Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I speak in continuation of my comments from yesterday with regard to the Criminal Code Amendment (Agricultural Protection) Bill 2019. Farming is very important to the lifeblood of this nation. These morons, idiots, ratbags—you name it—are the ones who are actually going out protesting and trespassing, and they think they're doing a wonderful job in trying to help the animals, but, as I expressed here in my speech before, they are actually killing animals. They are actually seeing the death of animals, as I have explained.

Farming is a life of dedication, effort and hardship. As we know, it is a struggle for farmers to make good profits year in and year out. A relatively small number of people here in the parliament would have a deep understanding of rural living and life on the land—a very small number. I'd like to really have an understanding of how many people, especially Greens, who are actually standing up and making comments, have ever lived on a rural property, bred livestock, understand drought and understand the connection with the livestock that you rear. Very few in this chamber have ever experienced that—very few. You need to understand the commitment and the hardships that are connected with this. You do look after your animals, but, at the end of the day, you rear animals as part of the food chain. They are there for us to eat, to consume, to sell. That's what these animals are reared for. You have your pets—you have your dogs, you have your cats, you have your birds. That's fair enough. Those farm animals are livestock, reared for the fact that they are there as part of the food chain. That is a fact. If you want to have a pet cow or a pet horse, you can have it. If you have a pet sheep, fine; that's your pet. Don't start imposing your views, your thoughts, on the businesses in the farming sector. They have businesses for their own livelihoods and income.

It is a bit rich for the Greens, who pushed for the so-called protection of animals at almost any cost, to try to tell these farmers what is right and wrong when they have never walked a mile in their boots. The consequences of this vegan terrorism, by a group that is otherwise seemingly not making any true contribution to society, can be financially damaging, harmful to livestock and, in cases, has created great fear among family members. Thank God that there has been no loss of life at any time as a result of these illegal actions.

I'd like to reiterate something Senator Roberts said earlier today. Our farmers are valuable, not only to their local communities but also to their state, to Australia and to the global market. This bill provides an added protection to help them get on with the challenging job of growing food to help meet the growing demands of our population. Larissa Waters from the Greens calls them heroes. These people are breaking the law. Are the heroes the protesters on the streets of Brisbane who glue themselves to the roads and can't be removed? Those people are disrupting the lives of people getting to work. Protests happen at the ballot box or protests can happen in areas of parks that don't disrupt ordinary Australians trying to get on with their lives. They are not heroes. To actually call them heroes is disgraceful. The true heroes are the people who fought for this nation in battle to give us freedom and what we have today. I think it's absolutely disgusting that Senator Waters calls them heroes. They're not in my eyes and those of many Australians.

We have laws in this country. I hear the complaints about the sentences that are given to them. They are breaking the law. They say the sentence given to someone who commits a crime against an animal is up to two years. These are people who are going out purely to incite violence and to trespass on other people's property. They are putting out maps of where they live. What about the Privacy Act? It is pure terrorism to incite violence. That is worse than doing cruelty. I'm not saying it is worse—I retract that; it is not worse than cruelty to any animal. No animal deserves cruelty by anyone, but the fact is that I totally disagree with saying that these sentences are too strenuous. They meet the circumstances.

We are here debating this on the floor of parliament—we are changing this legislation—because the courts have not dealt with it with strong enough sentences. The lenient judges are too gutless to hand down decent fines or imprisonment to stop this from happening and to stop the impact it's having on our farming families and those who are trying to do right. As I've said, businesses have shut down and jobs have been lost, and if that deserves this sort of action by the parliament and responsible government then so be it. But don't dare stand up and call them heroes in this parliament, because I will not accept that and neither will other Australians. I will be fully supporting this bill and I thank the government for bringing this forward. At least someone's trying to do something about it. These protesters have to realise that they can't just go out there and shut down businesses and destroy people's lives at their own whim because it doesn't suit them that animals are used in the food chain. That's what it's all about at the end of the day.

Sam McMahon (NT, Country Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

This is not my first speech. Imagine, if you will, that you're a farmer, grazier or primary producer. You live on your property with your family and are assisted by a couple of people from the local town. You are running a beef herd. It's been in your family for three generations and you work very hard to maintain the health, welfare, production and genetics of your herd. You're progressive. You have regular veterinary visits. In fact, you were one of the first in the district to sign up for the Australian Cattle Veterinarians welfare check and biocheck programs, as you know the value of your herd. You maintain strict biosecurity on the property. Visitors come to the house only and clean and disinfect before accessing any animal areas.

Imagine you wake up early one morning and there's a commotion outside. You hear the cattle making a lot of noise and some clanging of gates. You rush outside to find a group of over 500 people, some wearing disguises and costumes, storming all over your paddocks, causing the cattle to flee and crash into and through gates and fences. Some of these people are menacing your house. Some appear to have weapons in their hands. You're torn between defending your home and family and defending your cattle. You see some of the mob grab some calves and start making off with them. These are your embryo transfer calves worth tens of thousands of dollars, and they also represent the future of your herd. Some of the invaders are yelling that they have material infected with foot-and-mouth disease and are going to spread it on your property. This will wipe out your entire herd or your neighbours', or the whole district. It is estimated this would cost Australia $50 billion. The police or any responders are at least half an hour away. Imagine what could happen in half an hour. There are vulnerable family and workers on the property. They are terrified. This is not only your business but your home.

And all for what? You've done nothing wrong. You care immensely for your animals. You've broken no laws. You operate on best practice and exceed industry standards. Why you? Because you were randomly selected from a map, by some hairy, smelly greenie in Sydney, who then incited a mob to target you for the purpose of making a political statement. Is this fair or right? No, it isn't. The invaders themselves are bad enough, and they will, hopefully, face the judicial system and, hopefully, receive more than a $1 fine. But what about the inner-city greenie who targeted you and incited and organised the mob? Shouldn't they face judgement and receive a punitive sentence of at least as much as, if not more than, the invaders themselves? After all, without this person the invasion would never have happened.

In my home of the Northern Territory, properties are very isolated. It can be more than six hours to the nearest police assistance and several hours to any neighbours at all. Most properties are owned or managed by a family, with small numbers of onsite workers. People are very genuinely concerned by the thought of what could happen if activists invaded and are very worried about the outcome should they be pushed to the point of retaliation. These are terrifying scenarios and by no means wild fantasies. Similar scenes have happened and are currently being threatened against farmers around the country. Livestock are being terrified, stampeded, placed in dangerous situations, maimed, killed and stolen in these invasions. I personally heard from a pig farmer recently about how an activist invasion onto a farm had resulted in miscarriages due to stress, and the death of piglets. Deliberate damage to infrastructure had allowed piglets to escape and drown in sewage ponds. This is what the Greens want to see happen: baby pigs drowning in effluent.

It's not just the welfare issues for people and animals; there are real biosecurity considerations, for both endemic and emergency diseases. African swine fever, foot-and-mouth disease and West Nile virus are just some of the diseases that could be brought into the country and unleashed on a farm, with devastating consequences for Australia. Most farms have strict biosecurity protocols, and many are specific pathogen free. Everything is cleaned and disinfected, and there are barriers to potential pests such as rats and mice. Invaders do not understand or observe these protocols, leading to very real risks, not just to the farm but to the industry and to Australia.

This legislation provides a great deterrent to people wanting to carry out these activities by organising and inciting others. It also seeks to ensure that those responsible are able to be held to account and face the judiciary. I fully support this bill.

Raff Ciccone (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I just want to make some brief remarks today on the Criminal Code Amendment (Agricultural Protection) Bill 2019. Labor understands the important contribution that agriculture makes to our overall economy. The tireless efforts of our hardworking men and women of the land have always been and will always be a key part of our prosperity as a nation.

In my brief time in this place, I've had the pleasure of speaking with many farmers in my home state of Victoria about the challenges that they face in making a living off the land, whether it be labour issues or even the devastating effect that the drought is having. For some being a farmer in Australia isn't an easy life. As a parliament, we have an obligation to support them and not to allow others to incite violence. The aim of this bill, to protect Australian farmers from those who incite destructive farm invasions on their land, is certainly a worthy cause. Our farmers and their families shouldn't have to live in fear of someone showing up at the farm gate in the middle of the night. I think the contributions by Senator McMahon and others throughout this debate should certainly be taken note of by those who are opposing this bill. This kind of activism has no place in our proud farming nation.

But it is also clear that this bill does very little in actually addressing some of the destructive invasions on agricultural land. It's because laws against such invasions on land, agricultural or otherwise, already exist in other statutes, whether it be in state, territory or other Commonwealth legislation. As the Senate committee which considered this bill heard from the government's own departments, every state and territory of Australia already has provisions to deal with trespass. Even in my own state of Victoria, we have laws already on the books that criminalise incitement. But this bill essentially creates two new offences under Commonwealth law that relate to the carriage service—predominantly the internet—used to organise or encourage others to trespass on farming land.

Labor is firm in its support of our primary producers and believes that they have a right to operate their businesses in peace and without fear of extreme animal activists disrupting their operations. But we know, given the haste with which this bill has been put together, that it is riddled with oversights and some inconsistencies. The bill fails to incorporate certain farming activity and agricultural science facilities within its scope, because it relates only to private agricultural land. What consideration is there for those who make a living catching fish in public waters? What consideration is there for agricultural science facilities on public land? Put simply, there is none. There is undoubtedly a need for us in this place to send a strong message to those who think it is okay to illegally trespass on someone's land. My concern, however, is whether this bill, as put by the government, can actually achieve this outcome.

Evidence given to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee demonstrated that animal activists are undeterred by the provisions, with one stating, 'Ultimately I don't think it's going to change what we do.' These issues are the symptoms of a bill that has been put together very quickly.

I also would like to see further cooperation and consideration of amendments that we'll put later today. Representatives of the Attorney-General's Department admitted themselves that there was no exposure draft released by the government for public consultation or formal engagement with affected parties. Wideranging consultation with the community only serves to improve the laws that we make here, and I believe this ought to take place.

With Victoria home to over 60 per cent of our nation's dairy herd and a quarter of Australia's total agricultural output, I firmly support the worthy cause and aim of this bill, but we must do more to protect our farming community from those who seek to do harm. I foreshadow that I will move a second reading amendment circulating in my name, on sheet 8754, calling on the government to carefully monitor the operation of the new laws, and, if any unintended consequences arise, urgently introduce legislation and amendments in this place.

Susan McDonald (Queensland, National Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Last night I attended the AgriFutures Rural Women's Award dinner. What a terrific night. What extraordinary women. What great stories of innovation, imagination and optimism. None of these stories would ever include trespassing on someone else's property, scaring the family who live there and jeopardising the biosecurity of the animals involved. I deeply resent members of the Greens in any way comparing the peaceful protests that farmers may have engaged in, and will still be able to enjoy with this legislation in place, with the terrifying, offensive and militant invasions that have taken place in Queensland.

The Criminal Code Amendment (Agricultural Protection) Bill 2019 seeks to stop the sort of activism we have seen recently in Queensland. The lead proponent posted to Facebook videos where she laughed at the paltry fines awarded by the magistrate—no conviction was recorded—who called the farms and the families that had been terrorised victims. She gave a shout-out to her crew for the next invasion. Queenslanders and Australians have begged this government to provide greater security for them and greater penalties for those activists who provided distress and alarm to people who woke up that morning with no idea of how their lives were about to be changed for the worse.

We in parliament have a simple choice to make in these sitting weeks: to give into anarchists or to stand up strongly for what's right. What's right is to protect the law-abiding citizens from those who see the law not as a rigid framework for a civil society but as a low bar that they can simply step over to achieve their aims. It doesn't help that we hear inflammatory language from one of the country's senior unionists, encouraging anyone to break laws they don't agree with. We even have senators from the Greens refusing to denounce what can only be described as anti-Australian behaviour.

Aussie Farms head Chris Delforce's claim that tougher laws won't deter him from his campaign against farmers provides one positive—that is, we now have no doubt about the aims of those who would invade family homes, intimidate legitimate businesses and disrupt, with these illegal protests, everyday Australians getting to work and hospitals. They are simply picking a cause du jour as a vehicle for more sinister aims, sparking rebellion against what they see as an outdated and unfair system so that they can impose their own worldview.

To be clear: while these invasions are a fun outing for some, it is not for those living in fear of when the next invasion will come. In March, now-senators Gerard Rennick, Paul Scarr and I visited Lemontree Feedlot to see my friends the McNamees soon after their terrifying and distressing invasion by masked and uniformed invaders. David begged the invaders to leave his land and stay away from his frightened animals. The scars of that day may never heal.

I've been to the abattoir at Yangan and the butcher shop at Taringa, who were also victims of this illegal activism. To these people the invasion was as distressing as you can imagine, and the loss of security and the sense of safety in their own home or workplace is unacceptable. I've seen farmers reduced to tears at the prospect of hordes of trespassers flooding their farms. I've heard 14-year-old schoolgirls say that they've decided not to have children because they've been told by these extremists that it would be cruel to bring children into a dead planet. Only the most morally bankrupt would see scaring children and robbing them of their future as a way to win an argument. Practical members of society scoff at such outlandish behaviour and get on with their day, but ignoring the anarchists amongst us has actually emboldened them.

My colleague in the Senate Paul Scarr has spoken publicly about Saul Alinsky, who published a book in 1971 called Rules for Radicals. Alinsky's advice was: 'Pick the target, freeze it, personalise it and polarise it.' It wasn't just seized upon by 1970s hippies, communists and Marxists in the West; we see it happening today in the tactics of Aussie Farms, Extinction Rebellion, anti-Australia Day activists and climate change alarmists. Aided by the internet and soft laws, these people have ridden roughshod over Australians' sense of decency and fairness.

Another of Alinsky's rules is: 'Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.' From this we get terms such as 'denier', 'racist' and words ending in 'phobe'. If you have an opinion that diverges from the cultists, they don't just want to disagree with you; they want to destroy you, your family and your livelihood. Alinsky used inflammatory words such as 'enemy', 'attack' and 'threat' in his treatise, so it is no wonder that activists view their aims not simply as a struggle but as a war. Their greatest weapon in this war is the internet, and the use of it to incite others to carry out protests, legal and illegal, is why we need new laws.

This bill introduces new offences for the incitement of trespass, property damage—

Hon. Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

On a point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President: I can hardly hear the contribution from Senator McDonald for the carry-on at the end of the chamber by members of the Greens party.

Mehreen Faruqi (NSW, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

I call the chamber to order and ask senators to give us the opportunity to listen to the senator who is speaking now.

Susan McDonald (Queensland, National Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

The bill introduces new offences for the incitement of trespass, property damage or theft on agricultural land. As has been made abundantly clear, these laws don't ban legitimate protest, they don't seek to punish legitimate whistleblowers and they don't prevent legitimate journalistic inquiry. But the key word here is 'legitimate'. Repeated, organised incidents of trespass by animal activists and their concerning lack of remorse is what has prompted this stronger action to deter those who incite this behaviour, especially via the internet.

We have a chance here to stand up to the bullies. We have a chance to be on the side of what is good and what is right. We have a chance, and we actually have a duty, to stand up for those who can't speak up for themselves and for those who've shown admirable restraint while waiting for government to provide new tools to the police and magistrates. Everyone has a right to feel safe in their home. Everyone has a right to conduct legitimate business. This country was built on farming—strong people developing a fertile land to grow the food and fibre the world wants and needs. But, during a time of repeated antifarming legislation from state Labor governments and this time of dry, it has never been more important that we stand behind our Australian farmers and say, 'We need you,' because we do.

The difference between the determination of farmers and the churlishness of activists is that farmers are driven by love and the others by hate. Farmers love their lifestyle and love feeding and clothing families around the world. They are the best in the world at what they do. It is truly a noble profession performed by extraordinary people. And if you attack farmers you attack the very fibre of Australia, and that is unacceptable. Common decency and the majority of fair-minded Australians are counting on us to pass these laws, and I commend them to the House.

Jordon Steele-John (WA, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, there's a bit of a Friday feeling about this debate on the Criminal Code Amendment (Agricultural Protection) Bill 2019, I would have to observe. There's a certain—what shall I say?—level of comedy about this whole piece. We've had some really fantastic contributions, and I would encourage members from the National Party, the Liberal Party and the Labor Party to go on the stand-up circuit after some of these contributions. I mean, you won't last long. They were pretty bad, but you did try to make us laugh and make us smile. I do appreciate this. If you drill down to the substance of this bill, again, you find a certain element of comedy. These are laws to further criminalise acts which are already criminal. These laws are so wholly unnecessary as to be described thus by the Law Council of Australia—this was my favourite bit:

… the case has yet to be made that these new offences are necessary and … further justification is required from the Australian Government.

… … …

There is no evidence that the existing laws are incapable of addressing the concerns that motivate the passage of the Bill …

No evidence! That's pretty clear. I know lawyers; they're not often up for speaking plainly, but that's pretty plain, although not surprising, because the absence of evidence has never stopped the National Party putting a proposal forward, and I doubt it ever will.

It's a really great time we find ourselves in! One side of this house is the dog that caught the car and never expected to, the other side of the chamber is the dog that was then reversed over by the car, and in the middle of it all we just have this vacuum that's getting filled with legislative nonsense. I mean, this is a thought-bubble that occurred to the National Party in the run-up to the election. They know it's not serious. They know it's not an actual problem that they're addressing. They know they're speaking primarily to the gut based 'feelpinions' of a couple of rural commentators and a couple of folks on 2GB, who I'm sure slipped them the lines about vegan terrorists and smelly greenies, which I thought was a terrible attack upon my colleague, Senator McKim! Why you would single him out in that way, I have no idea. This stuff really is a joke, but so much of what comes forth from this government is a joke, although it's tempered by the verbal anaesthetic that comes in every time certain members of the Liberal Party stand up here and give those terribly preprepared speeches that just make you want to vomit, go home and do something far more interesting.

I think there is a serious point to be made here, though, and it's that we do have serious issues in our agricultural industry. There is no doubt that farmers across the country are facing profound challenges when it comes to their ability and right to protect their property and do their work. However, as Senator Faruqi rightly observed in her contribution to this debate, the challenges that farmers face are not from so-called vegan terrorists, they are far more often from folks engaging in illegal hunting and shooting activity upon their property.

I have been here about two years now—it sometimes feels like a lifetime—and it's very interesting to watch that yellow section of the chamber and what really fires them up. I remember the contributions made by Senator McKenzie in relation to fake meat. That really got the goat going. It's really fascinating that on this issue the National Party are full of a soul-deep conviction to defend the right, as they see it, of farmers to do what they like on their agricultural land, to have their rights respected and to have their ability to make a livelihood out of their land respected. Yet when the antagonist is switched from the so-called strong-smelling vegan ecoterrorist to the clean-cut advocate of the coal seam gas and fracturing industry then suddenly silence descends or, if not silence, passion!

Passion for the right of corporate Australia to come onto the land of farmers in New South Wales, of farmers in Queensland, of farmers in the mid-west and in the Kimberley—

Mehreen Faruqi (NSW, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Steele-John. Minister?

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

Senator Steele-John is misrepresenting the National Party's policy on coal seam gas development on agriculture land. I refer him to our policy documents. I'd be very happy to send them to him so he can avail himself of the facts rather than engage, once again, in emotional rhetoric.

Mehreen Faruqi (NSW, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McKim.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order: firstly, it's not a point of order, and, secondly, Senator McKenzie is a loyal servant of the coal seam gas industry and does over farmers at every opportunity when it comes to balancing the rights of farmers to deny access to their land and the rights of her beloved frackers.

Mehreen Faruqi (NSW, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator McKim. Minister, there is no point of order.

Jordon Steele-John (WA, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

The National Party have never seen a buck from the coal seam gas industry that they haven't been willing to take. I think it's absolutely hilarious that they come in here protesting their belief that farmers should be protected from something which they contend threatens them, when you've got a situation where farmers are desperately defending their right to protect their ability to make a living from their land, to protect the nature of their land and to protect the very water that you proud RM Williams-wearing, Akubra-sporting country folk should all know is the very wellspring of agriculture.

This protest is so insightful. It reveals to the chamber the pantomime that the modern National Party has turned itself into. You guys and I would never have seen eye to eye on all things, but there was a time when the National Party stood for something more than the continuation of its own existence at any cost. We've just farewelled somebody who used to lead you guys who did have a moral core. Tim Fischer did have a bit of backbone. I'm somebody who sits here as a member of a generation of people who don't know anything like the terror of a mass shooting because of the moral conviction of a person like that. To see you guys degenerate from that position to where you are now is just embarrassing, folks. Is there anything you won't do? Is there any way in which you won't shaft farmers to maintain your position at the cabinet table? Good God! It's a bit of an embarrassment and kind of why you're dying out in so many places. But, anyway, I'll leave that analysis to you guys.

On this legislation, here is—

Government senators interjecting—

You know, I seek to entertain—to bring some energy to the debate.

Government senators interjecting—

Oh, no; I compete in the arena of stand-up comedy—ba-boom, boom, tish! On the legislation, very seriously, what we have in Australia right now is the creation of a context around the agricultural industry where we have seen, over and over again, the industry fail to meet community expectations when it comes to its treatments of animals in its care during the agricultural process. We have all seen the videos. We have all watched the exposes. At each step we have seen clearly, again and again, that the industry is failing to meet those expectations. It is in that context and that atmosphere of distrust that these actions—which I remind the chamber once again are already illegal and for which folks are already prosecuted—have been undertaken. I would, therefore, put to the chamber that a context created by a lack of transparency and by distrust ain't solved by 'ag-gag' legislation! If you want to restore the equilibrium, it's time for an independent office of animal welfare.

As Senator Carr so clearly pointed out to the chamber yesterday, there are many instances in which there is a critical role, unfortunately, for certain types of animal activism when it comes to revealing the illegal work of metropolitan based meatworks that place the entire health of the Australian community, or subsections of that community, at risk. To deal with those legitimate issues requires transparency, not more secrecy. It certainly doesn't require a piece of legislation, which, I again point out to the chamber, legal experts have attested there is no actual need for. This is a stunt by the National Party, and I fear it's a stunt given in aid of the government to fill the gaping hole where a legislative agenda should be. Christ, you guys won the election and it's been a couple of months now, and what have we seen? You got tax cuts through. You really have spun the tyres on this one.

What will come after the Labor Party eventually vote for this piece of legislation? What ridiculous thought-bubble will you drum up next once you finish drug-testing welfare recipients, despite there being no evidence, or moving us all on to a CDC cut? It is a bit embarrassing, but, then, the National Party and the Liberal Party have never been above embarrassing themselves or the nation as a whole. That's kind of your new slogan, I would argue.

This bill is unnecessary. This bill has no place in the Australian legislative framework. This bill duplicates state based animal protection regimes. It seeks to impose upon activists penalties that exceed the penalties which are to be faced by those who abuse animals in the most horrendous ways. The top limit, which my colleague Senator Faruqi pointed out to the chamber last night, is somewhere in the region of three years, yet this bill proposes five-year potential jail terms. If you guys can't see that as a bit of a mismatch, a bit of a canary down the gas field coalmine, then I don't know what would signal that there's a problem with this legislation. If you really want to deal with this issue, get beyond the stunt. We need to be led by experts in this space. We need to do right by animals and by farmers and create an agricultural system that works for the community and for animals and is fair, transparent and open.

Quite honestly, there are so many people out there who just want to work the land, who just want to get on with things, and want to be able to say to that corporation, 'Get off my land. I don't want you fracking here.' They want to be actually supported properly by government to bring their produce to market in a way which doesn't put them into destitution. We could have a very nice discussion about the impact of the commercial supermarkets' monopoly upon farmers in this country. There are so many issues that actually affect rural and regional Australia which this Senate should be taking time to debate—so many serious issues, from rural suicide to the provision of jobs for young people and the provision of social services and care. These are the things we need to be discussing in this place when it comes to rural and regional Australia, not this pantomime brought forward by a party that don't—well, I actually think they're a generation or two beyond even knowing what they were originally for. If that side is a zombie and that side is just vaguely human, you guys are like a kind of strange, pointless addendum to the main body of the Liberal Party. It's sad. Anyway, I'll let you think about that.

I thank the chamber for its time. I will proudly vote against this legislation, alongside my Greens colleagues, as we strive for an agricultural sector that treats animals and farmers with equal respect.

Rex Patrick (SA, Centre Alliance) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to contribute to the debate on the Criminal Code Amendment (Agricultural Protection) Bill 2019. Centre Alliance will be supporting this bill in an amended form. We very much support the idea of lawful protest and we also support whistleblowers who might call out animal cruelty. We support organisations like the RSPCA—and I was just having a look on their website—that have the power to enter properties, seize animals, seize evidence of animal cruelty offences, issue animal welfare directions and notices, issue on-the-spot fines and initiate prosecutions under animal welfare legislation. What we don't support is the conduct of activists that gave rise to this bill which we think is abhorrent and which no-one wants to see a repeat of.

I'll go to the amendments shortly, but first I want to discuss Labor's second reading amendment, and I hope my reading out their amendment doesn't create a procedural problem. Their amendment states:

At the end of the motion, add:

", but the Senate:

(a) notes that the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry into this bill identified a range of potential unintended consequences that could flow from the operation of new criminal offences contained in this bill; and

(b) calls on the Government to carefully monitor the operation of the new laws to ensure that unintended consequences do not arise, and if they do, urgently introduce any necessary amendments to the new laws."

So the committee has recognised—and Labor has endorsed the idea—that the bill as it was originally proposed had some fairly significant flaws in it. I see that second reading amendment as an advertisement from the Labor Party that they have lost their conviction, because we know that they are going to support the bill. They've signalled that, if the bill is amended and goes back to the House and comes back to this place, they will support the bill.

This is not the first time the Labor Party have done this. During the last parliament, the numbers were in this place to stop the TPP-11 enabling legislation until such time as the ISDS provisions were removed. Labor's policy was to not support trade agreements with ISDS provisions. Senators Hanson and Georgiou and Centre Alliance were willing to back that position in, and Labor capitulated. They have also capitulated twice on personal tax cuts, once in the last parliament and also in this parliament; on encryption laws, where they sought to move amendments but, at the last minute, decided not to put those amendments to the chamber; and just recently with the temporary exclusion orders. Centre Alliance shared their view that the law didn't provide enough protections and sought to amend it. But, a couple of days before the vote, Labor signalled that they had given up on it and they were just going to let that one go through. And they lodged a motion for an inquiry into China and then quickly withdrew.

In relation to journalists, Labor have made fairly strong statements about protecting journalists in the wake of the media raids. This bill has some concerning elements in relation to journalists. For example, as it originally was tabled, it had a provision that required the journalist to prove that they were a journalist. These things are, in my view, further restrictions on journalists and they are making journalists feel uncomfortable. The government has agreed to change that, and I'm grateful for that, but the Labor Party, having stated a very strong commitment to media freedom, were prepared to let that through. I know that the Labor Party say they're picking their battles, but actually this is not about politics; this is legislation, and you have a duty to make sure that the laws we pass in this chamber are good laws. When you see a bad law coming through, you have to stand up and say, 'Stop, we need to rethink that.'

We are not the House of Representatives. Over there, when the bells ring everyone knows what the vote's going to be. So, they play a lot of theatre over there. Of course, we know that the real work is done in this place, where the amendments are looked at, where we do all the committee work. I've got everyone shaking their heads—all the senators around the room agreeing with this principle. We do all the work here. So, you've got to get away from this idea that you're playing theatre in here. If you want to do that, switch and go to the lower house, to the other place. This is where we do very serious work, and we must take that role very seriously.

To help the Labor Party—because we do want to work with the Labor Party—I'm just going to give them this hint. Legislation in this place is a team sport. The Liberal-National coalition have worked this out. When legislation comes to this place they talk to the crossbench, they engage us, they talk to us in confidence and frankly, and we have a bit of argy-bargy. They are in regular contact with us, and they manage to work with the crossbench to get legislation through. If they're having any trouble, then of course they call in the 'crossbench whisperer'—that is, Senator Cormann—and he does his magic somehow.

That's not what the Labor Party are doing. What the Labor Party are doing is spinning around and around in circles. They go to caucus meetings where they make a whole bunch of decisions, drowning in their own disillusionment. The biggest decision they make, it appears, is about the point at which they're going to capitulate, at which they're going to show that they have no conviction. Probably what they need to do most of all is learn what a poker face is—learn that you don't, two or three days out from a bill being put to the Senate, declare your hand. If you're working with the crossbench—and I'd love to see you work with us better—we can work together, we can hold out, we can do all those things that the Liberal Party have worked out how to do to work with the crossbench, to get better outcomes. That's really what I'd like to see.

I've said some perhaps confronting things here, but I'm doing so with a view that I want to be able to work with Labor, because there are times when we don't like what the government puts up. In this instance, what we have done—because of the state of play on this side of the chamber—is work with the government, constructively. We've had a bit of argy-bargy going to and from Senator McKenzie's office. Her office has been very open and willing to consider different things, and we've managed to get a couple of things that were of great concern to us included as government amendments. They include adding wood processing and wood fibre processing to the definition of a primary production business so that these businesses will be protected from abhorrent conduct. And something close to my heart: we've switched the burden of proof in relation to journalists, and I think that's a really important thing to do—recognising the important role that investigative journalists play in assisting people who don't like animal cruelty, which is most of us. Having investigative journalists go in and engage and report and provide the truth is a good thing.

There are a couple of other subtleties, which I won't go into. But we've landed in a good place, and I thank the minister for the constructive negotiations we have had. As I said, Centre Alliance will be supporting the bill in its amended form.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries) | Link to this | Hansard source

I only want to speak briefly on the Criminal Code Amendment (Agricultural Protection) Bill 2019. I also want to acknowledge the contribution that Senator Patrick has just made, which was a constructive contribution to what is a very important piece of legislation. It's pleasing to hear from members of the crossbench who are willing to work with the government on things that are important to our nation and getting the balance right on many things, which is what this chamber is very good at doing.

The same can't be said, though, for the speaker who proceeded Senator Patrick. Senator Steele-John made a reference to members of this place—senators and political parties—shafting farmers, and the allegation or the allusion was that it was the Liberal-National coalition that was shafting farmers. Nothing could be further from the truth. It's not this side who are shafting farmers. We stand up for farmers. That's why we've brought this bill in. I commend the Minister for Agriculture for being so responsive to industry concerns and dealing with the things that she has dealt with in this bill.

It's not, I hope, the Labor Party who shaft farmers; it's the Greens who do that. It's the Greens who are speaking out against this piece of legislation claiming that it doesn't need to be brought in, that we don't need these protections and that we don't need to clamp down on this terrible behaviour we've seen time and time again. They're the party that shaft farmers, they're the party that shafts foresters and they're the party that shafts fishermen and women. They're the party that shaft regional Australia. They're the party that do not care about jobs in our regional communities. It's time they were called out for that sort of thing. They're not standing up for balance and they're not standing up to protect people. They are doing what they normally do: creating emotive arguments and costing people jobs on the way through.

I believe, as do all of the members on this side of the chamber and I gather many others in this place, that protecting jobs in our primary industries is essential. Regional communities are built off the back of strong primary industries in forestry, in fisheries and in farming. I think that the inclusion of wood processing and wood-fibre processing facilities within the definition of primary production businesses is a very good addition.

In my home state of Tasmania, we only have to have a little look at recent history and the impact that protesters have had on the forestry industry there, to the point where they were able to shut down a huge portion of our native forestry sector in our state, costing thousands of jobs—something that certain members of the Greens wear as a badge of honour. They don't go out and speak to the people whose jobs they've cost, they don't go and talk to the wives and the husbands of those who've lost their jobs or the kids whose parents no longer have employment and they don't drive through the streets of the towns that have been shut down as a result—and they take no responsibility for any of it. It's unsafe to go and shut down these serious primary industry operations. As I said before, it costs jobs.

I want to focus on forestry. It is a proud industry. It's an industry that should be proud of the standard at which it operates. We are better than most other forestry nations around the world. We operate at a world standard. Those people who work in the industry and those who invest in it should be proud. We should ignore the messages that we get from the Australian Greens trying to denigrate that industry. That's why it's important that this bill protects the right for those who want to work and those who want to invest in forestry as well as other primary industries to be able to do what they do without fear of being persecuted and having protests take place in their places of work by people supported by the Australian Greens.

I do acknowledge, though, that in the consultation process, particularly through the work of the committee that inquired into this piece of legislation, a number of concerns were raised, particularly from the forestry industry. Having spoken with the Minister for Agriculture, I look forward to working with the forestry industry, in particular, on the further concerns that they raise and seeing what can be done into the future to make sure that industry continues to be strong, proud of what it does and continues to provide the jobs that are so badly needed in regional communities—jobs that that lot over there, the Australian Greens, want to get rid of. I commend this bill to anyone listening.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Minister for Agriculture) | Link to this | 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.

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator McKim be agreed to.

Raff Ciccone (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

As I foreshadowed earlier in my speech, I move:

At the end of the motion, add:

", but the Senate:

(a) notes that the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry into this bill identified a range of potential unintended consequences that could flow from the operation of new criminal offences contained in this bill; and

(b) calls on the Government to carefully monitor the operation of the new laws to ensure that unintended consequences do not arise, and if they do, urgently introduce any necessary amendments to the new laws."

Scott Ryan (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Ciccone be agreed to.

Scott Ryan (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is now that the bill be read a second time.