- Home
- Hansard & Papers
- Legislative Assembly
- 1 December 2005
Protection of Agricultural Production (Right to Farm) Bill
Printing Tips |
Print selected text
| Full Day Hansard Transcript
« Prior Item |
Item 6 of 54
| Next Item »
Page: 20515
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 23 March 2005.
Mr ANDREW FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [11.12 a.m.]: I support the bill. Any member who represents a growing country electorate on the North Coast or South Coast should have no hesitation in supporting this bill. It specifies that a contract of sale for land in a country area must have attached to it a note acknowledging that the neighbouring landholders may be farmers. How many times do people buy a block of land on the North Coast for a lifestyle purpose and then find that calves make a noise when they are weaned, irrigation systems make a noise when they are switched on and covers for crops for bird protection, et cetera, reflect the sun and create inconvenience for the purchaser? People then go to the local council to try to stop their neighbour from practising a normal rural activity. They want to remove the right of farmers to farm, which they have done for generations in many cases. Many people tend to think that farming is an idyllic lifestyle, but immediately after purchasing a lifestyle property they want to stop an activity that has been taking place for generations.
A major industry in the Bombala area these days is pine plantations. When tree-changers buy a five-acre block the first thing they want to do is stop timber companies planting pines on the property next door because they do not like the look of it. Aesthetically it is not what they want. Therefore, they go to the council, make objections, and undertake a legal process to try to stop timber companies from planting the area with a renewable resource which provides hundreds of jobs in the area. We come up against this problem day in and day out in fast-growing regional areas, be they on the North Coast or on the South Coast. It is imperative that the Parliament send a signal that people have a right to farm.
Calves being weaned make a noise, and people who buy five-acre or concessional blocks should acknowledge that they are prepared to accept that as part of the rural lifestyle. As part of the tree-change attitude they should be prepared to accept farming activities. This legislation will give farmers the opportunity to continue to farm the way they do. We could speak for hours on the nuances of the bill, which provides a simple right. The legislation sends a simple message that farmers have a right to farm. We welcome people who choose to live the rural lifestyle on a rural residential block. However, they must understand that spraying chemicals, weaning calves, irrigating, and covering crops are part and parcel of a farming lifestyle, and they should acknowledge that fact when they purchase rural residential blocks. I urge honourable members to support the bill.
Mr NEVILLE NEWELL (Tweed—Parliamentary Secretary) [11.16 a.m.]: At the outset I indicate that the title of this bill is somewhat misleading. The provisions of the bill introduced by the honourable member for Ballina are different from those in similarly titled legislation operating in other countries. Generally, the right to farm legislation seeks to protect farmers from complaints about their environmental performance. However, this bill proposes that rural land use notices be given to purchasers of land adjoining or adjacent to rural land. Unfortunately, this intention of the bill is totally misguided. The right to farm legislation does not deliver the security desired by farmers or the environmental and amenity outcomes desired by the community. Both Western Australia and Tasmania have introduced similar Acts and they have not been successful.
Mr Thomas George: Who wrote that rubbish?
Mr NEVILLE NEWELL: I will move on in a moment—the honourable member should not worry. One must ask why the honourable member for Ballina has not learnt from mistakes made in the other States. The bill introduces more paperwork and obligations for local government. However, it will do nothing to prevent land use conflict or the loss of good agricultural land to urban development. I emphasise that point for the honourable member for Coffs Harbour, the honourable member for Ballina and perhaps even the honourable member for Upper Hunter.
Mr George Souris: I will speak for myself, if that is all right with you.
Mr NEVILLE NEWELL: In case the honourable member for Upper Hunter did not hear me, I repeat: the bill will do nothing to prevent land use conflict or the loss of good agricultural land to urban development. That is what we should be looking at. For instance, we have land use conflicts in the Tweed electorate, and they occur also in the electorates of members opposite, particularly in electorates on the coast. The Tweed probably has one of the highest growth rates; it is a very urbanised area and land use conflicts do arise. For many year people saw the potential for land use conflicts to occur; such conflicts have not suddenly arisen. For instance, there are land use conflicts in relation to farmland in Cudgen. Problems arise because The Nationals want the land to be subdivided even further. They want good agricultural land. It is probably some of the most productive land in Australia—
Ms Katrina Hodgkinson: Do you own it?
Mr NEVILLE NEWELL: No, I do not have a vested interest, for the benefit of the honourable member for Burrinjuck, but I do have a vested interest both as the local member and as a person who wants to see some of these land use conflicts resolved, and who wants to see agricultural land remain as farmland. I want to see agricultural land continue in production. I remind the House of the example of the Cudgen farmland. Members of The Nationals—one of whom would not declare her own interest in this farmland when she was on council and was reprimanded quite strongly for trying to sell it off for development—want it to be subdivided for residences and for other commercial purposes. Certain members of Parliament and party organisations have done very little in the past to protect agricultural land.
Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Marianne Saliba): Order! The honourable member for Coffs Harbour will cease interjecting.
Mr NEVILLE NEWELL: The honourable member for Ballina acknowledged at the end of his second reading speech that this bill seeks to clarify what the existing law already provides. Most members do their homework before they seek to introduce a bill into the House. The systems already in place are more effective at avoiding land use conflict. The Government is encouraging strategic land use planning to identify agricultural land use zones and to use planning mechanisms for its protection. The Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources is also implementing a wide variety of planning reforms which include the development of agricultural sector strategies and revised local environmental plans by councils.
Mr Andrew Fraser: You do not have anyone doing that.
Mr NEVILLE NEWELL: We have three good administrators who are doing a fine job and looking after farmers as well—and that is much more than the previous Nationals-dominated council on the Tweed was ever able to do. Strategic planning that identifies agricultural land and mechanisms for its protection will have far greater success than this right-to-farm bill. Strategies have to be put in place to identify agricultural land. Councils do not need to stand over departmental officials trying to get them to change their rulings on agricultural land. Councils do not need to stand over other representatives and try to bully their way into subdivisions. We must have a strategic plan that identifies agricultural land and mechanisms for its protection, and that is why the sort of program we are putting in place will have a much greater success than this right-to-farm bill.
I agree with what members opposite are trying to achieve in a broader sense but I do not agree with the way they are going about it. I wish I could come to the conclusion that they are genuinely trying to achieve an outcome, rather than kite flying. I am not interested in kite flying; I want to see success. I want to see things done to ensure that the little remaining agricultural land stays as agricultural land rather than be put under pressure from developers and others who see it as superannuation and consequently want to subdivide it so they can capitalise on it. We want that land to stay as farming land. That is where a right to farm farmland is important, so that it not just left for people who want to treat it as superannuation further down the track. We need to go that little step further and loop our planning into the system to ensure that we do protect our farmland.
The State Government will continue with its strategic and carefully planned reforms that will lead to long-term and sustainable results. Rather than ad hoc rezoning of land, which usually results in more land use conflict, we have to ensure landowners in those zones respect the agreed planning rules relevant to their land and do not seek to undermine them. However well-intentioned, this bill will do nothing to achieve the honourable member for Ballina's stated aims. That approach is symptomatic of a party that lacks policies, strategies or, in this case, sound research. Perhaps the honourable member should seek to properly inform himself of the existing statutes before he further wastes the time of this House.
Mr GEORGE SOURIS (Upper Hunter) [11.24 p.m.]: It is with pleasure that I support my colleague the honourable member for Ballina in his presentation of this bill. This is an issue he has held close to his heart for many years. It is an issue he has had to confront particularly in the growth area that he represents, but it is also an issue that enlivens debate from many quarters, including my electorate of Upper Hunter, where I have encountered numerous examples of the issue that this bill seeks to confront. I was taken aback by the contribution of the honourable member for Tweed, who was disingenuous in the extreme. His claim that he would prefer and would seek legislation that would codify land use well beyond the present argument, but that he could not support this bill even though it went down a path that he professes to admire, is hypocritical, contradictory and disingenuous. The contribution by the honourable member—a member of the Labor Party who represents a country electorate—will not go down well in his electorate.
The essence of the legislation is to use knowledge and understanding to avoid conflict about land use. Such conflict can be prevented easily with information and notification of intending purchases. It is nonsense to suggest that local government would incur additional paperwork, because the legislation would simply require the placement of a notation on an existing certificate issued by local government. However, the bill seeks to resolve land use disputes by preventing them, which would save local government some of the considerable paperwork that it is already dealing with at great cost to its ratepayers. This bill seeks to reduce paperwork and to reduce the cost encountered by ratepayers. An intending purchaser who is given information that clearly identifies the existing agricultural use cannot subsequently say that impacts experienced after purchase were previously unanticipated, were not notified, were not expected, or were contrary to what ought to have occurred. This legislation is a way of protecting existing agricultural land use by preventing the argument that a new purchaser has encountered unexpected impacts from existing land use.
Time prevents me from referring to the many examples of land use conflict that I am aware of. A Cessnock timber miller whose family has milled timber for more than 100 years is encountering arguments from city people who have purchased small acreages on which they want to establish country guesthouses where they can enjoy tea and chardonnay in the afternoon. They argue that the timber mill should cease operation because it might create noise or be seen from nearby verandahs. That is seriously unfair. The intending purchaser should have been informed that an existing timber milling land use operation had been continuing for more than 100 years and that this land use right would be protected and defended should there be any dispute. It is a prior, existing, long-term, traditional use, and the weight of argument would rest prima facie with that existing land use and the existing landholder, not with the intending purchaser who claims impacts were not in existence when he or she was considering the purchase.
In the interests of brevity and to benefit other honourable members who wish to speak, I conclude my remarks. I commend the honourable member for Ballina for his foresight in introducing this legislation. I commend the bill. If Government members are genuine about the right to farm and about existing land use rights, the overwhelming force of their argument supports the bill.
Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Steve Whan.
Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.
Last modified 05/12/2007 16:41:51 : Update this page