Deputy prime minister Barnaby Joyce and the NSW government have considered stripping the charitable status of animal rights groups that trespass on farm land in attempts to expose animal mistreatment, new documents reveal.



The federal and NSW governments have been hosting a series of joint roundtable meetings with the animal industry to discuss farm trespass by animal rights activists.

A common and effective tactic to catch out mistreatment of animals by farm industry bodies is for activists to trespass on farm land and undertake surveillance of the farm. This footage can then be passed on to news organisation and broadcast more widely to distribute serious allegations of abuse. Similar tactics were used to expose the greyhound racing scandal in NSW.

Documents obtained under NSW access to information laws by state Greens MP Mehreen Faruqi reveal hostility to these animal rights groups and the federal and state government’s apparent support of farming groups to fight them. Faruqi said the documents showed the state and federal government were “hell bent on gagging any debate on animal welfare”.

The documents suggest that the joint governmental working group sees little legitimacy in the role of animal welfare and protest groups who obtain footage of wrongdoing and mistreatment of animals on farms.



The national plan states that “there are serious questions around the merits of this approach as an effective method of promoting good animal welfare and achieving improvements in those facilities which are truly substandard”.



At a roundtable meeting in August 2015, attended by Joyce, the NSW primary industries minister Niall Blair, NSW Police, the RSPCA and industry groups including NSW Farmers, the group discussed a range of options aimed at cracking down on animal rights activists.

In a section titled “findings from the roundtable” it cites as one of several tactics revoking tax benefits for animal rights groups. Some animal welfare groups are listed as charities which grants them certain tax benefits.

The report suggests that the government should consider stripping them of this charitable status if they are supporting animal rights activists who engage in trespass activities.

“Where there are organisations supporting animal activists in their activities, these organisations often derive significant taxation benefits from their recognition as charities, yet often appear to have other dominant purposes for existing,” the report states.

“For example, it may be possible to establish that the main purpose of the organisation is political rather than charitable and seek a determination as to whether this may be grounds to terminate its charitable status.”

The report later recommends seeking advice from the NSW department of justice on a raft of other civil and criminal laws that could be enlisted to support farmers and stymie activists.

Among the other options canvassed by the group are:

that the NSW government “review the adequacy of penalties” for inclosed lands trespass offences;

encouraging farmers to engage in legal action, and providing “information packs to farmers on launching civil action” for intentional trespass and nuisance;

making it easier to prosecute animal rights activists by altering how evidence can be gathered under covert listening devices laws and increase the statute of limitations for certain offences;

asking police to train farmers in surveillance tactics to monitor potential animal rights activists. It states they will “work with industry and police to facilitate training on best practice on-farm surveillance methods”;

suggested tactics for farmers also include ensuring that a “balanced story” is presented to the community to “disenfranchise the activists from their ‘shock value’ tactics”. It recommends that they “humanise” trespass to “create a supportive united front to discredit tainted or biased information”.

Faruqi said the revelations surrounding targetingcharitable status were a shocking attack on animal rights groups.

“These are the very groups that have helped expose horrific animal abuse in the live export trade, greyhound racing and other commercial industries – cruelty that would never have otherwise come to light,” she said.



“That ministers Joyce and Blair are even contemplating this radical step is outrageous. Instead of addressing community concerns about the treatment of animals and bringing an end to factory farm cruelty, the government wants to keep the public in the dark.

“Just last year we saw the NSW government pass ag-gag laws by stealth under the guise of biosecurity. Targeting the charity status of animal groups is undoubtedly phase two of the NSW government’s obsessive war against the animal protection movement.”

A spokeswoman for the deputy prime minister said the federal government was concerned about an escalation in illegal farm invasions.

“Animal cruelty is against the law and the Coalition government does not condone animal cruelty. Evidence of acts of animal cruelty should be provided to the relevant enforcement authority for proper investigation,” she said.

“Taxpayers would not support the concept of subsidising the operations of organisations that wilfully break the law through tax breaks.

“Animal welfare organisations that claim charitable tax status should be able to demonstrate the funds donated to them go to support bona fide charitable activities.”

Joyce is a strong proponent for defending farmers from intrusions by activists.

Comments attributed to Joyce in the action plan minutes state that “groups who wilfully break the law should be prosecuted”.

He continues: “There are established mechanisms to deal with animal welfare concerns, by reporting to competent authorities in respective states and territories, including the RSPCA and police. If laws are inadequate, there are open processes through the parliament to seek change to such laws. Vigilantism is not part of these legitimate processes.

“As minister, I am concerned to ensure that the voices of producers and industry are heard in the court of public opinion, to balance the ‘moral high ground’ so often captured unfairly by the activists in some sections of the community if industry remains silent.”

A spokeswoman for Niall Blair, the NSW minister for primary industries, said: “The NSW government is committed to ensuring that farmers who treat their animals in a lawful and responsible manner are permitted to carry out their business undisturbed by the unlawful actions of animal activists.”

Although the report claims that animal rights activists have not had an impact on public debate, there have been a succession of stories over the past 20 years that have forced major changes to animal welfare practices.

In 1999 the ABC broadcast shocking footage depicting the possum slaughter process taking place at a Tasmanian meat processing known as Lenah Games Meat.

The footage was supplied to Animal Liberation Ltd who passed it on to the ABC.

The meat processing plant went to court to prevent the ABC publishing the footage. The case led to a landmark high court decision in which the court declined to recognise a new action for breach of privacy, and was a major victory for animal rights groups that pass on covertly obtained footage to news organisations in order to publicise the treatment of animals.

The NSW government has introduced a range of measures to combat environmental protest groups over the last two years, particularly for animal rights groups.

They attracted considerable controversy for introduced what are known as “ag gag” laws to increase penalties and outlaw undercover activities by activists.

Contact Paul Farrell securely using the Signal messaging app on +61 457 262 172 or using the Guardian’s Securedrop server