Right to Farm Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 2 December 2015.)

The Hon. T.T. NGO (17:33): Firstly, can I say happy birthday to the Hon. Mr Brokenshire—he's turning 35 or something?

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: That's why I'm particularly lively today, sir.

The Hon. T.T. NGO: Broadly speaking, this bill seeks to prioritise farming activity over any other land use in the state's planning system as a means of addressing these various restrictions and impediments to farming activities. This approach requires careful consideration.

Whilst the government recognises the significant contribution that the farming industry makes to the state, there are other legitimate land uses, and while they may conflict with farming activities, they cannot be ignored. It must also be recognised that there can also be conflict between different farming activities, and the right to farm concept may inadvertently introduce further conflict between sectors.

On this basis, the government will continue to consider these issues and is open to work through ways in which to best address the various restrictions and impediments to farming activities that this bill seeks to remedy. Accordingly, while the government will not stand in the way of the progress of the Right to Farm Bill 2015 to its second reading only at this stage, for the reasons mentioned the government will continue to consider its ultimate position with respect to this bill.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (17:35): I rise to speak on behalf of the opposition to the Right to Farm Bill 2015. I think, as the Hon. Mr Ngo has just spoken, this is the conclusion of the second reading debate, and I think the Hon. Robert Brokenshire is only wanting to complete the second reading stage this evening. So I will give him some joy in indicating that the opposition will be supporting the second reading, although there are a number of questions that his bill does raise. While I do not expect him to answer them tonight, maybe whenever we get to the committee stage of the bill he might like to throw some light on what he thinks.

He has introduced two similar bills over the last four or five or six years I think, maybe longer, maybe seven or eight years, and we have supported them in the expectation that at some point in the future we may have won an election and may have been able to form government, notwithstanding that we got 53 per cent of the vote, nonetheless that is a debate for another day.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: There is something about a level playing field that appeals to me, but I understand that that is not—

The Hon. K.J. Maher interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Do I look like I am a sore loser? I just like a level playing field. I am getting distracted.

The PRESIDENT: You are.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I did indicate to the Hon. Robert Brokenshire at the time while, I think, we were supporting the second reading—and in fact we may have even supported the third reading on the previous occasions, I cannot recall; the government did not—that we would work with Mr Brokenshire to recognise the value of farming. I have always been a keen supporter of whatever initiatives recognise the contribution that agriculture makes to our economy. I also recognise the contribution that people make without being impacted by what their neighbour does. I have always had this view, as a former farmer, that you should almost be able to do, within reason, whatever you would like on your property as long as it does not impact on the way your neighbour goes about his or her daily business.

When you look at things from that perspective there are a whole range of activities that impact on farming. Agriculture has been the backbone of our economy in South Australia since we were settled. I think our primary industry sector employs nearly 44,000 people and contributes about $18 billion to our state's economy almost every year without fail, although there are ups and downs a bit with rainfall. Unlike other industries that may come and go, agriculture will always be there and is of vital importance to South Australia and Australia, for that matter.

It is my understanding that ultimately the bill seeks to ensure that properly conducted farming activities are adequately dealt with under planning and development laws and are given protection from certain liability, a principle which the Liberal Party supports. However, there remains some ambiguity in this bill and areas which need to be clarified as we work through the committee stage of the bill. I have spoken to both Primary Producers SA and Grain Producers SA who echo this sentiment, and in fact GPSA gave me quite a detailed submission. I think everybody is supportive of the sentiment, but I think a couple of areas need some clarification.

The intention of the bill is to protect normal farming activities from liability and prosecution. Specifically in clause 3 of the bill, a protected farming activity includes those prescribed by regulations to be implemented under this bill or generally accepted standards and practices. This is a very broad definition. The minister—well, former minister, but nonetheless a member of this great chamber—might like to consider perhaps at clause 1 of the committee stage, not this evening, what he sees as 'normal farming activities', because there is a range of farming activities. As members know, I grew a horticultural crop, cut flowers and flower bulbs. Most of my neighbours thought I was not normal doing that, and I can see you nodding in agreeance, Mr President. I recall when there was the potential of a locust plague, and we had all these meetings around what we would do, all the farmers, primarily cropping, broadacre farmers.

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: I haven't heard this story yet.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: You haven't heard the story? This is a new story.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: It's a clean story. So, we had meetings in about October on what we had to do if locusts turned up, who you would notify, what was going on and what the response would be. I looked at my crop—we were all worried. Cereal crops are green in the October/November period and start to turn, and once they are dry and ready to harvest the locusts will not eat them. But of course I had a gladioli crop that was going to be bright green in the middle of summer. I said, 'Okay, what happens if locusts turn up in January when you guys have all finished harvest?' They said, 'We don't care, we'll all be down the beach, fight your own bloody fight.' It was a little bit of tongue in cheek, but I suspect that it was because I was not a normal farmer, I was doing something different from them.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: You were growing dollar notes.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Well, it might have been a profitable business, Brokey, but nonetheless it was an interesting concept when you talked about what was normal. I remember other farmers who were wanting to—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Mr Ridgway is spilling his heart out to us all; at least have the decency to listen to him.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I had a number of police officers' sons work for me because they loved getting some school work, yes. I recall that some neighbours just over the Victorian border were going to grow grapes, and the outrage among their farming neighbours that they could not use some of the volatile sprays that you cannot use around grape vines. So, there are always these issues. The comment was, 'But we don't grow grapes here; it's not normal.'

So, I am really interested to know what is the definition of 'normal farming practices'. Also, when you talk about 'a protected farming activity', which includes those prescribed by regulations. We had a briefing with the Hon. Robert Brokenshire's team the other day, and they said that parliamentary counsel is working on drafting some regulations. I would be really keen to look at those regulations, because that definition of farming clearly is important.

Also, I noticed that you have your mining ombudsman bill that we voted against, but in this bill there was no mention of mining activities, fracking or wind farms at all, so I guess you were hoping that would be covered by your ombudsman bill and not by this, but I think that, if you are going to have a bill that talks about normal farming activities and protecting farming activities, you should consider including components around some of those other industries that conflict with farming. You were dealing with the mining ombudsman bill, but it was just a narrow focus.

It is interesting, when you look at the Hon. Robert Brokenshire's second reading speech, there are a couple of issues there that I thought were interesting, especially when he talked about food security and the work that the government had done protecting the Barossa Valley and McLaren Vale.

I take the opportunity to remind members that land at, I think, Seaford Rise, had been rezoned for some decades. The Liberal Party went through the State Bank era and chose not to put that land on the market. It was a Labor government that did—I think minister Conlon or minister Holloway was the one at the time. Current minister Bignell was silent during that whole period. He would say, 'Oh, but it was rezoned years ago.' Well, it was, but it was government-owned land and it was a Labor government that sold what some people in the McLaren Vale area would say was prime grape growing country. They sold it for housing development.

It is interesting that you have a government that wants to protect McLaren Vale and the Barossa, yet it was clearly a Labor government decision to allow that land to be sold. That is where we now go to this right to farm and the protection. It has been the actions of this government that have given us most concern and not any previous governments.

It is interesting also to note, in a little briefing we had, how misinformed sometimes ministers can be. We have seen minister Bignell talk about Qantas, saying that we should boycott Qantas because Qatar are cheaper. Qantas is the biggest employer in aviation in South Australia, so you have to be a little bit careful. Just recently he also said that we should be boycotting Murray Goulburn and Fonterra.

It is interesting that Murray Goulburn especially—I have just had a meeting with them and they are briefing the minister right now—actually buy South Australian milk. They package South Australian and Australian milk, and they support Australian and South Australian dairy farms. Some of the information stating that their farmers have been asked to pay back money that they have already received is totally inaccurate. That is not the case with Murray Goulburn, yet the minister was on his feet in the chamber of the House of Assembly yesterday saying that farmers were going to have to pay back money they had received over the last 10 months.

That is not accurate, and I do hope that tomorrow the minister goes into the House of Assembly and apologises for that because it creates an unfair impression. Sure, the dairy industry is going through a very tough time, but you actually need a minister to be making statements in the house that are accurate and not inaccurate. So, I do hope he goes back in tomorrow and corrects that record.

I am getting a little distracted. I indicate that we will be happy to support the bill. There is another issue too for the Hon. Robert Brokenshire to consider. When we talk about buffer zones, obviously you have buffer zones for herbicides. A whole range of new specifications have been put out by the APVMA for various herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, and various distances away from houses and other crops. I am wondering how you are going to incorporate that into the bill as well, because that is clearly important.

We are probably not going to see it in a lot of the areas now, but in a town situation where you have land that is rezoned for potential urban development up against a rural property, who bears the buffer zone? Is it the developer who has it on his side where the houses go, or is it the poor old farmer, the primary producer, who has to say, 'Well, actually I'm going to get complaints from all the townies because I'm going to be there in the middle of the night. I'm going to create dust or the spray or the smell from my sheep or cattle.'

I know we have had some issues where the EPA will not allow people to establish intensive animal operations within a certain distance of towns because of the smell of pigs, chickens, feedlots and the like. I actually think there is a whole range of issues. I am very keen to work with the Hon. Robert Brokenshire, but right now, not seeing the regulations and in the absence of some of those definitions, we are very happy to support the second reading of this bill, but we do want to see a lot more detail before we are prepared to support a third reading. With those few comments, we support the bill.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (17:47): I thank my colleagues who spoke and also those colleagues who have talked to me about general support for the second reading. This is a birthday present for me today, and it makes me very happy, because we actually have got some consensus about the fact, the principle that we need, of right to farm legislation. I would suggest that as South Australia works through growing its agriculture and value-adding to that agriculture we can lead the nation if we can work collaboratively together as crossbenchers and as major parties to be the first state in Australia to actually enshrine a right to farm legislation.

As I said to my colleagues earlier, all but two states, I am advised, in the USA have right to farm. One of those has even gone far enough to have it in its constitution. I have had clear indications that both the government and the opposition can see the wisdom in further developing this, so I have indicated to the house that I am only taking it to the second reading. I have had discussions with the government, and the government is wanting to progress the general principles of this now. The opposition has indicated that they want to, and I congratulate them all for that.

I look forward to seeing this as a statement now, that we need to address the very principle of right to farm and that we can see some progressive work occurring in the next few months to come up with a solution that ultimately—either through this bill going into committee, with welcoming any members who want to put amendments, etc., and working through the committee stage here, or indeed through the development of a bill based on these principles—the parliament can agree to. With those words, I am very pleased after, as the Hon. David Ridgway said, me banging on about this for probably nearly eight years, that we are now making some progress. It is a small step forward, but it is a very positive step, and therefore I commend the second reading to the council.

Bill read a second time.