Updated agriculture legislation in Victoria, Australia, has been interpreted as a ban on hunters and farmers sharing game meat with family and/or their community.
Liberal Democrats MP, Tim Quilty, a member of the legislative council heightened concerns about amendments to existing legislation after he shared a meme on Twitter, captioned:
“Article from the Weekly Times on the recent Ag Bill. Another case where both the Liberal and National Parties sided with the Government. The Liberal Democrats did not support this bill.”
The paywalled piece raised alarms with its claim that amended legislation banned ‘hunters from sharing their kills with friends and neighbours.’
Another article from ‘The Alexandra – Eildon – Marysville Standard’ also expressed concerns about the news.
Concerns about the amendments appear to be validated by the vague and shadowy way in which the legislation was communicated by the Andrews government.
This is evidenced by the Victorian Labor Party going to the unusual route of creating a Fact Sheet regarding the changes.
Called the ‘Agriculture Legislation Amendment Bill 2022,’ the purpose of the bill is described as an improvement on how the 1992 act operates in relation to inspection and enforcement powers.
The updated law tightens rules for authorities who force veterinary controls on the agriculture sector.
Such as finetuning permissions for authorities to enter and inspect properties, vehicles, aircraft, and vessels – ‘when considered reasonable to do so.’
Amendment 54H of the 1992 law permits open surveillance via drawing, audio, video, or photograph; 54AI empowers interrogation ‘at any reasonable time,’ and the removal of ‘at any reasonable time for analysis and examination samples or specimens of plant, chemical or animal.’
Part 12 of the 183-page legislation amends meat industry laws.
The legislation asserts a ‘ban on disposing and selling game meat for human consumption unless the meat is from, or processed by a licenced facility.’
Failure to comply with the law can result in a hefty 24-month gaol sentence.
On the whole, a good portion of the legislation seems to keep the original 1992 theme of a common-sense approach to the containment of disease outbreaks among livestock, and regulations on food handling, use, storage and transportation, of animals, and chemicals for crops.
However, upon inspection, there is zero doubt about the implications. These amendments come off as an arbitrary expansion of government power over the people. This alone ticks all the right boxes to justify concern.
Noting an exemption under section 35, the Victorian branch of Sporting Shooters Association of Australia, tried to allay concerns, dismissing the reports about the “hunter food ban” as misinformation.
In a statement posted June 2, the SSAA asserted, “We are pleased to confirm that Victorian hunters have nothing to worry about and that the Bill in question made no material changes that would impact recreational hunters.”
The organisation added, “The changes in question (to the Meat Industry Act 1993) were effectively ‘housekeeping’. New offences were introduced regarding the sale of meat for human consumption; however, these explicitly exclude game meat (an exemption order under section 35 of the Meat Industry Act 1993 applies).”
This sat alongside an ominous note from the SSAA, which acknowledged there were ‘serious challenges ahead.’
The SSAA took the opportunity to remind stakeholders (no pun intended) that there is a lot of grey around the issue of game meat.
SSAA encouraged hunters to continue to be mindful of food handling responsibilities, stating, ‘there is no excuse for negligence.’
“It has never been seriously suggested that hunters or fishers or farmers would ever be charged for simply sharing well-handled meat in social settings it remains inconceivable that any ever will be,” they asserted.
This could be read as the SSAA quietly telling hunters and farmers to take extra care because there are those in power who are itching for an excuse to remove the section 35 game meat exemption.
Despite SSAA’s reassurance and the “fake news” dismissal, concerns about governments “banning game meat” are grounded in reality.
New Zealand is working hard to end meat consumption by legitimising Climate Cult catastrophising through a move to tax (of all things) the burps of cows and sheep.
New Zealand’s “climate action” tax coincided with news from ABC Rural that “experts” have recommended fencing off dams to curb climate change.
Deakin researcher, Martino Malerbo, has recommended that dams be fenced because by preventing livestock from accessing water, farmers could reduce their “carbon footprint,” and thus save the climate.
ABC Rural shared the “new discovery” on June 7, quoting Malerbo, arguing, “Dams are big emitters. By fencing farm dams and excluding livestock from accessing the water; farmers could reduce methane emissions by more than half.”
Add onto this World Economic Forum subscribers telling us to stop eating meat, own nothing, be happy, and eat crickets instead – all while the A-lister drongos wave “rainbow” flags, power fist to Black Lives Matter, hit repeat on “safe and effective”, and grant themselves exemptions from any future “climate action lockdowns”.
Also, Victoria is one of the last places in Australia where Duck hunting hasn’t been outlawed, and the Greens, among others, aren’t still trying to ban it.
These examples legitimise concerns about where arbitrary power derived from seemingly benign amendments to legislation could lead.
COVID-19 teaches us that bad governments use fear to expand their reach into our lives.
It would be asinine not to consider how a “climate emergency” based on bad science, would be useful to power-hungry bureaucrats who want to further this reach.
Regardless of how benign the amendments to existing laws in Victoria appear, even the SSAA would have to agree that the restraint holding back government overreach regarding game meat is not as firm as it may appear to be.
“Vax or the axe mandates” grant governments a precedent to deny a man or woman the right to provide proper food for their family.
Thus, the impetus already exists for Australian states, supported by the nefarious far-left Teal and Greens parties to ban any means by which an Australian citizen may practice individual responsibility free from government interference.
If the goal is total government dependency, then hunting, and with it, self-sufficiency, could be a thing of the past.
Extreme caution over Labor tweaking current legislation, suggests the Victorian Labor government, now infamous for its unapologetic rape of civil liberties, is increasingly viewed by country Victorians as untrustworthy.
This isn’t unreasonable given (a) how close the Labor Party is to the anti-everything Australian, inner-city Green [Socialist] Party; and (b) how Labor bureaucrats – particularly the Premier – under the smokescreen of fear about COVID-19, hyped up by the government, and legacy media – handed themselves blank cheque emergency powers.
Importantly, we would be right to presume that Indigenous Australian hunter-gatherers would be considered exempt from any such hunting bans.
If so, we’d be well justified in reminding nanny state Australian governments: one law for all, or no law at all.
