Page 16 - NPN November22

Biosecurity plans to include trespass risk
* from P15
boot-covers,” and that there “has not been a single inci- dent of a biosecurity hazard caused by activists.”
workers and trespassers. This assertion was sup- ported by the Austral- ian Veterinary Association, which told the committee that its support for the bill is primarily based on its con- cern about “the high risks to animal biosecurity and welfare that are involved
mites – inanimate objects, such as shoes and clothing. These include Johne’s
in relation to biosecurity are insufficient to mitigate biosecurity concerns.
percent, around 10 percent reported the loss was re- lated to ‘disease outbreak’.
cussed the increased stress on animals arising from unauthorised entry, such as porcine stress syndrome in pigs.
to prevent exposure of abuses, it will nevertheless have a “chilling effect” on the reporting and exposure of cruel farming practices.
3.18 The Animal Defend- ers Office echoed the view that there have been no biosecurity incidents con- nected to activist trespass in Australia.
with unauthorised entry.” 3.20 Dr Melanie Latter from the AVA said, “Al- though I don’t know of particular cases yet where that’s happened through activism in Australia, it’s a
Australian Dairy Farmers Ltd agreed that foot and mouth was a strong con- cern, referring to research conducted by the CSIRO, which estimates the cost of an outbreak to the economy could be around $50 billion over 10 years.
Dr Kite concluded, “The act of putting some pro- tective clothing on does a little bit but it doesn’t do enough.”
3.54 A number of sub- mitters argued that expo- sure of animal cruelty is in the public interest, in- cluding ARTK, which sub- mitted, “The bill therefore has broader ramifications, including having a chill- ing effect on reporting and public debate, and discour- aging whistle-blowers and sources of stories of this kind.”
When questioned, the RSPCA also advised that it was “not aware” of any actual biosecurity incidents caused by activists in Aus- tralia.
3.22 While evidence of biosecurity incidents was limited, Australian Pork provided anecdotal evi- dence of three Queensland piggeries which experi- enced “breakouts of myco- plasma pneumoni”’ in the aftermath of activist incur- sions.
Dr Kite reflected on the impacts of avian influenza on the poultry sector in 2013, saying, “We, as an in- dustry, are still paying back the Commonwealth for our share of the cost of that.”
“These activists were there for quite some time with cameras and lights – I’ve seen this footage myself – and stirred the animals up to a point where it became quite sensational footage, because the sows thought they were going to get fed and they weren’t.”
3.60 Animal activist groups argued that prac- tices which are cruel to farm animals are generally lawful in Australia, and ac- tivist trespass is the only way they get exposed and ultimately changed for the better.
3.19 The Department of Agriculture submitted that entry of “unauthor- ised people onto proper- ties breaches on-farm biosecurity and increases the risk of animal-to- animal, animal-to-human and human-to-animal dis- ease transmission,” which is a threat to animals, farm
huge risk.”
“At the moment, we’re
particularly worried about African swine fever, and you would have to say bi- osecurity has never been more important on farms than it is now.”
3.23 The Australian Chicken Meat Federation argued that actions under- taken by animal activists
“They were multimillion dollar exercises to actually eradicate.
3.27 Australian Pork sim- ilarly gave evidence about a number of cases in which activist trespass had report- edly caused distress to pigs and resulted in livestock losses, stillbirths and abor- tions in pregnant sows, a broken leg in one sow that had to be euthanised and piglets at a Victorian pig- gery drowning in effluent ponds.
3.55 The Animal De- fenders Office said the bill “unjustifiably undermines freedom of expression” be- cause the public is “over- whelmingly concerned about the mistreatment of farmed animals,” and has a right to know about farm- ing practices.
Farming groups robustly disagreed with this propo- sition.
3.21 The AVA also ex- pressed concerns about dis- eases that are carried on fo-
“Fortunately, we haven’t had one recently, but it just demonstrates that it can happen.
3.61 Aussie Farms Inc de- scribed activist trespass as an “unfortunate necessity” under the current system, and explained that activists do not “want” to go onto farms, but feel compelled because of inadequacies in Australia’s animal welfare monitoring.
disease and foot-and-mouth disease.
Executive director Dr Vivien Kite detailed “strict biosecurity protocols” that reduce the chance of disease outbreaks and contamination in chicken processing, including ex- clusion periods.
3.26 Mr Pollard provided a personal account about the distress caused to his pigs by activist incursion, “Activists raided our place in the middle of the night and took some footage and still pictures and quite a bit of it was on video...”
Animal welfare and transparency
3.59 HSI Australia sub- mitted that the bill “may have severe consequences for the perception of ani- mal welfare advocates and may pave the way for fur- ther restrictions to farm animal welfare advocacy activities in the future.”
Clear signage should be part of every biosecurity management plan.
ing from activist activity. The results indicated that around 41 percent of re- spondents had experienced an activist raid on their property, around 9 percent had suffered financial loss as a result and, of that 9
The department also dis-
3.58 A number of other submitters contended that, even if the bill has not been drafted with the intention
3.63 The RSPCA said
“It’s a highly transmis- sible disease.
3.56 If passed, the Ani- mal Defenders Office sug- gested the bill may in fact lead more people to “take up the fight for animals,” because they will perceive the legislation as an attempt by government to cover up practices of abuse.
“It’s carried on people.
“It’s something we don’t want to have happen again.” 3.24 The AVA agreed that animal activists are unlike- ly to understand the com- plex and varied biosecurity procedures in place across
3.28 Aussie Farms refut- ed these examples, saying it did not believe any evi- dence had been provided to substantiate claims that activist activity had led to animal cruelty or piglets drowning.
3.57 The Animal Protec- tors Alliance suggested the bill “can only be to prevent the exposure of cruel farm- ing practices to the Austral- ian public.”
3.62 The Animal Protec- tors Alliance stated, “... Every change in attitude to the treatment of farm animals – whether it be battery cages, sow stalls, cattle feedlots or live ani- mal exports – that has oc- curred in Australia in the past 40 years would not have been possible with- out the evidence brought out about these practices by ordinary citizens who have put themselves in harm’s way to do right thing.”
food production industries. 3.25 Data from a survey of its members by Austral- ian Pork included figures on self-reported incidence of ‘disease outbreak’ result-
3.29 The Department of Agriculture explained the importance of strong bios- ecurity measures to reduce the risk of introduction and spread of infectious dis- eases and reflected on the risk of a person trespassing on an agricultural property being exposed to zoonoses.
This view was echoed in a number of other submis- sions, including that from the Humane Society Inter- national Australia.
* continued P17
THE POULTRY SPECIALISTS
Design & Consultation Service Turnkey Options
Shed Construction
Internal Equipment
Solar Solutions
Composting Solution
Technical Support
Commissioning & Training Support
Call us on SANTREV 1300 815 888 FARMMARK 1800 500 223 Check out our LATEST NEWS on:
Page 16 – National Poultry Newspaper, November 2022
www.poultrynews.com.au