Page 17 - NPN November22

Biosecurity plans to include trespass
* from P16
that, in the absence of a formalised process of in- cremental improvement to animal welfare standards, “...We have to rely on ac- tivism, on media exposes to bring about the public interest and the public concern that motivates the law reform and the policy change.”
3.71 The RSPCA ac- knowledged that many farmers “want to be trans- parent” and “tell the story” of Australian agriculture, but argued “it is vital that that story is told in an ac- curate way.”
tentions, activists are not biosecurity experts and their efforts to avoid ex- posing animals to con- tamination or disease are not likely to be sufficient.
Journalists (however de- fined) could not be pros- ecuted for creating or dis- tributing material which inadvertently incites oth- ers to trespass.
Welfare Strategy.
While not directly
“It’s certainly not a desir- able approach to law re- form, we would agree with that, but in the absence of having any kind of nation- al framework, it’s all that seems to be working at the moment.”
An absence of accurate information from industry, the RSPCA said, leads the public to “start listening to what activists are telling them.”
The committee believes the bill can play an im- portant role in reducing the risk of damaging bi- osecurity incidents by discouraging individuals from using a carriage ser- vice to incite others to trespass on agricultural land.
3.81 The Criminal Code Amendment (Agricultural Protection) Bill 2019 is a measured and propor- tionate response to the threats and harms caused by incitement of activist trespass on agricultural land – on that basis, the committee recommends that the bill be passed. Recommendation 1
3.64 The RSPCA also commented on the broader implications of the bill for issues of animal welfare and transparency.
Similarly, the Animal Protectors Alliance pro- posed that Australia should create an “independent commission of animal pro- tection”, and the AVA pro- posed a “national animal welfare framework”, which could help rebuild trust and “drive improvements in animal welfare.”
3.80 The commit- tee also acknowledges the calls from the AVA, RSPCA and others for a national welfare strategy and/or national welfare advisory committee in Australia, particularly since the expiration of the Australian Animal
Visit aph.gov.au/Pa rliamentary_Business/ Committees/Senate/Le gal_and_Constitutional_ Affairs/Agriculturalpro tection/Report/section?id =committees%2Freports en%2F024301%2F27774 for the full chapter.
Acting chief executive officer Dr Bidda Jones proposed that “community attitudes towards animal welfare in farming are changing, and so too are expectations about what is appropriate and what is not.”
Both the RSPCA and the AVA reflected on the now defunct Australian Animal Welfare Strategy.
The committee is confi- dent that the two offences outlined in the bill will be relied upon only in cases where there is an inten- tion to incite trespass.
Being cognisant of both perspectives is fundamental in resolving agricultural biosecurity and trespass issues. Photo: Animal Liberation Photography
3.66 The RSPCA held that Australia’s standards for livestock welfare “are lagging behind much of the developed world.”
“One of the reasons that we’ve talked in our sub- mission about industry programs is that we feel that they are a really good way for the people who are striving for very high standards of welfare to demonstrate and brand their product, and to dif- ferentiate their product and reassure the public.”
Dr Jones pointed to low levels of transparency in compliance monitoring by state and territory govern- ments, lack of a ‘national strategy towards continu- ous improvement’, absence of animal welfare stand- ards in domestic abattoirs, and the continued use of battery cages for hens.
3.73 The AVA said that it would not like to see the agricultural protection legislation “enacted in iso- lation” from improvements in animal welfare stand- ards, monitoring and com- pliance.
3.67 The RSPCA con- cluded that “there is a sig- nificant role for the federal government to play in co- ordinating and leading the development of national standards in conjunction with the states and terri- tories.”
3.74 The Department of Agriculture reported that states and territories have a responsibility for enforce- ment of animal cruelty and animal welfare standards, and that it works through the Agriculture Ministers’ Forum to coordinate action on animal welfare stand- ards.
This view was shared by the AVA.
3.68 Farming groups told the committee that they want to be transparent, but this must be on reasonable terms.
The VFF said: “We are open to dialogue on com- mon ground – not in pri- vate, uninvited.”
Committee view
3.69 Australian Dairy argued that its members adhere to standards above those required by state laws, and have lobbied for states to legislate for high- er standards, such as the Australian Animal Welfare Standards and Guidelines for Cattle – which have on- ly been legislated in NSW and South Australia.
3.75 There is little doubt that activists who trespass to collect footage or re- lease farm animals do so because they are motivated by a genuine personal com- mitment to animal welfare.
3.70 Australian Pork re- ferred the committee to its Industry Quality As- surance Program, which “covers about 90 percent of production” and is intend- ed to enable “producers to demonstrate that their on- farm practices reflect good farming practice for man- agement, animal welfare, food safety, biosecurity and traceability.”
3.76 The committee un- derstands that evidence is limited in relation to ac- tual instances of disease or contamination arising from specific incidents of activ- ist trespass in Australia.
Under this program, farms are audited once a year by independent audi- tors.
An outbreak of a disease such as avian influenza or African swine fever would be devastating for the in- dustry and must be avoided.
www.poultrynews.com.au
3.77 Whatever their in-
National Poultry Newspaper, November 2022 – Page 17
3.72 The RSPCA recom- mended Australia prioritise developing a “national ani- mal welfare advisory com- mittee or national animal welfare strategy.”
3.78 The committee ac- knowledges the concerns raised by ARTK and oth- ers in relation to poten- tial impacts of the bill on journalism.
The committee supports industry initiatives that provide this transparency and encourages industries to further their efforts in this area.
3.82 The committee rec- ommends that the Senate pass the bill.
However, this does not negate the harms their ac- tions can cause to farmers, their property, and their livestock, nor the fact that trespassing onto private property is illegal.
However, the risks as- sociated with biosecurity breaches are sufficiently serious as to warrant strong preventative action.
They similarly risk ex- posing themselves to zo- onoses.
3.79 The committee recognises the legitimate desire among members of the community to un- derstand more about the treatment of farm ani- mals, and the role that greater transparency plays in this regard.
relevant to the bill, the committee encourages the Federal Government to give these suggestions further consideration.
IMPACT SALMONELLA NUMBERS BEFORE THEY IMPACT YOURS.
What doesn’t get into your operation, won’t hurt you. Poulvac® ST aids in reducing Salmonella levels1. Discover the benefits of Poulvac® ST and help give Salmonella the boot.
CONTACT YOUR ZOETIS REPRESENTATIVE TO LEARN HOW POULVAC ST CAN HELP YOUR OPERATION EXPERIENCE MORE | 1800 814 883
1 Data on file, Study report No. 04-16-7ADMI
ZL1456
3.65 Dr Jones referred to a recent national study on attitudes to animal wel- fare – the Futureeye study – which found 91 percent of Australians would like to see welfare reforms to farming practices.
The AVA remarked, “At the moment, we feel that, with the Australian Ani- mal Welfare Strategy and a lack of the sort of cohe- sive, inclusive framework that brought representatives from all sections of society together to address these is- sues, there is a void there.”
In this context, Dr Jones suggested it was not sur- prising to see a rise in ac- tivist activity around ani- mal welfare.
“We feel that that’s foster- ing a lack of confidence, because there is a lack of information.