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

We should call a spade a spade. The Criminal Code Amendment (Agricultural Protection) Bill 2019 is antiprotest legislation pure and simple, or, to be equally accurate, it is ag-gag legislation. In a paper published in the Griffith Journal of Law & Human Dignity last year, Elizabeth Englezos described ag-gag legislation in the following terms:

… laws which effectively 'gag' or reduce discussion of some of the more controversial aspects of animal agriculture and its practices. By preventing public oversight and criticism of factory farms and their practices, ag-gag laws can allow some of the more egregious forms of animal cruelty to continue. Evidence suggests that ag-gag laws have prevented external scrutiny and may contribute to reduced animal welfare under the guise of animal welfare protection.

Ms Englezos also said, when the predecessor to this bill, the Criminal Code Amendment (Animal Protection) Bill 2015, was introduced:

… Australia's proposed ag-gag laws provide an unnecessary criminal sanction which disproportionately affects activists and whistle-blowers and has a chilling effect on free political communication regarding animal welfare concerns. Prevention of legitimate public discourse and debate over food production and the treatment of animals during the food production process may also undermine the democratic process.

In fact, this is actually the primary intent of the bill that we're debating here today—to stifle free political communication around animal welfare concerns and to try to discourage those who would engage in such free political communications to stand up on behalf of animals who remain voiceless in this country, apart from, in this parliament, the efforts of the Australian Greens.

If this bill was genuinely about the safety and security of farmers and their families, as the government and some Labor members have tried to convince us, it would actually say so in the explanatory memorandum—but it doesn't say that. And if government was really serious about acting on the concerns of farmers, as my friend and colleague Senator Faruqi pointed out in her second reading contribution, they would be actually acting on what farmers are saying is the issue of highest concern: illegal pig farming and pig dogging on their properties. But no: the government's not bringing in laws to address that; they're bringing in laws that attack animal activists and, in doing so, risk being ruled out of order by the High Court because of the way they constrain the implied freedom of political communication that exists in our Constitution.

This is by no means the first time we've seen such chilling legislation tabled by a conservative in an Australian parliament, and it's not even anywhere near the first time we've seen antiprotest legislation directly aimed at activists. In my home state, the Tasmanian Liberal government introduced the Workplaces (Protection from Protesters) Act 2014. I was in the parliament at the time, and I led the parliamentary campaign against this legislation on behalf of a whole movement of people in Tasmania—the environment movement that those laws were aimed directly at. The Workplaces (Protection from Protesters) Act 2014 is yet another act with an Orwellian title that could have come straight from the Ministry of Love: protecting big agribusiness from peaceful protests and their non-violent actions, protecting big agribusiness from the protestors—who are actually the ones most often acted violently against—protecting big agribusiness from cameras and protecting people from learning the truth about what happens in Australia's factory farming sector.

This bill is, quite clearly and quite patently, interference run by government on behalf of big agribusiness to shield that industry from greater public transparency and scrutiny. Will this interference work? Well, in Tasmania it did not. In fact, it's actually made protesters more determined to exercise their right to protest and to engage in free political communication. The passage of the Tasmanian antiprotest legislation quickly saw several arrests, including the arrest of former Greens leader and senator Dr Bob Brown. Although the Tasmanian government ultimately dropped its charges against Dr Brown and his co-arrestee, Ms Jessica Hoyt, they continued their High Court challenge to protect future environmental actions, arguing that the antiprotest legislation under which they were arrested violated the implied right to free speech and political communication in Australia's Constitution, and the High Court supported that argument. Quoting the High Court, Dr Brown said:

The high court has said: 'There is a right to political expression and we will uphold it.' You can't just start jailing people on account of their political beliefs or peaceful actions they might take to uphold those beliefs.

This is exactly the concern that many legal experts have raised in the inquiry into the bill we're currently debating, which was probably best summarised by the Law Council of Australia when it submitted this:

… the new offences may impinge on the implied freedom of political communication in that the breadth of conduct captured by proposed offences may overreach what is necessary for the effective operation of a system of representative and responsible government.

I make the obvious point that, since the passage of the antiprotest legislation in Tasmania's parliament, for years there has been a blockade in takayna/Tarkine, run by the Bob Brown Foundation, which is, on the face of it, in clear breach of those laws and yet which the government has failed to respond to on the ground. Just for the avoidance of doubt, I salute those brave defenders of takayna/Tarkine. I've been to that action myself. I got myself 20 or 30 metres up a beautiful old rainforest tree on a typical north-western Tasmanian day and looked out on some of the most awesome carbon-rich forests in a landscape so rich in Aboriginal cultural heritage. I want to place on the record my gratitude—and the gratitude, I know, of all other Australian Greens senators—for the actions that those brave defenders of takayna/Tarkine are conducting.

The government's suggesting that the current bill we're debating will protect the agribusiness industry. However, social research has shown that ag-gag laws erode trust in farmers and farming. This is the main problem in regard to this particular element of the government's argument: you do not build trust in our communities by putting up roadblocks to advocacy and information. By shielding big agribusiness from greater transparency and scrutiny, the government will only create more distrust of big agribusiness in our community. This will just further energise activists to seek transparency, accountability and truth.

As many speakers have pointed out, there are already state and territory laws covering the criminal acts identified in this bill. It is already illegal to make threats, menace or harass. There are already laws against single party surveillance. Theft, burglary and destruction of property are already criminal offences. There is already a Commonwealth Biosecurity Act. The Law Council of Australia, while calling on the government to justify the need for this bill, argued—and I completely agree—that there is no evidence that the existing laws are incapable of addressing the concerns that motivate the passage of the bill. There is no evidence whatsoever, and the government has completely failed to make the case for this bill.

This bill is not about agricultural protection; it is about authoritarianism, pure and simple. It's a bill about silencing public dissent and political communication. It continues the accelerating march down the dangerous path to a police state in this country and ultimately to a fascist state in this country. I want to pause there and reflect on my use of the word 'fascist' in this context. When I've used this word in the past, plenty of journalists in this country have suggested that in fact that is not a word that should be used in the Australian political debate. I say this: there is a live, raging debate in the United States at the moment about fascism. It is a debate that is being engaged in by senators and other congress members and activists in the US, and it's about time we had that debate in Australia. The reason I use that word is that we are seeing the rise of the rot in this country at the moment. If you want to fight that rise—and it must be fought—it has to be called out. And, if you're going to call it out, you have to name it up. So I'm going to keep naming it up, because it is just so important that we resist the rise of the extreme right in this country. When I say 'extreme right' I include a number of senators who sit in this place representing the Liberal and National parties.

This bill imposes stiffer penalties for certain people engaging in certain already existing criminal activities, thereby treating some people more harshly than others. This is blatant persecution and it is totally unjust. Should this bill be enacted, no other comparable industry will enjoy this kind of legislative protection being offered by this government to big agribusiness—and in saying 'big agribusiness', because of the definitions in this act, I include big forestry. As someone who was actually arrested standing up against the big forestry operations in Tasmania in the mid-1980s, I say this represents yet another disturbing move against dissent and articulates very clearly why we need a charter of rights in this country.

There have been 1,700 environmental activists killed just in this century alone around the world, just for standing up for the environment—1,700 brave environmental activists who paid with their lives for their activism and for their advocacy. In my home state of Tasmania, I've seen too many activists, their families and their properties being threatened. I've seen people being beaten. I've seen people terrified for their very lives—again, for standing up for nature and standing up for biodiversity and the environment. But what I haven't seen is a corresponding concern from the major parties for those activists' welfare and protection, or for the welfare and protection of animal rights activists like Cara Garrett and James Warden. These animal welfare groups—and the public debate they seek to inform—are exactly the people that the government is attacking in this legislation.

This bill is the latest in a long line of chilling and draconian bills introduced by this government—no doubt paid for in full and in advance by corporate donations from big agribusiness to LNP coffers. Where is all this going to end—this slow march towards authoritarianism, totalitarianism and fascism in this country? Big agribusiness is already calling for an expansion of this bill to cover other industries and activists, involving railway, port and forestry facilities. Make no mistake: this is the thin edge of the wedge.

If people don't believe that laws can be used for purposes beyond those which the government claim are the motivation for their introduction, I just refer people to the metadata laws passed through this place a few years ago—they are currently under review—with the combined votes of the LNP and ALP senators in this parliament. We were told these laws were necessary in the fight against terrorism, and they are now used by local governments to surveil citizens, to bust them for having unregistered dogs. That's the kind of bracket creep we're seeing in this country. The Australian community is becoming increasingly aware of and concerned about the treatment of animals in agribusiness. Proposing ag-gag laws in this climate will further damage the reputation of Australia's livestock industries and risks increasing tensions between consumers and producers.

I want to mention briefly the Australian Labor Party here. We heard a fantastic tub-thumping speech from Senator Kim Carr, pointing out the massive and manifest flaws in this legislation, just before he and his colleagues are going to line up to vote these ag-gag laws through this parliament. I don't have enough time to go through Labor's report out of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry, but it was a very, very good report from Labor senators, pointing out the massive flaws in this bill, pointing out the potential for this legislation to be misused and pointing out the obvious ideological motivation behind this legislation. But, of course, the Labor Party is going to collapse in a screaming heap and vote this legislation through later today. What is actually the point of the Labor Party anymore? They're like the long-lost left wing of the LNP. They stand for nothing anymore.

I issue this warning to the Australian Labor Party: you have to stand for something in politics. You have to find your true values and stand by those values, and people, even though they may not agree with you on every issue, will respect you for that. The Labor Party is losing respect hand over fist. The big danger for Australia, for nature in this country, for biodiversity in this country, for the campaign against the increase of fossil fuel mining and export in this country, is that every time the Labor Party lies down the political debate shifts further to the right. And Labor, in capitulating on this legislation, is contributing to that shift. This bill has actually been described as 'a stunt' and as 'virtue signalling' by Senator Murray Watt, who is about to line up with his colleagues and vote it through.

I mentioned earlier that this bill is a living, breathing argument for the introduction of a charter of rights in Australia. We are the only liberal democracy in the world that does not have some form of charter or bill of rights. We are continually seeing passed through this place legislation that erodes fundamental rights and freedoms that we used to send Australians overseas to fight to defend. We are now seeing them eroded hand over fist because we don't have a proper—or in fact any—charter or bill of rights in this country. Despite the government's rhetoric, this bill is not about strengthening the rights of farmers to safety and security. This bill is about weakening the rights of people and organisations to engage in political communication that draws attention to the rights or lack thereof of livestock animals.

I move a second reading amendment to this bill:

Leave out all words after "that", insert:

"(1) The bill be withdrawn and redrafted to deal with the numerous and significant unintended consequences that have been outlined in the Labor Senators' additional comments to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee's report on this bill.

(2) The redrafted bill, on introduction, be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report."