Victorian law-makers have side-stepped a call to ban animal activists from illegally filming on farms, feedlots and abattoirs and then sharing the images publicly.
A state parliamentary inquiry instead suggested that Victorian farmers or employers be responsible for preventing illegal spy-cam footage of staff.
The inquiry committee’s final report was tabled in mid-May and reinforces the Victorian law that allows illicit animal activist footage to be shown ‘in the public interest’.
More than 100 anti-meat activists invaded a Millmerran feedlot in 2019.
The Victorian Farmers Federation had argued that vision misrepresenting ordinary, lawful practices should not be considered in the public interest and not allowed to be distributed.
However, the Inquiry into Workplace Surveillance overruled the call, saying it was out of the inquiry’s scope.
The committee acknowledged that: “While such surveillance is unlawful under the Surveillance Devices Act, it is exempted under a public interest clause.”
The VFF asked for the public interest protection be removed, as happens in NSW. The ag-lobby group sought to make surveillance undertaken by trespass unlawful.
In reply, the committee said it recognised that unauthorised surveillance causes stress and anxiety for farmers, but ruled: “This type of surveillance falls outside of the inquiry’s scope, which focuses on the surveillance of employees in the course of their employment, rather than the recording of business practices.”
Instead, the report recommends employers “be required to take all reasonable steps to prevent surveillance of an employee while at work by a party other than the employer without the employee’s consent.”
Brett Hosking: “Not just inconsistent, it’s completely unjust.”
VFF president Brett Hosking said: ““What we’re seeing here is a legal loophole where activists can break into farms, secretly film people without consent, and still have that footage aired in the name of ‘public interest’. Yet the farmer could be the one held legally responsible for not protecting their staff from this illegal surveillance.
“That’s not just inconsistent, it’s completely unjust. Farmers are being asked to police third-party trespassers, while the law turns a blind eye to how the footage was obtained.”
Last week the Melbourne-based Farm Transparency Project this week completed a campaign targeting 30 abattoirs nation-wide, and calling for their closure. Trespassing activists, mostly entering premises at night, shot spy-cam footage of lairage and kill floors using remote cameras hidden in overhead gantries. Most of the filming comes from smaller-scale, often family-owned sheds.
The vision is not continuous but highly edited and set to brooding music soundtracks and anti-meat commentary.
Abattoirs targeted in the campaign included those processing beef, sheep, goats and ducks. The Facebook posts initially carried graphic-content warnings, but more recent posts have not.
Activist groups also fly drones over feedlots to capture images of livestock and mortalities.
The VFF submission, lodged by the group’s former president Emma Germano, argued that activist footage “that is subsequently used to misrepresent the conduct of a business, or misrepresent the ordinary lawful practices of an industry, cannot be in the public interest”.
The VFF called for stiffer penalties for both the unauthorised recording and the dissemination of footage. It also argued against mandatory on-farm video monitoring to monitor compliance with animal welfare laws.
“There are many industries that do not have mandatory CCTV footage in place, despite there being particular vulnerabilities, that is live streamed to the public for multitudes of reasons, including protecting the privacy of people who work in those establishments.
“The introduction of mandatory surveillance on farms would constitute a severe invasion of privacy. Farms are not just places of work but also homes for many farmers and their families. Continuous surveillance infringes upon their right to privacy, creating an environment of constant observation and scrutiny.”
The surveillance inquiry was chaired by Labor’s Alison Marchant. Of the nine committee members, three represented rural electorates, three outer-urban and three urban electorates.
The VFF submission can be read here, and the Inquiry committee final report can be read here.
Farmers should put contractual trespass signs up that not only state that the trespass is criminal but also that a contract is entered into by any trespasser and that any video footage taken while trespassing becomes the property of the farmer. It should also state that the penalty for trespassing is $500,000 for entering and the same penalty for every 5 minutes spent on the property.
It should also state that for every showing of the video a fee is incurred and every viewing of it on social media incurred a fee, payable to the farmer and about to be recovered by a debt collector, such as Baycorp, and able to be recovered by Court action. Only the threat of bankruptcy will stop these aggressive wrongdoers!
should be like WA where farmer or home owner can take whatever steps deemed necessary to protect themselves or property
I think it IS an invasion of privacy for the employees and employers (also their families). Why is it legal to fly drones over a private property? This should be reported to the Aviation Authority (whoever they are), because they don’t have their permission to use the airspace.
Apparently, the trespassers have different rules to normal people.
I’m astonished by the rulings.
Are farmers allowed to show footage of the trespassers faces for the “public interes”… ?
These so called “anti-meat activists” are so typical of a leftist minority who believe they have a God-given right to demand how the rest of us live our lives!
They should be captured as illegal trespassers, and force fed a diet of red meat until their protien starved brain cells become normal again!
Tongue in cheek, maybe, but not out of line with the kind of strategies these idiots use.
Leo Hogan
Bendigo.
If you act with integrity the activist will not be interested in filming you. The ones concerned a probably the ones who have something to hide.
I eat meat, and I want the animals to be treated with respect before they are slaughtered.
if you are so concerned about the welfare of the animals why not go and see for yourself exactly how the animals are treated.
I very sure you will be surprised by how well these animals are treated.
its seems that all farmers should be keeping a supply of highly pungent fertiliser on hand and inform trespassing activists that he is about to fertilise his field of course if they remain there that’s their choice but I imagine after a while the smell would get a little to much. Then there are other alternatives to apply and get them off your land. Maybe a little smoke would move them on
You could try an upset beehive and release swarm in their midst –or you could do an “Ivor Wilson” manoeuvre shoot drones down over his paddocks.
If you have control over your own destiny, that is freedom. if you try to control anyone else’s, that is tyranny. save your beliefs for those who choose to follow you and leave the rest of us to ours.
so..the Victorian labor government had the opportunity of enforcing trespass laws keeping halfwit activists off farms and refused to do so? sounds like support for criminal activity. perhaps now that farmers have been told to protect themselves it’s okay to shoot a couple of them.
great idea.
so this means it’s now legal for anyone to trespass into any home or workplace and livestream the occupants with out there knowledge because it’s in the public interest. these are the nutjobs that we have representing us .
Victoria the anti everything state.
So sorry for rural folk.
Enjoy idiots!
Absolutely outrageous that a man’s home and farm is now considered free passage to those attempting to destroy an industry,
100% Agree with your comment. Any drone filming without consent should allow farmers to shot down drones
hear hear