HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1)
2019-11-12 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Summary Offences (Trespass on Primary Production Premises) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 30 October 2019.)

Mr ELLIS (Narungga) (16:43): What a wonderful job you are doing in your role, Mr Acting Speaker. I rise to speak briefly on this bill that rightly seeks to provide specific new penalties for aggravated farm trespass offences in order to better protect this state's economically valuable primary industries, which in 2017-18 supported 152,000 jobs and contributed $19.7 billion to this wonderful state's economy.

This bill comes as a result of a recent surge in antifarm activism. While such activity has primarily occurred interstate, the creation of this amendment bill is a commendable proactive measure so that farmers in this state are not exposed to the results of such offences. Interstate, these offences have included trespass, theft, property destruction and vandalism on family farms, feedlots, abattoirs, intensive pig and poultry operations, research facilities, butcher shops, supermarkets and restaurants—in short, all over the place. The particular concern being addressed by this bill is the fact that such unauthorised access to farms and primary production operations poses significant biosecurity threats to industry and this country's ability to trade.

Yes, it is already unlawful to mistreat animals, steal, trespass on places of residence and in non-residential buildings, use offensive language or behave in an offensive manner, but after broad consultation with primary production industries, the justice sector and the general community, there is evidence of a need for specific aggravated farm trespass offences and additional compensation for commercial loss and damage experienced through aggravated trespass.

Such are the additional risks posed to farmers and food producers, the new laws will appropriately better protect our state's primary producers from food contamination and biosecurity risks that activists, however intentioned, are unlikely to consider or understand. A strong and effective biosecurity system is a priority for the South Australian government and essential for maintaining and increasing access to international and domestic markets.

Trespassing on farm can compromise not only the individual farmer whose property is trespassed, his and her family and his and her workers, but also their livestock, the core of their business, hence the need for new legislation that specifically protects primary production activities and our farms and the family homes on them.

Quite a few farmers have come to me on this issue, and there are quite a few on the peninsula who do keep stock. As this spate of activism intrusions across the border and in other jurisdictions were happening, quite a few expressed to me their concern that it might find its way over here and that they would be subjected to the same unauthorised access that the farmers interstate are experiencing. I am sure that this will be welcome news for people in my electorate who worry about exposure to biosecurity threats and the invasion of their land, property and homes.

The legislation appropriately specifically defines primary production activities, including agricultural, pastoral, horticultural, viticultural, forestry or apicultural activities; poultry farming, dairy farming or any business that consists of the cultivation of soils, the gathering of crops or the rearing or processing of livestock; and commercial fishing, aquaculture or the propagation or harvesting of fish or other aquatic organisms for the purposes of aquaculture.

The new bill allows for fair compensation for any commercial loss or damage experienced through aggravated trespass, increasing penalties for general trespass and even for specific interference of farm gates. The amendment of section 17B of the Summary Offences Act—Interference with gates and fences, offers penalties for interference with any part of a fence on or immediately surrounding the land in a manner that:

(i) causes the animals to no longer be confined by the fence; or

(ii) gives rise to a risk that the animals will no longer be confined by the fence,

The reports of trespass and protestor activity are shocking. It is one thing to exercise your democratic right to free speech, but it is another to torch a farm shed in so doing, or to steal animals or let them out to get run over on a public road, or demanding sheep in return for unchaining yourself in an abattoir, or invading a feedlot as part of a 100-throng group. There have been examples of ripping down fences or cutting water supply to livestock or severing hydraulic brake lines on vehicles transporting animals. It is incredibly stupid behaviour.

There have also been reports of contaminating packaged meat products in supermarkets, contaminating food supplies for live export animals and spiking trees to prevent forestry operations. The farm trespass bill before us offers tougher laws against such activity and, unfortunately, have proven to be necessary. It is hoped that such illegal activism will be effectively deterred as a result of these laws and that well-meaning people with legitimate concerns about animal cruelty will be encouraged to report this activity to the appropriate authorities rather than take the law into their own hands.

I want to briefly touch on the increased penalties that accompany these amendments. There is the creation of the aggravated farm trespass offence to penalise a person who has entered unlawfully or is unlawfully on a primary production site and gives risk to disease, risk to primary industry or causes damage to an operation, which carries a maximum penalty of $10,000. There is compensation for any commercial loss, as I mentioned earlier, or damage experienced through aggravated trespass.

There is an increase in the penalties for the summary offences of general trespass from $2,500 or six months in prison, up to $5,000 or up to six months in prison, so it is a doubling of the monetary fine. There is also an increase in the penalties for summary offences of interference of farm gates from $750 to $1,500. As I just touched on, there is also a broadening of the scope of the farm gate tampering offence to also cover damage to fences, enclosures and cattle grids to ensure that all acts of interference with a farm property which could see animals leave the area are covered.

As I said, there has been a surge of antifarm activism across the country from people who are obviously oblivious to where their food comes from. It is important that this government take steps to prevent that filtering through to South Australia. It is wonderful to see our government acting. As I said, as those activities were occurring interstate, I received quite a bit of correspondence through my office from local constituents who were concerned that they might find themselves with unwanted visitors on their property damaging their livestock, damaging their fences, opening gates or even, as I read out earlier, cutting brake lines on their trucks or cutting off water supply to their stock.

These are the livelihoods of the farmers and any attempt to damage them or prevent farmers from earning a living or running their businesses should be punished harshly, which is exactly what these amendments seek to do. On top of that, there will be compensation for commercial loss, which is an important consideration for people who are obviously attempting to disrupt the business.

Extensive consultation has occurred as a part of this bill with a long list of people, including the Chicken Growers Council, the Lot Feeders' Association, the Meat Industry Council, commercial egg farmers, Livestock SA, National Farmers' Federation, and the Kangaroo Industry Association, Pork SA, primary producers, and SA Dairyfarmers' Association, as well as a few others I have not listed.

It is wonderful to see this bill being introduced. It is an important bill that will prevent activities that have been happening interstate from occurring here and hopefully we have got on the front foot before it could form too much of a stranglehold on our industry and prevent it from happening at all. The message must be sent that if you break the law and put our farmers and supply chains at risk, you will be penalised.

Our primary producers are critical to the state's economy and this legislation provides better protection to the industry and for hardworking farmers within it. I commend the bill to the house and look forward to its speedy passage through both places.

Mr PICTON (Kaurna) (16:52): I rise to speak in relation to the Summary Offences (Trespass on Primary Production Premises) Amendment Bill 2019 and indicate that I am lead speaker. The Clerk is always waiting for me to press the button on that. I also indicate that the opposition will be supporting the legislation.

This is dealing with offences that, let's be clear, are already offences. Under the Summary Offences Act 1953, it is already an offence to commit the offence of trespass in a variety of different means. This does not change that. This does not add a new offence. It merely increases the penalties for a range of different offences that involve primary production activities. The first point I think is that any of the particular activities that are sought to be captured here are already punishable under the law. I think that there is a question in terms of what has been happening with the existing law that we have at the moment.

Going to a briefing on this matter—and I thank the Attorney-General's Department and the Attorney's office for the briefing—it appears that there is no knowledge or awareness of particular times when this has been used. In fact, the most recent case that anybody was aware of occurring was in relation to a case at Strathalbyn, I believe, which the police investigated and decided to issue a caution instead of taking that case before the courts.

While we are supporting this legislation, I do think that there is a question as to why the current law has not been used. There is nothing that I can see here in this legislation that would make it any more likely that a case, such as what happened in Strathalbyn, would be prosecuted as opposed to a caution being issued, or any other instances where clearly there has been no action taken from the evidence that has been provided to us from the department and the office of the Attorney-General.

It is an interesting question as to why this has not been used. Essentially, all the additions here are about creating offences with higher penalties or increasing the penalties that currently apply to those offences. However, if you are not using the offences that are there at the moment in either trying to prevent this activity occurring or trying to prosecute it when it occurs, I think there is a question mark as to whether this is going to have the effect that the government is proposing.

There are a number of different offences that are being dealt with. Section 17 deals with being on premises for an unlawful purpose. Section 17A deals with trespassers on premises who return within 24 hours. Section 17B deals with interference with gates and fences. Section 17C deals with the disturbance of farm animals while there is a trespass occurring. I will take each in turn in terms of what is being proposed under this legislation.

On section 17, the offence at the moment requires there to be not just trespass but trespass with an unlawful purpose involved in that, so there could be a number of theoretical trespass activities that could involve a lawful purpose. I think there is a question, which I raised in the briefing and I would be interested in the Attorney-General giving consideration to in her response, as to whether the provisions that are in the Surveillance Devices Act that have public interest defences to them would therefore negate that being used as an unlawful purpose in terms of the application of section 17.

Section 17 is the one that the government has clearly paid the most attention to not only for an offence that would involve six months' imprisonment, if it involved trespassing with an unlawful purpose on an agricultural or primary production activity location or property, but for an aggravated offence, which would double that penalty to 12 months' imprisonment if it met a number of criteria. The criteria are interesting, in that there is a very broad range of matters. In particular, clause 5(1)(a2)(d)(i) and (ii) involves risk. It provides:

(d) does anything that—

(i) involves, or gives rise to a risk of—

(A) the introduction, spread or increase of a disease or pest; or

(B) the contamination of any substance or thing; or

(ii) gives rise to any other risk, or kind of risk, related to primary production activities prescribed by the regulations; or…

It is a very interesting form of drafting. You almost question whether there is any need for the aggravated penalty at all and a non-aggravated penalty. If the aggravated penalty is of such a broad scope as that, we might as well make the offence just the aggravated penalty. I have been trying to think of a circumstance that would not involve any risk whatsoever, and clearly there would be very few circumstances in life that would not involve any risk at all. In fact, going to the length of saying 'gives rise to any other risk or kind of risk' is very broad.

Regarding 'gives rise to any risk or the introduction of a disease or pest or the contamination of any substance or thing', we know that there is a significant risk of contamination. We know that there is a risk of introduction of diseases and the spread of disease and pests. We have a number of biosecurity programs and education in South Australia around that, so it is hard to imagine any circumstance in which somebody entering primary production land or a property under this provision would not have some sort of risk, therefore, unless going in they have fully gowned themselves up and are properly wearing hair nets and swabs, like a CSI unit or something.

It is questionable why the government have proposed it in such a way. There are other ways in which this becomes a very broad offence as well, in terms of whether it involves two or more people. Clearly, a lot of the time that will be the case, so whether that needs to be aggravated or just made the whole offence is a question.

We then go on to the next case, section 17A, which is interesting in that it deals with people who have been asked to leave a premise, premises, property or land and return within 24 hours. I am not aware—and it certainly did not come out in our briefing—of this being particularly used in the context of what the government is seeking to achieve here in terms of primary production activities because, as I understand it, a lot of the time this provision is used more in the retail space, where you might have somebody who is coming onto a premises, has caused problems within a shop or some sort of other business as a customer and is then asked to leave and not return within 24 hours.

I know that concerns have been raised by retailers and retail workers as to whether this should be improved for those workers as well. I know there have been propositions from retailers and retail workers as to whether 24 hours is enough and whether in fact you actually want to extend that to make sure that barring orders could potentially be in place for those sorts of people who conduct that sort of activity. That is not being addressed here. There is no extension to that 24 hours being addressed by the government in this legislation.

Therefore, the question I have is: what applicability would this section have in providing benefit for the owners and operators of that primary production land and property because the circumstances in which there would be an offence made by somebody being asked to leave and then returning within 24 hours, I would imagine, are quite small? I would imagine it is quite a small number of circumstances where that would happen.

The next case involves interference with gates and fences, which once again is already an offence under the act. In relation to this offence, we are not seeking to make it an offence with any gaol time applicable to it, so I think there is a question to the government as to why we have not sought to make this applicable to any imprisonment time in the same way that sections 17, 17A and 17C have been. I would have thought that interference with gates and fences would be of concern to many owners and operators of primary production facilities, so I think there is a question as to whether that would be something that should be considered as well.

In relation to section 17C, I would say that this is probably the most significant change. Section 17C deals with the disturbance of farm animals. The current legislation reads:

(1) A person who, while trespassing on land on which animals are kept in the course of primary production, disturbs any animal and thus causes harm to the animal or loss or inconvenience to the owner of the animals is guilty of an offence.

The maximum penalty is $750. It is a defence to the charge of an offence under this subsection to prove that the disturbance was not intentional and did not arise from recklessness on behalf of the defendant. There is no change to the substance of that provision. The only change therefore is to change the penalty from $750 to $2,500 or imprisonment for six months, so that is a significant increase.

From my layman's reading of this—and I would be interested in terms of the Attorney's consideration and the advice she has received—it seems to have the lowest threshold in terms of the actual cases that we are talking about and trying to prevent, in that it does not require an illegal purpose to be on the premise, it does not require you to be asked to leave and then to return, and it does not require any particular interference and damage to the property or gates or entry. What it does say is that disturbing any animal 'or loss or inconvenience to the owner of the animals is guilty'. To me, that reads as a relatively low threshold.

It might be that the rationale of this government in introducing this is that they know that sections 17, 17A and 17B are not going to change things very much, but they are hoping that the offences under section 17C will pick up, and maybe there is a theory that section 17C has not been used, in particular, by the police and by the courts because it has had a low penalty and hence, maybe if we increase that to an offence that would involve some gaol time as an option for the courts, that would be applicable to that.

I note as well that the government is not seeking to apply any changes to section 17D, which would involve forcible entry or retention of land or premises or loitering or any other offences. As I said, there are no actual additional penalties and there are no actual additional offences that have been created here; it is merely changing them. I also note that section 17AA—Misuse of a motor vehicle on private land—is not being considered as well.

This is a relatively modest bill. It is always nice to have a short piece of legislation where you can fully digest the meaning of every word. I think that there is an issue in terms of the connection between this act and the Surveillance Devices Act. I would be interested to hear the Attorney's thoughts on that as we deliberate on this. As the shadow attorney-general, I think the Attorney was much more involved than I was in the debating and consideration of the Surveillance Devices Act, but essentially my understanding is that, after various iterations, the parliament eventually agreed to public interest defences to that.

I wonder whether there is an interaction between that act and this act, where clearly there are circumstances where there is public interest in getting the information out there. Clearly, there are instances—and that is why parliament determined that—where there would be public interest in terms of recording and distributing that information. That, of course, is being balanced by the interests of people and the protection of their land. That is why the trespass act has always been a feature of our law for many years.

Certainly, the opposition's view is that we are happy to support these amendments. We see the benefit in terms of providing that additional penalty. We are not necessarily as confident as the government that this is going to lead to significant changes, given that these offences have been around for a very long time and have not necessarily resulted in many prosecutions or much action, but we wait to see how it transpires. We are happy to support the government and support the bill on this measure.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (17:08): I rise to support the farm trespass bill 2019. I think it is a reflection of what has happened in our communities across Australia in recent times that legislation across the country has had to be beefed up (no pun intended) to take on people who want to disrupt legitimate businesses—people who not just run legitimate businesses but in many cases, and in most cases, live on those businesses and it is their home, as I do at my farm at Coomandook.

It is a severe invasion of privacy when these animal liberation groups, these vegan groups—some would say rabid nutters—think they can walk into your front yard, your backyard and swarm over your property. If you did this where some of these people who have been committing these offences live, they would be outraged, and rightly so. People should think about what they are doing when they think they are acting for the greater good. It is alright for people to have lively debate—we would be a poor society if we all agreed on everything—as long as they can have proper, active debate without disrupting people's lives.

What would these people, who put up maps online showing where mainly commercial piggeries and other intensive farming operations are in Australia right across the board, think if we found their addresses? I cannot remember the name of the organiser of that, but apparently he lives in Melbourne. Perhaps we would like to get their addresses and work out whether or not we would like to visit their premises. That is an illegal activity, so I will not be doing that any time soon in the way that these people are and have been venturing onto farm properties.

It is interesting that it has backfired rather heavily on some of these protagonists, notwithstanding the fact that they have had the light-fingered touch at times in some jurisdictions in regard to invading people's properties. Far be it for me to partially agree with the member for Kaurna, but if we are going to make any legislation work, including this legislation, we need to make sure that police and judges do their part. Several months ago, I witnessed a situation in Queensland—it was there for everyone to see because these people like filming their events—where protestors walked onto a farm (I think it was a feedlot) and moved across a paddock essentially, and the police stood back and supervised what was happening.

I mentioned that to one of my local police officers and he explained the situation and how many police it would take if you started arresting people and the visuals of that. I found that an interesting answer. I do have a lot of respect for the police force, but if we are going to make any of these laws work we have to take proactive action. It does not matter whether it is a primary production premises or whether it is your home, it is the same thing. For 99 per cent of the people involved in primary production, it is their home and they deserve the right to live peaceably and not be invaded, and that is exactly what is going on here.

These people walked across a property, essentially being escorted through, and they got their footage. Another time there was a cafe—I think it was in Victoria, but I could be wrong—run by a fairly green-orientated couple who had a goat taken. Eventually they were pressured to close down. In another situation, a sheep was so-called 'liberated' from a mob of sheep. I heard from one of these events that the liberated animal died because those who liberated it would not have known how to care for it.

The crux of the matter is that farmers and people involved in intensive agriculture do know what they are doing and do know how to look after animals, because that is what you have to do if you have to turn a profit, and when you are in the private sector that is how it works. I think it really went backwards for the protagonists when they took their protests to the cities and held up trams in Melbourne, held up traffic around the place—not much different from Extinction Rebellion activists; they could be the same people—and at least in some cases we have seen some arrests being made.

I am pleased that we are taking strong legislative action because this is exactly what we need in this sphere. We saw an activity several years ago at one of my abattoirs near Murray Bridge, Big River Pork, where some activists broke in and went about 10 metres down into the chamber where the pigs are gassed, essentially, before they are processed. It is all a very calm way to do it. These people broke in and they ran the very real risk of being gassed themselves, and there would have been outrage if that had happened. You do not wish that on anyone, but you just have to be careful what you wish for if you want to break into premises and do that kind of activity.

As the member for Kaurna indicated, there was a recent time when people at the Strathalbyn abattoirs were on the roof and doing a sit-in and protesting at what went on there. The issue is that we have seen over time in different jurisdictions across Australia where people are arrested, which I support, but then they go before a judge and get a $1 fine; well, that is absolutely pointless.

What we need for these people is a conviction, because a conviction stays for life. That is the way we need to manage this, because if people want to take this sort of rabid action into their own hands and invade people’s homes—because that is what they are doing—the right action should be taken, and in regard to not just the invasion itself but also the biosecurity risks that happen with this kind of process.

You see it with intense piggeries, and there are quite a few in my area at Coomandook, and also with intensive chicken farming in my electorate of Hammond across the board. There are a whole heap of biosecurity protocols in place to make sure that those animals are raised in a safe and healthy way and that they are also raised in compliance with RSPCA guidelines.

When these people invade these places they are actually causing harm to animals, and this legislation being put in place will put a stop to some of this activity. If it does not stop the activity when this legislation is made into law and becomes an act, I want it see it acted on appropriately by the police, and when people are put in front of a judge they are slapped with the appropriate penalty.

In terms of its detail, this bill would create a new standalone aggravated farm trespass offence with significant penalties and also increase the existing penalties for trespass-related offending on farms. The amendments include the creation of an aggravated farm trespass offence to penalise a person who has entered unlawfully or is unlawfully on a primary production site and gives risk to disease, risk to primary production or cause damage to an operation. This offence carries a maximum penalty of $10,000.

There is an amendment to allow for compensation for any commercial loss or damage experienced through this aggravated trespass. There is also an increase in the penalties for the summary offence of general trespass from $2,500, which it is currently (or six months' imprisonment, which it is currently) to $5,000 (or up to six months' imprisonment).

Also, there is an increase in the penalties for summary offences of interference of farm gates, from $750 to $1,500. That penalty is quite significant. People may think they are being smart by coming to a property and leaving the gates open, letting cattle, sheep, pigs, chickens or whatever wander on their own, but that does nothing for the welfare of those animals and it does nothing for the cause of those people who are aggravating the situation; it just creates another animal welfare issue.

Amendments in the bill broaden the scope of the farm gate tampering offence to also cover damage to fences, enclosures and cattle grids to ensure all acts of interference with a farm property that could see animals leave the area are covered. 'Primary production premises' in the bill means premises used for the purpose of primary production activities, which is defined to mean agricultural, pastoral, horticultural, viticultural, forestry or apicultural activities.

It includes poultry farming, dairy farming or any business that consists of the cultivation of soils, the gathering of crops or the rearing or processing of livestock. In that regard, it is everything to do with agriculture, whether it is the growing of stock, the cultivation of soil or the gathering of crops. It also covers commercial fishing, aquaculture or the propagation or harvesting of fish or other aquatic organisms for the purposes of aquaculture, and an activity prescribed by regulation.

As I indicated earlier in my contribution, across the country there has been a surge in antifarm activism. While we have been fortunate to some degree and have not seen the level of activism as in other states, our farmers have experienced trespass, halting primary production and impacting on their ability to manage their farms. I indicated where we have seen illegal activity in processing facilities as well. Those who seek to be negligent and damaging to our farmers and primary producers must take responsibility for their actions and their impact on our local farmers.

South Australia's primary industries are a vital part of our state's economy. Spread across the state, South Australia's grains, livestock, horticulture, wine, seafood, forest and dairy sectors are a significant contributor to our exports. Numerically—we had to get some numbers around this—in 2017-18, primary industries and agribusiness supported 152,000 jobs and contributed $19.7 billion to the state's economy, which is generated out of that powerhouse: regional South Australia. That means that where many of our primary producers are—in fact, the most—contributes about $25 billion annually to the state's economy, with just 29 per cent of the state's population.

I will give a bit of background on the legislation. The commonwealth Attorney-General (Hon. Christian Porter MP) wrote to our Attorney-General on 8 April 2019 and requested that we consider taking action to strengthen penalties and enforcement of criminal trespass offences and to consider the adequacy of present trespass and unlawful entry offences.

Subsequently, very broad consultation on the bill occurred over September this year through a YourSAy page. There were also round tables hosted by Primary Industries and Regions South Australia and targeted communication. The stakeholders consulted were in the broad primary production industries, as well as justice sector stakeholders and the general community, including:

Australian Chicken Growers Council;

Australian Lot Feeders' Association;

Australian Meat Industry Council;

Commercial Egg Farmers Association of South Australia and Tasmania;

Commissioner of Police;

Law Society of South Australia;

Livestock South Australia;

Minister for Environment and Water;

National Farmers' Federation;

Kangaroo Industries Association of Australia;

Primary Industries and Regions South Australia;

Pork South Australia;

Primary Producers South Australia;

Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA); and

South Australian Dairyfarmers' Association Inc.

So there has been broad consultation on this legislation. This legislation is vital for our primary production sector, who have seen it tough enough, especially in the last couple of seasons—and some for three seasons. Sadly, drought is part of life. We are the country of drought and flooding rains and, sadly, massive bushfires, as we are seeing on the east coast and also in our own area, on Yorke Peninsula and Eyre Peninsula. I pay tribute to all the firefighters not just in this state but all those across the nation who are doing their bit to keep our communities safe.

People do not need to be targeted by those who are just up to mischief and who quite blatantly want to break the law just because they think it is a great thing to do. As I said, farmers are doing it tough enough. Last year was exceptionally tough for a large section of the state. Some sections in the South-East and at the bottom end of Eyre Peninsula and on Yorke Peninsula were not too bad. When you get to this season, it is really, really tough where I am at Coomandook and Karoonda, or north of Murray Bridge around Sedan and Cambrai. The last thing people need is people invading their homes and their properties to aggravate the situation that much more.

I commend what we do in animal production. In fact, I went to a feedlot the other day, and I tell you what, I have never seen such well-fed beef. There were lots of them. There were hundreds and hundreds, probably thousands, in that feedlot. They were looking very prime, some of them on 120 days' feed and some on 240 days, and getting ready to be processed down the track. We have sheep feedlots in the area, we have millions of chickens being raised and we have the pork industry that has had some very tough times in recent years, especially in light of the outbreak of African swine fever overseas.

The whole biosecurity issue is another reason why we have to keep people off properties. We have to do all that we can to keep African swine fever out of Australia. Some people looking at it think that it is only a matter of time. I hope that they are wrong. I hope that we can keep African swine fever out. Our pork producers are having a little win at the minute but, like every bit of agriculture, it fluctuates up and down. We have to make sure that we can keep these producers going, not just in that industry but also in the grain industry, the chicken meat industry, the beef industry and the lamb industry—we just have to make it work.

I reflect on the assistance that we as a government, together with the federal government, have given to community infrastructure to get the up to $400 million build at Thomas Foods, near Murray Bridge, back on track so that we can get 2,000 jobs and 4,500 jobs supporting them. I commend the bill, and I urge its speedy passage through the parliament.

Mr HUGHES (Giles) (17:28): I also rise to support the bill. Just the other week, I took some time out to go to the west of Buckleboo to spend some time on a farm. I was amazed by the work that they were able to do—that, in a year like this with such low rainfall, they were able to get a crop in. I went on the header with them. They were growing barley—not barley that goes into the beer that we drink but barley with a high protein content that provides feed for sheep on the property.

This was a family farm. Here was a young man who, during the harvest, was driving 60 kilometres to get to his mum and dad's farm, which he will hopefully inherit. He is part of the business at the moment, and he also had a number of other properties around the place. He would drive 60 kilometres there and back in the morning and at night, and during the harvest he would start at 8 o'clock in the morning and work through to 12 o'clock at night. It was a prodigious effort and often in difficult circumstances.

Imagine a farm like this. The people who invade farms are not going to go to a farm like that; they are far too far away from them. They will pick the ones far closer to the city or facilities closer to the city. Imagine a whole bunch of people invading that family farm, trespassing on that farm and the effect it would have on those people just going about their legitimate work. As has been said, and I think we will all agree, one of the strengths of our country is that peaceful protest is supported. I would be one of those people who would argue strongly that there is a role for civil disobedience, but sometimes people go too far.

Last year, I believe it was, when that website was released identifying properties throughout the country almost as targets, you can understand why people on farms were feeling incredibly uncomfortable. I think it was to the disadvantage of those groups, whether they were vegan, whether they were this or whether they were that—when they start engaging in tactics like that, it is to their disadvantage.

A lot has been said about what the bill is going to do in terms of increasing penalties, both prison time and fines. I am one of those people who would have confidence in our court system. When people are before the courts, the overall set of circumstances is taken into account and a penalty will be arrived at, so I do not think this is open to abuse. We have been fortunate here in South Australia that we have nowhere near borne the brunt of the sorts of tactics that have been used elsewhere.

All the farmers I speak to take animal welfare very seriously and would have a very dark view of those very few in number who do the wrong thing. I think action does need to be taken against those who do the wrong thing. One of the powerful forces often at work in country communities is peer pressure, and it operates in a number of different ways, and I am sure that it operates when it comes to issues like this, where potentially there is animal cruelty.

The overwhelming majority of farmers go out of their way to do the right thing. I think it is a reasonable bill, given the circumstances. As I said, ultimately it goes before the courts, and the courts will decide the penalty.

I would encourage other members to get out and about. I know that a number of members over the other side have farming properties and have been heavily involved in primary industries for many years. When it comes to this side, we lack in numbers of people in that situation, even though we do have some on this side who have come off farms. One would hope that eventually people out there in the country will vote Labor in greater numbers and maybe we will have more—we can always live in hope.

I do support this bill. I am sure there are going to be amendments from others when we go upstairs. Sometimes there is the issue about public interest, and we have seen of late what has happened to horses in Queensland; that was appalling. We have seen other incidents like that, and we need to stamp out that type of behaviour. I think this is a measured bill and it is a bill that we support on this side.

The Hon. T.J. WHETSTONE (Chaffey—Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development) (17:34): I, too, rise to speak in support of the Summary Offences (Trespass on Primary Production Premises) Amendment Bill introduced by the Attorney, and I have been working closely with her. The member Finniss has done an outstanding job to give us and the government a much better understanding not only of what this means but also of how vital the bill is in providing greater support in protecting our farmers and our livestock sector as the focus for strengthening up the support and protection.

There has been broad consultation, and a number of industries have come forward with concerns about what they have experienced over time with trespass, with the activists who have put pressure on them. It is about not just the unwarranted and unneeded pressure on those primary producers but the social pressure it puts on them. By and large, the majority of our primary producers have a conscience and they come away feeling somewhat subjected to the wrath of unwarranted and unjust criticism and almost stalking when those activists come to their gate.

The consultation period with the primary production industries, the justice sector, stakeholders and the communities also included the task force set up under my department through PIRSA to work with the industry and SAPOL on opportunities so that we do get tough and we do put the appropriate penalties in place for people who threaten the viability of a primary industry business. Again, across the country there has been a wave of antifarm activism. While here in South Australia we have seen relatively few incidents, we do have concerns about the protection and the defences against such a threat.

Listening to the member for Giles' contribution, he is right: the activists are opportunists and they will go somewhere close to population, close to their home, probably not off of a bitumen road, for nothing more than to sensationalise, to draw attention to themselves for the simple fact that they have a belief that we should not, by and large, eat meat. They believe that we should not eat any form of animal—that is threatening their beliefs—and it includes the way that we farm animals, the way that we propagate, the way that we raise animals, the way that we care for animals and the way that we keep them in good health.

My family background, for majority of my life, has primarily been in livestock. My father has probably bought more sheep than the majority of any other South Australian in the stocking industry. We had many different animals on farm because we had an enterprise where we slaughtered animals for butcher shops in the South-East, and we did that for a number of years. Primarily, we have seen a number of unfair incidents where properties have been unfairly targeted. Aussie Farms' website comes to mind.

It was an absolute outrage that we could have an organisation that could expose properties, basically putting them there as a target for people to go and harass and torment. Really, it is not just about going to their farm: it is about going to their home. They should be ashamed of the unfair scrutiny and unfair activism that they put on those farming families, but, more importantly, they need to be prosecuted if they are interfering with the operation of the farm or if they are posing biosecurity threats to the operation of that business.

In South Australia, one instance comes to mind where we saw those activists at a Strathalbyn abattoir. They disrupted that business and there was a biosecurity risk to it. There was damage to the property. That meant that that workforce had to go home until they cleared the activists away. They did that in good faith so that they did not put their workforce at risk. They also had to make sure that their animals were not at a high level of stress.

For many of you who enjoy a good piece of meat, whether it be white meat or red meat, you should know that if an animal is stressed at the slaughterhouse it is a tough piece of meat, and it really is not worth the money that you pay for it. If you present a calm animal to a processing plant and it goes through that process in a calm state, that is your best opportunity to have a great experience in eating any form of meat.

The implications that those activists cause and the stress that they put the animals under should not be understated. If people have concerns about the wellbeing of animals on a farm or at a processing plant, they should contact the animal health officers. If they take actions into their own hands, once this legislation goes through, they are looking for trouble. Animal health officers are the appropriate authorities to go out there and assess the situation.

If there are those who are not doing the right thing, the health of the animal and the condition of the animal need to be of paramount importance, because it is not just about a healthy animal that is part of the food chain but a lot of them are animals for pets, for breeding or for growing. I think that we need to be very mindful of exactly what we see there.

I have seen a lot of instances in Victoria. There was one in particular where Victorian activists stole a goat. The issue that that brought to the sector was of paramount damage to an industry that had been going along quite nicely. The theft of that goat caused ramifications through that industry. It also put a lot of the viability of that business in question, because if they were able to steal a goat they were able to get into that business. It showed that there were faults in keeping those activists out.

Another thing the bill aims to do is to better protect our farmers from the vigilante activists with the key feature of a new aggravated trespass offence. That new aggravated offence would penalise a person who trespasses on primary production land and interferes with the conduct of a business, does anything that puts the safety of people at risk and increases the risk of biosecurity and food contamination impacts.

Those found guilty will face fines of up to $10,000 or 12 months' imprisonment, plus compensation to the farmer. I think that is just. If the farmer has had a loss as a consequence of the invasion of his farm or his business, then there should be some form of recompense if he has not committed the accusation of those activists who have been at that property.

The increased penalties for interfering with farm gates and with the animals also has to be part of the legislation. The fine for interfering with gates has been the same since 2002, and we are now increasing that penalty to $1,500.

There will be the introduction of a new substantial expiation fee of $375 in those cases where an on-the-spot penalty is warranted. I think that is a very good result because there is no point sending those activists, those trespassers or those people who threaten the viability of a farm to the courts. They clog up the courts. They cost taxpayers a lot of money. They get a slap on the wrist and they walk. It really does beggar belief that what we see currently is a lack of enforcement for those who are doing the wrong thing.

There is an increase in the maximum penalty for disturbing animals to $2,500. We are doubling the penalties for existing trespass offences on primary production land and the primary production premise in the bill. Importantly, it includes agricultural, pastoral, horticultural, viticultural, forestry and apicultural activities.

As the member for Hammond rightfully said, he has a number of poultry farms in his electorate, as do I. There are dairy farms in Hammond. There are state-of-the-art dairy farms that do a very good job with animal husbandry and looking after those animals. It is critically important because a calm, healthy, well looked after and maintained animal is the most productive animal that we can have in our paddocks or in our sheds and that is why we continue to push this.

It includes dairy farms, as I said, or any business that consists of the cultivation of soils, the gathering of crops or the rearing or processing of livestock, but we also need to include commercial fishing, aquaculture or the propagation or harvesting of fish or other aquatic organisms for the purposes of aquaculture and an activity prescribed by regulation.

This set of initiatives will send a message to protesters or activists that here in South Australia if you break the law and put our farmers and supply chains at risk you will be penalised. I implore those who consider going to farms and putting the viability of those farms at risk and putting biosecurity at risk to think again. You will incur these new penalties. They need to be enforced. If they are enforced, it will send a very clear message that we are giving our farmers, our primary producers and our livestock owners equal rights when it comes to the protection of not only their business but their animals.

As I have said, one area I am considering under the consolidation of our biosecurity act in South Australia is penalties for trespass that result in biosecurity implications. Whole supply chains and markets can be affected by trespass on farm. It really is important to note that we are not discouraging legal and peaceful protest, but the law is the law and if you break it you will be penalised.

We want to ensure that there is a deterrent for farm trespassers to act illegally. This is no different from a landowner, an animal owner or a business owner doing the wrong thing; they will cop the wrath too. It is not about activists being a targeted species. Anyone who is doing the wrong thing by those animals or by that business or the guardianship of livestock, they will be penalised too. The bill has been welcomed by the farming community and it is important that the bill has a speedy passage through the parliament.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO (Light) (17:47): I rise to support the bill and make a small contribution. My major concerns about the behaviour that this bill is trying to address are the ones that deal with biosecurity and animal safety. As a child, I worked on a farm for many years, and my electorate until recent times had a fairly big farming community. I interact with farmers quite a bit and this is one of the issues they have raised with me over the years, so I welcome the bill.

I think that what some people do not understand is that there is a huge risk with biosecurity and the spread of diseases from location to location, which could actually be a major problem not only for one farm but potentially for a whole industry. Additionally, animals' lives are in danger if they are spooked or put under stress. I have seen it happen with chickens and pigs, etc. They can be quite hurt and possibly have to be put down.

As my colleague and others have said, there is a legitimate place for civil disobedience in a democratic society and I do not in any way wish to suggest that people should not take some action against behaviour that they see is inappropriate or to promote a cause, but I think invading properties unlawfully is a step too far. I think this is what this law is trying to address.

If somebody wants to protest outside a farm gate on a public roadway, that is one thing—I think that should be covered—but once you actually go through the farm gate or jump the fence, that is something else again and the bill seeks to address that. I would not like somebody to actually do that to my personal property and I would not like that to be done to others. In this case, it is a bit more serious in the sense that it is not only the personal safety of the people involved but also the safety of animals.

The other thing that needs to be said is that if people have concerns about how animals are being treated, and I think the minister touched on this, there are legitimate bodies you can go to to lodge your concerns and they are the ones who undertake the investigations. You should not be allowed to take the law into your own hands.

If people have concerns about how animals are being treated and they have some evidence, they should take it to the relevant authorities for investigation. If they believe that those authorities are not working well, then there is another process to have that dealt with.

The answer is to make the whole process work better and not just ignore it. If people believe, as I am sure some people who undertake these actions do, that the laws are not strong enough, there is a whole democratic process to change the law. You change the laws. We have changed laws in terms of animal welfare over the last 10, 15 or 20 years, and rightly so.

In short, I think the bill does warrant our support and, if we are going to put the safety of animals first, we need to support the bill. If people have concerns about how animals are treated, there are legitimate legal processes to be undertaken to address those concerns.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Basham.


At 17:52 the house adjourned until Wednesday 13 November 2019 at 10:30.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT