Thank you for the replies.

The ag-gag laws seem to be only seriously considered in South Australia where legislation is before the house. The ACT has rejected them and the Victorian Premier has seemed to over rule his Agriculture minister to deny his government is considering this type of law.

The Victorian Farmers Federation president Peter Tuohey said farmers did not want anti-whistle-blower US-style ag-gag laws, just better biosecurity protection. “We don’t want to steer anywhere near the ag-gag stuff”
http://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/news/politics/premier-says-there-are-no-aggag-laws-before-the-state-government/story-fnkerdda-1227021913479

There is certainly the Nationals to contend with and Barnaby Joyce appears to be one of the driving forces behind the laws but is trying to get the states to introduce them rather than drive them through federally.

I can just see the big 'Ag-Gag Free' labels on food and consumer backlash may well have the supermarket chains dictating the ultimate fate of these laws.

Foxy, I am not suggesting that the Australian animal liberation groups have changed at all.
I was merely making a general statement about some of the members of these groups world wide.
If violence is involved then I lose interest in whatever cause is advocated.

To follow the 'logic' of some here it would be quite OK for them to use a drone to observe their neighbours, to trespass upon their land peeping in windows and enter their bedrooms under the cover of darkness to see if they are doing anything that might offend their beliefs or infringe the law (in my opinion!).

Vigilantes are fine and can do whatever they like it appears, providing they are trampling on the rights of others and infringing their privacy. Yay for kangaroo courts and string up anyone you disagree with, huh?

Contrary to what some here seem to believe, there is very little cruelty to animals by farmers. Any normal, reasonable person would expect and know that farmers care for their animals and to do otherwise would be counterproductive for them. On the other hand, names and industries have been smeared by activists who are not appointed by any lawful process and regard themselves as accountable to no-one. What a power trip to be able to impose their belief system upon us!

Leaving that to one side, principles and ethics (not to mention logic) must be very flexible(sic) to approve of surveillance and trespass (and 'outing'!) that the same supporters (of activism) would not approve of government itself being allowed to do, even where lives are at stake from criminals and terrorists.

End of my first para above should be "..or infringe the law (in their opinion!)".

Dear Suse,

Within any organisations there
will be some people who will react inappropriately -
to the given charter and mission statements
and goals of the organisation. This goes both for
the RSPCA and the Animal Libbers. Unfortunately,
there's always a few in every group that give
the others a bad name. As SteeleRedux has pointed out,
it will be interesting to see what happens with these laws
in the future.

Perhaps there is a need for a levy/GST style tax on all fresh food from animal products.

The proceeds from this tax can then go in to searching out and rectifying any food producer who is not toeing the so called line then, if they refuse then they have their license canceled. The remainder of the proceeds could then go to producers to assist them with the increased costs they will incurr in their businesses.

while it's all well and good for consumers to want better treatment of food animals, such treatment comes at a cost, and such costs should be met by the consumer because after all, Woolworths don't care, unless the cameras are rolling, and the farmers don't care all that much either, so the consumers could then make a choice between animal welfare and costs, because after all said and done, it's the consumers who are making the noise. So put up, or shut up!