PARLIAMENT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Contact us | Advanced search |   search
  1. Home
  2. Hansard
  3. Legislative Assembly by date
  4. 17th October 1991

North Coast Agricultural Industries

Printing Tips | Print selected text | Full Day Hansard Transcript | « Prior Item | Item 26 of 99 | Next Item »


About this Item
BusinessBusiness of the House
NORTH COAST AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES


    Mr D. L. PAGE (Ballina) [3.7]: I raise a grievance of great concern to my electorate and the North Coast generally. It involves a complex planning issue related to the future of agriculture on the North Coast, competition between rural residential and agricultural land, and the threat to the agricultural base from the rapidly increasing population in that part of the world. To give honourable members an idea of the importance of agriculture on the North Coast, I point out that this year the industry will generate $650 million worth of production in the horticulture, beef cattle and dairying industries; and if one adds to that the nursery industry, another $100 million is involved. That makes a total of almost $800 million worth of production. That production is being achieved from only 10 per cent of the land mass of the North Coast region. Significantly, if rural residential development continues to be allowed on prime agricultural land, the future viability of agriculture will be drastically threatened. If there were a 1 per cent reduction in the 10 per cent land mass of which I spoke, conceivably at least $80 million or $90 million would be removed from the potential of the region to earn income from the agricultural sector.

    As with all rural industries, the success of agriculture is dependent on a number of variables: seasonal conditions, market forces and the general economic climate, which are not good at the moment. However, the North Coast region is unique in the sense that it is subtropical and has its own special problems with pests and disease. Recently, as people have become increasingly disillusioned with life in the cities, more and more people have moved to the area I represent, which includes Ballina and Byron Bay. They are putting a lot of pressure on the existing land. Many of them have moved there because they want to experience a new, semi rural lifestyle. There has been a tremendous increase in horticultural activities, particularly part-time horticulture by people who earn their primary source of income from things other than horticulture.

    Any review of the future of agriculture on the North Coast, particularly on the far North Coast, must note the rapidly expanding horticulture industry. However, that expansion is adjacent to and often intermingled with a rapidly expanding non- horticultural rural population. The outcome of this is conflict over land use and related issues, such as the use of pesticides. It is interesting to note that although urban planners for years have identified the need for industrial enterprises to be grouped in industrial estates and urban encroachment prevented in order that these industries can function without disruption, until recently agricultural industries in the main have not been subject to any planning controls. Very little consideration has been given to the possible impact of houses being built in close proximity to farming activities such as piggeries and orchards. Many farmers in the past have felt secure in the fact that it is their right to farm and that no new settler on a neighbouring block could interfere with their farming activities. However, the continuing pressure of land subdivision has meant that that conflict is likely to increase rather than diminish, I am sad to say, in the foreseeable future.

    The North Coast is the fastest growing area in New South Wales, other than western Sydney. Between 1981 and 1989, the North Coast experienced a 16.2 per cent
    Page 2549
    population increase. It is expected that this growth will continue. This means that land for development, whether as part of a town or for rural residential living, will continue to be at a premium. Land suitable for urban residential development is limited in supply, and in many cases, particularly in the Alstonville plateau area, that land is also good quality agricultural land. Land valuers see this link, and, as a result, a lot of suitable land on the edge of major centres is valued and rated as though it had urban potential. To break this nexus, prime agricultural land must be regarded as unsuitable for urban development because it already has a use; the use of agriculture.

    There are some very important arguments in support of this approach. Good agricultural land, as I indicated, is at a premium and constitutes only 10 per cent of the land mass in that region. I mentioned the economic argument earlier in my remarks. The situation with residential dwellings in rural areas is even more complicated. Currently about 25 per cent of new dwellings in the North Coast region are located in rural areas. I think it is fair to say that some rural areas have been totally urbanised by this sort of development. Whilst it is true that this development is being directed to lower quality agricultural land, there are inevitable spillovers onto high quality land. There is constant pressure to disregard smaller areas of high quality land and permit residential development on them. Inevitably, subdivisions in rural areas increase land values and the associated increases in local government rates have become a major factor in undermining the viability of North Coast agriculture.

    The servicing of rural dwellings is expensive for all levels of government. Some of the prime servicing costs relate to road maintenance, water provision, school buses and postal services. Obviously, the cost and environmental impact of servicing dispersed settlement is higher per head of population than in urban areas. If settlement of the region continues with the current emphasis on rural-residential living, the main consequence would be the incremental loss of the very features that attracted new settlers in the first place; there would be a loss of rural character, a loss of natural beauty and damage to the natural environment. It also has the potential to prevent agricultural use or at least to diminish the efficiency of agricultural enterprises. However, it must be recognised that some alienation of prime pasture and crop land is inevitable as a consequence of population growth and economic development. At the same time, the conversion of such land should take place only when fully justified and in an appropriate planning context, including an assessment of alternative sites. I believe that in the foreseeable future the basic unit of production in Australian agriculture will remain the family farm and that as much as possible land use policy should support and strengthen this structure. I would like now to make a few personal observations in general terms about this issue.

    Land use policy is not out of control, but if we do not address the issue the lifestyle that attracts people to the North Coast will not remain in the long term. I am talking of the next 50 years. It is true that we have some form of protection at the moment under the local environmental plans that the councils have drawn up by way of the different zonings that are created; for example, rural zoning. But we need a more sophisticated arrangement for differentiating between what is genuinely prime agricultural land and what is secondary land. We do not now have a firm basis for that.
    Page 2550
    In fact, we do not have a consistent policy about the process of determining land suitable for rural-residential development. For example, the approach of the Ballina shire is basically that every bit of land regarded as secondary agricultural land is available for rural subdivision, and the council will consider that application on its merits. That has the advantage of flexibility in that a case will be considered on its merits. When the neighbouring shire of Byron drew up its local environmental plan, it said, "There is a shire. We will allow rural-residential development in locations A, B and C. Nobody will be able to proceed with an application outside those areas". This inconsistency of approach needs to be addressed.

    I make an observation on the powers of council and the Department of Agriculture. I believe that the council should remain the main planning authority, but that it must continue to use the Department of Agriculture for advice on whether a rural-residential subdivision should proceed. A lot of people see the solution of the problem in right-to-farm legislation, which has been introduced in America but which has not been terribly successful. I am rather attracted to the concept of an existing use-rights presumption, which would go a long way towards protecting existing agricultural enterprises. In summary, we should be looking at a more sophisticated classification of agricultural land. We should be considering a rural-residential policy to protect prime agricultural land in the same way that we have developed a coastal policy to protect a prime asset on the New South Wales coastline.

         Contact us | Job opportunities | Site help | Copyright and conditions | Privacy | RSS feeds Parliament of NSW RSS feeds