Strong deterrent
THE Victorian Government is delivering on our commitment for new laws to protect farmers from animal activists and prevent biosecurity threats.
The Livestock Management Amendment (Animal Activism) Bill 2021 recognises the significant biosecurity risks that trespassing by animal activists can pose and introduces substantial on-the-spot fines to deter these protests.
The Shadow Minister for Agriculture, Peter Walsh, is deliberately misleading our farmers with his false claims about these new laws.
Victoria’s on-the-spot fines for animal activists who trespass on farms will be the toughest in the nation.
Those caught trespassing on livestock premises could receive on-the-spot fines of $1272 for an individual or $8718 for an organisation.
These penalties are more severe than New South Wales’ on-the-spot fine of $1000 or Queensland’s $689 fine. Additionally, Victoria is the only state in Australia that proposes a specific infringement offence for an organisation.
We are protecting our farmers and agricultural businesses – as well as their families – from the biosecurity risks and distress that breaches from trespassers can pose.
Mr Walsh’s comments regarding river frontages demonstrate a total lack of understanding of these laws. Crown river frontages which have been leased by farmers are in fact included in these laws and may be subject to a Biosecurity Management Plan (BMP).
The amendment to the legislation put forward by the Nationals would apply to licensed, not leased land. Far from impacting animal activists, this would actually restrict public access to river fronts for activities such as fishing.
It’s regrettable that Mr Walsh fails to understand the difference between licensed and leased land and the different laws that apply.
We are backing our hard-working farmers because they are critical to keeping food on the table and supporting local jobs in regional and rural communities across Victoria.
Farmers and workers in the agricultural industry should be able to do their work without fear of being targeted by animal activists. This sort of activity is highly distressing for farming families and puts the biosecurity and safety of the animals that activists purport to protect at risk.
Our legislation delivers a strong deterrent and significant penalties, making it crystal clear that this behaviour is unacceptable.
Mary-Anne Thomas,
Minister for Agriculture
Mayhem and massacre
THE Victorian Government has decreed that yet another duck shooting season will go ahead; another season of warfare on our waterbirds.
This despite the facts about the ongoing and serious decline in waterbird numbers including “game” ducks.
This despite the majority of Victorians being opposed to duck shooting.
Who benefits from this duck shooting season:
- It certainly isn’t our waterbirds who are being treated with casual and shocking cruelty;
- It isn’t regional towns and farming families or residents living close to waterways, rivers and wetlands where shooting is happening;
- It isn’t our natural environment, and;
- It isn’t the greater population of this state.
If shooters need to kill something, perhaps they might like to target the deer, rabbits, foxes and cats that are decimating our farming enterprises as well as our wildlife.
This, however, would mean proper skilled hunting, not just shooting sitting ducks.
Are the shooters capable?
So, Mr Andrews, just why is this season going ahead? Come clean.
Tell us, who has your government over this bloodstained barrel and why your government thinks it can ignore the scientific facts, the destruction of our valuable wildlife and environment and the wishes of the majority.
Anne Hughes,
St Arnaud Field Naturalist Club
