Bills

Right to Farm Bill

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (20:29): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to ensure that properly conducted farming activities are adequately dealt with under planning and development laws and are given protection from certain liability; and to make related amendments to the Development Act 1993, the Environment Protection Act 1993, the Land and Business (Sale and Conveyancing) Act 1994 and the Natural Resources Management Act 2004. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (20:29): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill integrates with a previous bill that I spoke to in the house this afternoon regarding an ombudsman, to do with mining exploration, licensing and extraction. This bill is the Right to Farm bill. I can say from the outset that in America all but two American states have right to farm: one has it enshrined in constitutional law and another one is looking at enshrining it in constitutional law. When you look at the situation in Australia—where Australia is so dependent upon farming—no state has had the vigour and the fortitude to have right to farm legislation.

To be fair, the former Victorian government, under a Liberal government, was about to do that but they got rolled and Labor won and nothing has happened, but here we have a chance to have multipartisan support for this where Labor, Liberal and crossbenchers (including Family First and myself on behalf of Family First as the mover of the bill) break new ground for Australia when it comes to food production. It does not work against—and I want to reinforce that it does not work against—other economic opportunities for the state.

I am sure that even the honourable minister, Mr Leon Bignell, would admit that we have had compounded growth in food production in this state at 7 per cent a year, year after year, for several years. I absolutely know that the very passionate shadow minister for agriculture, a former farmer himself, got a bit soft and moved to the city but, notwithstanding that, he still knows where his roots are—and that is country South Australia.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: Hear! Hear!

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: The fact of the matter is that I am sure he will work hard to support this bill. I call on my colleague, the honourable Minister for Agriculture, to support me in this. The Minister for Agriculture and I have an interesting argy-bargy but on some things we must agree. We need to agree, not for any personal accolades, but for the state's interests we need to agree on right to farm for the state's sake.

The next challenge after right to farm is to ask: how do you grow from paddock to plate job opportunities, economic opportunities and a future for the state? You do it by starting with a statement in legislation about right to farm. This bill clarifies immunity for liability and prosecution. Farmers are immune from liability and prosecution if they are engaged in what I and parliamentary counsel and the intent of this bill describe as—and I want to emphasise this—normal farming activities, and requires right to farm principles to be enshrined in development plans through a consultation process.

We are exempting farmers from nuisance complaints and other prosecutions when their behaviour is part of normal farming activity. Whilst he is not here tonight, because he is going over to Paris to save the climate, the fact is that the minister for environment, I am sure, will be very frustrated when the Hon. Tom Koutsantonis is demanding a net profit line bottom return to Treasury from the EPA, and he is trying to balance looking after the environment with delivering a revenue stream to the Treasury.

I am sure that if he was here he would agree with me—especially if he had his green tie on, when he is not so agitated; the orange tie is a problem when he is in here, but if he had his green tie on, the minister for the environment and climate change and the EPA and everything else would agree with me that frivolous claims by people who actually just want to make it tough for farmers have to be stopped.

At the moment, the reality is that, whilst the executive officer of the EPA is about profit return for government, for environment protection, the fact is that he and his officers know, and the Leader of Government Business in this house knows—and I hope that the Leader of Government Business will actually continue to be the Leader of Government Business for the next two years; I hope so, because I actually like the Leader of Government Business.

To get back to it before you rule me out of order, Mr President, the fact of the matter is that the EPA is running around because someone comes into the country and buys a house and loves the environment—but they went to the open inspection on a Sunday. Even farmers have a couple of hours off on Sunday, but on Monday they actually work, and also they actually work Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday, and part of Sunday, and there is noise. These people ring the EPA and out come these officers. These are frivolous complaints and they need to be stopped. We need to grow an economy and we need to grow some jobs.

What therefore this Right to Farm Bill does is exempt farmers from nuisance complaints and other prosecutions when their behaviour is part of normal farming activity. I note that the member for Mount Gambier, Mr Troy Bell—a very good member of parliament, dedicated and committed to the wellbeing of the South-East in our state and particularly the Mount Gambier electorate—is in here listening to this. I congratulate him for this, because he does believe in the farmers. Sitting next to him is our Leader of the Opposition and shadow minister for agriculture, who also believes in farmers. He made a massive amount of wealth out of exporting horticulture, floriculture and agriculture from this state and showed just what you can do.

Here they are, listening to this debate. They are listening to the debate because they know the importance of agriculture. What this does also require is land purchasers to accept that they are actually buying where normal farming activities occur. I embrace them to come and live in the country. I embrace them, especially now when the state is in turmoil. The more people who can move into the country and vote for a non-Labor government the better: vote Greens, Dignity for Disability, Xenophon Team, Family First, whatever, but not Labor, because they are stuffing the state.

The Hon. G.E. Gago: Get on with it!

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: No, we're going to be here next week, Leader, so no rush, because your colleague, John Rau, has made a very bad mess of planning. I will get on with it, because we will talk about that later; everyone wants to talk about that later.

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: He is still making a mess of it, because the amendments keep coming.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I know—100 more amendments from the minister.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Get on with it. Will the honourable member get on with his speech.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Okay, thank you. I thank you for your guidance. The intent of the planning elements is to ensure that right to farm principles are developed and then become model laws in all development plans, not something that is forced upon councils, but rather a product of consultation. Essentially, this is the same bill as I introduced in 2012, Mr President—you would remember that—except when we have excluded civil and criminal activities from a protect farming act that may offend the NRM Act.

The Hon. John Darley knows that we have to deal with the NRM Act on another day. Parliamentary counsel advised that it was possible to draft the Right to Farm Bill so that it superseded any NRM requirements such as the requirement of meters on dams, fitting of low-flow bypasses and the prevention of building dams. By specifically placing this in clause 5, we have excluded the operation of the NRM Act and given farmers protections that they have told me they want in this bill.

We will need to move consequential amendments to this bill should the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Bill pass parliament, but we will have to wait and see. If I had my way I would wait until February because that bill is a dog's breakfast. We will need to move consequential amendments and we will watch and wait, but I want to introduce it and get it in there as part of the debate.

I want to touch on a few reasons why I have moved this Right to Farm Bill on behalf of Family First. One, the Right to Farm Bill makes sure the existing use of prime agricultural land is not trampled by mining interests. A person I have respect for, the Leader of the Government in this house, the Hon. Gail Gago, was heavily involved and still is, indirectly to be fair, in prime agricultural land and export through the value-adding of food with her husband who is probably the best winemaker in this state, if not this nation. He is one of the best in the world actually, but we will not go into that.

Family First is not opposed to mining. Family First is not opposed to mining, but we believe no go zones are needed to protect sensitive farming areas across the state. In all of the dog's breakfasts, this bill is a dog's breakfast—and I think most colleagues would agree that the Hon. John Rau, Deputy Premier, is actually putting in some no go zones. Former valuer-general the Hon. John Darley may not agree with where that should be drawn and, if he gets time he will draw the proper boundary for the future of this state, but the fact is that even the Hon. John Rau has no go zones to protect sensitive farming areas across the state.

I believe that very highly productive land should be zoned out of any mining. It is about balancing mining and agricultural interests. The use of farming land is clearly jeopardised by the Mining Act and unlike any other planning area you are not able to protect your farming land if you get a mining licence coming over the top, because guess what? You cannot grow food when an excavator comes in.

South Australia only has around 4.6 per cent of sustainable agricultural land outside of the pastoral areas, so we are not looking at stopping mining. We are not anti-mining. I will not accept that. This is not about being anti-mining in the state as a whole because you have the Gawler Ranges and lots of other areas. We are about looking at food security for the future because you cannot mine if you have not had a feed. Farmers need to be given better protection when they are confronted by miners and exploration. Legislation is way too far in favour of mining and the two main parties need to indicate their willingness to correct that, and I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister will realise that. If not, his wife will remind him.

The mining sector is out lobbying the agricultural sector in the overall debate. As a farmer—and I declare my interest on behalf of my family—I now call on the farming sector to get some fortitude and take the mining sector on board. Don't be passive. I see passiveness every day with Business SA. Please, to the agricultural sector, don't be passive. The key point I want to continue to argue on behalf of farmers is that agriculture is the most sustainable industry in the state. The Hon. Gerry Kandelaars, a good member, his wife comes from the country, and I am sure she would agree with me, and she would be talking to the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars about that. Then we see Ron Kandelaars, with a higher profile than even the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars, where does he get his profile from? Country South Australia. I have not seen him doing a lot of stories about the Rundle Mall. Well, maybe now and again.

The government continues to hope for another Roxby Downs to get out of budget difficulties. Well, I would say to forget that. Instead, sit down with farmers and assist them with sustainable farming. The mining sector seems to be able to intimidate parties and the regulators and cannot do their job probably when they are being told by the government, especially by the Treasurer, to grow the mining industry in this state. That is why I am also calling for a mining ombudsman, which I have already highlighted.

I want to highlight this: manufacturing contributes $100 billion nationally, mining contributes around $80 billion, and agriculture contributes $155 billion. That is not even on a reasonably level playing field. On 22 August 2013, the ABS said that in 22 years we have lost 8 per cent of the whole land mass for agriculture in Australia, which is why Family First pushed for the protection of the McLaren Vale basin. Fifty-nine million hectares have been lost from agriculture in 22 years. That is actually the size of the whole of Ukraine.

Despite that, we have actually seen a very significant turnover from agriculture. In fact, we have gone over basically the same period of time, from $19 billion in agricultural turnover to $41.8 billion last year. One in four jobs is derived from a farm across Australia, which is 25 per cent all up. I can tell you, if you then value-add on that, one in seven jobs across the whole of Australia is directly attributable to agriculture.

I have worked with farmers across the state, and I love it; they are great people. As Leon Byner often says on FIVEaa, they are salt-of-the-earth people, and I agree with him. They are all subjected to unprecedented exploration and possible mining ventures, and the Mining Act does not produce fair legislation for farmers. Farmers have to go through a minefield themselves to find out what their rights are, and I think that if we are going to grow mining and also grow farming, we should allow farmers and other people the right to access an independent mining ombudsman.

I would not want to be the member for Mount Gambier at the moment. He is being very articulate in the way he is supporting his constituents, but had the cabinet gone down there and listened to Mr Troy Bell (member for Mount Gambier) and his community, they would realise—especially Leon Bignell. It is not about the Minister for Environment talking about Auntie Jo, or Jill, or—

The Hon. T.A. Franks: Auntie Joan.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Joan—I knew it started with a J—and having scones and cream; it is not about that nonsense. It is about listening to Troy Bell and the community, looking at what is happening in the NRC with the fracking report, and listening to the people about what is most sustainable.

The Hon. T.A. Franks interjecting:

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: The Hon. Mark Parnell got that committee inquiry going, and the Hon. Tammy Franks supports it, as does the Hon. Kelly Vincent. They want to see sustainable opportunities, so let us actually listen to the farmers.

We have to double food production in the next 40 years—not to feed the starving, and not to feed the population of the Third World, which sadly has not had proper support in the 58 years that I have been here. Anyone is disillusioned if they think that we can help them to the extent that we would like to, because we are not even keeping up with food production as we know it now.

Primary production here needs to be paramount. Unfortunately, at the moment, I do not believe the government or the industry sectors have articulated and done the work so that the two can work as best as possible in harmony. In my opinion, we also need to have an act that is fair to farming and includes a proper right to farm.

I want to just finish with a couple of key points. One is that there is a real differential at the moment that can be corrected between the Weatherill state government, the Shorten federal opposition and rural and regional Australia (particularly South Australia). They ought to take a lesson out of President Barak Obama's book. In America, whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, you actually listen to your farmers.

Whilst I do not like some of the negative impacts that they have, whether the president is a Democrat or a Republican they will move to look after their farmers. Sadly, at the moment—there is a challenge here, and I hope it is corrected soon—Labor seems to screw farmers. I cannot understand why they do not look at what is happening.

In England it is the same thing, Labor or Liberal. If farmers want to knock on Prime Minister David Cameron's door, he is available. Yet I get people telling me all the time that they want to see Leon Bignell and it takes six months. Why is it six months?

The Hon. J.A. Darley: If you're lucky.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: If you're lucky says the Hon. John Darley, and he is probably right. Mate, get out of the jet, forget all of the razzmatazz and realise where you are actually at, and that is trying to help build an economy. Whilst he needs to be rewarded, I hope that the Premier actually finds a real minister for primary industries when he brings Peter Malinauskas into a senior cabinet position in January. Leon, just be the Minister for Tourism, because you are very good at flying. You should get a pilot's licence.

Just to finish here, there are additional reasons for right to farm. When we do not have right to farm we get situations like we saw in the Barossa. I will give credit to Leon here because he opposed my McLaren Vale, Willunga protection bill. He did over his own electorate when he took over from me—yes, he won, fair and aboveboard, and good on him for that. Look where he is now. He did me over; well done there, Leon. But I fought for the McLaren Vale area when he was doing them over. Then he went to the Barossa and said, 'Well, I'll help you' at the same time. Leon, you should have helped your own electorate first: the wine is better in McLaren Vale than in the Barossa.

The Hon. T.A. Franks: And Argentinian.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: And stop drinking Argentinian wine also; you are right there, the Hon. Tammy Franks. But to come back to this, the fact is that we saw in the Barossa that broadacre farmers got angry about the character preservation legislation. The Hon. John Dawkins knows a fair bit about this because of his connections up there. Have we got it absolutely right yet? I don't think so, but here is a chance. They would have no reason to be concerned if we have right to farm legislation.

I want to finish with one page. Mr Geoff Kernick was quoted in The Leader newspaper on 27 June 2012. I know Geoff Kernick. He is a fellow jersey breeder. He has a beautiful family and he value-adds. He said, 'Carcoola jerseys: beautiful cows, good top lines, nice heads, very strong suspensory ligaments, good placement and good body capacity.'

The Hon. G.A. Kandelaars: Alright, get on with it.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: No, this is important because this guy has been doing the right thing for generations and his beautiful children are taking over. He has Jersey Fresh at Greenock. What he said and what I am saying is that the preservation bill prevented him from upgrading his dairy because he did not have right to farm protections. So what I want to say to my honourable colleagues is this: it has to fit like a glove, and at the moment we haven't quite got the fit.

I will finish with this: the Greater Hume Shire council New South Wales local government policy on right to farm says that they will not support action to interfere with legitimate agricultural use of land, including: logging and milling of timber—well, we sold our forests so that fixed that—livestock feed lots; piggeries; dairies; dogs, barking even, because they might be barking at the cattle or the sheep going into the yard—noise from cattle or other livestock is like humans, cattle actually make noise—intensive livestock; waste; and burning stubble. The list goes on.

Newspoll's first ever rural poll survey released on 15 May 2013 shows that the number one farmers' concern—76 per cent of all farmers—was government regulations and farmers' concerns about right to farm.

I want to finish with the Treasurer, the Hon. Tom Koutsantonis. He is the man who would have been premier but, as one of his former Labor members said to me this week: he was at the bus stop but he missed the bus. Because who came in? The Hon. Peter Malinauskas came in, and poor old Tom did not even understand what a bus stop was all about. But I say to him—and I beg to differ when he says that laws are more generous than anywhere else in South Australia. There is a lot more I will have to say in summing up, but I simply say to my colleagues: thank you for listening to me. I ask you to be diligent on this because it is important. This state is a great state. We are treading water and we have to stop treading water.

We cannot have an economy without an environment and we cannot have an environment without an economy. But one thing is for sure: people need to live in an environment and they need to eat, and they need the right to farm to provide that food and look after the environment. If the net bottom line is food production and a reasonably healthy profit, then the environment will be saved as well and we will grow our way to a future in South Australia that we have not seen in the last 15 to 16 years but we have seen over the last 175 years. It can happen again.

I call on my colleagues to seriously look at this when they have recharged their hardworking batteries over the Christmas-new year period and support this bill. I advise the house as I finish my remarks tonight, and I will say the rest when I sum up, that I intend to put this very important piece of legislation to a vote in February.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. G.A. Kandelaars.