Protesting is a far cry from privacy invasion

“What do we want? (Insert cause.) When do we want it? Now!”

We’re often confronted with pictures on our TV screens and in the print media of protesters yelling some variation of that seemingly universal chant.

History shows that farmers around the world are often active and very vocal protesters. Australian farmers too are strong supporters of the right to protest. In fact, our farmers often say that we should be more like our French colleagues, who regularly use spectacular public protests to get their way. That rarely happens here, as our preferred approach is a more moderate and reasoned one. Having said that, if push comes to shove, we do know how to put on a show when we have to.

The tractor rallies that converged on Canberra from across the country a few years back started here in Tasmania, and drew national attention to the plight of farmers as price takers in a cut-throat marketplace. Yes, I know that’s nowhere near as spectacular as the French deluging their parliament in spoilt milk, closing major ring-roads with rotten produce, or running a herd of bulls up the Champs-Élysées – but we’re a really understated lot.

The Workplaces (Protection from Protesters) Bill was introduced into parliament earlier this week, delivering on a promise the state government made going into the election. The aim of this Bill is to curb the excesses of activists who take that step too far and push protest activities outside the legal system.

No matter how valid their cause, protesters do not hold some sort of privileged position above every other citizen. Their protests must always be carried out within the bounds of the law, and should not put others at risk. So, despite what the noisy minority would have you believe, legitimate protesters have nothing to fear from this legislation because it infringes no existing rights.

It is aimed fairly and squarely at protesters who are not merely wishing to have their say, but who are trying to force their will on to others by stopping their work. It will send the clear message that all Tasmanians have a right to earn a living, whether that be in forestry, mining, farming or any other industry.

That’s why we’re interested in this legislation.

Across the world, farmers are facing orchestrated and ongoing attacks from individuals and groups who argue that animal welfare is of such over-riding importance that anyone who even so much as suspects a farmer may be acting outside legal welfare guidelines and laws has the right to invade their farm (and often their home) to place covert cameras to obtain video footage or other ‘evidence’ of bad behaviour.

They have no regard for existing laws, or for the people and communities affected by their actions. Their thoughtlessness can put animals at risk by spreading devastating diseases. They can put entire businesses at risk by compromising quality assurance and workplace health and safety regulations.

This legislation is being painted as pro-forestry, anti-conservationist legislation because it suits opponents to brand it that way. It is neither of those things.

The rights-based claim of these activists is ridiculous. The public has no more right to know what goes on in a piggery, a dairy or a poultry farm than in a family home. There are more than enough legal and democratic pathways to deal with illegal behavior without having to resort to threats, trespass and property invasion. If your home or your farm is your workplace, people should not be allowed to enter it without permission, film what they like, chain themselves to the workbench, send the footage to the media and then expect not to be prosecuted and sued. How would you like it to happen to you?

Let’s say I feared that a neighbor was mistreating their children, or beating their wife, or abusing their elderly parents. Would I be justified into breaking into their home in the dead of night, in planting secret cameras and then taking the footage to the media to name and shame them? Of course not – and I am sure that the activists would be the first to complain if I did do that. The proper course of action would be to refer my concerns to the relevant authorities and leave them to do what is necessary within their legislated powers.

We don’t in any way condone animal cruelty or deceptive or wrongful conduct; but we do believe in the rule of law. This says no-one is permitted to invade another’s privacy and trespass on private property, or to prevent others from earning their livings, or to put at risk businesses and livelihoods. People who do these things are breaking the law – and they should be treated in the same way as anyone else who break the law.
TFGA chief executive Jan Davis