- Home
- Hansard & Papers
- Legislative Assembly
- 6 April 2006
Protection of Agricultural Production (Right to Farm) Bill
Printing Tips |
Print selected text
| Full Day Hansard Transcript
« Prior Item |
Item 6 of 44
| Next Item »
Page: 22256
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 30 March 2006.
Mr ANDREW STONER (Oxley—Leader of The Nationals) [11.11 a.m.]: It gives me great pleasure to support the Protection of Agricultural Production (Right to Farm) Bill. This is another outstanding private member's bill from a member of The Nationals—in this case the Deputy Leader of The Nationals, the honourable member for Ballina, Don Page. Over many years members of The Nationals have been listening to their constituents in rural areas, particularly their farming constituency, in relation to the right to farm. The issue has grown in importance with the recent sea change and tree change phenomena, as they are called by the social demographers. People from urban or metropolitan environments are moving into rural environments because they love the feel of living in country New South Wales. But often they are unaware of what it is like to live in the country. In particular, they are unaware of the operations of farms surrounding or neighbouring the properties they purchase.
All too often members in country electorates receive complaints from both sides of the argument. The former urban dweller who has moved into the area may complain about the noise of a tractor starting early in the morning, roads having cattle dung on them that splashes up and dirties their vehicle, or animals such as roosters making a noise. These issues affect the quality of life of the new residents. On the other side of the argument, the farmers make the valid point: "We were here first. This is a legitimate agricultural activity. These tractors, animals or chemicals are part and parcel of our earning a living on the land." Because this issue has grown in importance The Nationals have introduced this very sensible and practical bill to try to resolve these conflicts.
The Protection of Agricultural Production (Right to Farm) Bill is really based on the premise of let the buyer beware. Potential buyers of rural properties should be aware of the existence of agricultural production in their neighbourhood. The bill will ensure this by providing for rural land use notices to be given to purchasers of land adjoining or adjacent to rural land, and for those notices to be taken into account in any subsequent proceedings by such purchasers who might seek to limit or prohibit the use of that rural land for rural purposes. So it is really quite a simple process. Councils will issue the notices to potential purchasers as part of the normal property purchase process so that problems do not arise.
Just this week the honourable member for Orange told me that the Western Central Daily reported the case of a farmer at Spring Hill, 12 kilometres from Orange, who, after a complaint from a neighbour, was ordered by police to stop baling hay at night. The police officer said he felt fairly low about having to do it but under the present law he was compelled to issue the order. That is a recent case in the Central West. A case in my electorate involved people from the city who liked the rural lifestyle, so moved to the country and bought a nice, shiny four-wheel drive—even though the roads in the area were paved.
Dairy cattle in the area have, of course, to cross roads to get from one paddock to the other or to go to the milking shed each night. If there are substantial herds of dairy cattle, which farmers have to have since deregulation, droppings will be deposited on the road. When the new country squire in his nice, shiny four-wheel drive splashes through the fresh manure it goes all over the car, and of course he complains that the cows should not be on the road. I have had many such complaints.
People buying into an area should understand that cattle crossing the road are part of a legitimate farming practice and anyone living in that part of the world must accept it. So let the buyer beware. Let land use notices be issued to remove the potential for conflict and to protect farmers in their legitimate pursuit of making an honest living off the land. The notices would do a lot for harmonious relationships between neighbours in country areas, whether they come from the city or the country. Farmers need to spray their crops and weeds. People may not want to live next door to a property where chemicals are used and if they know about the operations on the property before buying they may look elsewhere. That is really the point of the bill.
I commend the bill to the House. It is very practical and it has the support of the New South Wales Farmers Association, which has been pursuing the right-to-farm issue for many years. The bill is also supported by many councils. The Port Macquarie-Hastings Shire has its own right-to-farm policy. This bill would formalise it and achieve consistency across the State. I look forward to the support of all country-based members for this very sensible measure. Any member hailing from non-metropolitan New South Wales would have to agree that this proposal is not only sensible but necessary to deal with an emerging issue and support our farmers, who have had a pretty rough trot with drought, the pressures of global trade, and increased costs for fuel, fertiliser and so on.
This is a little measure of support, and I certainly hope that all country-based members will support it. I would be extremely surprised if the Labor Government opposed this bill. There is no valid reason to oppose it and it would be sheer bloody-mindedness to do so. It would be another demonstration to rural communities, which already feel disenfranchised by this Government, of its Sydney-centric philosophy. I commend the bill to the House and look forward to the support of all honourable members.
Mr THOMAS GEORGE (Lismore) [11.21 a.m.]: I support the Protection of Agricultural Production (Right to Farm) Bill, which was introduced by the honourable member for Ballina, the Deputy Leader of The Nationals, Don Page. I place on record my congratulations to him and thank him for dealing with this age-old and major problem in country areas. A number of speakers, primarily from this side of the House, have contributed to the debate and raised concerns that are a constant issue in country and regional New South Wales.
The intention of the bill is to give landholders who reside on land zoned as rural across New South Wales the right to carry out legitimate activities permitted within that zone without harassment or complaints from neighbours. The most common complaints relate to noise, dust, odours and chemical sprays. The matter is addressed by requiring a vendor under a contract for sale of land adjoining or adjacent to rural land to attach a rural land use notice to the contract. A notice is to be issued by the local council and attached to the contract before it is signed by or on behalf of the purchaser. If such a notice is attached, the purchaser is taken to have been given the appropriate notice.
The bill also provides that a rural land use notice can be issued as part of any other notice issued by a council in relation to a proposed land sale. This means that it is possible for a council to issue the notice as part of, for example, a section 149 certificate. This will help reduce costs to councils. This is not a guarantee of the types of activities that can or cannot be undertaken on a neighbouring rural property, but, rather, advice about its current rural use. The notice is proof that the purchaser has been advised that his or her neighbour is located on rural-use land and undertakes associated rural activities.
We hear of people making sea changes or tree changes. They move from the city and purchase land in country or coastal areas. I recently received a complaint from a landholder who purchased an old mill site at Grevillia. The purchaser was very critical of the fact that the mill had been left in a poor state of repair. He was also very critical of his neighbours because they run cattle, and—guess what?—the cattle go down to the creek for a drink of water. He objected to his neighbours letting their cattle walk into the water to get a drink. I asked him where else they were going to drink, and he said he did not know but that they should not be polluting the creek. I told him he had a lot to learn and pointed out that he had bought rural land and that he might think about whether he expected every farmer to stop letting cattle go to the water to drink, which they have been doing since forever.
Concerns have also been expressed to me about the macadamia industry. Many farmlets of one, two or four hectares have been subdivided from original landholdings and sold off. People buy these farmlets and when they move onto the land they hear a tractor start up. What is that noise? It is a tractor, believe it or not! They ask why their neighbours are working at all hours. Did not these people see the macadamia trees everywhere around them and realise that a processing industry operated on adjoining properties?
If they are disturbed by the tractor, they will certainly be disturbed by the harvest! After macadamias have been harvested they are taken to sheds on the property and dehusked. That creates a problem for the new landholder. No-one told him that the shed was there and that that was what went on. The landholder goes to the council, the local member and the Environment Protection Authority to complain about the noise generated by the industry next door to his recently purchased property. The council then tries to resolve the issue. An innocent party has bought a two-hectare block in the middle of a long-established macadamia processing area, and the council is caught in the middle. When the new landholder inspected the property before purchasing it, there was no noise. All of a sudden, when he moved in it became a problem.
A landholder wrote to me about an industrial estate. Honourable members might wonder whether this is relevant to the debate. Industrial estates in most towns are designed to centralise particular activities. The landholder said he bought land adjacent to an industrial estate but did not think there would be a problem because the neighbouring shed was used by a removalist as a storage facility. Unfortunately, the removalist sold the shed to a steel fabrication business. The landholder was caught out because he bought his property on the basis that the shed was opened only two or three times a week and he was landed with a steel fabrication business that operated six days a week. People sometimes purchase properties not knowing the local area. They are unaware of what is happening in the neighbourhood. I strongly believe that this bill will allow buyers to be made aware of what they are purchasing.
Similar problems happen in country New South Wales around saleyards. Land around the old saleyards at Casino was sold for housing development. People who have moved in over the past five years have started complaining about the noise generated during sales at the yards, which have been there for about 60 or 70 years. One person wrote to the newspaper stating that their baby learnt to say "moo" before it learnt to say "dad". Honourable members might laugh, but that sort of thing happens when people purchase properties when they are unaware of associated activities. The noise might not be coming from an adjoining property. If the new landholder's property is adjacent to a valley, some unbearable noise could come from two kilometres away.
Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.
Last modified 05/12/2007 16:31:21 : Update this page