• When will the Minister responsible for Animal Welfare understanding animal suffering?

    The Minister for Primary Industries clearly doesn’t have any concerns about the pain and suffering caused to introduced animals such as foxes and wild dogs when baited with 1080 poison. His ministerial responsibilities include the welfare of all animals, and that includes so called ‘pest’  animals. Instead of addressing the question about options for non-lethal and humane controls, Minister Blair decided to attack me for the hypocrisy of once eating fish and wearing leather and wool (not true).

    The Hon. MARK PEARSON: During question time on 5 April the Minister stated support for the widespread use of 1080 poison to kill introduced animals such as wild dogs and foxes. Given that the welfare of all animals in New South Wales is his ministerial responsibility, irrespective of the category status imposed by humans, will the Minister advise whether his department has considered humane or non-lethal alternatives to 1080 baiting?

    If not, does the Minister accept the scientific evidence that so-called “pest” species are capable of experiencing pain and suffering, and the ingestion of 1080 poison causes immense suffering to baited animals irrespective of which animals they are?

    The Hon. NIAL L BLAIR: I stand by the comments I made in relation to pest animals and 1080 poison. I know my department, along with other agencies, looks at alternatives to poisoning for some of these pest animals. For example, a good bullet in the head would be appropriate for a wild dog that attacked poor defenceless lambs or left some of the sheep they attacked with their guts hanging out and suffering. As I have said previously, 1080 is licensed for use by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority. It is a Federal issue.

    The member should not think for one second that he can enter this Chamber and have me start feeling sorry for introduced species that inflict pain and suffering upon livestock and, importantly, to many native animals. Native animals, including birds, suffer attack by feral dogs, foxes and feral cats. I will not change my mind. The member is wasting parliamentary question time. The 1080 poison is registered for use. The producers and agencies must stay within the protocols of that registration. The agencies that make those decisions do not report to me. That is my answer.

    It is one thing to say that members should be concerned about animal welfare that is governed by the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979, it is another matter to suggest that these introduced pest animals are in the same class. They inflict damage upon the economy and environment of this State. I am not going to apologise for one second for the fact that our agencies and farmers are using 1080 to eradicate those pests. The damage they do far outweighs any other consideration. My answer stands and I will not apologise for it. As long as those responsible for the control of the pest animals adhere to the requirements and protocols attached to the products I will help producers to gain access to 1080 poison that eliminates feral animals.

    I have stood with farmers while Local Land Services handed out chicken heads injected with 1080 for use on their properties to control foxes. I will accept criticism that I am not doing enough in this space and I will go back to the agencies and say, “Let’s do more”, but I will never say in this Chamber that we should do less. I do not accept the member’s hypocritical view. We joke in this place about media reports concerning the member, but he walks in here with leather on his feet, wool in his suit and fish in his belly and attempts to impose his ideology on us. The member has been caught out as a hypocrite. The question is hypocritical. The member should stand up for our native animals. If the member spent more time on that area I might take the question seriously.

    The Hon. MARK PEARSON: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister elucidate upon his answer as to what is the research that the department is doing into humane and non-lethal methods for “pest” control?

    The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: As I have previously stated, the department looks at other methods for control of these animals, including a bullet in the head or chest of some of the feral animals.

  • Biodiversity Conservation Bill 2016 debate speech

     

    The Animal Justice Party obviously will oppose the Biodiversity Conservation Bill 2016 and the Local Land Services Amendment Bill 2016. Today we are faced with a bill that makes a mockery of concerns about maintaining biodiversity. This bill makes no attempt at balancing the needs of animals and humans, and our shared environment. The Baird Government has instead kept its election promise to landholder vandals with an eye to immediate profit and not to the long-term well-being of the animals that share our environment. Harm will be caused to threatened species—harm that it should be promised never affects other beings or animals on the land that is controlled by and under the care of a person.

    The proposed legislation will eviscerate our environmental protections and allow unfettered destruction of what remains of habitat on marginal farmlands. Our current biodiversity protections urgently need strengthening, not weakening. Just as the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act provides a legal framework for engaging in animal cruelty, our existing environmental laws regulate the methods for harming flora and fauna. Despite our current protections being less than optimal, the Native Vegetation Act has slowed down the rate of agriculture clearing since its introduction in 2004.

    There has been an estimated reduction of wild animal deaths of more than 100,000 per annum. Thousands still die every year from land clearing. The needless death of even one animal is a cause for concern.

    It is the one animal that is important to the Animal Justice Party, just as it is to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. It is not just about protecting a particular number of animal species; we need to be turning our minds to protecting an animal from distress, pain and suffering, and harm. This is what a landholder must take into consideration when looking at their land—that on that land animals are passing through, nesting, breeding and then moving on. The responsibility to those animals that did not give their consent to be invaded by these processes is much greater.

    Only last week it was reported that the world is heading towards a mass extinction of animal life not seen since the disappearance of the dinosaurs millions of years ago.

    By 2020 the populations of mammals, birds, fish, reptiles and other vertebrate species are on course to have fallen by more than two-thirds over a period of just 50 years according to the Living Planet Report.

    In New South Wales there are 989 species of plants and animals and 107 ecological communities threatened with extinction. Why on Earth would we do anything to risk adding to that dreadful toll? We owe it to future generations to ensure that we do not cause the extinction of any more species on our watch. It beggars belief that the Baird Government would even contemplate introducing legislation that will make it easier to wipe out the habitat that our rare, vulnerable and endangered animals rely upon for food and shelter.

    The Government states that this bill and its administration is and will be based on science, yet, as was referred to earlier, it is clear the science community does not agree. In fact, I received a letter and a public statement signed by 73 New South Wales based scientists condemning the bill and its associated methodology. This statement goes on to confirm that land clearing is the primary threat to our biodiversity and is also a major contributor to climate change as well as the deterioration of soils and water quality. These scientists called on the Government to sincerely apply the principles of ecologically sustainable development under section 6 (2) of its own Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991.

    Over the last 200 years we have lost 75 per cent of our rainforests, almost 50 per cent of all forests and 99 per cent of south-eastern Australia’s temperate grasslands.

    It is time to reverse the damage caused by land clearing, not to encourage greater destruction—rather to give something back, not keep tearing away. With the looming impacts of climate change, we need to repair and return agricultural land to native bush and grasslands for carbon sequestration in trees and soils. I find it completely astounding that this bill does not address the significant challenges we face because of climate change. There are only two brief mentions in a 200-page document. The climate change deniers have won out in drafting this bill and capturing this Government.

    Like all members here today, I have been inundated with emails, letters, submissions and requests for meetings to discuss the dangers of this bill. Many farmers and landholders have written to me stating that they do not want or need these proposed laws. I note landholders and farmers have written and come to see me. It has been heartening to meet with farmers who recognise that, as true guardians of their lands, they want to enrich the diversity and complexity of animal and plant life on their landholdings. They know that attempting to farm on marginal lands is a zero sum game for both humans and animals.

    The health of any landscape is measured by its biodiversity, not by its yield and not by its economic profit. In a time when the divide between city and country is expanding, people are questioning the status quo of agriculture practices. This bill, not unlike the so-called Biosecurity Act 2015, further exacerbates this divide; it does not bring us together. Rather than be open and honest about how food is produced, how land is treated and how animals are treated, it seems the industry, again, has wielded its Thor-like hammer on a captured Government. Let us hide the truth. Let us remove laws that are moderately effective in their outcomes. Let us make legal what is illegal.

    One obvious example is the continued demonisation of the kangaroo. As more habitat is cleared, more kangaroos are forced from their grassland homes to graze on pasture, but up goes the cry that we have too many kangaroos. Overwhelmed, hunters take their deadly aim and millions of kangaroos are slaughtered.

    It is the world’s largest land-based slaughter of any mammal. This is what precedes. Then, as former grasslands turn to dust with the cloven hooves of conscripted sheep and cattle, the profit mongers demand more land to desecrate and desiccate.

    It is noted that the requirement for fauna assessment has been significantly reduced in this bill. There is now a heavy reliance on habitat as a surrogate for determining the presence of fauna. Our environment has become so degraded in some parts of the State that paddock trees have become crucial for the survival of many animals. Under this bill, paddock trees in category one land will be able to be cleared without assessment.

    There are large amounts of published scientific information that support the crucial importance of paddock trees as habitat for fauna and as avenues to allow movement of fauna across vast partially cleared landscapes. It is on this basis that they have been protected in the past. Under the proposed Local Land Services Act, the impacts of the removal of paddock trees can be self-assessed by a landholder under a self-assessable code. Some threatened species that use paddock trees have cryptic behaviour. For example, hollow dependent microbats are not likely to be detected by a landholder who does not have expertise in fauna surveys. The presence of those lone trees with hollows, leaves, blossoms and seed could mean life or death for animals seeking rest, refuge and sustenance as they make their way to safer and more abundant habitat. With migratory birds experiencing massive habitat loss around the globe, those resting trees may be the only thing between survival and extinction.

    On my recent trip to Menindee and Broken Hill with my dear friend Uncle Max, elder of the Yuin people, we stood by a century-old seemingly dead tree.

    Uncle Max stated that those trees are as alive now as they were when they had leaves. Birds and small mammals make nests and homes in the hollows and birds take the fallen branches of those trees to far places to build nests. Those trees do not die.

    With the stake so high, why would we rely on the obvious conflict of interest regarding self-assessment to protect migratory birds and travelling wildlife? Another important teaching of Uncle Max is the importance of the totem animals as well as the songlines of the land. Those songlines and totem animals, which will be dramatically affected by the repercussions of this bill, are the lines and centres of energy around which Aboriginal culture and all humanity is dependent for sustaining its balance and centredness.

    Kangaroos have already been failed by the Scientific Committee, which will continue to determine the listing for protection. The Scientific Committee has failed previously to identify that certain kangaroo populations are threatened or vulnerable as a result of commercial and non-commercial killing. With the proposal for greater streamlining of the committee’s processes, kangaroos are even less likely to be afforded protection. The bill waters down the protection of individual animals as well as groups and numbers of animals with a risk‑based approach to regulating wildlife. Under the current legislation, this approach differentiates between low‑ and high‑risk activities. The existing legislation prohibits certain wildlife activities without first obtaining a licence. For example, it is currently an offence to harm a protected animal such as a kangaroo unless a licence is obtained.

    Under the proposed tiered approach, people can carry out certain low-risk activities that harm wildlife without obtaining a licence. Harming wildlife as part of these activities would not be an offence should the bill be passed into law. Exactly what activities would be allowed is yet to be seen given that, as usual, the devil will be in the detail of the regulations and industry codes of practice. We know that the risk relates to populations of animals, not individual animals. The Animal Justice Party believes that protections should be accorded to individual animals as well as populations. All animals are sentient and have the capacity to experience harm and pleasure. The question must be asked: Without the protection of a licence, will people who cause harm to individual animals under the tiered approach be committing an offence under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act?

    The failure to include the “improve or maintain environmental outcomes” protection from the existing legislation means that there is no mechanism to ensure that there will be no net loss of vegetation at the local level. The bill relies heavily on self-assessment, which renders animals vulnerable to those with a vested interest in not seeing koalas in trees. The biodiversity offset scheme is a bait-and-switch scam of the worst order. There is no requirement to meet the like-for-like criteria. The offsets do not even have to be in the same area, only within New South Wales, and 200-year-old trees with nesting hollows are not replaceable by 200 seedlings. It does not make any sense to approve the draining of a wetland by paying credits into an offset scheme. Money for rehabilitating one part of New South Wales will not bring back dead ecosystems approved for destruction in another part of the State.

    Of great concern to me are the amendments to the Local Land Services Act 2013 to align with the provisions of the proposed Biodiversity Conservation Bill that gives powers to authorised persons under the Act. The proposed changes seem to corrode and undermine the importance of environmental protections by focusing on the use of the land for human exploitation. Any such protective measures in the Biodiversity Conservation Bill are then further diluted as they are overridden by allowable activities under the proposed amendments to the Local Land Services Act 2013. The Local Land Services Act is essentially concerned with agricultural production, biosecurity and pest management. There is scant reference to environmental values and land, and land is seen more in respect of resource management rather than its importance being recognised as habitat for numerous animals.

    It is inappropriate for Local Land Services to play any role in regulating the management of native vegetation. It does not have the expertise nor is its focus on habitat protection. Its power to allow clearing that is considered to have a lesser impact on biodiversity through a framework of allowable activities and codes of practice is a recipe for disaster.

    As any animal protection advocate will say, codes of practice have a habit of regulating industry practices rather than seeking best practices and outcomes for animals.

    I am also deeply concerned by the panel’s recommendation to streamline the regulation of human and wildlife interactions, which has been included in the bill. Under the bill, interactions with wildlife will be assessed according to the risk to human safety, populations in the wild and animal welfare. This allows low-risk activity to occur without licencing. In effect, it opens the door to the private keeping of native animals. Any move from licencing towards codes of practice makes for less protection for animals. The Government’s own explanatory fact sheet on the bill flags the possibility of wildlife management codes of practice to allow the keeping of certain reptiles as pets.

    We have enough problems with puppy farms without a pet trade in native species. The Government states that licensing will be retained for situations where there is a risk that a code-based regulatory approach may cause any animal species to move toward extinction. How will this be monitored and assessed? I am deeply disappointed and concerned about the direction of these reforms. I am not convinced that they are necessary or desirable, or indeed that they will have the desired effect of improving biodiversity. This bill is a colossal failure for animals and the environment. I cannot support the passage of this bill.

  • Opinion: Who benefits from silencing animal activists?

    Recent media publications by The Land and The Guardian of meeting documents provides 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 lawful?

    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.

  • Broken Hill Animal Protection Forum

    UPDATE!

    As per our public agenda that we distributed in the original invitation, please see the following recorded Minutes and discussion points. For further information please contact Josh Agland – joshua.agland@parliament.nsw.gov.au

    1. Welcome and introductions;
      1. Mark, as an MLC represents the whole state of NSW. All NSW residents are urged to contact him with any issues.
      2. Success of animal politics, animal parties around the world.
      3. Attendees include representatives of Broken Hill Pet RescueRRANA (Rescue and Rehabilitation of Australian Native Animals) and local citizens.
      4. Greyhound Ban in NSW.
    2. Introduced Uncle Max. Uncle Max discussed the importance of Totem animals in Indigenous culture, the lores that protect Totem animals and his own personal experiences.
      1. Killing a Totem animal without seeking the permission of the Totem holder is akin to killing that person. A Totem animal is that persons skin.
    3. Updates on the Stock Theft and Trespass Review
    4. Wildlife
      1. Reports of hunters trespassing on private land, killing kangaroos illegally for yabby bait, Joeys kept in vehicles and dumped with wildlife carers.
      2. Now that water is flowing in Menindee, pelicans are being found with fishing line injuries, increases in native water rat drownings from yabby traps.
      3. Serious reports and evidence of landowners and NPWS using an insecticide as a animal poison. Lanatte-L is easily obtained in a concentrated form and is highly toxic. Reports of dog, fox, raptor and other meat eating animals dying from poisoning. Even Echidnas and insect eating birds dying from consuming contaminated ants. Local users call it ‘Magic’ as it kills everything. Various documents supplied to our office regarding this issue from local concerned citizen.
    5. Companion Animals
      1. Unanimous support for mandatory desexing. The problems with undesexed animals in rural areas is amplified due to resources and enforcement.
      2. TNR for free living cats in rural areas is not successful unless people provide easy and regular food to the cats. In populated towns TNR can work, however lack of volunteers/resources and education about free living cats is an issue.
      3. Mobile desexing services and programs, especially within indigenous communities is working, especially when indigenous people are part of the programs and can build community trust. More funding is required.
      4. State wide licensing system for all companion animals should be looked into, this has been implemented in other countries such as Sweden. Fines for non-compliance and enforcement needs to be robust enough to actually act as a deterrent for unlicensed animals, otherwise people may abandon an animal when fined and source a new cheaper animal (puppy factory). Our office to research similar programs for further discussion and consultation.
    6. Closing and thanks.
    mark-pearson-animal-justice-party-broken-hill-visit-2016-uncle-max

    Mark Pearson, MLC, Animal Justice Party and Aboriginal Elder Uncle Max Dulu-mun-mun Harrison in Menindee

    Invitation to Broken Hill Animal Protection Forum

    In February 2016, the Baird Government announced the establishment of the Stock Theft and Trespass Review. This review held numerous public meetings in rural areas in which issues of trespass and both legal and illegal hunting were to be a main discussion point.

    My office receives numerous calls from distressed landholders, traumatised by illegal hunting trespass on their properties, it was for this reason that I was keen to attend a public meeting. I had already intended to visit Broken Hill, in order to address the information that had come to me regarding the disturbing rise in the serious egregious cruelty inflicted on animals in both illegal and legal hunting. I had also organised to meet key animal protection and rescue groups.

    Upon arrival, I was subject to hostility and defensive resistance from the Nationals member for the electorate, Kevin Humphries who insisted that I leave. I was frogmarched out of the meeting by Mr Humphries before I was even able to ask a question. I was not given the opportunity to raise my concerns regarding the brutality of hunting and its increased incidence on private property and how this terrifies land owners as well as terrifying, maiming and killing animals. It appears this National party member wants to obstruct any constructive discussion to address the growing violent culture of killing animals for sick enjoyment which in turn frightens property owners where these animals live or move through.

    I refuse to be shut out of addressing this appalling situation. As promised to the supportive local citizens I am organising a public meeting to address all the above issues as well as local pound reform. I invite any members of the public to attend the Broken Hill Animal Protection Forum to participate in a discussion on issues concerning animal cruelty, abuse and neglect in Broken Hill and surrounds. I have personally sent out invitations to Local MP Kevin Humphries, Broken Hill local Councillors, NSW Police Minister and Shadow Minister, NSW Local Government Minister and Shadow Minister, LAC for the region and Rural Crime Investigators for Broken Hill area, as well as all local police.

    A public agenda for the forum can be found HERE

    mark-pearson-mlc-animal-justice-party

    Chair/Facilitator – Mark Pearson, MLC, Animal Justice Party

    uncle-max-harrison-aboriginal-elder-1

    Special Guest – Aboriginal Elder Uncle Max Dulu-mun-mun Harrison, Uncle Max

    WHEN: Tuesday 6th September

    TIME: 7 PM – 9 PM

    WHERE: Broken Hill Community Centre – 200 Beryl St, Broken Hill

    RSVP by 2nd September 2016

    For further information and RSVP please contact: Angela Pollard on 02 9230 2445, angela.pollard@parliament.nsw.gov.au

Page 1 of 41234