Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Northern Australia) Share this | Hansard source

I'll take the interjection from the Greens. The extremist Greens, by saying that we are talking about genuine protesting, are defending the threats to people's lives, which have actually occurred, from these extremist protesters. You really should question whether you want to align yourselves with people who are making death threats and other threats to destroy the livelihoods of people around the country. I understand that the Greens also support civil disobedience—I have no issue with that; Labor supports civil disobedience—but I will not have any truck with people who issue death threats against farming families, against children, and against businesses. Labor is not up for that. We will not support that kind of protesting. If the Greens want to stand side by side with extremist protesters who issue death threats, who issue threats against children, who publicise the street addresses, premises and locations of families and children, and encourage people to take action against those individuals, well, that's a matter for the Greens. But that is not something that Labor supports—while we do of course support the right to legitimate civil disobedience and protest.

This bill has now been examined by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. The evidence given to that committee from 86 submitters highlighted a range of very significant problems with this bill as currently drafted. The government members of this committee then basically ignored every concern raised and recommended that this bill be passed without a single amendment.

Labor members of the committee took a more responsible approach to the task of legislative review that was entrusted to them and a more respectful approach to the people and organisations who took the time to analyse this bill and provide evidence to the committee about what they found. The fact that they were effectively doing the work of the Morrison government for it by closely examining a bill before it became law didn't seem to make any difference.

At the outset, the Labor members of the committee agreed with the claimed purpose of this legislation, which is to protect Australian farmers and primary production businesses from those who incite trespass or other property offences on agricultural land. Of course we acknowledge that the food and fibre industries add significant value to the economy and contribute to the health and wellbeing of Australians. I take this opportunity to again make clear that Labor believes that Australians operating these businesses have a right to do so in peace and that there is no place for actions, no matter the cause, that endanger or threaten workers, create biosecurity risks or intimidate farmers on their own property. That is what this bill is trying to do.

This bill is not about restricting people's genuine right to undertake civil disobedience. This is a bill that is designed to prevent extremist protesters from endangering or threatening workers, creating biosecurity risks and intimidating farmers on their own property. However, I note that Labor members of the committee recommend that this bill be substantially amended to deal with the numerous significant unintended consequences that have been identified by submitters and outlined in the report.

Labor's concern about the bill in its current form is that the poor drafting has created the risk of a range of unintended consequences. These were addressed in evidence to the committee and include: overlap with existing state and territory laws; a lack of proportionality in comparison to existing offences; impacts on the implied constitutional right to freedom of political communication; impacts on public interest journalism; impacts on whistleblowers; impacts on farmers involved in legitimate rural protests; and, finally, impacts on legitimate industrial activities by workers and unions. For that reason, I foreshadow that Labor will be moving a number of amendments to this bill.

Supporters of this bill argue that legislative action by the Commonwealth parliament is needed to fill gaps in state and territory legislation and a perceived lack of action by state authorities. However, the Attorney-General's Department has identified 31 laws that already deal with trespass, property damage and relevant incitement offences in state and territory laws. The offences created by this bill appear to substantially overlap with existing state and territory laws that already criminalise trespass, damage to property and theft and could already form the basis of criminal liability for those who incite those offences. To this extent, the bill may therefore do little but complicate the law with superfluous additional offences that will not improve existing legal protections for farmers.

It is also important to note that the government has already taken a significant and targeted action against Aussie Farms, one of the main protest groups, by listing it as a prescribed organisation under the Privacy Act 1988. According to the Attorney-General, this exposes Aussie Farms to potential penalties of up to $2.1 million if it is found to breach the Privacy Act.

Let me now turn to the unintended consequences that this bill may have. Australia has a robust democracy founded on freedom of political communication. We, in Labor, believe in defending the right of our citizens to conduct protests, and that includes the right of farmers to protest. No laws should unduly restrict those basic rights shared by all Australians.

The Law Council and some other witnesses before the committee raised concerns that the bill may impinge upon the implied freedom of political communication, because conduct captured by the proposed offences 'may overreach what is necessary for the effective operation of a system of representative and responsible government'. This concern is linked to the concern that whistleblowers and public interest journalism are not adequately protected by the bill, which could lead a court to strike the bill down as unconstitutional.

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights scrutiny report also raised a number of concerns about the impact of the bill on human rights and the adequacy of the safeguards it purports to provide.

From the outset, Labor has also been concerned by evidence that this bill may have the effect of criminalising the actions of whistleblowers and journalists who are seeking to expose and prevent illegal cruelty to animals. Evidence to the committee from numerous submitters, including the Law Council of Australia and Australia's Right to Know, was that, as presently drafted, the protections in this bill are inadequate to protect public interest journalism. Once again, these problems could be fixed with fairly simple amendments, consistent with protections for journalists and whistleblowers in other laws, but the Morrison government has chosen to ignore this reality and to place Liberal Party marketing objectives before press freedom and the basic rights of all Australians, including their right to know.

While the government continues to claim that the bill will provide adequate protection for journalists and whistleblowers, over recent months Australians have seen the Morrison government's lack of respect for the public's right to know about unlawful activities and its willingness to use the criminal law and the police to seek to intimidate independent journalists and whistleblowers who seek to expose wrongdoing.

We in Labor are concerned to ensure that this bill will not add to the threats to journalists who are trying to do their job in the public interest, and we will be moving an amendment to ensure that journalists and whistleblowers will be fully protected.

Another possible unintended consequence of this bill is that its poorly drafted provisions could also be directed against farmers, the very people it is said this bill will protect. Labor members of the committee pointed out that protests on agricultural land are not only carried out by animal rights activists. In recent years there have been many cases of protests and other activist activities, including trespass, on agricultural land by people involved in rural groups such as the Lock the Gate Alliance and those involved in water pipeline protests in Victoria's Yarra Valley. While the government claims that the bill is aimed at animal rights protesters, it is clear that the offences in this bill could also be used against farmers engaged in protest actions against mining exploration or other developments on agricultural land. And, as the Prime Minister has recently declared, he is never troubled to see the law enforced.

In their additional comments, Labor members of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee concluded:

There may well be a case for stronger laws or penalties in some states, and more rigorous enforcement of existing laws, in order to protect farmers, workers and their families from the harms and potential harms of activist trespass. Labor is not convinced, however, that this bill as currently drafted is the right vehicle to achieve those aims.

They also said:

Labor's long term position has been to support moves to achieve better animal welfare and consistent application and enforcement of animal protection statutes by harmonising relevant federal, state and territory laws and codes. Labor has supported the establishment of an independent office of animal welfare; phasing out cosmetic testing on animals or on products used in the production of cosmetics; and; has opposed any 'ag-gag' legislation.

The Commonwealth parliament is no place for virtue signalling, especially when there are broader consequences. The lack of rigour applied to the drafting and evidence from the relevant departments on this bill has led to concerns that this is a problem looking for a solution.

I commend those comments of the Labor members of the committee.

In conclusion, when this bill was introduced Labor made clear that our concerns are not with the stated purpose of the bill but with the many potential unintended consequences that could flow should this poorly drafted bill become law. For these reasons, Labor did not oppose the bill's passage through the House and said that we would announce our position following consultation with farmers and legal experts and following review of the recommendations of the report on the bill by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee.

Labor understands that the vast majority of Australian farmers respect the law and care for the animals that are their livelihood and would agree with us that laws passed to protect farmers from unlawful actions on their land should not have the unintended consequences of criminalising legitimate journalism and whistleblowing on matters of public interest or stifling legitimate protest actions, including those taken by farmers themselves.

If the government really wanted to deal with the problem of protests by Australians against animal cruelty, it would be better off by showing that it is responding to their concerns by trying to better deal with the problem of animal cruelty. As the government majority of the committee itself declared, there is little doubt that activists who trespass to collect footage or release farm animals do so because they are motivated by a genuine personal commitment to animal welfare. However, Labor is prepared to support laws to better protect farmers from unlawful extremist protest activities on their land, and for that reason we will be supporting this bill.