1. Ms Hurst questions whether this Bill is focused on hunting given the evidence provided by NSW police.

Mr Hansen responds that this Bill is focused on "all trespass" not simply hunting or animal activism.

2. Ms Hurst responds by questioning whether this new bill will not have any impact on trespass given the lack of transparency in the animal agriculture industry.

Mr Whiteside responds that their response to all trespass is equal regardless of motivation.

3. Ms Hurst continues by asking whether this bill will stop animal cruelty being exposed.

Mr Whiteside responds by saying they must act in accordance with the law and report to the proper authorities.

4. Ms Hurst continues, questioning whether workers at animal agriculture facilities requesting animal activist groups to collect footage and evidence will be at risk of inciting trespass under the bill.

Mr Hansen responds that both the whistleblowers and activist groups should always refer back to the authorities, and concerns over incitement to trespass would be considered by a court of law.

Mr McKnight adds that this bill refers only to "aggravated" trespass, including issues relating to hindering the ability for the business to undertake their practice. He adds that by using the term "hinder" the court takes into account the plain English meaning of the word, and does not significantly expand from the current term of "interference. 

This is debated by the committee who suggest that it significantly "lowers the bar" and "broadens what is being captured with significantly higher penalties". Mr McKnight refutes this by saying it adds "colour" and "clarity".