Page 3312 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 21 August 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
happening in the ACT. I recall that this was cited as a reason for him not supporting the Greens’ proposal to prohibit intensive pig farming. Now Mr Wall wants more laws to punish farm trespassers, even though laws already exist for this, the practice is not occurring in the ACT and there are no intensive farms or abattoirs in the ACT.
The whole issue is purely a political one, and the federal Liberal Party, mirrored by their ACT counterparts, are proposing disproportionate and draconian laws for a political purpose. It has come up before, of course, when Barnaby Joyce proposed similar laws to prevent protesting about farming practices. At that time the proposal was not supported by the states, territories and COAG.
The issue flared up again prior to the election, a period when political issues are amplified. The Prime Minister gained national attention by labelling vegan protesters “un-Australian”. At least no-one called me un-Australian earlier today. When politicians start decreeing what is Australian culture and what Australians apparently believe in, it is a good indication that an issue is becoming politicised.
In fact, according to recent reports from the federal Department of Agriculture, the majority of Australians are concerned about animal welfare on farms. The report was called Australia’s shifting mindset on farm animal welfare. It included a survey of 1,521 people. Ninety-five per cent of respondents viewed farm animal welfare with concern, and 91 per cent want reform to address this. The report highlights people’s concerns over poor animal welfare in both abattoirs and farms. I point out that that report was by the federal Department of Agriculture, not by a fringe animal welfare group. This is a mainstream concern. It is not un-Australian to care about animal welfare on farms.
It is also not un-Australian to engage in protest and civil disobedience. In suggesting that this is dangerous and damaging to the health of our democracy, Australia has a rich history of protest that has advanced many just causes. Civil disobedience typically arises in instances where governments and laws are failing to achieve just outcomes or are actively unjust. The “un-Australian” comment is one you would expect from a Liberal Party leader who has overseen unjust government actions, actions like imprisoning asylum seeker children. Part of the defence in that regard has been to attack and undermine the people who protest.
The whole episode echoes 2014, when the Tasmanian Liberal government introduced laws to target forestry protesters. The protest behaviour was, of course, already covered by existing laws, but the new law would have imposed much higher penalties. Former Greens leader Bob Brown was arrested at a forestry protest and challenged these laws in the High Court. In 2017 the court found the laws to be unconstitutional, as they violated the implied freedom of political communication. This was a very welcome decision as governments around Australia increasingly push for laws that target community protest. Increasingly, they are disregarding civil liberties and protest, and seeking to quash dissenters.
To highlight how this attitude prevails in the federal government, when the High Court recently ruled that it was legal to sack a public servant who anonymously tweeted criticisms of government policy, home affairs minister Peter Dutton said:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video