15 Jan VIC LABOR ACTS AGAINST EVIDENCE FROM OWN INQUIRY
The Victorian Labor Government is justifying extraordinary fines for animal rights activists under the guise of biosecurity risks whilst:
1. finding in their own inquiry that there has never been a biosecurity incident caused by animal rights activists ever!;
2. never once acknowledging (let alone addressing) that the majority of new diseases come from the human quest for animal-sourced food (even in the midst of a world-changing zoonotic pandemic);
3. reviewing the state’s animal welfare act due to it, according to their own admission, being “outdated”.
Sign the petition to stop Ag-Gag in Victoria here.
It was announced last month in response to recommendations from the ‘Inquiry into the impact of animal rights activism on Victorian agriculture’, that people caught tresspassing on agricultural animal abuse properties would recieve not only huge on-the-spot fines of over $1000, but also face penalties of up to $10,904 each or $54,522 for organisations. When considering those numbers, keep in mind the Inquiry also found that the average fine for an animal cruelty prosection (which is as rare as hens teeth, particularly in agriculture) is $1400.
Whilst the government agreed to adopt thirteen of the Committee’s fifteen recommendations, the first they have chosen to act on is the introduction of fines and penalties. Meanwhile, accepted recommendation 12: ‘That the Victorian Government conduct an examination of alternative practices used around the world in the treatment of live male chicks in the egg industry and the use of blunt force trauma on goats, pigs, and cows with a view to adopting ‘world’s best’ practice’ appears to have made no progresss at all.
What seems more urgent to you?
Such actions make it clear that the Victorian Government does not care about the spread of disease or the suffering of animals, but they do care about pressure from the animal abuse sector whose greatest ongoing threat is growing public awareness of standard industry practices and the growth of the animal liberation movement.
Even a member in the Inquiry’s committee from their own party did not support the recommendations leading to these absurd fines, highlighting in her minorty report that sufficient penalties for trespass already exist. In response to Finding 5 ‘animal rights activists who trespass onto agricultural facilities pose a biosecurity risk’ Sonja Tepstra stated: “Disagree. There is no evidence to support this conclusion.”
In response to Finding 6, that Acts of trespass on agricultural facilities by animal rights activists are a risk to the health and safety of farmers, agricultural employees, livestock, emergency services, the public and activists themselves, the Labor MP stated:
“Risk posed by animal activists trespassing:
• health and safety of farmers – no direct evidence of this;
• agricultural employees – no direct evidence of this;
• livestock, • emergency services – no direct evidence of this,
• the public – no direct evidence of this;
• activists themselves – no direct evidence of this.
Disagree with finding as no evidence was provided about this citing examples where health and safety breaches were recorded or logged with WorkSafe Victoria.”
Even Agriculture Victoria confirmed in the Inquiry that there had been no biosecurity incidents caused by animal rights activists and Superintendent Greaney from Victoria Police advised the Committee that in his view current legislation in this area is adequate.
As we found in our own review of all submission made to the Inquiry in 2019:
Upon examining the 489 submissions, we found that approximately 64% of them were in support of activist rights to expose animal abuse and against increased legislation while 31% were anti-animal activism and expressed their support for tougher legislation targeting individuals who enter farms and slaughterhouses with the intention to document or impede their operation. A further 2% were undecided on their position while 3% were confidential submissions.
Interestingly, of the approximately 152 submissions which were in favour of tougher penalties for activists, 73% of these could be identified as having a strong association with the animal agriculture industry, leaving only around 27% of these type of submissions who don’t have an obvious financial motivation for being in favour of limited transparency and public accountability, a worrying statistic when you consider just how many lives are at stake.
While there were a number of individuals who identified as animal farmers and were not in favour of tougher restriction of activists, it’s significant to note that of the animal agriculture businesses and industries represented in the submissions as being in favour of increased repression, many of them had facilities that had been investigated and exposed by Aussie Farms for their shocking treatment of animals. Three such facilities are Luv-a-Duk poultry, Diamond Valley Pork and Rivalea
For our full review click here.
Also of note from the Inquiry was the following comments from Labor MP Sonja Terpstra in relation to statistical evidence provided by Agriculture Victoria on animal activists and any unauthorised activity.
“By any standard, the incidence of and likelihood of unauthorised farm entry due to activist activity is very low. Also, instances of protest and trespass related to activism over a 12 month period recorded 11 incidents with no reports of violence or damage to property. Additionally at page 7 of their report, Ag Vic state that there are 21,000 farms in Victoria. The statistical likelihood of unauthorised farm entry or targeting is statistically lower that the risk of a house in a suburban built up area being burgled.”
and later:
“Given the low incidence of offences recorded by authorities, there is no evidence that would justify an increase in fines, penalties or sentences in the areas of trespass, theft or biosecurity as they are adequate.”
Finally, section 6 of Ms Terpstra’s minority report ‘Things left unexplored’ stated:
“In my view, there were issues or themes not dealt with at all or superficially which could have also informed the deliberations of the committee. Some of these limitations arise from the narrowness of
the terms of reference for the inquiry.
There was a lack of:
• Direct evidence provided by employees who work on farms about health and safety concerns that they may have experienced as a result of unauthorised entry on farms by activist;
• Ability to receive information and/or exploration of how farmers could potentially use science, technology and innovation to reduce unnecessary production of animals to produce food;
• Information as to whether employees who work in slaughter houses are trained and could benefit by receiving proper, adequate and appropriate training in correct methods for animal slaughter/butchery;
• Consideration around mental health support for farmers and abattoir workers. As an industry, abattoir workers have high rates of PTSD, PITS and other associated disorders and behaviours arising from having to kill animals;
• Evidence about whether any losses incurred by unauthorized entry onto farms by activists were or could be covered by insurance.
In my view this presented a lost opportunity for the committee to explore these themes further“
Ms Terpstra’s full Minority Report can be viewed from page 197 of the Committee report here.
These arbitrary fines have clearly been driven by politics over evidence, science and reason. Any chance of a safe, liveable and kind future is only possible if both major parties lose their stronghold.
Related documents:
Our submission to the Inquiry here.
Our summary on the overall submissions here.
Committee’s Report inc. findings and recommendations here.
Government response to the Report here.
Mary-Anne Thomas’ reading and Bill amendments here.
Sign the petition to stop Ag-Gag in Victoria here.
No Comments