the health and safety of our animals. As such, animal welfare will continue to be a priority of the Victorian government, particularly as a new animal welfare act to replace the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 is underway. This bill and the initiatives I mention all reflect the needs of our modern world and contemporary attitudes around the treatment of animals.

When taken alongside the Livestock Management Amendment (Animal Activism) Bill 2021, these schemes reflect a government that is committed to both animal welfare and the welfare of our farmers and agricultural businesses. While balancing these interests can of course sometimes be difficult, it is important that we strive to enhance animal welfare while protecting our agricultural industry. Most of all it is important that we send a clear message to those who seek to disrupt, threaten and intimidate our farmers that this behaviour will not be tolerated. Consequences for this behaviour will be tough but fair. The changes made in this bill will go a long way towards deterring this behaviour and protecting Victoria’s farmers, livestock and biosecurity.

This government will always be committed to Victoria’s agricultural producers and our communities who participate in this sector. This bill upholds this commitment and puts our farmers, agricultural businesses and livestock first. I commend this bill to the house.

Ms STALEY (Ripon) (18:07): I rise to speak on the Livestock Management Amendment (Animal Activism) Bill 2021, and as other speakers on this side of the house have noted, we will not be opposing this bill. We have a couple of amendments that we would of course like to put, and we will have that opportunity if the government allows this bill to go into consideration in detail.

I suppose I will start with one of those amendments, because overall I absolutely support the intent of this bill and most of the provisions. Really my only complaint would be that the government has been so tardy in bringing it here. But in relation to the penalties for the biosecurity offences—not the on-the-spot fines, but the other penalties—they are inadequate compared to other jurisdictions and we do think that they could well be increased, in fact doubled. With those words though I want to address the actual purpose of the bill and how we got to where we are today.

I did hear the end of the member for Melbourne’s speech. She seemed to be putting forward the argument that existing laws were okay to deal with people going onto private property. But it is absolutely clear that in relation to animal activists invading people’s farms that is not the case, because we have had, over and over again, people either fined a dollar or not fined at all because somehow it is okay if you break this law—it is okay if you go along to somebody’s home or somebody’s farm if you are an animal activist—and I do not think that we can say that that is in any way adequate. The courts have consistently failed to uphold the right of people to have quiet enjoyment of their homes and their private property when the opposing person is an animal activist. The animal activists have at every chance got the lawyers there to say, ‘Oh look, this poor person is actually some sort of law student or is a young person who has a bright future in front of them. You shouldn’t convict them’, and they go and do it again.

Ms Britnell: With no criminal record.

Ms STALEY: With no criminal record. Thank you, member for South-West Coast. That is why this bill is needed. That is why we have agreed with the government that they needed to bring this forward, and it is why we do not oppose it.

It is very disappointing that the Greens in this place have said they will oppose it. I in some way dread what Mr Meddick in the other place is going to say about this bill when it comes up. I cannot imagine he is going to support it, given that he and his fellow travellers are in fact many of the people who support these actions and support people going onto people’s farms.

Now, of course, I represent the electorate of Ripon, and we have a large amount of intensive agriculture in Ripon, particularly chicken farms in Central Goldfields. There are a lot of—

Mr Riordan: Golden Plains.

Ms STALEY: Well, indeed, Golden Plains is coming into Ripon, and that has 20-something per cent of Victoria’s intensive chicken industry in that electorate. So it is going to be very much my people that this affects, but it also affects every Victorian’s food supply, because if you have someone going into one of these highly intensive chook sheds—let us not be clever about this—the result is that all of those chickens usually have to be slaughtered because the biosecurity has been breached. I mean, I do not see how the animal activists think that is a good outcome.

So here we have a situation where the current law is inadequate and the government is acting. And, as I say, we are not opposing that. But I remain extremely concerned about the attitude of the Greens, the attitude of Animal Justice, when they come here and they seem to—well, not even seem to but out and out—support people’s livelihoods and their personal enjoyment of their private property being invaded. We would not accept that in any other circumstance, yet the Animal Justice people, one of whom has the great privilege to represent the upper house region where my seat is, really should get out and meet a few people in his electorate, and they might put a different view.

I would also note that person thinks this week is the week to launch a petition against the fox bounty, and he went into Facebook and to other places saying that the fox bounty should be removed because foxes are playful and curious. Well, I would say to Mr Meddick of the other place that he really needs to see a lamb and how playful and curious it is when it has been mauled by a fox. So these are people completely out of touch with the needs of their constituents—if Mr Meddick, who is a member for Western Victoria, thinks that western Victorian people think that is a good idea. They clearly do not.

It is not in the interests of our region to have animal activists disrupting our farms. Our whole region just absolutely depends on the agricultural output and the broader economic benefits that that brings. So this bill is a really important bill. It is one of those marker bills in a sense. For quite a short bill it actually says that the Parliament is saying that we are going to stand up for farmers. We are going to say that their biosecurity, their ability to farm and to live on their farms in peace and security matter. So, as I say, we do think that this bill is on the right track. We think that the offences are not high enough. They are just not commensurate with other states. The on-the-spot fines are but not the other offences, and we do think putting an amendment to improve that, as we see it, would be advantageous to the whole bill. We think that would make it a more robust piece of legislation.

I see the Minister for Agriculture is at the table. I would very, very much enjoin her to step up and take the bill into consideration in detail. She would in fact be a heroine of the Parliament if she did that, because she would be the first minister this term to do so. All those Labor MPs that were elected in the 2018 election have never seen consideration in detail in that sense in this chamber. They do not know what one looks like, and perhaps the Minister for Agriculture could lead the way on going into consideration in detail.

We promise it will not be very, very long—an hour, that is all. We are not going to take up too much of the time of the Parliament—we understand that there are other bills on the agenda this week—but we do think that this is an ideal opportunity to have a more detailed look at some of the provisions of this bill. But as I say, the opposition does not oppose this bill. With those brief remarks I will stand aside for whoever is next, which I think is the member for Tarneit.

Ms CONNOLLY (Tarneit) (18:15): Well, I will not say it gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise to speak on the Livestock Management Amendment (Animal Activism) Bill 2021, but what I am going to say is that I am really happy to be able to stand and speak on something and shed what I think is going to be some common sense to add to this debate.

The member for Melbourne—I feel like it is a theme when you listen to contributions from the Greens party that you can only have it one way or the other. There is no in-between. There is no common sense. There is no rationale behind taking what can be really extreme approaches on different issues. I feel like the member for Melbourne in her contribution to this bill talked about activists—people that believe in animal rights and want to see the end to animal cruelty and all those things—as if they are the activists; they are the people on the ground fighting the good fight. I always feel like it is just taking such an extreme view of what is a really complicated issue.

I would say that no-one in this house believes in animal cruelty. The things that we read in the news and that we might watch on TV, and we get that warning of censorship before we watch it—those things that we see are very, very upsetting, and no-one in this house wants to see animals be treated like that. That does not mean that somehow we are not activists. Over the summer, while I was camping, I got some beef sausages, and I also tried for the very first time some vegan vegetable ones—I am not sure if that then makes me an activist—and popped them in the air fryer and tried them. They were great, and my kids ate them alongside the beef, pork and chicken sausages. But what I am saying is that does not pigeonhole me to believe in one thing or another.

In reading about this bill and what it means, one of the things that struck me, and I actually did not realise how bad it was and the extreme nature if it—I think the member for Ripon briefly touched on it—was that in mid-2020 outbreaks of avian influenza were indeed detected across six different farms in what happened to be the largest outbreak of the disease that we have ever seen in Australia. Avian influenza—which I did not realise—is a very serious disease of poultry that can cause very high death rates and impact on international trade, and for this reason eradication is the nationally agreed strategy when outbreaks occur. But it was, as always, thanks to the efforts of farmers—mums and dads out there getting up at all times of the day to look after their livestock—businesses, local communities and vets that the outbreak was indeed successfully contained and that the virus was eradicated from Victoria.

We talked about the impacts of the outbreak on individual farms. I was pretty upset to read about how devastating it was. One small farm alone, for example, lost 5100 birds. In total hundreds of thousands of birds were lost due to the outbreak. And then I went on to read that if the disease had in fact spread to more farms, the impact across the industry could have been more disastrous. Now, what does this mean, and why am I talking about it this? Farms introduced enhanced biosecurity measures—things like footbaths, which someone like me, who lives in metropolitan Melbourne, would not have actually thought about because I do not have a farming background. But I read about the footbaths when entering and exiting paddocks and sheds and the importance of them and the importance of maintaining separate vehicles for different paddocks to prevent cross-contamination and how important that was, remember, not just to reduce the numbers but to actually eradicate the disease from here in Victoria.

Now, if a trespasser were to go ahead and break into a farm affected by an avian influenza outbreak, the consequences could be dire, probably because they do not understand the disease or know what they are actually stepping into or stepping onto on that person’s property—because it is not their own, they are trespassing. This is why this bill is so important, because it gives the farmer the option of implementing biosecurity plans which can be enforced—and, yes, with harsh penalties. I have spoken in this house before about how important it is to have appropriate, satisfactory penalties—some might call them harsh—because they are a deterrent. We need them to be a deterrent. In the case of avian influenza you want it to deter people from stepping into those paddocks, onto that property, in the first place, because as I just said, it is a disaster at the end of the day for the livestock—for the birds in this particular case. I just talked about that one small farm alone: that was 5100 birds that had to be culled.

The main objective, as a lot of members in this house have talked about, in relation to this bill is to go ahead and build upon the recent inquiry into the impact of animal rights activism on Victorian agriculture—a really important inquiry. It aims to curb some of the rather excessive practices conducted by animal rights activists on the properties of farmers. So when the member for Melbourne got up here and started talking about activists and everybody having the right to protest, yes, they do, but stepping onto private property, putting at harm not only a family business but also the livestock—the animals, whether you are talking about sheep, cows, birds—that sort of stuff matters. This bill is not just about protecting our wonderful farmers and those family-run businesses and hardworking Victorians, it is also the animals as well.

Now, we are not saying with this bill that you cannot go ahead and protest for animal rights or that we are banning—and I know that the member for South Gippsland liked to laugh about my little veganism comment, but I will stand by that the sausages were actually quite lovely—that kind of thing. What we are saying is that you can still be an activist, you can still protest, but without trespassing onto other people’s property, committing thefts and causing widespread disruption to farmers and the businesses that work with them, because remember: it is not just about the farmer, it is the entire supply chain and those who work within that supply chain.

Now, there is a number of reasons why we are saying this, and that was outlined in the final report that was tabled in Parliament. The biggest one that stuck out to me was that the trespass of animal rights activists actually poses that biosecurity risk. Earlier I mentioned avian influenza and what that means, and I think that was a really good example of the damage that trespassers can actually do to properties and farms—that biosecurity risk. I would like to think that everyone here in this chamber today can understand and also appreciate the importance of biosecurity. We have been, I would say, pretty much practising it for the last two years with respect to the COVID-19 global pandemic as a risk to human biosecurity.

Now, in the time that I have got left I will just quickly talk about the story of a constituent who once told me they had a similar story about animal activism with a very unfortunate outcome: spray-painting numbers on the goats and sneaking them into school grounds to play a ridiculous muck-up day prank. It upset my staff actually quite a bit to hear this. They thought this would be funny and had taken the animal from a property. To cut a very long story short, what they thought was a very funny prank—removing the animal from the paddocks and the farm that it was from—presented a biosecurity risk, and that animal had to be put down.

This bill is really going to the heart of protecting our farmers, protecting local jobs and protecting the animals that are indeed there on farms and properties across Victoria.

Mr McCURDY (Ovens Valley) (18:25): I am delighted to rise and make a contribution on the Livestock Management Amendment (Animal Activism) Bill 2021. As you have heard from other speakers, we are not opposing this bill, and can I commend the member for Tarneit on her very, very good contribution then. But I also want to put on record that over the summer break I did not have any vegan sausages. I clearly want to put that on the record early in my contribution. The bill will amend the Livestock Management Act 2010 and provide biosecurity management plans for offences of contravening biosecurity measures and certain other matters of animal activism, which is growing, and which we have seen and heard about tonight.

A bit of background: as we have heard, in January 2019 Aussie Farms—a registered charity, of all things—created a website and a Facebook page to target producers across Australia, with the publication of a map and farm locations. Hundreds of farmers were listed on the interactive map, which included details on the nature of their farming operation—including pigs, dairy, beef, some abattoirs, greyhound tracks et cetera—and they were targeted. This resource was subsequently used by animal activists to target primary producers to expose supposed animal cruelty. This was the basis for those disgraceful attacks on Victorian farmers. Can I say the member for Bendigo West said it best when she said, ‘They’re not activists, they are actually extremists’, and I clearly support that view. These extremists must be stopped.

Then once the Aussie Farms website went live, a Protect Our Farms campaign was launched, calling on stronger protections for primary producers and for the charity status of the group to be revoked, and thankfully it was by the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission. At the same time, Scott Morrison said that Aussie Farms encouraged the invasion of farmers’ homes and properties and the sabotaging of businesses. The ACNC commissioner also noted that revocation of charity status was reserved for the most serious of cases. So it was acknowledged nationally that Aussie Farms was a serious offender.

Then the Weekly Times revealed to us that an activist was fined just $1 for breaking biosecurity laws after stealing livestock from Gippy Goat Cafe in Gippsland. Gippy Goat is—was—a legitimate, caring business that was invaded by trespassers who threatened the biosecurity of their property. This set a precedent that they could trespass other properties and get fined $1—a slap on the wrist with a wet lettuce. After much kicking and screaming, the Victorian government felt compelled to be seen to be doing something about this pitiful $1 fine for the activist concerned and set up a parliamentary inquiry into the impact of animal activism on Victorian agriculture. The inquiry went on to make multiple recommendations, in February 2020.

Again, it took some time for the government to get this to where we are today but, gladly, we are here, although somewhat later than we would have thought. But anyway, we are here now, and we are pleased that we are. This action is in direct contrast to Queensland and New South Wales, who immediately introduced stronger on-the-spot fines by the end of 2019. Other states have also implemented stronger protections, while Victoria delayed the action with an inquiry. The Nationals and Liberals were tenacious, particularly through Melina Bath in the other place, in ensuring that the government for Melbourne would finally have to face up to this wilful trespassing.

This legislation has been welcomed by many stakeholders, including the Victorian Farmers Federation’s Emma Germano. She said the legislation and the introduction of these fines was:

… a long time coming to the point we thought perhaps they weren’t going to put them into place.

They are meaningful fines and not only a deterrent, but they demonstrate we value farmers and it’s not an appropriate form of protest to trespass onto farmers’ property.

We always find groups that are opposed to this legislation. I shook my head in disbelief when I listened to the member for Melbourne. Only the Greens can defend illegal trespass and then go on to blame The Nationals and the Liberals for the terms of reference. Most of all what surprised me was when she said that this bill should be including animal welfare measures. Well, no. This bill should not include animal welfare measures. This bill is about stopping people from trespassing and putting in deterrents so that they do not trespass. Nobody likes it if somebody trespasses into their home because they do not believe they are bringing up their family the right way or they are not making their bed in the right direction. If an activist can come in and invade your private space—this is exactly what happened with trespassers at the Gippy Goat Cafe, which was the precedent that was set.

The member for Melbourne went on to say that she supports biosecurity but was concerned about the confusion that might come with the signage. Let me tell the member for Melbourne and any other activist or extremist: if it is not your property, get off it. Do not get on it in the first place. Stay away. It is as simple as that. It is not that hard to understand. She also said that they are proud to support activists—well, they are extremists, as we said earlier. Finally, she went on to say that this bill threatens the right to protest. No, it does not. It threatens activists’ right to invade property. That is what it really does.

Ultimately, the livestock management amendment bill will introduce some of Australia’s heaviest fines—on-the-spot fines of $1272 for individuals and a bit over $8000 for businesses. As you have heard from the member for Murray Plains, we would like to see those doubled. We just need to send a really clear message to these people that you cannot trespass, you cannot invade people’s property. Whether you are a farmer or a family or whatever, trespassing is just not on. I know the member for Gippsland South wants to make a contribution, so I am going to finish my contribution there because it will give him a couple of minutes at the end of the night. But we really need to send that signal that trespassing is not on, theft is not on and the penalty must reflect the crime.

Mr EDBROOKE (Frankston) (18:32): Throughout 2018 and 2019 the agricultural community in Victoria was subjected to a series of incidents that involved so-called animal rights activists who were intimidating people, stealing livestock and disrupting businesses. I could not agree more with the member for Ovens Valley that people invading people’s property, people breaking the law to get their point across, is just not acceptable.

It was brought to our attention through the inquiry that there were improvements we could make, and this bill includes 13 out of the 15 recommendations that were made by the inquiry. We have heard today about the serious impacts of trespassing on agricultural communities, including acts of trespass, threats and the kidnapping of animals, and the mental and physical distress that that has caused animals and the people who own them, including farmers, families and employees. Also we have heard about the biosecurity risk as well, which is huge. This can flatten whole industries, let alone just one farmer or one business. We have heard also that all people who enter these farms must consult with property owners or managers and comply with their biosecurity protocols.

I would like to put on the record, as I think I have heard from most people in this house this evening, that we all love animals. Obviously there are different perceptions of what an animal activist is and for me one of the examples that is most recent about people’s perception of farming and agriculture and how it is different to, say, mine or members on the other side would be the series Muster Dogs on the ABC. It is the best reality TV you will ever see. It is not Married at First Sight, it is not the Bachelor or anything like that. But for those who follow the wagging tails of little Annie, Spice, Gossip, Lucifer and Chet it is not just about the dogs. It is about the people who own the properties. They have got livestock and they are farmers, sometimes doing it very tough in some of these areas of Australia.

What came to the fore for me and certainly for some other people I spoke to with regard to this series, Muster Dogs, was how much care some of these pastoralists, agriculturalists, farmers put into their stock. They are actually bringing these kelpies onto their farm because they no longer want to stress their cattle with helicopters. They no longer want to stress their cattle, sheep, cows, whatever, with motorbikes and machinery. They want to use dogs to keep the cattle calm so they obviously can bring a better product to market, but also because it makes it easier on the livestock and it makes it easier on them as well.

One of the things that hit me a little bit was that a friend that is very much in that, I would say, lean animal activist area—our discussions have revealed that anyway—was kind of shocked at how these people cared so much for their animals, and I think those people who have grown up on farms or been exposed to farms know that. The whole deal with being an animal activist is that it can be done in a legal way. It can be done in a way that actually achieves change in places like this. I would challenge anyone in an argument who would say that trespassing on someone’s land, their house or their property or stealing their animals does anything for that cause, anything at all.

We put in place this inquiry to make sure that those people who work on the land for a living with cattle and other animals can feel safe and can actually do their job without fear of this kind of thing happening. We have heard a few examples this afternoon, and I will not go into them.

One thing I would like to clear up is that there have been some claims from members that the fines in the bill are lower than in other jurisdictions, and there is a bit of confusion there. I think some of the members that have said this are comparing them with the maximum penalty, which obviously would go through a court and require a judicial outcome. However, the focus of this bill is on on-the-spot fines, which are infringement offences which are issued by a police officer or an authorised officer, and in that case this bill, once it is enacted, would bring higher penalties than anywhere in the nation. Victoria will also be the only jurisdiction to have an on-the-spot fine for corporates or body corporates, and this covers activists’ organisations as well so that no-one can hide behind that.

An example of this would be that in New South Wales the infringement offence amount for this financial year, because we are looking at penalty units, would be around $1000. In Queensland it would be around $689, and this is under their biosecurity acts. For Victoria, once this bill is enacted, under the Livestock Management Act 2010 an individual can be fined $1272 and corporations can be fined $8178, which are indeed the largest fines in Australia. That maximum penalty blows out, and this would obviously have to go through the judicial system, to $10 904 for an individual and $54 522 for corporations.

I will wind up fairly quickly because I am aware there are some other people that want to make contributions.

A member interjected.

Mr EDBROOKE: No? Oh, beautiful. So this show Muster Dogs is a must-see—the best reality TV.

In all seriousness, the reaction I see in my community when people read the paper and hear about these invasions of property is not, ‘Oh, the poor animals’. It is, ‘My goodness, what are these people doing?’. I do not think they are doing their cause justice, and I think it is an act like this that goes a long way to ensuring that we can prevent this. Much like the laws that this government has put through this house successfully, with the assistance of course of the opposition—workplace health and safety laws—for me individually and for many members of my community this is much the same path that we are treading. We are making the fines for these offences more than a slap on the wrist. We are making sure that people know that if they do choose to do this, their actions will invoke a reaction that they might have to live with, and I think it makes people just have a second thought.

I spoke before about the spectrum of animal activists and what they are actually acting on. Many of the things we have heard about today, the instances we have heard about today, are not cattle on a ship that are dying out in the bay. Many of the things we have heard about today are not about the issues around how our meat is produced. Many of these issues tend to be a little bit more nuanced than that. We have heard also today about the way that some of these industries have been focused on.

I, like many people in this house, would not like to think that there was any way that someone would be able to come into my house and because they do not like the way I, you know, make a four-course meal for my dog or whatever then take my dog or abuse me without there being some kind of penalty for that, and an adequate penalty as well. Many people in our community, it was found in the inquiry, agreed that the penalties did not fit what was actually happening and the offences that were occurring.

I think this bill goes a long way to ensuring that people that produce things for our markets, for our community and for overseas markets that we support as a government are able to do that safely, efficiently and effectively, because they are doing the legal thing. What they are doing is totally legal. But we have got some people who, and they are entitled to their opinion, do not think it is right and want to take illegal action against something that is legal. This bill goes a long way to preventing that and to sending that message to people that you just cannot rock up, that just because you are a bunch of people and you have got that herd mentality—no pun intended—it does not mean you can just rock up to someone’s farm—

Ms Ward interjected.

Mr EDBROOKE: You liked that?

Ms Ward: Yes.

Mr EDBROOKE: It does not mean you can just rock up to someone’s farm and, instead of just protesting outside, go in and make a mockery of the law. This sends a clear message to those people that, yes, they can have their opinion—we have all got our opinions about how we treat animals and what is acceptable and what is not—but if someone is producing a legal product on a legal farm, they are protected by this legislation, and I wholeheartedly commend it to the house.

Mr RIORDAN (Polwarth) (18:41): I too wish to contribute to the Livestock Management Amendment (Animal Activism) Bill 2021. As many of my colleagues have said this afternoon, this is a long-overdue bill. It is a long-overdue bill because increasingly over the last 20-odd years it has become common practice for many activist groups, predominantly city-based activists, to have very firm views on the way people in rural and regional Victoria live and the way rural and regional Victorians operate their businesses.

From rural Victorians’ point of view, these longstanding traditional businesses and enterprises that carry on in agriculture—livestock raising, milk production, egg production, pork, beef, lamb, whatever it might be—are important elements to humankind. They are age-old foodstuffs, they are a part of the production system, they are incredibly important to the economy and to the way of life of so many thousands of people. Yet increasingly we are seeing in this industry, the agricultural industry—we have seen it in the timber industry, we have seen it in the fishing industry, we have seen it in a whole raft of valuable and important rural pursuits—that people who disagree with it just feel that they can go and invade a workplace, and as is so often the case in country Victoria it is also invading homes.

No-one else, no other industry, would tolerate that. I mean, imagine, for example, the Ford Motor Company or a major corporation that produced something that people did not agree with and people thinking it was okay to just go in and take over the managing director’s home or invade the whole workplace and upend all manner of workplace safety and workplace protocols just to try and prove their point. And of course increasingly we have seen that these activist groups, which the Greens seem to be able to spend a fair bit of time justifying, are the same groups that spend a lot of time vilifying those farms and those people for something that is entirely 100 per cent legal and is important to the rest of the community, and it is really a bridge too far. We welcome the fact that the government has finally taken advice and sought to do something.

I make note also of the member for Frankston, who said that we should be very proud of the fines. Not that we have too much to criticise about this particular piece of legislation, but I will point out, having had a quick look through the fines that WorkSafe imposes for other workplace safety breaches, that a fine of $1800 would be at the very, very, very extremely low end of any workplace fine handed out by WorkSafe. I also point out that the corporation maximum penalty of $8000 too would barely rate a mention in WorkSafe’s fines.

I was looking through some of those indiscretions, such as people just abusing each other verbally and a whole range of workplace practices that this government and its agencies view as far more litigious, far more worthy of much greater penalties than what a whole horde of people will be fined should they invade your home in the country or your workplace. So I think there is room definitely to up the ante on the importance that these industries have to rural and regional areas and to provide those protections.

The member for Gippsland South, I am sure, like me, had a number of farmers at the time—this is a couple of years back now with the Gippy Goat saga. It was quite a thing for activist groups to do. I had many, many farming families contact my office wondering what their rights were, wondering whether their wives and their children were safe to be left at home by themselves, which is a very common practice in the country. I mean, the worst we have to worry about usually is—well, I do not really know what the worst thing to worry about is, probably the neighbour’s dog coming in.

A member: Snakes.

Mr RIORDAN: And snakes. And not the two-legged snakes with long hair and smelling of incense; that is not the type of snake that our farming families need to worry about. But people had a genuine concern. They were worried about whether it would be safe to leave those people behind. As the member for South Gippsland would also know, many in the dairy industry are very much mum-and-dad family operations. When they go away on holidays for the one or two weeks a year they get a break from the farm they will leave a farm manager or perhaps an elderly family member to hold the fort while they have a well-deserved break. And questions were quite valid: what would the instructions be? What safety would be in place for the people that they had left to essentially babysit the farm for a couple of weeks? These were real concerns that people were living with and worried about. The government has gone some way to addressing that, and we acknowledge that.

The other request that the opposition had—and this is a really important one—was to have this bill as one suitable for consideration in detail. And I guess from my point of view the reason this was so important is we had another crucial piece of legislation that sailed through this Parliament, as legislation so often does now with the government commanding both houses and really not putting the work in to getting the bills right to start with. We had the infamous legislation last year that was going to allow people all over farms with riverfrontages. And members like me and other country members made it very clear that having people roaming all over the—

Ms Thomas: You voted for it.

Mr RIORDAN: Well, the opportunity to properly interrogate the legislation was not there, and we tried to bring this to the government’s account. Had they had proper debate at the time to discuss these issues, it would have become clear that it is just not possible to allow legislation to let people roam all over people’s farms.

Ms Thomas: People are not allowed to roam over people’s farms.

Mr RIORDAN: No, they are not now. So that was brought up, but this is another reason why this legislation is a prime opportunity to properly interrogate it, because once again the minister, despite her barking on the other side of this table, has—

Ms Ward: Oh, come on! Barking?

Mr RIORDAN: Well, it sounds like it. All I can hear is this muffle, muffle, muffle. But the point is—

Ms Ward interjected.

Mr RIORDAN: Well, she should not be interjecting. The minister should not be interjecting on my opportunity to state the case that this legislation again allows a loophole where people with riverfrontage land may in fact still be susceptible to people coming through on their property. And that is—

Ms Thomas: People have always been allowed on riverfrontages. Always.

Mr RIORDAN: No, not on leaseholds.

Ms Thomas interjected.

Mr RIORDAN: Well, it is not good enough that people can use this as a loophole to this legislation. And we can see the trickery of the activist movement. We know of the trickery of the activist movement, and those farming enterprises and businesses that are going to be adjacent who may in fact have large sections of their property and their farm under Crown lease are still at real risk without the suitable amendments made to this. While the intent of the legislation is very important, we still in regional Victoria need to know that this government has the hardworking farming families’ backs, that it is actually looking after them and is prepared to protect them.

And the advice from this side of the house, from the opposition, is there were some clear minor improvements that could still be made, and the penalties could still be such that they send a real deterrent—a deterrent much greater. The deterrence that this government put on people not wearing masks, for example, is nearly 100 times greater in financial terms than what this government is prepared to say, ‘You just can’t invade a workplace, you just can’t invade a farm, you can’t compromise a hardworking farming family’s biosecurity on a whim and for a lark on your university holidays’.

These are important issues. It is important that the integrity of the clean and green nature of Victorian agriculture is absolutely sacrosanct, that it in no way gets compromised and that in no way can groups just take it upon themselves to do enormous damage. They may only think it is damage or interference on one particular day or a certain point in time, but that damage can be quite long lasting and have a severe impact—not only financially to the farming family; we know of the mental consequences and the heartache that it causes. So we acknowledge the fact that this long overdue piece of legislation is now before us, and we look forward to supporting it.

Mr D O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (18:51): I am pleased to rise just to say a few words, in the 9 or so minutes I have got before we adjourn, on the Livestock Management Amendment (Animal Activism) Bill 2021. I was not going to speak on this because many of my colleagues before me have covered the issues very well, but there are a couple of things I want to say about the debate, particularly the contribution of the member for Melbourne.

The background to this has been outlined by previous speakers and in particular comes from the Aussie Farms website in early 2019, where farms across the country were identified and activists encouraged to invade them and protest. It was not just to protest; that was not the whole issue. It was the invasion. It was the damage, the threat to property and the threat and fear of people on farms that were such a concern. I do not think I have seen many issues in my time that have generated such anger in my community, such outrage from people, as the invasion of farms by these activists—and with good reason, I might add. If you can pardon my French, farming is bloody hard. It is difficult in the seasons, whether there are droughts or the floods we are experiencing now. It is managing input costs. It is managing global commodity changes. It is dealing with animal health issues from day to day. It is dealing with so many things. And for farmers to have to put up with this sort of activism makes it even harder. We in this place should be doing our best to ensure that farmers are given assistance and that they are given every possible help to do the job of not only feeding us and clothing us but actually helping us to deliver capital, to grow capital, to grow income for this country. We send two-thirds of our farm produce overseas and it is a huge export earner for our country, so we have got to do what we can.

What really prompted much of the anger in my community was the Gippy Goat invasion that we have heard others speak about and that resulted in the infamous $1 fine for the theft of a goat, which was a joke—and that was the common refrain from people. They were angry about that. It was at this point in particular I think when my colleague, a member for Eastern Victoria in the other place, Melina Bath really stepped up, because she has spent over the years a lot of time with John Gommans, who was the owner of Gippy Goat. Subsequently the cafe there has closed, which is a great shame. Melina’s work, through I think a mix of anger, compassion and determination actually got up the inquiry that has led to this legislation that we have here now. She pursued that. She pursued it through the whole inquiry that the upper house undertook and she did a fantastic job to get us where we have got to today.

I echo the comments of the member for Polwarth. I was getting comments from—at the time and subsequently—particularly dairy farmers and particularly women on farms who were really concerned, who were saying to me, ‘What do we do? What do we do if a group of 10 people just turn up to our farm?’. So it was absolutely correct that action needed to be taken, and great credit to Melina that she did so.

I said I would mention the Greens, and I was just astounded by the contribution from the member for Melbourne, shallow as it was. In particular the general tenor seemed to be that this legislation needs to be opposed because it is somehow stopping us from protesting, somehow taking away our right to protest. That is the most fallacious argument on this legislation that I have heard. It is just absurd to suggest that you will not be able to protest because of this legislation. It is absolute rubbish. People come out to this Parliament and protest every day. There are people out the front. They do not invade the building. They do not invade the homes of MPs. They do not invade the homes of the people that they might be protesting about. And for the Greens to get up and say that this is somehow taking away our democratic rights is just astonishing and needs to be condemned.

If you do not like what is happening in the state, in the country, go to your local MP. Protest by all means. Start a petition. Stand for Parliament. Get elected yourself. But do not say you have the right to invade someone’s home and property and do damage and take their property. That is just ridiculous, and the Greens and many on the left indeed are hypocrites on this, because when there have been protests out the front and through the streets of Melbourne over the recent restrictions in the last couple of years they get called neofascists and Nazis and all sorts of names, and yet when it is a protest that they like, an invasion of people’s private property, somehow that is a democratic right that they should have.

I pick up the comment that the member for Gippsland East also made about Mr Meddick in the other place, whose home was targeted by those same activists over the pandemic bill. I agree that should not happen. He said:

I understand why people disagree. People disagree in a vibrant democracy. But you don’t have the right to come to someone’s house and make their family feel physically in danger.

Well, I agree with the member for Gippsland East, I agree with Mr Meddick on that point. He is a man though who has supported these activists, and he should be condemned because he is a hypocrite on that issue as well.

In the last couple of minutes I have got, we know, as people that deal with farmers all the time as country MPs, that farmers love their animals. I can tell you: have a look at social media at the time of lambing, and you will see the number of farms that have got lambs in the lounge room with them in front of the fire trying to keep them alive. They go to amazing lengths to look after their animals. Dairy farmers, likewise, love their cows and have names and their favourites of course. So I do not think there is a question that farmers love their animals, and sure, in farming, in modern farming and ancient farming, there will be animal welfare issues that need to be addressed, and that is always going to be the case. But 99.9 per cent of farmers do the right thing, and they should not be condemned for the actions of these activists. Let us be clear though, many of these extreme activists actually do not want us to farm or to eat animals. That is what it boils down to, and we cannot be continually trying to appease them, and this legislation goes a long way to ensuring that we actually are protecting our farmers.

Briefly on the amendments: I certainly support the amendments put forward by the Leader of The Nationals, in particular in relation to the maximum fine. We are talking just under $11 000 for the maximum fine. I got an email today from a constituent who got a COVID fine of $10 990 because when the inspectors came his COVID plan on the wall was not filled in correctly, and he did not have the density quotient for his premises on the door. I do not think it is unreasonable that these sorts of fines for people invading someone’s property should be tougher, and so I support the amendment put up by the Leader of The Nationals.

I am trying to time this perfectly, Deputy Speaker. I think I have got about 20 seconds to go, so I will finish on the fact that I support the amendments moved by the Leader of The Nationals. I support the intent of this bill, because it is absolutely critical that this Parliament gives its support to our farmers every day, continues to support our farmers every day and makes sure that we stick with them and get behind them.

Business interrupted under sessional orders.