Landmark High Court challenge to Australia’s Ag-Gag Laws.

Animal rights activists have launched a landmark case in the High Court of Australia in a bid to overturn laws restraining secretly recorded footage of cruelty and abuse in slaughterhouses, arguing such ban had breached Australia’s implied right to freedom of political communication.

In New South Wales, the Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (“the Act”) criminalizes the use of footage or audio that was obtained using a listening device or hidden camera. However, there was no exemption even if the footage or audio was used for public-interest. In other words, even if the secretly recorded videos were to disclose animal mistreatment, they would not be allowed for usage. After the implementation of the Act, the laws have since been employed to pursue animal rights activists on criminal charges and even have prevented outlets such as The Guardian from publishing recorded footage of ex-racehorses being sent for slaughter at NSW pet food factories, despite being against industry rules.

The new laws have been described as ‘burdening the implied freedom of political communication’ and were “not compatible with the system of representative and responsible government established by the constitution”. In normal cases, use of footage or audio obtained using a listening device or hidden camera should be criminalized to protect privacy, yet there should be public-interest exemption when it is for the better good of the community, especially when animals could not voice out for themselves when they are maltreated.

The bid is now being heard in the High Court of Australia. If successful, the NSW laws would be held unconstitutional and invalid. Animal rights activist, Farm Transparency Project Executive Director, and website designer of aussiepigs.com, Chris Delforce said the case had broader implications outside NSW: -

“Challenging the constitutional validity of one such law is the only way to stop them once and for all…If the new NSW laws are held to be invalid, it would be very difficult for other places to ban the usage of secretly recorded vision of cruelty and abuse in slaughterhouses.”

However, Ag-Gag laws (laws punishing whistleblowers and undercover activists for recording footage of what goes on in animal agriculture) have raised complex problems for more mainstream animal rights groups. The RSPCA, for example, is opposed to using unlawful means, such as trespass and covert recording, to champion animal welfare. Yet it argued that the laws would not help but simply generate distrust within the community and is counterproductive in providing greater social legitimacy to the actions of activists.

In his judgment in the High Court case of Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd (2001) 208 CLR 199,8 Voiceless Patron and former Justice of the High Court of Australia the Hon. Michael Kirby, defended the media’s use of surveillance footage obtained by animal activists on public interest grounds:

“Parliamentary democracies, such as Australia, operate effectively when they are stimulated by debate promoted by community groups. To be successful, such debate often requires media attention. Improvements in the condition of circus animals, in the transport of live sheep for export and in the condition of battery hens followed such community debate.”

It is indeed odd that NSW has not incorporated any public-interest exemption to the laws. Although the Federal government had passed tough new penalties for anyone who incited trespass, property damage or theft on agricultural land in 2019, the government specifically introduced exemptions for journalists and whistleblowers, recognizing the importance of reporting on animal cruelty.

Delforce, who has been prosecuted under the NSW law, said the High Court action was crucial in bringing transparency to the sector. “We’ve had enough – these industries need more transparency, not less,” he said. “The animals suffering in our nation’s farms, slaughterhouses and knackeries deserve to have their stories told, and the Australian public deserves the opportunity to hear them.”

The Farm Transparency Project is now crowdfunding to finance the case.

Courtesy of Kelly Ma

Main Source: The Guardian