Trespassing onto Victorian farms would be subject to what the Andrews government has labelled as "among the heaviest" punishments in the country, under new legislation introduced into the state parliament on Wednesday.
In a bid to protect farmers, animal activists found to be illegally entering their properties could face up to $10,904 each or $54,522 for organisations.
Minister for Agriculture, Mary-Anne Thomas, said the the Livestock Management Amendment (Animal Activism) Bill 2021 recognised the significant biosecurity risks that breaches from animal activists can pose.
"We know that our farmers work very hard to protect their crops and livestock against pests and diseases and trespassers on farms present a real hazard," Ms Thomas said.
"This bill will introduce a specific offence with an on-the-spot fine of $1,272 for one person, and for offences of a more serious nature they can be taken to the magistrates court."
Ms Thomas said the new penalties could be enforced on top of existing fines for trespass.
Move welcomed by farmers
The new measures are in response to the Inquiry into the Impact of Animal Rights Activism on Victorian Agriculture, which delivered its report to Parliament last year, after a series of events involving animal rights activists intimidating farmers, stealing livestock, and disrupting businesses.
Victorian Farmers Federation president, Emma Germano, welcomed the new bill, which she said gave farmers more protection under biosecurity management plans (BMPs) which could require consent from farmers before entering a property.
"A lot of intensive growers are concerned about the biosecurity risks, we've had instances where trespassers have entered chicken sheds or pork facilities," she said.
"But to be honest, the threat on people's home property, that's been the biggest concern of farmers."
John Gommans, a goat farmer from Yarragon who shut his café after animal activists attended his property in 2019, said the experience was "horrendous."
"It was a very tough time," he said.
An activist who stole livestock from his property was only fined $1, Mr Gommans said.
"It changed my view of the law and how the law is enforced," he said.
"But the fines wouldn't have stopped me shutting the café – it was the online trolling of the business and everything associated with that."
Despite the legislation not protecting farmers from online abuse, Mr Gommans said it will hopefully physically protect farmers.
Ms Germano hoped the new legislation would eliminate "inappropriate forms of protest."
"Threatening farmers, businesses and the animals they profess to protect – this is a good step in that direction but we've got to continually get that support from the community."
"It's not okay for people to spout their ideology in that manner."
Biosecurity dispute
Chris Delforce, executive director of the Farm Transparency Project, said animal activists do not cause a biosecurity threat to farms.
"There has not been a single incident of a biosecurity hazard caused by activists, despite hundreds of investigations into farms, slaughterhouses and related facilities by activists over the last 40 years," he said.
"The Andrews government is bowing to industry pressure to prevent consumers from seeing the reality of modern animal agriculture for themselves.
"Were these industries transparent and honest about what happens inside these facilities, there’d be no need for anyone to take it upon themselves to capture evidence of it.
.png?w=600)
