Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) | Hansard source

You have put new protest laws in place in this country with a stroke of a pen, no doubt driven by my Tasmanian colleagues Senator Abetz and Senator Colbeck. Let them come into this place if they want to argue that case or point me wrong; I'm very happy for them to do that. You have taken this and expanded it to a completely new point in Australian protest laws.

The World Heritage extensions in Tasmania, the 180,000 hectares of World Heritage forests and the World Heritage forests before them, are now the pride of my state and one of its No. 1 tourist attractions, not to mention the lungs of the earth that soak up carbon in a time of climate crisis. They were protected because of forest protesters. Many of the protests that led to their protection occurred on woodchip mills and wood-processing plants on private land.

Everything else in the Criminal Code Amendment (Agricultural Protection) Bill 2019 refers to private production being potentially processed on private land; this is completely different. This is a massive extension and overreach of this legislation. It's political opportunism par excellence by my fellow senators from Tasmania who've always opposed forest protesters who are simply trying to save forests for future generations; forests that are rich and diverse in their ecosystems, and forests which sequester carbon. The No. 1 thing the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said in their last two reports that we need to do to act on climate to reduce emissions is protect our existing forests and plant more trees. It cannot be any clearer than that.

What the government has done today has taken away any chance that forestry protesters have got to protect those forests. It just happens to be a coincidence that in Tasmania, in about six months time, nearly 400,000 hectares of high-value conservation forest—which I, and especially Senator McKim, spent years negotiating with the Labor Party to have permanently protected—will be ripped up by the Tasmanian Liberal government. The forests were put in temporary protection. In six months time, 400,000 hectares of some of the world's most pristine rainforests are up for grabs. And, now, Minister, in introducing this legislation and tacking on what you say is a 'small minor amendment', backed up by the Labor Party—a 'small change' to the scope of this bill, you say—you have now turned your back on future generations that need these forests protected.

Senator McKenzie, while I'm on my feet, I wanted to ask you—because I heard your contribution in the second reading debate—whether you were aware of a pig farmer in Tasmania called Gary William Oliver and whether you were aware of his case from 2009. I'd like to tell you about it. In Scottsdale, an animal welfare advocate had been tipped off by employees, who were too scared to speak out, about appalling animal welfare practices on this man's farm in Tasmania. This animal advocate did trespass, did go onto the property, and did film these pigs. The footage was shown all around the country and it was absolutely appalling and very confronting. I will tell you why I'd like you to hear this story, Senator McKenzie—through you, Chair.

This animal rights activist didn't want to be named. She wanted to remain anonymous. She went to the RSPCA—and this is why it was controversial, because the RSPCA then said to her, 'We're not interested. We're closed for the weekend. Don't want to know about it'. She was so distraught by the footage that she had taken and what she had seen that she fronted up at the Scottsdale Police Station and said to the constable and the sergeant on duty: 'I've broken the law, I've trespassed, but I've got nowhere else to go.' The policeman sat her down and said, 'Right, well, we'll have to take you into custody. We're going to have to charge you.' She said, 'Will you look at this footage?' The police did that, and they were so appalled and so confronted by it, they said, 'Get in the car; we're going out to confront the farmer,' and they arrested him.

An honourable senator interjecting—

Exactly. That went to the magistrate—and, believe me, pig farming's a big business in Scottsdale; there are a number of big pig-farmers—and the magistrate said, 'If that is what industrial pig farming is all about, it's not viable; it is just not viable if animals are treated that way.' That led to a lot of changes—changes because of the bravery of one woman who was prepared to flout the law because of her beliefs.

How can you come here and say that that kind of conviction to look after animals—and, ultimately, the reputation of these farmers and their industry, because most farmers do do the right thing—should be penalised? How can you stand in here and say that that kind of behaviour is somehow misguided, or it's terrorism, which is what I've heard Senator Hanson call it? It's one good individual, one human being, trying to do the right thing—

Government senators: No, it's not.

It absolutely was in this case. These laws will now make it a lot more difficult for those who actually care about animals. This is also about the reputation and the sustainability of these businesses, particularly in the face of meat alternatives, which I've heard you talk about and seen you Tweet about, which are becoming very popular. These are the kinds of things that the industry needs to be aware of. If someone feels deeply about an issue of animal welfare and no-one else is able to investigate it, and people are too scared to blow the whistle—I'm appalled at the level of debate in here about good people just trying to do good things, regardless of what you say.

In this case, it led to good, and the right outcome was achieved because of one brave individual who happened to be an animal welfare advocate. I just wanted to put that on record, and you can get up and talk about it if you like. I wanted to make you aware of that particular case, and there are others like it.