Feedback on proposed changes to trespassing laws

Now Closed

This online engagement was hosted on YourSAy from 3 September 2019 to 4 October 2019. Find out more about the consultation process. Below is a record of the engagement.

Read the proposed changes to our trespassing laws and the draft Summary Offences Amendment Bill, and tell us what you think by leaving your comment in the box below.

Comments closed

Dani K

04 Oct 2019

Nooo! This is terrible and a backwards step in the evolution of compassion towards animals. Consumers have a right to know! Let them see and decide for themselves. For too long these processes have been hidden behind closed doors and marketed as happy rainbows and unicorns. It's time animals were seen as individual beings rather than commodities. Compassion and a focus on profit just do not go together. If there is not much activist activity in SA and there hasn't been any confirmed biological contamination then I wonder why this amendment is even existing?! Ahh that's right, we want to keep reality hidden from zombie consumers. For the health of all South Australians, we need to move away from this excessive consumption of animal products and eat more plants! The market will evolve (it already is as you can see with the growing vegan movement) and so will production. I encourage farmers to go with this and try something new. How amazing that we can live healthier lives without the needless killing! And still enjoy amazing tasting food made from plants. This is evolution - please don't stand in the way!

Anne Ferber

03 Oct 2019

Thanks for listening! I fully endorse these proactive changes to defend our farms, our farmers, and our food from these ill-informed radicalised terrorist groups! Our farming practices are benchmarked worldwide by others, our animal management techniques are best practice and we have the safest food security practices in the world: Let’s keep it that way! Now, let’s take a look at the mining industry...

Richard Hill

02 Oct 2019

Will these trespass laws have any effect on people engaged in mineral exploration activities? Could farmers use these laws to prevent people entering the property to conduct legitimate mineral exploration activities? Currently under the mining Act, exploration companies need to serve notice of entry to the landholder, with 21 days notice, if the land is not "Exempt Land". If I serve notice of entry to a farmer, and the land is not classified as exempt land under the mining act, can the farmer than prevent me from entering the property by using the new Trespassing laws?

Chanae Matthews

30 Sep 2019

I don't usually condone trespassing but I applaud anyone and everyone who speaks up for animals. Considering that billions of gentle sheep, chickens, cows, and pigs are strung up and their throats are slit for a fleeting taste of flesh, who can blame anyone who uses peaceful means to cause people to consider the cruelty of it all?

For those with genuine concerns about biosecurity risks in the food supply, let’s not even try to pretend that Australian animal factories are pristine, delicately balanced domes of sterility. More than half the antibiotics imported into Australia are fed to farmed animals to stave off diseases that without the drugs would thrive in the crowded, filthy living conditions the stressed animals are forced to endure.
In any case, many activists wear sterile booties and hair coverings or even full biohazard suits when they enter a property. Activists who enter battery-cage sheds or other intensive facilities often wear face masks. These serve the dual purpose of helping to maintain biosecurity and providing at least some relief against the suffocating levels of ammonia that make it hard to breathe even for a short amount of time in such places. Spare a thought for the chickens breathing this “biosecure” air for most of their existence.
Biosecurity arguments reek of feigned concern for animals – many of whom live in squalor and all of whom die unwillingly – and the conditions they’re kept in. Not one of these animals is destined for anything other than a gas chamber, an electrified bath, or a knife to the throat.
A common argument against vegan activists entering farms is that homes may also be located on the property and that farmers fear for the safety of their families. But the reality is that no farmers operating intensive animal-agriculture facilities on hundreds or thousands of acres of land have feed lots outside their house’s kitchen window or sow stalls set up next to the swing set.
Activists have no interest in seeing the inside of people’s living rooms. They simply want to witness what’s happening to animals on farms and in abattoirs and to share that information with others. Not once in the history of animal rights activism anywhere in the world has there been a single incidence of activists physically harming anyone.

Transparency Is Key - If government and industry bodies wish to deter activists from documenting the living and dying conditions of animals exploited for their flesh, for their skin, and for entertainment, instead of seeking to further shroud their operations in secrecy, they must commit to transparency: place CCTV cameras in all commercial animal enterprises, including farming operations and abattoirs. The government should also address the nation’s over-reliance on private charities – such as the RSPCA – that are empowered to investigate and enforce cruelty laws. Such entities are perpetually under-funded and have severely limited resources, and they’re subject to a barrage of industry and political pressures. Instead, the government should place such powers in the hands of an independent and taxpayer-funded regulatory body and bolster the laws that enable it to address systemic cruelty. The new bills seek to intimidate those who work to expose cruelty to animals and are an obvious attempt to hide what animal-exploiting industries don’t want consumers to see.

Australia is moving towards becoming a more caring and inclusive society, and there’s no place in its future for discrimination based on gender, race, sexuality, or species. All change challenges comfort, convenience, and sometimes even the law. Animal rights isn’t the first front on which we’ve seen rebellion. The change that activists are trying to bring about is an integral part of our society’s evolution.
Morally conscious people don’t need laws to do what’s right. We can help animals on factory farms and in other animal-exploiting industries by refusing to use them in experiments, eat or wear them, or use them for entertainment.

Sherena Matthews

30 Sep 2019

I agree with many of the comments on here which propose a need for an open system. There is obviously a reason these activists are committing these offences and by harshening these laws and making their way of exposing these issues more 'illegal' does not help deal with that cause at all.

James Spry

30 Sep 2019

There can be no protection of farmers, without reciprocal openness from the farmers.
I say this as a farmer. A passionate farmer.
One who keeps animals. One who is both disturbed by the trespass of activists, and despairs at the situation that has created it.
Farmers cannot disassociate themselves from the community. They cannot isolate themselves from the consequences of their actions.
What we need is an open food system. From the farm, through the abattoir to the shop. From the market garden, through the processing and distribution, to the shop.
It is only at that point that activism will be fair and balanced, because misdeeds, mistreatment and bad behaviour will be connected to the perpetrator/s. Not indiscriminately against a convenient target.
Strengthening trespass laws alone, will only make the perpetrators more illegal. It will not remove the reason for their discontent.
These laws must be accompanied by the requirement for farmers, processors, distributors and sellers (the whole supply chain) to open their systems to inspection. This must be publicly available. The truth cannot be hidden.
Good farmers will want the public to know how good they are.

Alice Long

30 Sep 2019

I am in full support of harsher penalties for trespassing on farms. The actions that the militant vegans have been taking on private property is traumatising not only to the farmers who's land they trespass on, but the animals they are claiming to 'protect'.

Jackie Harrop

30 Sep 2019

We fully support the proposed changes to farm trespass laws. For 5 generations we have raised animals on our property. They are well fed, have access to water and shade. We take pride on the way they are cared for and the condition that they are sent to market, as do all of our neighbours. It is in our best interest to present the best quality stock that we can to the market. It is a personal choice whether to eat meat or not, one that we respect. It is about time we supported all of our farmers, those who grow grain and vegetable crops and those who raise animals. We are the people who feed you.

Sandra Brown

29 Sep 2019

Its about time; no business should be interrupted by protesters. Who has thought of the contamination issues to the farmer, their crops and animals. One would wonder how the organizers would react if a group of protesters entered their property without notice or seeking permission. Great support for our farmers.

Helen Wright

28 Sep 2019

Hi Marie, thank you for your comments. Personally I would be happy to show people around my house and garden where we have two very happy cats living with us. We must have openness: everyone running a business should be prepared to show that they a running their business properly [think hygienic conditions for bakeries, restaurants, hospitals, even motor repair shops]. Regarding animal husbandry no decent person wants to think that they are contributing to animal abuse. If we are to continue to raise animals for food we have to find a better way including ensuring that food producers are properly rewarded so that animal welfare is paramount; where food is sold too cheaply animals pay the price. In today's world we also need to think about methane production [especially animals that ruminate] in addition to animal welfare. Thanks again for your comments, this is an issue that needs to be thoroughly debated.

Felicity Martin

28 Sep 2019

Many of those who have terrified farming families by surrounding their homes have also terrified their animals... most have urban-centric The problem with many extremist vegans is they are governed by their ideals about where they are in the food chain, thinking they stand apart, it is more an existential crisis, admitting they are part of the animal kingdom. While there is no excuse for bad animal treatment, most farms, particularly family farms recognise that this is bad business practice, as well as being psychologically damaging if their animals are not healthy... most rather starve themselves than their animals. Yet from personal experience I know of some vegans who force their dogs to be vegetarian or vegan, on one occasion we saw a child dying from starvation through having fundamentalist parents with not the slightest understanding of developmental dietary requirements, and who remain unrepentant.

On one occasion a vegan associate, when their pet dog ate a lizard, was going to 'kill' her dog, her friends took care of it until she settled down. for what, doing what millions of years of genetic evolution settled on as adaptogenic for survival. If their parents of friends don't conform to veganism they vilify them on Facebook mercilessly. Many of those radical vegans protesting are ignorant, another person was going to do an honours proposal about whether horses were being exploited by the Riding for the Disabled- they had never even patted a horse, had never handled or worked with horses, had no understanding of their ways of communicating- yet she was going to do a paper on whether those horses were happy?
Yet surprisingly none object to the thousands of eagles, and millions of bats dying near wind farms, established in studies throughout the world... that sort of farming is A OK??? No cries for studies or transparency.
Everyone has a right to choose a diet that meets their needs, we don't force those electing to avoid meat etc to eat it... the only way to describe the invading and terrorising of farming families is anarchy at best, or terrorism at worst. The appalling thing is, given most here in rural areas get mainly the ABC, is the way their compares seem to condone this form of behaviour, sadly we have few other choices for radio and television news.

Sandra Brown > Felicity Martin

29 Sep 2019

well said

Ron Sanderson

28 Sep 2019

The proposals seem to be reasonable as our farmers are already doing it tough with uncertain weather conditions and other variables including water and feed etc. Farms should also be protected from mining interest who seem to be above the law in regards to they way they can just move in and take over an area.
I hope the legislation will not over step the mark in areas where a casual bush walker happens to venture through a property then accidentally get fined. As far as animal protection goes The RSPCA should be the only accredited organization who can readily enter properties to make sure animal cruelty is not taking place, as this should then prevent the idiot fringe from causing damage to property etc.

Duncan Crawford

27 Sep 2019

I fully support the proposed changes to farm trespass laws. They are at heart sensible and in line with community standards and expectations.

Malgo Schmidt

27 Sep 2019

This proposal is ridiculous, as Australia is the global leader in animal extinction, pollution per capita and environment destruction. The statement “While SA has encountered low levels of organised protest activity compared with other states, strengthening the laws and creating stronger deterrents is crucial to protecting our farming community” is the evidence of the authors’ insanity. In contrast, Northern European countries grant public access to private land under the condition of no damage to the land. This is known as freedom to roam, or "everyman's right".

Janet Allan

27 Sep 2019

I do have 3 grandchildren wandering round my property but if I was guilty of the crimes we are talking about here, intrusion would certainly be justified.

For example, in factory farms in Australia mother pigs are confined in metal cells so small they cannot even turn around. Piglets endure the agony of having their teeth clipped and tails cut off, while male piglets are castrated, all without pain relief.
If they survive the horrors of the farms and transportation, whether factory farmed, free range or organically reared, they are then slaughtered. In Australia the law requires stunning before slaughter. A common method is:
Electric stunning – An electric shock produces a grand mal seizure, then the throat is cut but insufficient amperage can cause an animal to be paralyzed without losing sensibility.
Pigs are dunked in tanks of scalding water after they are stunned to soften their hides. A botched slaughter condemns some pigs to being both scalded and drowned. Under cover video tapes have shown pigs squealing and kicking as they are lowered into the scalding water.
Whenever secret surveillance is undertaken by animal activists pigs are filmed huddled together, trembling as they try to protect themselves from a savage beating with a metal pole – or that other pigs are upset because they are helpless to protect their babies on farms and in abattoirs. But to an industry that raises and kills millions of these intelligent and sensitive animals each year, such misery is just part of doing business – with animals often not considered living beings at all. Given that around 1,000 animals are slaughtered in Australia every minute, it is truly horrifying to think of the scale of suffering going on at this moment.

Michael Rohal

27 Sep 2019

I agree with Helen wright.
It is vital that farmers and all involved in working with animals are open and transparent. TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE.

David Cox

27 Sep 2019

I agree with Mark Laurie's comments - they are very well made. It is critically important to strike a balance between the rights of farmers and the need for transparency in animal husbandry practices. I know that many, perhaps most, farmers care for their animals and treat them well. But there are others who do not, and there are perhaps generally accepted farm practices which are nevertheless harmful to animals. We will never know this if we rely only on inspection by government officials, who are often either captured by the industry they regulate or at least unconsciously accept its operating premises. The live sheep export is an example of this, as is, in a different category, the oversight of water usage in the Murray Darling basin. Even if government inspectors are robustly independent, they can only regulate within a framework of currently accepted practices - they will not be developing a robust critique of those practices. Many practices that we now accept as normal were once controversial and the subject of draconian punishment. The exercise of democracy is one of those. Governments should be extremely careful before going down this path.

Mark Laurie

27 Sep 2019

These proposed changes appear to be unnecessary based on South Australia's experience, a "me too" response following kneejerk approaches in other places.
The broad drafting of the new offence seems problematic. For an offence to be committed the onus should be on the prosecutor to prove a material, adverse impact on the farming activities, not merely that such an impact has occurred.
A more sophisticated and welcome approach would involve recognition that there are two main groups here, each with entirely legitimate interests. It is an entirely legitimate interest to look out for the welfare of those unable to speak for themselves. There is no obvious difference between the position here and that relating to the care of minors. Any legislative changes of this nature should only be undertaken against the backdrop of a broader review which considers the adequacy or otherwise of existing protections against animal cruelty and the resources allocated to enforcement of them. Failure to do so will pitch these groups even more forcefully against one another, rather than providing a forum for moderation and reconciliation. The fundamental principle, not being observed by the approach being taken here, is that each group should be free to pursue their interests, subject to appropriate safeguards against extreme, cruel or destructive behaviours.

Marie Duckford > Mark Laurie

27 Sep 2019

Are you also happy to allow random strangers, who may have good intentions, but uniformed opinions on decisions you make in your life, to break into and damage your property as a way of objecting to your activities? Or would you like them to have the right to put cameras around your home and yard to try to prove whether what they think you might be doing is true or not? That's what activists are doing to farmers... who are people with families they want protected too... Would you be happy to have your children go out to play and be confronted with these random strangers who think they have the right to invade your property?

Mark Laurie > Mark Laurie

28 Sep 2019

Dear Marie,

Thank you for your response. Unfortunately it seems to be a generic one you have made to various of the comments in this string and doesn't really correspond with the position I've propounded.
Nevertheless, if you have suffered loss or damage as a result of activist actions I'm sorry, do not condone it and can recommend that you have a range of adequate and well established legal remedies already available to you in respect of it.
As to whether I would be happy to have people scrutinise my treatment of animals, the answer is absolutely. I would take great comfort from it. In response to your points about intrusion, I live in urban Adelaide in an area subject to heavy urban infill under planning rules which give little leeway for privacy. Such intrusion, including by means of the persistent and rapid spread of cctv surveillance is a constant aspect of urban life.

David Haby

26 Sep 2019

Farmers do not want to see any animal stressed, especially ones that in there care, but a small minority of people feel that they are above the law and a god given right to invade private property and cause willful destruction and feel that their miss guided ideals justify their actions. If a farmer was to invade their home to "to check on things" they would claim it is an unjustified invasion of they home, yet they feel it is perfectly OK to do so to the farming community because they feel something "might be wrong". A lot of people eat meat and will continue to do so, if these people had their way they would shut down every farm, then where would we get our meat from, China? they have people raiding our baby formula because it's safer. I am sure that they view the farmers biosecurity as a excuse to keep them off of the farms, but if there was a contaminate found in the product they would be amongst the fist wave to take to social media to complain, that makes a 'no win' situation for the farmers. These people must to stopped and held accountable for their actions, they have deemed farmers sa a soft target, they feel that they do as they wish with little to no repercussions, it is time that was changed.

Very Concerned

26 Sep 2019

I fully support the changes to the laws and would prefer to see even greater penalties. These so called "animal rights activists" are extremist people imposing their extremist views on every day hard working Australians. The farms they are invading are peoples' homes. How do they justify invading peoples' homes as a reasonable course of action.
Unfortunately too many people have lost the grasp of what it means to eat meat. These people make blanket statements about farmers "abusing" animals, when they actually think any form of farming is animal abuse. I don't know any farmers that don't care for and look after their animals. Apart from their obvious care for the animals, distressed animals don't grow productively, so it wouldn't make sense to "abuse" them.
Its about time the noisy minority groups like these are held accountable for their actions.

Marie Duckford > Very Concerned

27 Sep 2019

Agreed... They may also be a danger children living on the farms.... how would we know what kind of people they are?... other than that they think their opinions are more important than the right of others and keeping the law!

Bas de Groot

26 Sep 2019

I fully agree with Why Say-It: Freedom to Roam is the way to go, as it will make many more Australians connect to their local and regional farmers. I fully accept that most farmers try to do the right thing by their animals. And I accept that we live in a world where people eat meat, and so some form of livestock husbandry or hunting will remain part of human activities. But when the Government accepts that it does not have the resources or capacity to adequately and fully monitor compliance with animal rights legislation (or wants to cut back on Government services in order to balance the budget), then non-governmental compliance monitoring needs to have a place as well if we do not want our animal husbandry standards to slip. The current amendments that are proposed are adversarial: they create more division between farmers and animal rights activists rather than bringing them together in their shared love for animals. The first and foremost aim and result of these amendments would be to put more people in jail, and to put more people into the 'naughty people' category. That is not what the amendments should be aiming to achieve. The amendments should be focused on reducing the chance that farmers that do the right thing by their animals are being harassed in their own homes. And reducing that chance comes from transparency, so that people who wilfully harass people (who can already be detained under existing trespassing laws) in order to protect animal rights know that our farmers are doing the right thing. I'd say open the gates and show the world, rather than close them and punish people who try to get in.

Marie Duckford > Bas de Groot

27 Sep 2019

Will you also open your doors to random strangers wandering around your home, placing your children at risk, damaging your property?... or do you have a business where you are happy to leave it unlocked and allow free access anyone who feels they would like to check whether you are compliant with laws and codes of practice for your industry?....

Bas de Groot > Bas de Groot

27 Sep 2019

Hi Marie, I understand your concern, but do not share it to the same extent. I work in records management and archives, and policy in our industry is to be as open and transparent as possible (we also do not work with animals, or groups of more vulnerable humans, in which case openness and transparency is even more important, see the work of various Royal Commissions into management of animals and groups of vulnerable humans). So on a personal professional level I would welcome public scrutiny. But I do understand that not everybody likes that, or has the time and inclination to deal with that. On another personal level, I fortunately live in an area where I can even leave my car unlocked at night and nothing will happen. I know that I am fortunate in that respect, and that not all areas are like that. And I understand that many farmers live out of the way, and having multiple people on your premise may seem threatening. But looking at this particular issue, I think many farmers could simply take the heat out of any confrontation by showing any protesters around. If the farmer does the right thing by his animals, protesters will see and not be back. And tell their mates as well. It's only by closing the place up, making it non-transparent, that people get the wrong idea about what goes on inside a farm. But that's just my opinion.

Marie Duckford > Bas de Groot

27 Sep 2019

I have worked in that field too... but as I recall the records are in locked cabinets and rooms... or encrypted protected computers...in locked buildings.... and i'm pretty sure if a group of randoms turned up at the door demanding free access in the name of transparency they'd be shown the door and arrested by the police if they forced their way in!...

Felicity Martin > Bas de Groot

28 Sep 2019

I agree Marie, just try and get access to things directly affecting your community, especially council development application information, most are hidden behind a veil of legal barriers, and even when trying to access under Freedom of Information, are heavily vetoes... open and transparent Bas, I don't think so!!!

Helen Wright

19 Sep 2019

I am horrified by these proposed amendments.
It is vital that farmers and all involved in working with animals are open and transparent. unscheduled visits are an essential part of this.
Scheduled official visits permit unscrupulous farmers from covering up their appalling mistreatment and abuse and permit governments to being a part of these crimes.
Already there is clear evidence of animal abuse by food producers; the laws must be strengthened to PROTECT animals not to cover up abuse.
These proposed amendments are TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE.

Marie Duckford > Helen Wright

27 Sep 2019

Just as long as it's not your home or your business that are to be subjected to random strangers with no qualifications or authority wandering in day or night to check whether you are complaint with the law or codes of practice... Are you prepared to open your property up to anyone who feels like they should have a right to see if you're obeying the laws? I seriously doubt it!

Why Say-It

18 Sep 2019

In my 5 years in Sweden, I enjoyed "The Right of Public Access" ("Allemansrätt")
- a Freedom to Roam in the countryside.

In practice, of course, this Freedom to Roam has some limits.
Although somewhat more detailed, in its own section of the law,
breaking it down, here's how it goes:

+ You are allowed to access any land, except private Residences,
in the immediate vicinity (70m) of a Dwelling house & Cultivated land.
+ You can put up a Tent.
+ You are allowed to collect, eg, Flowers, Mushrooms and Berries.
+ Driving on private roads is allowed, unless there’s a Sign saying otherwise.
+ Swimming in lakes is allowed.
+ You can access any Beach, as long as you stay away from private residences.
+ You are allowed to catch Fish [in the 5 big lakes and] along the entire Coastline.

( Cf: https://VisitSweden.com/about-the-right-of-public-access/ )

I would suggest, that such Freedoms encourage folks to feel better about Sweden;
& folks in SA should Not be Deprived any of the same (or greater) levels of Freedom.

Back to Trespassing Laws...

A -BALANCED- Law would do more than try to BAN entry; it would BOTH:

1. Protect Farm-Owners' & Farmers'
a. PRIVACY within reasonable Areas around Dwellings &
b. PROPERTY from Genuine DAMAGE by anyone else.

2. Enable Registered "Closed" animal-farming facilities to be VISITED
- with reasonable advance notice - possibly at a small cost,
even by Registered Animal Advocates & groups

The thought that Gov't should ever BAN genuine citizen Animal-Advocate visits
is as offensive as BANNING citizen Science experiments or other activities, IMO.

The right to photograph & video animals in stress or unhealthy conditions should
not be restricted, by the any Gov't.

I'm concerned that Local Sensitivities to Animals raised in SA could be unduly
sacrificed in the interest of profit, by local, Australian or overseas investors.

Such investors should operate their businesses in ways, that they are sufficiently
PROUD of to open them to concerned members of the Public, who Register as
Animal-Advocates or group members, who should be as Highly Regarded as
Volunteer CFS Firefighters, St John or SES members, who extend the reach of
Paid MFS, SAAS & Disaster-Relief staff, & even corporate counterparts, across SA.

Volunteer individuals & groups should be just as much a part of all Gov'ts'
Animal Protection regime (eg, able to Report concerns & hand-in evidence;
they should also be free to publish photo- or video-evidence they may have
made, during any visit.

Further, the publication of such evidence should Not be actionable in Civil or
Criminal courts, provided, of course that has Not been made misleading, eg,
by undue technical manipulations.

When are Farms run with due concern for live animals, & there are volunteer Animal-Advocates
supplementing paid Animal Protection officers, to help keep them running lawfully, SA's meats &
other animal-products should be even More Sought-after than those from "trust-us" farms.

They may well win higher prices for Farmers, who do the right thing.

So, we should change the Name & Nature of what we now call "Trespassing Laws" and
add generous pro-citizen Animal-Advocate clauses to our Animal-Protection Laws, so
that Both Farmers & Animals "come first"

Marie Duckford > Why Say-It

27 Sep 2019

...and will you pay for the repairs done by those who think they can do whatever they want, where ever they want?. Will you allow the same free access to your home and property?... or do you just advocate 'free access' to other peoples home?

Janet Allan

17 Sep 2019

New farm trespassing laws criminalize ethical dedicated individuals and protect animal abusers who should be imprisoned. These laws are a disgrace and could never be passed in a civilized, democratic society. They are extremely upsetting because they mean we have actually become a country ruled by organized crime. The very existence of these “farms” breaches the animal welfare act and a law that protects the criminals abusing these animals is beyond belief. It is like passing a law criminalizing people who expose child abuse in order to protect the child abusers or a law to criminalize people exposing drug abuse in order to protect the income of the drug dealers only it is even worse because the enormity of the suffering endured by these animals dwarfs into insignificance the suffering caused by drugs and child abuse.

Marie Duckford > Janet Allan

27 Sep 2019

'ethical individuals' do not break into other peoples property.... I doubt you'd be happy for them to wander into your place at will... especially if you have kids who like playing outside...

Kristen Blakers

16 Sep 2019

I think these changes are fantastic and are most definitely needed. Invading farms does nothing to prevent animal cruelty and in many cases causes more distress to the animals. Majority of farmers do the right thing and have their animals best interests at heart. These so called activists need to reassess what they are doing and choose a more effective and productive method.

Why Say-It > Kristen Blakers

18 Sep 2019

You got any Science to back up your suggestion, that:
- farm visitors (I'm being neutral here) "invade" OR
- in many cases - cause more distress to the animals OR
- does Nothing to prevent animal cruelty
Disclaimer: I'm Not 1 of the visitors you refer to, nor have I been

You'd be happy for Volunteer CFS firefighters risk Life to out farm fires

So, support:

+ OPENING "Closed" farms to Animal-Advocates' Photo-
/Video-ing, so they+we can see "SA's Great Farming Live"

Sell Live VideoFeeds to Schools, etc. as farm Income-Stream

Or, making it so, that 24x7 web-cams can be steered & views
can be enjoyed - by anyone - across the Internet. (A message:
eg: Call xx xxxx xxxx w/Loc.# yyy-yyy if you see any animal(s)
needing aid")

Many of us got a lot of pleasure from visits to farms, when our
neighborhood farmer(s) invited us (Sometimes, also got to pick
fruit & make & taste, eg,fresh apple-cider!).

Leave your negativity behind & embrace the Humanity-Focused
mind-set currently being promo'd by Entrepreneur Andrew Yang:

+ www.Yang2020.com/policies/

He's pretty nerdy (opposite of Trump: "An Asian, who likes MATH,
where MATH = "Make [Australia] Think Harder") ;~)

Eg:

+ https://www.yang2020.com/policies/nuclear-energy/

mentions: MSRs due ~2030, ie: Thorium-fueled (Molten Salt) Reactors
The ones that SA's NFC Royal Commission REFUSED to consider.

PS Today, Canada's Nuclear Lab has at least 2 SMR's signed to build their prototypes on CNL's licensed facilities (1 is Canada's own MSR designer).

It's Not too late for AU to END THE 1999 Nuclear Energy BAN, & join
Sweden, France & Ontario at the Top 3 LOW-Carbon Footprint lands.

(Cf app ElectricityMap" to compare SA, Qld, NSW, etc. to SE, FR, & CA)

Marie Duckford > Kristen Blakers

27 Sep 2019

So if these random strangers wander into your home and property, without an invitation from you, that you would see them as welcome 'visitors', rather than invaders?... Would you feel the same if your kids were confronted in their backyard by these 'visitors'?.... Do you have a business? Would you be happy for a random group of people off the street to wander in, checking what you're doing, telling you what you should do differently, damaging any of your equipment they deem to be dangerous or offensive to them personally?