Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Minister for Agriculture) | Hansard source

I want to thank all senators for their contributions to the debate on the Criminal Code Amendment (Agricultural Protection) Bill 2019. This bill, which incorporates government amendments, is a firm but necessary response to recent incidents targeting Australian farmers, their families, their workers and their businesses. These incidents were enabled and encouraged by the sharing of information online and by inciting people to harass and intimidate law-abiding Australians.

Respectfully, senators in this place who have failed to call out illegal, dangerous actions and have, in fact, stood up and championed those actions indicate their flagrant disregard for the law and that they actually don't care at all about a productive agricultural sector and a productive fishing and forestry sector, which actually don't just underpin local economies in regional Australia, as we've said, but also underpin our national economy. Such is the disconnect in this country between the urban and rural experience now that particularly those who sit in the Greens political party, all elected from inner-city, urban votes, are championing the harassment of workers and the illegal actions of heading onto somebody's property and destroying property. You've heard through the debate here in the chamber over the last couple of days that there are biosecurity risks, ensuring that animal welfare outcomes are worse. Animals have been killed and maimed as a result of these protesters' behaviour, not to mention the human cost of those actions, being the mental damage done to families and workers, and indeed the economic damage, with businesses being closed down because of the ongoing harassment by people who think their views of how the world should run are more important and should be prioritised over the views of other Australians—specifically, those who farm livestock in this country.

The government know, understand and appreciate the hard work of our farmers, our fishers and our foresters, and we stand with them to say that that is not an Australia that we want to be a part of. We want to make sure that families can go about their business of raising livestock and keeping high animal welfare standards, and we will ensure that people who seek to damage that will feel the full force of the law.

Farmers are a critical part of both our community and our economy and they should not be subject to illegal invasion of their property. They deserve to feel safe in their homes and at work. They deserve not to have their businesses and livelihoods harmed by potential food contamination and biosecurity breaches caused by trespassers. These things are not fantasy. These are actual incidences that have occurred as a result of animal activists thinking it's okay to march, in their hundreds, onto somebody's property and destroy it and harass workers. It's just unconscionable that senators who've come into this place in the national interest think it's okay for Australians to treat other Australians in that way. We all have a right to peaceful protest; we do not have a right to destroy peoples' livelihoods or their mental and economic health.

The bill will introduce an offence for the use of a carriage service with the intention to incite trespass on agricultural land. It also creates a new offence for the incitement of damage, destruction or theft of property on agricultural land. The bill contains appropriate exemptions for journalists and whistleblowers. The new offences will not apply to news reports from journalists in their professional capacity and in the public interest. The new offences will also not apply to those who utilise lawful channels to raise concerns about animal cruelty and other criminal activity where it exists in the agricultural industry. We don't want to see negative animal welfare outcomes at all. Anyone who says we do is bald-faced lying—lying to the Senate and lying to the Australian people. That is why the bill has been constructed in the way that it has. If there are legitimate animal welfare concerns then let's report that to the appropriate authority to deal with it. But that does not mean you have a right to incite violence and harassment on other Australians, their businesses and the animals that they actually care for.

The new offences in the bill are not directed at people who simply wish to engage in public discussion or debate about agricultural practices or legislation. Rather, the bill targets the conduct of those who go well beyond that, those who have an intention to incite others to commit unlawful trespass or other offences in the homes and on the lands of our farmers.

The bill has had the benefit of scrutiny by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee and the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. I want to thank these committees for their consideration of the bill—particularly the legal and constitutional affairs committee, who conducted a comprehensive review and inquiry process.

The government has responded to concerns raised by media stakeholders. These concerns were that journalists would be unintentionally impacted by the provisions within the bill. The amendments as introduced by the government will remove any doubt that journalists are excluded from these offences and provide that the evidential burden resides with the prosecution.

Further amendments to the bill have expanded the definition of 'primary production business' to cover facilities that process wood and wood fibre, addressing concerns raised by industry stakeholders. I do note the concerns raised by Labor Party senators around these provisions, as to their being extended to fishers in public waters—and, I would argue, also to foresters on public land. Obviously that's in the purview of the states. I look forward to continuing discussions around that end, because, at the end of the day, this is about protecting people's lawful right to go about their business and not be subject to harassment and intimidation.

I've been disappointed that today's debate hasn't been focused on protecting farmers and their families from militant animal activists. Classic Steele-John; classic Greens contribution! I would love to take Senator Steele-John and his colleagues on-farm to actually directly speak to those farmers who've been subjected to those activists—those militant, criminal activists—who've harassed and intimidated Australian farmers out of business. It's simply not good enough. It's not a badge of honour to walk around and say: 'Yay! I've been locked up for sticking it to the man and sticking it to Australian farmers.' You're actually a criminal. This bill will make sure that those who seek to incite Australians to go on-farm to harass, intimidate and trespass will be subject to up to five years in jail. I'm very proud to be part of a government that has instigated this.

As to the debate: the Greens are calling anyone who supports this bill—which is most of the Senate, bar the Greens—'fascists', when the Greens political party, and those who support it and Animals Australia and Aussie Farms and all those who engage in this militant action, think it's okay to disregard the law, harass and intimidate people and kill stock; that is somehow okay! That is actually the definition of fascism. I would say that it is not our government or those who are supporting this bill who are the fascists; it is those who seek to impose their will, their ideology and their way of life on the broader Australian public who are indeed the fascists.

We back the people who contribute to the wealth of our nation so that those who live in Melbourne and Sydney can enjoy their lifestyles. We work very hard out in regional Australia to make sure that that can occur. We are not ashamed of what we do and where we live. We're proud of what we do, and we want to be able to continue to do that without being subjected to harassment and intimidation.

I look at my Greens colleagues wearing their wool suits, their cotton shirts and their vegan leather shoes. Whose side are you actually on? Are you on the side of politics that wants to see our farmers continue to grow clean, green produce, with the highest welfare standards in the world, or are you backing those people in our community—such as Mr Delforce and the others—who, in the Victorian government's inquiry into this particular topic, were loud and proud about their end goal? Do you know what their end goal is? Their end goal is to actually end livestock production in this country. How's that going to go, if we shut down our $16 billion beef industry? What about our sheep and wool production and our poultry? What if we shut down our 2,700 pig farmers in this country—not to mention our fishers?

You know what? I know vegans. I like vegans. I'm yet to meet a vegan I don't like. But I do not expect them to tell me I do not have the right to enjoy a beautiful Angus porterhouse whenever I like—right?

That is what the Australian body politic should be about—having a robust democracy where the meat-eater and the vegan can sit down as one, enjoy each other's company and debate respectfully their differences about food production—not thinking that it's okay to go into each other's homes, onto each other's property, and actually harass, intimidate and put people out of business. It's not on, it's not okay, and Australians stand with us, our government and this Senate in supporting this bill.

This isn't an ag-gag bill; I've heard that a bit through the debate. It's actually an 'ag brag' bill. We are very proud of our primary producers, our fishers and our foresters. We want them to keep producing. We don't want to shut down what they do. It is clean, green product for our domestic supply, but we actually export 70 per cent of it. Our accounts would be in a bit of trouble if we shut down our livestock industry and our agricultural industry. You never let the economics get in the way of a good emotional argument, Greens, because you never have to pay for anything. The governing parties in this Senate have to consider the impact of policy decisions on peoples' jobs, on broader society and on our national economy. That's why we make the decisions we do. We stand with the productive capacity, which is our farmers. Farmers are an important part of our community and they deserve to go about their business free from harassment, threat and harm.

This bill will protect farmers from those who use the internet and other carriage services to encourage others to trespass or damage property on their land. There has been a bit of chat about trespass laws in the debate. Of course trespass laws are the purview of state governments, and I call on all state governments to get serious about those who seek to trespass on private property with specific respect to this issue, but as a federal government we also have to look at the incitation and use of the internet for these negative purposes. I look forward to the amendment stage, and I believe this bill delivers on our commitment to ensure Australian farmers and their families and workers feel safe in their businesses and homes. I commend the bill to the Senate.