Page 3307 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 21 August 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Currently, trespass can be a criminal offence in the ACT. There are several provisions that address criminal trespass and the similar offence of forcible entry in the ACT. However, the penalties are minimal and, I would suspect, could easily be paid for through crowd-sourced funding or other fundraising activities. Simply put, the current deterrent does not deter the crime.
We might think that the ACT is immune from these kinds of extreme activism. However, we must not forget the destruction of a crop of GM-modified wheat by Greenpeace protesters back in 2011. The crop that was destroyed was being developed to help improve nutrition for those suffering from chronic bowel conditions. Years of work, research and investment were lost in one illegal action. More galling than the attack, and to make matters worse, is that a member of this Assembly, and a former Greenpeace activist, endorsed—simply because the protesters deeply believed in their cause—the illegal actions of those protesters who destroyed a reported $300,000 worth of property at the CSIRO. This may give us an insight into the level of support my motion may receive today from the crossbench members. However, we live in hope.
Today’s motion is really just a first step. Just as my motion for the extension of drought relief called for action in line with the New South Wales government’s commitment to their farmers, this motion calls for a similar move to mirror, as a minimum, the moves that have been taken in New South Wales in respect of this issue. The New South Wales government has passed legislation creating a new offence for those causing a biosecurity risk by trespassing on a farm. It incurs on-the-spot fines of $1,000, increasing up to $220,000 for breaching farm biosecurity plans. What we would like to see is a commitment to match this, and we can go, potentially, even further. My understanding is that the stronger penalties enacted by the New South Wales government, including the $220,000 penalty for individuals, are on the basis that an intruder or protester contravenes a farm’s biosecurity plan.
The ACT is home to a number of wildlife parks, zoos and nature reserves which may fall victim to such attacks as a result of being low-hanging fruit in a jurisdiction that has not yet enacted stronger penalties. As wildlife parks, zoos and other animal businesses do not fall under the farm specific biosecurity plan in New South Wales, we would seek to have those same penalties enacted for those facilities in the ACT, giving them also the cover and protection that the law should afford legal businesses.
The damage to our environment and beyond our borders of such activities on these facilities could be profound and extremely damaging. If the ACT does not increase its penalties for criminal trespass offences for activists targeting animal-related businesses, activists will surely see the ACT as a much softer target than New South Wales. Therefore, it is important that the ACT, as a minimum, matches the penalties that are in place in New South Wales for contravening biosecurity plans but also includes wildlife facilities and research facilities under that umbrella.
The ACT is home to a number of animal-related businesses and activities. I am thinking along the lines of reptile zoos, Tidbinbilla and our National Zoo and Aquarium, one of the most popular tourism destinations locally, and all of the other animal-related businesses in between.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video