NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (REVIEW) AMENDMENT BILL

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 3 May 2011.)

Clause 2.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: The reason that I would like to make a contribution on clause 2 is that it talks about the day that this act will come into operation and be fixed by proclamation. I have heard on the grapevine that, if the government sees that it is not going to make progress with this bill, it will actually be pulled.

I am trying to save us some time in here by informing the council that I believe that this bill should not proceed, and the reasons that I have for that are many. Our farmers and food producers are coming out of a period of poor seasons and are under enough pressure without adding further strains through government over-regulation through this particular bill. We can tell by the number of amendments that are being proposed to this review that we are making an effort to try to stick together a piece of bad legislation.

This is not working for farmers; it is not working for food growers. We have to take notice of the huge amount of contempt in our community against these initiatives. I was at the meeting in Strathalbyn where there were about 1,200 people, with hundreds of people turned away because there was not enough room in the hall. On that night there was an almost unanimous decision made by farmers with a show of hands that, if they were going to be forced to meter their dams, they would go to gaol before they would have their dams metered.

Primary producers in this country have saved our economic butt in Australia more than once and now they are being told that they must do more with less. Our farmers are being told that they will have to meter their dams; they will have to retrofit overflow bypass valves to their dams; they will be told how many head of stock they can run on their farms; they will be told that they need to fence off creeks that flow through their properties (at significant cost); be told they cannot have redfin perch in their dams and, if they do, they can be fined up to $125,000; be told that they are not allowed to maintain the health and function of their dams as they have done forever; and be told that they must plant on their properties prickly acacia bush (otherwise known as kerosene bush) and, as a result, if a bushfire occurs they will not be able to claim the damage on their insurance.

NRM officers say that is necessary to prevent kangaroos and livestock from damaging creek banks. In other words, this barricade will prevent stock from drinking water from the creeks that run through farming properties. The latest piece of information that I have received is that NRM officials could have the power to demand to see the financial records of farmers, which has usually been reserved for the Australian Taxation Office.

We know that the NRM plans to expand and that, through its levies, this is actually going to cost farmers around $38 million. This is a bureaucracy that, since inception in 2004, has grown rapidly as the respective boards seek to exert greater and greater control over farmers in their catchment. This is while PIRSA's influence and support for farmers wanes, with rural offices closing around the state as it seeks to become entirely cost-neutral to government. The various natural resources management boards are filling the vacancies. This is what happens when you give a bureaucracy a blank cheque, which we have effectively done by allowing natural resources management boards the right to set their own levies.

I am assuming that other members in this place are not aware of the existence of what is known as Agenda 21, or the implications of that international agreement, because it has never been mentioned in this or the other place. I implore members to research this and unravel the bureaucratic babble and doublespeak to decipher the true intention of what is already being enacted incrementally. This policy is written with as much flair as was the Copenhagen Agreement. Our Labor prime minister admitted that he was not familiar with the language and did not understand the content. It took a former policy adviser from the UK and a number of others from outside of government to explain to the people of Australia what that particular treaty would mean to the sovereignty of this great nation—and so it is with natural resources management.

I have a description here of what Agenda 21 actually means and it is not a pretty picture at all. We are enacting these particular policies through direction from the United Nations. We signed an agreement in 1992 in Rio at the Earth Summit. It was signed by prime minister Paul Keating and his government of the day. What we have basically done is committed to enacting United Nations policy in this country to restrict our farming and rural communities, our rights as citizens to live the life that we have known. Sustainable development does not mean anything like it sounds, let me assure you all. This is something that people must be aware of. We are being dictated to by the UN as to what is best practice for our farming.

This is from afar and it is not based on farming methods but on sustainability of the environment. Nowhere in that particular document is the welfare of human beings a concern of theirs. We are looking at a shrinking rural community. The rights of food producers and food growers are going to be trampled on and taken away.

I went to an event called Feast or Famine last week with the Hon. Bob Katter, and I can tell you that these initiatives are going to do nothing to enhance our ability to feed the world or even ourselves. I am asking that members of this house give due consideration to the fact that we have a farming community that is absolutely ready to rebel in force. They just simply are not going to take these restrictions and regulations that are being thrown at them.

As I read last night, in the United States now farmers have already had to deal with all these restrictions and they are walking off the land (as are our farmers) in droves. Very soon, they will be required to have licences to operate their farm machinery because their farm machinery is going to be reclassified as heavy machinery. Under those regulations, they will also be required to undergo random drug testing and to fill out quite extensive logbooks for the use of that machinery while they are working on their farms. Is this really where we want to go in Australia—to make it as hard as possible for farmers not only to produce food but to turn a profit?

I say it is time for us to take a step back and to consult with farmers on what we could and could not do better. We know that our farmers use world-grade technology and that we are known to produce clean green food in this country—and that is a testament to our farmers. They have kept up with the times. Expecting them to do more with less is an unreasonable expectation.

We are always dealing with floods and droughts in this country and I think it is also a testament to our farmers that, with the extreme weather conditions that we have in this country, we have never had to face a famine. We have never ever been short of food in this country, even with the extreme weather patterns that we face decade after decade. That has to tell us that our farmers know what they are doing. They know our environment, they know our climate and they know how to produce food and do it well.

I am asking members to please consider the worthiness of this bill to progress any further and become enacted at any point in time. If it does go through, I will be supporting the amendments of the Hon. John Darley.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Once again, we have to suffer the conspiracy theories of the Hon. Ann Bressington. There has been quite extensive consultation regarding the review of the act that let to this bill. There are a few vocal people in the Mount Lofty Ranges who have some problems with it. We understand that but, like any bill, you will never satisfy everyone 100 per cent. To save time, we need to consider where we are going with this bill, so I would like to report progress.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.