Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The Labor Party has strongly supported international best practice in animal welfare and the establishment of the independent Office of Animal Welfare, and we see there is absolutely no contradiction between the prevention of animal cruelty and supporting the proper and best practice in regard to livestock, farming and the flourishing of a meat processing industry. And, of course, you would expect that's what this bill should be seeking to do. But there's considerable evidence to suggest that that's not what this bill actually does, and that's why it needs substantive amendment.

There are so many unintended consequences, and I'll try to list some of them. The Law Council pointed out to the Senate inquiry that the bill is quite clearly unnecessary given the range of state matters that are being dealt with. It's disproportionate in that the penalties imposed under these measures are much greater than those that apply to the people who actually do the trespassing. It is a bizarre aspect that in some cases you get six months for trespassing in the states but five years for using the telephone. The penalties imposed here, as I say, are disproportionate. They are perverse outcomes. And, of course, we have to ask whether or not there has been proper consideration of what the consequences of that might be.

Then there is, of course, the very serious issue of the threat to rural protest movements and legitimate industrial activity by Australian workers, and that's the real thing that worries me about this bill: the consequences it has for meat workers, whether in the red meat or the white meat—pork or chicken—industries, or for the National Union of Workers or the AWU in the dairy industry, or the AMIEU, across this country.

Then there are the consequences it has for whistleblowers. The minister points out that there are issues as to public interest declarations. We've got people on trial in this country at the moment for whistleblowing. We've got journalists who are being raided in this country at the moment for exercising their position as journalists. And you're going to try and tell me there are adequate protections in this legislation!

There is a real, serious risk here that, when you undermine people's capacity to provide that whistleblowing service and undermine the work that journalists do, you actually enhance organised crime in this country. And you say to me, 'That's an extreme statement, isn't it?' In the meat industry, what did we have? We had the Woodward royal commission. Minister, you're so clever and you know so much about this—do you remember the Jodhpur report? The AMIEU were raided because of their involvement in whistleblowing, where they'd exposed drug running, firearms running, money counterfeiting and meat substitution, and all of those matters were picked up in the Jodhpur report and companies were named. This was organised crime by meat industry companies. Many of those companies named in that report are still operating. If you impair the capacity of whistleblowers and journalists and industrial organisations, you actually may well advance the capacity for criminals to act.

Then you've got the case of illegal abattoirs operating. Three weeks ago, the ABC broadcast footage on the nightly news in Melbourne of an illegal, unregistered abattoir where beasts were slaughtered and then placed in the backs of cars and distributed to families in Melbourne—a very serious public health risk.

These are issues that go to the public safety of our community. They're not about animal liberation. They're not about animal activists on farms. They're about our capacity to actually defend our community where the regulators in this country are overwhelmed and so not able to do their job properly and require the assistance of journalists and whistleblowers to protect the public. The AMIEU have been heavily involved in providing that community service. They're not a bunch of—what did you call them?—'terrorists'. They're good, hardworking, blue-collar Australians, protecting Australians. And you have put forward legislation that may seriously impede their capacity.

Then, of course, there are industrial rights. One day you could be on a plant as an organiser; the next day you could be laid off for trespassing and incitement. In this country, we've had example after example where officials have been prosecuted for incitement.

We have a long history of farmers who have taken an interest in public protest. The pipeline protest group in my state 10 years ago sought to march on the Premier of Victoria's farm and occupy his farm. In 2011 potato growers drove 50 tractors to blockade the McCain factory in Wendouree, to protest the way they were treated on potato pricing. In 2012 protesters against coal seam gas engaged in 10-day protests in the Kerry Valley in Queensland, against Arrow Energy. In 2013 farmers in Warrnambool staged protests against low milk prices. And we have seen action taken against Santos on coal seam gas. Just recently we've seen farmers, on water rights—aren't they equally entitled to present their case? Are they not threatened by measures such as those contained in bills such as this?

We've got a rich tradition of public protest in this country. So we've got to be wary of unintended consequences, and that's what this Senate report draws to our attention. It is the job of Senate committees to look at the detail—not to be carried away by the hype, the fake news and the very poor reporting on these matters but to look at the actual detail of legislation. Of course, you'll be told that this will never, ever happen; we'll never see this sort of legislation used improperly. Mr Mark Maley, the editorial policy manager of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, made this point to the committee:

The intention of the bill and the honest intention of the framers of the bill at the moment—I am perfectly prepared to believe that the intention of the bill is exactly as you've described it. But that doesn't necessarily control how it's going to be interpreted or used in potentially a very different political environment—a very different environment of public opinion. These things do have an impact on how these sorts of pieces of legislation can be used … But whenever legislation is done we have to think, 'How could this legislation potentially be misused?'

And we have the position that was put to us by the journalist from Right to Know and similarly from the Murdoch newspapers. The case that has to be put has to be seen in the context of how this legislation could be reasonably interpreted in other circumstances, because it's been very badly thought through.

As I said, I am very concerned about what it means for workers. We have seen throughout the history of this country how workers have been subject to various pieces of legislation that have been brought forward in one context and used entirely differently in another. I'm very concerned about the consequences for whistleblowers and journalists. I'm very concerned about what we know to be the long history of crime in the meat industry and the incapacity of the regulatory authorities to deal with that.

But I'm particularly concerned about the consequences for research facilities. We saw, when I was minister, the situation in which CSIRO facilities here in Canberra were destroyed. We know the situation there, where territory legislation was used in those circumstances. But the point is: why aren't they covered by this bill, if this is such a big issue? Why doesn't the 'use of agricultural land' definition go to that issue? Scientific research that is directly related to agriculture is undertaken in other facilities, but it doesn't come within a bull's roar of being dealt with.

This bill has been rushed into this parliament. The government's created expectations for some of its stakeholders that it'll be able to deliver on this. When you ask the Federal Police what extra resource is going to be put into enforcing this legislation, the answer is: none—no additional resource.

Whatever the political objectives of this government are—and I might be somewhat suspicious about its intent—what we can say is that the states and territories have clear responsibilities, and they have responsibilities for more-rigorous enforcement of their laws. They have an obligation to protect farmers but they also have an obligation to protect workers and their families. But to act in haste and to draft legislation which has been so badly thought through may well have quite serious unintended consequences that will be with us for some considerable time.

I always find it ironic when we hear from the conservative benches how we need to expand Commonwealth powers, given they spend so much time talking to us about the need for deregulation. This is yet another example where we're getting a bid to grow the Commonwealth, to expand the Commonwealth. This bill doesn't do the job that the bill's supporters claim it will. It needs extensive amendment. We'll soon see just how strong the government's bona fides are in that regard. If the government were genuinely concerned about animal welfare, it would at least follow the advice of the RSPCA, which says that we are miles behind international best practice. We've made no effort to come anywhere near international best practice. If the government were genuinely concerned about protecting farmers, it would at least provide the resources to the Federal Police to—