Right to Farm Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I would like to make a few comments in relation to this bill. It is very late in the evening, and we are actually now in the last day of sitting before the next election. The Hon. Robert Brokenshire introduced this bill, and I spoke on the second reading perhaps 12 months or two years ago, quite some time ago. I think he called for a vote on 18 May 2016, or somewhere around that time.

We have always supported the principle of the Hon. Robert Brokenshire trying to give some certainty to farmers. I have just been reading some notes that we prepared for our party room and it is interesting that this is virtually the same bill that, I think, he introduced prior to the 2014 election, and before that I think there was a Right to Farm Bill that he introduced before the 2010 election. He has been consistent on this particular issue.

The Liberal Party has a number of concerns around some of the planning changes. One in particular that I am quite concerned about is the buffer zones when you have a change of land use, whether it is from farming to residential or industrial, or a change of agriculture from broadacre grain growing to viticulture or horticulture. They are some real issues that I do not think the member's bill deals with in any great detail.

He also does not really address mining in this particular piece of legislation. I know that he has a mining ombudsman's bill, but this does not address mining. Given the real issues that are confronting me as the shadow minister at the moment, of course we have agreed not to deal with the mining bill because of the concerns in the rural community and the lateness in the parliamentary year. It is quite complex, and I think it is probably better to deal with a lot of the issues that the honourable member was trying to deal with.

I will quickly refer to a couple of submissions. I indicate that we will support the bill, but also indicate that we are concerned about the interaction between agriculture and other industrial activities and changes of land use, and, from an opposition point of view, we are not committing to implementing the honourable member's bill.

I have a 2016 letter from Grain Producers SA, where they say they have their own subcommittee and are looking through the issues around the right to farm. They say they support the intent of the Right to Farm Bill, but it is not clear exactly what farming activities are protected. They ask:

Are all farming activities going to need to be prescribed activities, what does that mean and will that place another regulatory burden on what farmers can and can't do on their properties? We would be interested in seeing more detail around the Bill.

I do not believe we have had that much more detail. They say:

The objects of the Bill could possibly go further and specify the need to provide protection of farming activities over a list of other activities such as incursions from mining operations, nuisance claims for example. Will this Bill provide protection for farmers from nuisance complaints and actions about noise, stubble burning, waste, etc. particularly those arising from the interface between farming and expanding urban centres, or for changes in land use?

I do not think the honourable member's bill really addresses that. The GPSA then goes on to talk about some changes in Queensland:

An example of such a review is in Queensland which recently passed the Regional Planning…Interests Act 2014 and Regional Planning Interests Regulation 2014.

It goes on:

Under this Act, Queensland local government planners, State regional planners, farmers or policy makers, are committed to considering the following nine principles to achieve a healthy agricultural sector at the regional and local level.

Those nine are:

1. Agriculture in the economy

2. The natural resource base

3. Lot sizes for productive agriculture

4. Land Use conflict:

1. Avoid land use conflict

2. Manage existing land use conflict

5. Sustainable natural resource management

6. Diversified agricultural enterprises

7. Infrastructure for agriculture and supply chains

8. Support services for agriculture

9. Multiple values of agricultural land

They cite that as one example. There will be a new government of whatever persuasion after the election, so maybe the honourable member may like to progress this a little bit earlier in the cycle.

There are examples in other states where this has been dealt with. I have some clippings here from The Weekly Times that discuss issues about pigs and chickens that have been dealt with recently in Victoria. Headlines include: 'Chook rules ease', 'Right Fight Win', 'Proposals offer clarity for pig operations' and 'Right-to-farm victory cuts farmers' red tape'. There are examples of the good work being done in other states. We should not look to reinvent the wheel. Given the lateness of the parliamentary sitting and that there is no prospect of this progressing any further, maybe I could urge the honourable member to bring this back earlier in the cycle.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: You won't have to urge me. It'll be back day one.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: That will be good, if it is back day one; I think it is important. As I said, we will support it. I have this year's Primary Producers SA Policy Document 2018 State Election. They list a number of headings: NRM; Water planning and management; Electricity (a massive concern to Primary Producers); Mining and Gas; Research, Development and Extension and Science and Technology; PIRSA and SARDI; SafeWork SA; Financial Issues; Telecommunications; Transport; and Health and Education. But nowhere in this particular document from Primary Producers SA do they talk about the right to farm. Clearly, it is an issue, but it is not a front-of-mind issue. It is not something that the peak farming body that represents horticulture, agriculture, viticulture—all of them—has seen as an important issue.

I am just trying to circumvent things a little to say the opposition will support the bill. We think there is a lot more work that needs to be done, but we are happy to support it in the lead-up to the election. I urge the honourable member to put it on the agenda early in the cycle rather than leave it for a couple of years and then two years later bring it to a vote.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I will put on the record the Greens' position. I thank the Hon. David Ridgway for his contribution because, though he does not always, today he made a lot of sense. The question that I think needs to be posed is: what are the main impediments facing farmers and farming communities? What are the impediments to their right to farm? I think the Hon. David Ridgway pointed out mining (that is a good example), urban sprawl, and that there is no shortage of economic impediments. The question therefore becomes: to what extent is the pressure from neighbours, in relation to environmental pollution or nuisance, a real impediment to the right to farm?

The structure of the bill is that there are things called 'protected farming activities'. They are protected if the farmer is complying with a code of conduct, which is going to be prescribed in the regulations or, in any other case, if the farmer is complying with generally accepted standards and practices for that particular farming activity. That goes to the heart of the problem I think: what are generally accepted standards and practices? Generally accepted by whom? The bill also is not limited geographically. I understand where the member is coming from. He has seen situations—we all have—where you have people who are farming, and urban encroachment comes in and, all of a sudden, people complain about the smell, the noise and whatever.

I will give you another example of a farming operation. Near the Marion swimming pool, not that far from my house, there are grapevines. In fact, there are very few grapevines left in—

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: Patritti's grapes, actually.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: —Patritti's grapes—the metropolitan area. One common practice in relation to growing grapes is to protect your crop from birds. One mechanism is gas guns: the firing of a loud noise to scare birds away. Under this bill, it could well be said that that is a common practice and that a generally accepted standard for that particular farming activity is a gas gun. I tell you what, there would be a lot of residents of Marion—

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: They shouldn't have bought their houses there.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: —who would not be happy if the guns were going off. The Hon. David Ridgway interjects that they should not have built houses there. I think the houses were built there about 50 or 60 years ago. They have been there a long time.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: And the grapes, too.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: And the grapes have been there a long time as well. Anyway, the point that I am making is that there is some nuance that is required in this. If what the honourable member is trying to do is to protect farming operations from things like urban sprawl and mining, then let us have a look at that.

I think there is general acceptance that, at this hour on this day, we are not going to get this too much further, but the Greens will not be able to support it, mainly because we do not know what these generally accepted standards and practices are. Also, it rather stands in the way of improvement because, if you think of things that were common practice 50 years ago—the way chemicals were used; spray drift was completely ignored—they were all accepted practices of the time, but as time goes on standards improve. They improve for environmental health and safety, for worker health and safety, and for neighbour health and safety.

I would not like to see that improvement stalled simply because a right to farm bill locks in current practices effectively forever. So yes to what the member is trying to achieve, but no to the mechanism that has been chosen. The Greens will not be able to support it at this stage, but we look forward to the debate on day one when he is re-elected. When parliament resumes, we expect to see this very early on the Notice Paper.

Clause passed.

Clause 2.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Broke–1]—

Page 2, lines 4 and 5—Delete clause 2 and substitute:

2—Commencement

This Act will come into operation on a day to be fixed by proclamation.

I will speak to this amendment and the subsequent amendments as well because they are all consequential. The reason that I tabled this today was that the government have made some significant changes to the planning act since I tabled this bill, and in order to comply with that particular legislation it was necessary for me to table these amendments. I thank parliamentary counsel, the unsung heroes of this place, for their diligent work again in getting this to happen. These amendments are consequential, but the thrust of this is that, to get the Right to Farm Bill to work mechanically, we needed to move these amendments.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The amendments were only filed today. We have had a couple of years of the bill, so we are a bit surprised. The opposition has not looked at these, so unfortunately we cannot support them.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: As the Leader of the Opposition has just said, these amendments were only submitted today and, as such, as is usual practice in this place, honourable members like to go away and have a think about them, so I move that we report progress.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.