HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-07-28 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

BAROSSA VALLEY AND MCLAREN VALE

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (15:28): I rise to raise a matter in relation to the government's moving to protect and control development in the Barossa and McLaren Vale, so I make the following contribution. Broadacre farming, horticulture and viticulture pursuits are all important contributors to the economy of South Australia. Where these industries exist side by side and also join new urban developments, at times, there will be conflicting interests, not only in investment but also in the management of them.

One key area is the use of sprays to control weeds, pests and diseases. For example, some herbicides that a broadacre farmer can use will damage vines if allowed to drift, while some of the fungicides and herbicides a grape grower uses would not be welcomed as drift onto neighbouring crops or pastures for residue reasons. It certainly would not be welcome.

The national authority that registers agricultural chemicals, the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, is reviewing what spray buffer zones should be required on labels of a large number of crop protection chemicals used by broadacre farmers and viticulturists. Where broadacre, viticulture, horticulture and urban interests intersect, there will be times when producers have severe restrictions on using these common tools of trade.

Agricultural chemical labels are legal documents, therefore the buffer zones that will appear on labels need to be observed. These legal requirements for agricultural chemical usage need to be taken into account in planning at the state level. For example, new vineyard developments or urban expansion in the traditional broadacre farming areas will put restrictions on broadacre enterprises.

Similarly, urban developments in vineyard districts will restrict what vignerons can spray at certain times. Existing enterprises need some certainty, and this can come from two things: a recognition of the right to farm through legislative means and, secondly, through sensible planning decisions at state and local government level.

When new developments are approved there needs to be allowance within these developments for buffers which allow existing land users to continue as before. The farmers who have spoken to me also recognise that they have a responsibility to use their agricultural chemicals with due care to avoid unnecessary spray drift, and temperature inversion (something even trickier) where droplets are held in the air, then move and fall down somewhere else when the temperature changes.

Our broadacre farmers are currently very productive but they cannot afford to see restrictions that reduce their efficiency or increase costs. They should have a right to farm in the way they have in the past as long as they do so responsibly. We can no longer ignore the problems that haphazard development causes and we cannot ignore the right of existing businesses to conduct their enterprises. The state needs to have parallel legislation, regulations and recommendations between state and federal bodies governing chemical application and usage.

PIRSA has developed fixed buffer zones to restrict the use of various farm chemicals for broadacre farmers to protect other industries. At different times of the year they are at 100 metres and one kilometre respectively due mainly to the sensitivity of vines in the proximity. The buffers are fixed and do not allow any variation to the buffer areas even when conditions would allow for their safe use.

The APVMA is currently reviewing the use of many of the old pesticides and developing scientific-based buffer zones which are only downwind buffers. These buffers will allow the safe use of many of our herbicides and reduce some of the imposts that our broadacre farmers are currently subjected to. Even with the current buffer system in place, there are still many problems as fixed buffer zones can and do tend to give a false sense of security.

At present the federal APVMA (Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority) and Biosecurity PIRSA chemical branch do not have similar labels and guidelines for agricultural chemical use. This doubling of complexity only intensifies the buffer problems and no-spray zones and creates a far clearer case for investigating the topic further—demonstrating the urgent need for changes to the planning governance and guidelines in South Australia. This is especially pertinent where these mergers of conflicting land uses exist. There also needs to be greater recognition of recent improvement in technology in spray application and understanding of the climatic conditions.

With all these pressing issues, it is now paramount for action by the parliament to correct these issues so that there is some 'right to farm' restored. This is clearly causing angst and real management problems in the greater Barossa district, as well as other areas of primary industry, particularly McLaren Vale. I ask the house to note these issues, particularly when the minister for planning implements these planning regulations.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT