Greens blast anti-trespass Bill

08 Jul, 2015 02:00 AM
I think these are extremely disappointing things for a fellow Senator to say

A STOUSH over the controversial anti-farm trespass Bill has erupted after the Greens described the proposed legislation as “repulsive”.

Liberal Senator Chris Back has returned fire at the Greens’ description of his proposed Criminal Code Amendment (Animal Protection) Bill.

The Bill is aimed at animal rights activists trespassing on livestock facilities to take covert video footage and protracted delays in reporting any subsequent evidence of malicious animal cruelty offences, to proper authorities.

An inquiry by the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee was tabled last month and recommended passing the Bill.

However, that support was conditional on amending the proposed 24-hour period for reporting any video footage of animal cruelty to relevant authorities to “as soon as practicable”.

But NSW Greens Senator and animal welfare spokesperson Lee Rhiannon remains staunchly opposed to the WA Senator’s Bill and last month introduced her own proposal to initiate an independent Office of Animal Welfare.

Senator Rhiannon said the proposal would create an independent statutory authority responsible for reviewing, advising and promoting the protection of animal welfare in Commonwealth regulated activities.

“While the Labor opposition want to reinstate the Inspector General of Animal Welfare and Live Animal Exports, this position is beholden to the whims of the Agriculture Minister and continues the failed Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System (ESCAS) which has not stopped the horrific abuse of animals,” she said in a statement.

However, Senator Back took offence to the language used to describe his Bill and its intent in Senator Rhiannon’s second reading speech on her legislative proposal.

“Currently before the Senate sits Coalition Senator Back’s repulsive Private Members’ Ag-gag Bill that would prosecute without need for proof, animal welfare investigators who take visual recordings of systematic animal cruelty on Australia’s factory farms, in greyhound training grounds, in live export slaughterhouses, shearing sheds and laboratories and other animal use industries,” her speech said.

“While Labor does not support passage of the Bill, it has not condemned that Bill and the attempts to silence revelations of systematic cruelty in animal use industries.”

But Senator Back said it was “exceedingly disappointing that Senator Rhiannon would seek, in the Senate Chamber, to so badly misrepresent what she knows to be my Bill”.

He said far from prosecuting without the need for further proof, as described by the Greens, his Bill required any evidence of animal cruelty to be reported to proper authorities without extended delays.

“I don’t know how that can be gagging them,” he said.

“Secondly if they’ve got any video footage of animal cruelty, my Bill requires them to provide it to proper authorities, so how that can be prosecuting without the need for proof?

“In fact, the provision of a visual image surely leads to the enhancement of the opportunity for there being a prosecution.”

Senator Back said during the Senate inquiry into his Bill, accusations that his proposal would prevent investigations into systematic animal cruelty were addressed.

He said an expert witness at the Canberra public hearing had said if animal cruelty was stopped - at the beginning of the process - that would prevent it becoming systemic.

“Surely that must be in the best interests of the animal, of animal welfare generally and would also meet community expectations,” he said.

“And indeed if there are perpetrators of animal cruelty, surely this is the best way of exiting them from the control of animals or the husbandry of animals or participation in the industry.

“I think these are extremely disappointing things for a fellow Senator to say in a second reading speech and if and when this Bill is debated in the Senate chamber, I’ll certainly be making my point much stronger.”

Senator Rhiannon’s speech said the independent Office - directed by its CEO - would have the ability to “truly independently examine and report on the continuing frameworks that perpetuate and excuse infliction of terrible suffering on other living beings – the animals we eat, we wear, we use for entertainment and profit”.

“It would effectively give voice to those animals, where the Coalition and Labor have refused that voice,” she said.

Senator Back said he would examine the Greens’ proposed Bill in more detail but stressed that, under the constitution, land management - including livestock and animal management - was a state issue and not the federal government’s responsibility.

He said he would also oppose the Bill if its objective was “quite simply to wipe out the live animal export trade”.

“Knowing my discussions over time with Senator Rhiannon that probably is the Bill’s intention but those of us, who support the live export trade, will very strongly defend its role internationally in elevating animal welfare standards in our target markets,” he said.

But Senator Rhiannon said the Greens’ Bill “allows a constitutionally valid federal response to animal cruelty issues around Australia”.

She said it also provided a new opportunity for the two major parties to show Australians they believed the suffering of animals in animal use industries was unacceptable.

“In 2012, the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party Caucus endorsed the Caucus Live Animal Export Working Group to develop a model for an Office of Animal Welfare, which reported back to the then Labor Agriculture Minister in 2013,” she said.

“In a time-honoured buck-passing statement, the then Labor Minister of Agriculture responded to the Greens’ questioning about the Office that ‘there is work to be done in this area but the primary responsibility for animal welfare issues does remain with the state and territories’.”

“There is nothing to stop Labor supporting this Bill and verifying its political will and the strength of truth of its asserted – but as yet unproven – commitment to the welfare of the animals that are captive to our care and good will.”

Colin Bettles

Colin Bettles

is the national political writer for Fairfax Agricultural Media
Date: Newest first | Oldest first


8/07/2015 7:36:20 AM

Of course the Greens would endorse the illegal activities of extremist animal rights activists trespassing, interfering with equipment and often stealing livestock from these companies. Is it too hard to ensure these companies (supposedly in question) are complying with the standards they should be abiding by without the illegal interference from these crackpot third party groups? Typical of the Greens to be pandering once again to minority extremist groups doing the wrong thing. They really are a backward bunch!
8/07/2015 9:10:02 AM

Just showing what the Greens are, a party of protest not a party that could ever be trusted to make sensible practical decisions.
8/07/2015 3:38:34 PM

The Greens support break and enter and trespass on private property. Why is this party still registered and part of this parliament?
9/07/2015 9:15:33 AM

Typical comment -Invey - from a grazier who seems to think they know it all. As far as I am concerned the Greens have made a difference to the parliament and don't forget they have good support from people in all walks of life.
9/07/2015 10:16:15 AM

Barker, just wondering, do you actually know anybody involved in agriculture, and not just hobby farming?
9/07/2015 1:51:19 PM

At least I know enough not to believe manufactured footage when I see it.
cattle Advocate
9/07/2015 6:15:13 PM

The AR lobby wants Aus to follow NZ on AW, NZ sends LE and uses hunting tourism to cull its deer and ducks. NZ allows semi auto guns for hunting, national parks are shared with bushwalkers. The Canberra roo cull has 10 vandalised Gov vehicles fences cut a dead roo in a public sevant's private letterbox. An online photo of a dead roo with a very large head wound pinned under an undamaged temporary 40mm pipe security fence claimed it was shot in the cull. An autopsy found it had been hit by a vehicle possibly from a nearby road, the head wound possibly by a knife. Does the end justify the means?
11/07/2015 8:55:31 AM

Sadly - Invey - You don't know enough to believe that all animals should be protected from cruelty including those who are exported live. Time to wake up to the fact that this cruelty is real.
17/07/2015 8:33:13 AM

Whether or not you agree with the greens whole ideology, the opposition to this bill is valid. There is inadequate oversight and regulation of animal welfare standards in agriculture industries (and other industries also). If not for animal activists, none of the cruel practices that have been exposed over the years would ever have come to light. The bill is clearly designed to undermine undercover investigations, if you can't see that you're unbelievably naive. How can you possibly oppose an independent body to enforce animal welfare standards? Unless you have something to hide.


Screen name *
Email address *
Remember me?
Comment *


light grey arrow
I'm one of the people who want marijuana to be legalized, some city have been approved it but
light grey arrow
#blueysmegacarshowandcruise2019 10 years on Daniels Ute will be apart of another massive cause.
light grey arrow
Australia's live animal trade is nothing but a blood stained industry that suits those who