Grievance Debate

Agriculture Sector

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (15:27): I will be taking a few minutes of the chamber's time to talk about agricultural land use, where adjoining land uses are sometimes in conflict and the challenges that creates. I am not alone in this chamber in having been contacted by several landowners, including Mr Peter Grocke and Mr and Mrs Charles and Kirstin Teusner, who are concerned about the impact of land uses adjoining their broadacre operations.

In a broadacre sense, adjoining farms actually work quite well. People respect each other, there are rules about spraying operations, drift issues are controlled, and it works. However, where you have adjoining properties where conflicting land uses occur and management practices are challenged because of their not being supportive of each other, it has created some significant problems. Indeed, it is putting some significant financial pressure upon those property owners.

I have been to Mr Grocke's property, as I have been to Mr and Mrs Teusner's property. I have spoken to them and inspected what it is, and they have quoted examples of where, in a broadacre sense, they would normally spray to control weeds. With an adjoining broadacre farmer it would not impact upon them but, because vines are planted in the adjoining property, it is impossible because they run the risk of being sued. This is a real risk because, as part of the controls over the spraying operations, it talks about distances to adjoining crops and different styles.

He has taken an appropriate response because he is concerned about being sued, but his appropriate response is actually making it very challenging for him to have a viable financial operation when it comes to his broadacre farm—and that is what worries me. It has left him unable to ensure that the maximum benefit is achieved from his property. For our state's economy to be strong we need to ensure that farming is able to prosper and that farmers are able to work diligently to ensure that their yields are up and then, depending on what prices they might get for it, they get the best possible return.

By association, our economy is strong from it. I am aware that there is a working group that is involved in pursuing this. I have posed questions through the chief of staff of the Department of Agriculture about it. I have had a response from a departmental officer that says the group has focused efforts to date on potential conflict between neighbouring primary producers over chemical use and, in particular, requirements for downwind no-spray zones when using certain herbicide sprays adjacent to sensitive crops such as grapevines.

That is a real issue, and from it comes the need to consider what buffers need to be in place and the interface management, which is one of the key things. My hope is that this working group which has been considering the matter for some time, but for which I am unable to obtain a copy of the terms of reference, which is frustrating, or a time line and expectation of reporting and actions, works diligently.

If I can use the example of Mr Grocke, he is very concerned about the fact that, at the moment, he is required to continue to farm in that area, but he cannot make a profit because of the management practices and challenges that are in front of him. He has sons who want to continue the operation, but those sons are at that desperate time now when they have to consider their future, which is likely to be in a different form of operation where they are removed from the farm, which is a tragedy.

I want this working group to report. I want the Minister for Planning, who I asked questions of during the debate on the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Bill, to be responsible for actions. I want the Minister for Agriculture, who I have also asked questions of as part of questions on notice, to be responsible for actions, and I want all those involved in the working group, which is made up of councils, the landcare group, Grain Producers SA and a wide variety of people who have skills in this area, to continue to work diligently to get the outcomes because these outcomes have to occur.

I know there are members in the other place who have spoken to Mr Grocke and Mr Teusner also. I know there are commitments that have been given as part of negotiations about a variety of things for actions to take place, from which nothing has occurred. I implore the government to work in respect of the fact that this needs to be taken care of and to ensure that, as part of development controls, adjoining property owners—who are not in an agricultural sense normally contacted, but in this case it is a significant change of land use—are given a chance to have input into it. If we do not have that, we will have people in far too many areas who see they have no future in agriculture.

I am from an agricultural area, and I want it to be strong, but controls need to be in place to ensure that, when diversification occurs—and I support the principle of that—if that diversification has such a dramatic impact upon an existing, long-term use of agricultural land in a broadacre sense, then really serious considerations have to be given to buffer distances and the interzones and interface between management practices.

I ask the government to work on this diligently. I hope there is an outcome within a reasonable time frame that gives not just Mr Grocke and Mr and Mrs Teusner an outcome that will assist them in ensuring that their farm remains within the family long term but, in all agricultural senses, gives a long-term commitment to give agriculture a future. If this does not happen, I have great fears about what the impact will be.