Animal lawfare: Farmers demand third party litigation loophole be closed

Farmers want a loophole in the state’s proposed animal welfare laws closed, so they are not dragged into court by animal rights groups. 

Animals Australia lawyer Shatha Hamade and strategy director Lyn White have already mounted two cases in Victoria to stop gas stunning of pigs and wild dog control.

Farmers are demanding the Allan Government close a loophole in the state’s animal welfare laws that allows activists to take legal action against regulators, livestock producers and processors on what is termed “appropriate” care.

As it stands Victoria’s draft Animal Care and Protection Bill, which is out for public consultation, leaves the door open for animal activists to take Agriculture Victoria and farmers to court over welfare care standards - from caged hens and piggeries to abattoirs and feedlots.

Members of the Victorian Farmers Federation breakaway commodity leaders group have called for action, with spokeswoman Meg Parkinson saying: “The last thing we want is for the animal rights lobby to run a series of cases, until they win.”

Victorian Nationals agriculture spokeswoman Emma Kealy called for amendments to the Bill to protect farmers from third party litigation “so they don’t end up suffering the same fate as the native forest industry”.

Emma Kealy, Victorian Nationals agriculture spokeswoman. Picture: Andrew Henshaw

Over the past decade environment groups have used free lawyers and academic experts to repeatedly launched legal action against native timber harvest manager VicForests.

Most green lawfare cases failed, until Supreme Court Justice Melinda Richards issued orders in November 2022 that slashed the area that could be harvested across Victoria.

Six months later Treasurer Tim Pallas announced “the courts have taken the decision out of our hands”, forcing the government to bring forward the planned 2030 phase out of the industry to January 1 this year.

The NSW Government has avoided such action by blocking third-party litigation, under Section 40 of its Forestry and National Park Estate Act 1998, leaving it up to the state’s EPA to act as an independent regulator.

Even in Victoria, third party litigation is prohibited in regard to pollution, litter and other breaches under the Environment Protection Act 2017.

Ms Kealy said the Allan Government needed to do the same with its new Animal Care and Protection Bill, “to ensure producers are protected”.

“Animal activists have millions of dollars behind them.” Ms Kealy said. “Their sole purpose is to shut down animal production, so its essential Labor puts protections in place.”

Just last week the Australian Electoral Commission released details on the financials of groups that ran political campaigns, which showed Animals Australia had dragged in $79m over the past five years to run campaigns and court cases to stop live exports and farming practices.

Animals Australia has already launched legal action against Victorian meat industry regulator Primesafe and Benalla abattoir CA Sinclair under existing animal welfare standards, to stop the abattoir gas stunning pigs, in a case that could set a national precedent.

Agriculture Minister Ros Spence’s office said only authorised officers could “investigate or charge offences”, but admitted other people could still litigate if they have a valid legal basis.

Animals Australia is also running a second case against the Victorian Government’s extension of its wild dog control order, which if successful could end the baiting, trapping and shooting of the feral dogs on public land within 3kms of private properties.

Agriculture Minister Ros Spence’s new Animal Care and Protection Bill still leaves the door open for animal activists to take third-party legal action. Picture: Yuri Kouzmin

Just how exposed farmers are to third party litigation under Victoria’s new draft animal welfare legislation is evident in part 3 of the guide to the bill, which states farmers and other animal owners will have to meet animal care obligations, including, but not limited to, ensuring animals enjoy “appropriate” exercise, ambient temperatures, noise levels, lighting, air quality, shade and shelter, food and water, as well as rest areas, space to stand, lie, stretch and change position.

The big question for farmers is: Who determines what is “appropriate”?

Ms Spence’s office said: “Care requirements will be enforced by trained authorised officers who are experts in the environments they will be operating in and will determine what is ‘appropriate’.”

But even mounting a defence is problematic, given the Bill states owners must prove in any case brought against them that they “took all reasonable steps to provide the care requirement for the animal”.

The guidelines to the Bill state words like “reasonable”, “unreasonable” and “appropriate” are “widely used in principles-based legislation and their meanings have been established by courts and tribunals”.

Public submissions on the draft Bill close March 8.