• SELECT COMMITTEE ON LANDOWNER PROTECTION FROM UNAUTHORISED FILMING OR SURVEILLANCE

    14th November 2018

    Adjournment Speech.

    The Hon. MARK PEARSON (00:20): As a member of the Legislative Council Select Committee on Landowner Protection from Unauthorised Filming or Surveillance, I thank the secretariat staff for their excellent work in identifying the pertinent evidence that assisted the committee to develop the recommendations set out its report. I also thank my colleagues on the committee for their open-minded approach to a very complex issue concerning the balancing of landholders’ rights and the public interest in preventing animal cruelty. When I was voted on to the committee The Greens were at pains to suggest that it was not in the best interests of animals for me to participate and that I would end up being a patsy for intensive farming industries intent on increasing penalties for animal activists engaged in covert surveillance. It was suggested that to participate would be to give legitimacy to the cruel but routine practices involved in intensive agriculture industries and at the same time risk demonising animal activists as domestic terrorists.

    The Greens said they would “cut me down”. That certainly did not happen. I was confident that the evidence would demonstrate that our existing animal welfare protections are so poorly enforced that animal activists feel compelled to break the law by trespassing and engaging in covert surveillance to expose cruel and illegal practices. I have been vindicated in my belief by the published recommendations of the report. The Greens criticism of my membership of the committee conveniently ignored the fact that the inquiry was going to proceed with or without input from the Animal Justice Party. I had the overwhelming support of members from the Government, Labor, the Christian Democratic Party and the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party to be appointed to the committee. The truth is that The Greens would have happily taken the opportunity to be on the committee but it did not have the support of the other parties to do so. To save face with its supporters, it became necessary to denigrate my participation on this committee.

    As the only member in the Chamber with more than 25 years experience in animal activism, it seems obvious to me and no doubt to those members who voted for me that I would have a unique and important insight into the terms of reference and, in particular, to the motivations of animal activists who seek to obtain covert evidence of animal cruelty. Indeed, my presence on the committee ensured that relevant animal activist representatives were called to give evidence. Further, my questions helped to draw out information that led to the committee’s first three recommendations, which, if adopted by the Government, will significantly improve animal welfare outcomes. In particular, recommendation one, which states:

    That the NSW Government review the resources and powers of the RSPCA in regard to the monitoring and enforcement of animal welfare measures, and consider means by which the RSPCA and the NSW Police can work together more effectively to protect animals from mistreatment.

    Animal activists and advocates have long identified the need to improve the way in which animal protection is monitored and, in particular, improving the resources available for investigative and enforcement agencies. I have spent the past four years detailing the ongoing and systemic failures of our animal protection systems.

    Recommendation 2, that the New South Wales Government encourage animal industries to be proactive in engaging with the community and collaborate with animal industries to investigate schemes to increase transparency about food production and animal husbandry practices. I referred to the previous speeches in Hansard where I questioned whether animal industries have a licence to operate at all. Greater transparency of their operations will certainly give the public the opportunity to decide whether the industry’s treatment of farmed animals is deserving of a social licence. But most importantly, recommendation 3, that the New South Wales Government review the Surveillance Devices Act 2007 to consider whether to insert a public interest exemption for unauthorised filming or surveillance. Finally, I thank members for voting me on to the committee and by doing so acknowledging the valuable input the Animal Justice Party would bring to this vexed and contentious area of public policy.

  • NSW DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES VISIT MY FARM INITIATIVE

    16th November 2017

    Questions without notice.

    DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES VISIT MY FARM INITIATIVE

    The Hon. MARK PEARSON (16:43): My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries. The Minister recently spoke glowingly about the department’s new “Visit My Farm” initiative, which will invite the public, including families with young children, to experience the realities of animal farming. After following the necessary biosecurity precautions, will these visits include observation of sows in farrowing crates and stalls, hens in battery cages, artificial insemination, routine mutilations without analgesia such as eyeteeth removal and tail docking of piglets, de-beaking of layer chicks, and sheds where 22,000 or more broiler chickens are packed in and are routinely suffering from hip dysplasia and pulmonary cardiovascular failure?

    The Hon. NIALL BLAIR (Minister for Primary Industries, Minister for Regional Water, and Minister for Trade and Industry) (16:44): I thank the member for his question. These visits will show the next generation where their food and fibre comes from. They will show the hardworking people who have chosen agriculture or horticulture that this is not just a job but a vocation and part of their lifestyle. They will show the vital role that our New South Wales primary producers play not just for this economy but for the social fabric of New South Wales. These visits will show all of our farming systems, which are legal and vital in supplying food and fibre not just for our domestic consumption but for consumption overseas and for other domestic markets.

    We want to highlight to the next generation the great job our farmers do. We want families to learn where their food comes from and to understand more about the production systems involved in that. That is why I am proud to stand up in this House and promote programs like this. That may be not what the member wants. I know he disagrees with some of the production systems that are legal in this State. The member disagrees with some of the production systems that our regional communities rely upon. He disagrees with some of the production systems that our farmers utilise. However, that does not mean that because it is not what he wants, everyone else should follow. It is important to show family members and children who have never been exposed to some of these operations where their food and fibre comes from, to help them understand production systems so that they do not get spooked by some scare campaigns, get the wrong end of the stick or have misunderstandings about production systems.

    That is why these farms are opening the gates and inviting people in. Without our farmers we could not spend the time doing what we are doing here; we would have to worry about where our next meal comes from. We can all get on and do what we want with our lives because of our farmers. We can follow other vocations because we do not have to worry about where our next meal will come from. Instead of talking down the production systems, through this program we have chosen to educate, inform and enhance the role of our farms in the minds of those who have not been exposed to them previously. We are proud of this. We have nothing to hide and it is something that should be encouraged.

    The member disagrees with some of these production systems and he listed a range of areas that he believes should be outlawed. Some aspects of those production systems give no credit to the industries that are looking at those systems themselves and in some cases, as with the sow stalls, are phasing them out themselves. Primary producers and industries in this State also understand the concerns of consumers and are responding to them. Where there are animal welfare issues they are looking at other production systems and meeting those issues head on. They do not need us to dictate to them. We should provide consumers with a choice of product, allow farmers to provide that choice and get on with the production systems. We support our farmers.

    The Hon. MARK PEARSON (16:48): I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister elucidate his answer as to how the families and young children will be educated and informed about the intensive methods of production that I outlined in my original question?

    The Hon. NIALL BLAIR (Minister for Primary Industries, Minister for Regional Water, and Minister for Trade and Industry) (16:48): I refer the member to the publicly available details in relation to the program.

    ——————————————————————————————————————————————-

    Although the Minister speaks glowingly of the department’s new industry backed scheme, a quick visit to the website reveals not a single intensive farm is on the list of farms to visit. 

  • OPINION – WHO BENEFITS FROM SILENCING ANIMAL ACTIVISTS?

    22nd December 2016

    Recent media publications by The Land and The Guardian of meeting documents provide disturbing details of a forum held in August last year between agribusiness owners, NSW Farmers Federation, Federal Agriculture Minister Barnaby Joyce and NSW Primary Industries Minister Niall Blair along with Police and the RSPCA. They reveal the extent to which industry and government are working together to silence activists seeking to expose animal cruelty in farming.

    barnaby-joyce-australian-pork

    Federal agriculture Minister Barnaby Joyce

    The documents obtained under freedom of information laws confirm what many activists have argued for a long time;  the interconnected links between animal agriculture, government and sadly, the RSPCA.  The forum participants committed to an action plan to harmonise state laws regarding the supposed threat of “farm trespass” by animal activists.  The plan reflects the fears of an industry that understands the implications of its routine practices being exposed to the public.  Transparency and truth are to be avoided at all costs. We also see Federal and State governments intent on ensuring cruel practices remain hidden from view.  Rather than listening to community concerns and accepting that animal welfare standards need to be radically reformed, government is determined to keep animal welfare legislation in the 1970s.

    One of the more alarming revelations is the active participation of the RSPCA in such discussions.  The RSPCA’s willingness to side with industry and government is an affront to their charter, and would no doubt come as a surprise their many supporters. The fact that the RSPCA participated in such discussions which made no mention of enforcement or prosecution of animal cruelty laws is concerning.  One is entitled to ask, what is the role of the RSPCA in farm trespass policy discussions?  Why are they not holding industry to account for their cruel practices?  As has been said many times;  if we kept a dog in the same conditions that industry keeps pigs in intensive farms, animal cruelty charges would be laid.

    The document identified that;

    38 piggeries in the Young area of NSW, along with poultry farms in other states, were known to have been “invaded for the purpose of installing unauthorised surveillance devices, ostensibly to ‘reveal’ animal husbandry practice believed to be poor”.

    Firstly, and perhaps most importantly, this statement reflects the absolute lack of concern for animal well-being. The treatment of these animals is appalling, not poor.  Animal cruelty is standard industry practice, not an aberration.  Activists seek to bring transparency and truth to the public arena, enabling consumers to make balanced decisions about their purchases and food choices.

    If industry is confident that their practices are acceptable then there should be no issue with footage showing industry practice.  If the government is confident that their animal welfare laws are so robust, then let’s show those lawful practices to the public.  Tail docking, castration, eye teeth clipping, debeaking, removal of skin (mulesing), battery cages, farrowing crates, faeces laden broiler sheds- let’s shine the camera light onto the everyday cruelties that these animals suffer.

    mark-pearson-factory-farm-sow-stall-1

    NSW Assistant Police Commissioner Geoff McKechnie is documented as stating that;

    “These incursions fall into the ‘trespass with intent’ category, NSW Police have been investigating these incidents actively, but evidence gathering around such incidents presents significant challenges”.

    No comment on the crimes exposed by activists?

    Many may not be aware, but the NSW Police are also an enforcement agency under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.  It is not just the RSPCA or Animal Welfare League that has powers to enforce and prosecute animal cruelty crimes, yet the attitude of government and the NSW Police is to leave enforcement to a poorly resourced charitable organisation that is almost completely unaccountable to government.  Yet significant police resources are being used to investigate and pursue animal activists.

    Statistics show that cruelty committed against animals often leads to crimes committed against people, yet, as can be seen from this attitude of the NSW Police, significant police resources are being used to investigate and pursue animal activists filming intensive farms. This shows a narrow-minded approach to tackling crime and future protection of the community. Would the community, or indeed government be satisfied if a child services charity were tasked with the investigation and prosecution of crimes committed against children?  Would it be acceptable for the NSW Police to be actively pursuing whistle-blowers filming or recording child abuse despite the physical smacking of children being unlawful?

    NSW Police also told the forum that;

    “the ideology of farm trespass by animal activists was “complex” and not based on improving animal welfare practices.”

    This is correct, it is not the job of animal activist to improve animal welfare.  This is the job of every stakeholder that attended this forum and their decisions should be based on truth, transparency, and the wider public’s expectations of what is acceptable welfare practices.  Indeed, the activists are doing the job that all these stakeholders are failing to do themselves, that is to publish the truth to the public and allowing the public to decide what they expect.  Instead, animal welfare is seen as an unnecessary cost to already profitable business models that seek to sanitise and disconnect the public from what really goes on behind the factory farm shed door.

    The documents go on to suggest;

    “Introduction of other measures to improve evidence collection, for example, security cameras may also be considered.”

    How can someone, on one hand, justify installing elaborate security recording networks to deter activists YET dismiss sensible reforms such as mandatory CCTV of inside the shed or inside the slaughterhouse?  Does one not stop and think that maybe, if farmers installed cameras facing in the shed, on the animals, then there will be no need for cameras facing outside the shed to deter activists?

    animal-justice-party-ag-gag-1

    Indeed, for me it has become personal.  Twelve months ago I attempted to visit Rivalea pig slaughterhouse to discuss the cruel method by which pigs are subjected to gassing prior to slaughter. I was refused entry at the front gate and never left public space and yet I am currently the subject of a police investigation as a result of that visit.  Again, this is a sign of cover up and intimidation, rather than let an elected MP formally tour the facility and witness the slaughtering method, I was denied access.  Rivalea engaged their industry heavyweight, Australian Pork Ltd, and now almost 12 months to the day I am contacted by the NSW Police and informed that I am under investigation.  It is true that, due to all the industry efforts to hide and cover up standard practices that they are ironically so proud of, they have in fact made the public more suspicious.

     something-today-that-your-future-self-will-thank-you-for

     mark-digital-signature-1

  • MEDIA RELEASE-Animal Justice Party MP questions Katrina Hodgkinson’s priorities concerning Blantyre Farm’s DA

    MEDIA RELEASE

    Mark Pearson, Animal Justice Party MP, has questioned why Member for Cootamundra, Katrina Hodgkinson, is advocating priority for the interests of intensive pig farmers Blantyre Farms, over the interests of her own electorate. Intensive pig farmers, Edwina & Michael Beveridge of Blantyre Farms lodged a development application in December 2015 to duplicate their Young shire, Golden Grove and Dead Horse Gully piggeries in the neighbouring Hilltops council region. Blantyre Farms have continued to attract wide spread criticism since the public exposure of their Young piggery practices and operations through the Aussiefarms campaign in 2013.

    The Blantyre Farms Development Application has generated significant community and public interest with thousands of objectors raising valid and legitimate concerns and issues, which have been echoed by council and state government agencies.”
    There is mandated planning process at both state government and local council level, and Ms Hodgkinson should just allow that process to take place in the interest of a thorough examination of the merits of the application.

    Mr Pearson confirmed issues raised by thousands of objectors includes the welfare of animals, the environment and a broad range of concerns about the impact on the community, immediate neighbours, workers and consumers, public health, biosecurity and biodiversity.

    From my understanding, it has not been a case where Hilltops council have ‘sat’ on this DA or that the ‘approval process had been lagging’, as has been suggested by Ms Hodgkinson.

    The assessment period has been exacerbated by information from Blantyre Farms themselves, which has repeatedly been found ‘wanting’ with questionable, missing, ambiguous, and non-evidenced information.

    Most recently Blantyre Farms have been required to revise information they have previously submitted to council. This includes pig mortality numbers now estimated to be approximately 8,600 per year. These are the piglets and pigs which die or are killed in the Blantyre Farms intensive sheds.

    A critical factor environmentally, is how the massive volume of Blantyre Farms generated waste would be managed. In their previous information, Blantyre Farms stated they would be able to disperse all the effluent and dead composted pigs on their property. Blantyre Farms have now stated they will still have an excess surplus of approximately two hundred & fifty tons of manure per year. This surplus waste will now need to be disposed of elsewhere. Mr Pearson is also concerned that Ms Hodgkinson does not appear to acknowledge the voice of the local community, her own electorate and the public and has not acknowledged the critical inclusion of submissions and council’s obligations to adhere to the planning process.

    Ms Hodgkinson was dumped by her own party from any ministerial responsibility. Her sole responsibility now is to represent all members of her own electorate in a fair, balanced and non-biased manner. Based on concerns I have had raised with my office, this does not appear to be happening.

    mark-pearson-animal-justice-party-katrina-hodgkinson

    Mr Pearson has continued to strongly oppose intensive piggeries and was one of the original activists involved with the exposure of a Parkville based piggery in which former prime minister, Paul Keating had a commercial interest.

  • BLANTYRE FARMS PIGGERY PIG EFFLUENT SPILLING ON PUBLIC ROADS

    17th November 2016

    Questions without notice.

    Blantyre Farms piggery.

    BLANTYRE FARMS BIOSECURITY

    The Hon. MARK PEARSON (14:45): My question without notice is directed to the Hon. Niall Blair, Minister for Primary Industries and Minister for Lands and Water. There have been a number of complaints to Hilltops Council from Harden residents concerning the frequent spilling of animal effluent on the public roads from Blantyre Farms piggery. Residents have had difficulty obtaining accurate information about these spills, given that industry is only required to “self report” problems concerning the transport and disposal of animal waste off site. What steps has the Minister’s department taken to investigate whether Blantyre Farms has failed to discharge a biosecurity duty under section 23 of the Biosecurity Act 2015?

    The PRESIDENT: Before the Minister commences his answer, I welcome to the President’s gallery our former colleague the Hon. Rick Ball who, when I arrived a fair while ago, was the Leader of the National Party and Deputy Leader of the Opposition. He has certainly had many roles in this place. We welcome him back today.

    The Hon. NIALL BLAIR (Minister for Primary Industries, and Minister for Lands and Water) (14:46): I thank the Hon. Mark Pearson for his question. I draw no correlation between the question relating to pig excrement and the last day of Parliament for the year. I take the opportunity also to welcome the Hon. Rick Ball who chaired one of our local land services [LLSs] in New South Wales. It is good to see him in the Chamber. I will take the question on notice because I know that that element of the question concerning biosecurity directly related to my portfolio. But this issue relates also to local government and to Transport, the portfolio responsibility of the Hon. Duncan Gay. Some of the things that I know the Hon. Duncan Gay has been working on with local government and the Department of Primary Industries are the issues of truck washes—something to which we are attuned. It is not something that is isolated to one part of the State; it is something that we want to ensure is dealt with in a practical way.

    It is one thing to have fantastic producers and fantastic growing conditions in this State, but it is also important to ensure we enable those producers to get their livestock transported easily throughout New South Wales. One of the reasons the Hon Duncan Gay put so much work into his pinch points and the Bridges for the Bush program was to ensure that we unlock some of those pinch points and not put extra costs or place burdens on our producers to transport commodities such as livestock, whether it is to saleyards, processing facilities or within different farms. To get a holistic answer, particularly in relation to biosecurity and my portfolio, I will take the question on notice and come back to the member.


    21st February 2017

    BLANTYRE FARMS BIOSECURITY

    In reply tothe Hon. MARK PEARSON (17 November 2016).

    The Hon. NIALL BLAIR (Minister for Primary Industries, and Minister for Lands and Water)—The Minister provided the following response:

    The New South Wales Biosecurity Act 2015 has not yet commenced and the legal requirements to discharge a biosecurity duty under section 23 of the Biosecurity Act 2015 are not yet in force. The department has therefore not initiated an investigation in relation to any breach of section 23 of the Biosecurity Act 2015.

Page 1 of 212