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

I think you're relying on the colloquial definition of 'reckless'. It is quite a high threshold. You couldn't just wander in and accidentally harm an animal or with just your mere presence intimidate or harass someone. There must be intent. Pokemon GO, as a company that's inciting, does not then have the additional issue of negative behaviour whilst on farm or on property. The thresholds for recklessness are high. You need to be aware of what you're doing and be there with intent to not be reckless. Accidentally causing harm would mean you weren't covered by the bill. Accidentally wandering onto a property to catch Pikachu, and something occurring as a result of that, wouldn't be captured by the bill.