10 May How the Victorian Legislative Council voted on #AgGag
When #AgGag was recently debated in the Victorian upper house, members spoke repeatedly about how much farmers love and respect the animals they literally bring into the world only to terrorise, mutilate, harm, exploit and ultimately kill. They went as far as to paint the activists who expose this reality and rescue individuals along the way as the evil villains who threaten the wellbeing of the animals. If you were none the wiser watching on, you’d be forgiven for thinking you were witnessing the most extreme satirical comedy performance possible. But sadly, it was of course real and a shocking reminder of the type of people running this state, irrelevant of party.
Special mention and thanks must be given to the few MP’s who not only voted against Ag-Gag, but who rose to speak out against it. Andy Meddick MP called the Bill out for all its hypocrisy and flaws. He raised the little to no biosecurity standards existing on farms, the legislation being nothing but a means to hide the systemic cruelty we inflict upon animals under the guise of unfounded biosecurity concerns, our mistreatment of animals being the cause of zoonotic diseases leading to pandemics, the non-existence of animal protection laws, how poorly this country ranks in animal welfare on the international scale, the risks activists take – peacefully and covertly due to there being no other option, and much more.
A snippet:
“I would think most Victorians—and I would hope most of my colleagues in this and the other place—would concur with Justice Michael Kirby when he said that any law that:… seeks to stamp out awareness of great wrongs about animal cruelty, not by addressing those wrongs, but by preventing their exposure … is not a rational or just way to deal with the seriously wrongful conduct that has been exposed.
The title of this ag gag bill clearly demonstrates who it intends to prosecute—not those who are cruel to animals but those who seek to inform the public of what goes on in cages and sheds and those who seek to rescue animals from pain and suffering. Former Justice Michael Kirby further warned that: Good reason needs to be shown, amounting to the inadequacy and ineffectiveness of general criminal laws before special laws are enacted that single out particular individuals or groups for criminal punishment … no such good reasons have been demonstrated in the present case.
Justice Kirby further submitted that: The starting point for … the reduction for the need for illegal trespass and covert filming of highly disturbing conduct— to animals— … is an immediate improvement with … laws on animal welfare …
Yet this bill brings on-the-spot fines and increased penalties when members of the public respond, out of mercy, to animals who are profoundly mistreated. Make no mistake, this is a bill fully intended to deliberately hide systemic animal abuse in agricultural settings by prosecuting those who expose it. It masquerades as a biosecurity measure, when on-farm biosecurity is low to non-existent. If biosecurity was the genuine concern, where is the clause in this bill that makes boot washers at every gate mandatory? Where is the clause that makes truck-wash installations at every farm mandatory? Every truck that enters a farm has usually been in an uncountable number of places and situations, ensuring that contaminants are carried in on truck tyres and bodies, moving from farm to farm to farm with no semblance of concern. Yet the small number of people planting cameras exposing cruelty are the risk?”
Samantha Ratnam – Leader of the Victorian Greens also rose to speak against the Bill and among other concerns stated:
“Obviously biosecurity is extremely important and must be taken incredibly seriously, but this bill is not actually about biosecurity; it is about singling out one particular group of activists for special penalties. Progressive change in Australia often comes from years of work from campaigners, who risk their own safety or security, and on occasion break the law to expose some truly immoral and unacceptable behaviour, whether it is communities coming together to protect our coast from gas drilling, residents protesting the destruction and sale of their public homes, volunteers who enter wetlands to rescue injured birds, workers leaking footage from live exports or whistleblowers revealing the truth of puppy farms. I am really proud to represent a party that supports our activists and has its own roots in protest. They are not the enemy, but this bill tries to paint them as one”.
Aside from the Greens and AJP, there were only ridiculous, insulting, unfounded, sensationalist and plain inaccurate statements made during the debate from the many other MP’s who spoke in support of the Bill. Too many to list. But possibly the most frustrating came from Labor’s Gayle Tierney in response to Mr Meddick’s proposed amendment that would exempt people from prosecution and fines if they were acting to save an animal from suffering, to which Ms Tierney stated:
“Mr Meddick has proposed an amendment to allow an exemption from the requirements of a biosecurity plan for any person concerned about animal welfare. The amendment is not required to protect animal welfare. An exemption is already provided in the bill for appropriate authorities to enter a premises pursuant to the powers conferred by other acts, including those authorised under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986. For example, section 23 of the act already permits inspectors, including Agriculture Victoria inspectors, Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty Animals inspectors and Victoria Police, to enter premises to secure the welfare of animals in certain situations, and powers under this section are not affected by this bill.”
Be it blatant lies or delusion on the part of Ms Tierney, such a statement is ludicrous. Anyone who knows anything about animal agriculture knows, as Andy himself pointed out, that those agencies do not and cannot act in almost all circumstances of animal abuse as the cruelty is entirely legal. Such statements reinforce the idea that there is some imaginary government funded army out there protecting animals from the systemic horrors that play out on every animal ag property, everywhere. The public loves to buy into such nonsense as it helps them sleep at night as they continue to make morally bankrupt consumer choices.
But perhaps the greatest elephant in the room (or lack thereof), was Labor MP Sonja Terpstra. Ms Terpstra was extremely critical of the initial Inquiry and its recommendations – so much so that she produced an extensive minority report highlighting her many concerns. Most importantly she made the point that the Inquiry had found that animal activists have never caused and do not pose a biosecurity threat and that any steps taken to punish whistleblowers were unnecessary. Months later, when her own party went above and beyond the recommendations, to punish activists even further than that which even the Inquiry recommended, Ms Terpstra did not make a peep and was nowhere to be seen. Vegan Rising reached out to her via email and phone several times but we were ignored.
This is a clear example of career politicians putting self-interest and loyalty to their party (and perhaps their pay check) before what they know is fair and just. It is also an example of how politics operates in this country – where toeing the party line triumphs over any kind of in parliament debate, or exercising of judgement. Dissent is simply not allowed, irrelevant of how strongly an elected member may feel on an issue.
In the words of Editor for The Conversation Misha Ketchell: “Hirst pointed out the demands for such a public display of unity may ironically give such MPs greater power inside the party itself; that they are able to demand a price for the public performance of conformity. This kind of bargain might well be satisfactory to many MPs. But we should not confuse it with the more vigorous and deliberative democracy that a weaker party discipline and more open debate would bring in their wake.”
The full debate, proposed amendments to the Bill and votes commences here and is continued here.
For Ms Terpstra’s full minority report scroll to pdf page 197 here.
How the lower house voted and comments to that here.
No Comments