Farmers hit when country, city clash

We are at a crossroads – where the country lane meets the suburban street.

The state government is in the process of reviewing the Primary Industry Activities Protection Act (PIAP, the so-called right-to-farm legislation). Further down the track, they will also review the Protection of Agricultural Lands (PAL) policy.

The TFGA has just completed a detailed submission on the PIAP in light of the issues that have arisen since the legislation came into force in October 1995.

The Tasmanian legislation is unique in Australia. It was drafted to protect the rights of farmers to farm according to their normal, traditional, responsible practices with all their accompanying smells, noises, lights and to-ing and fro-ing without being subject to constant complaints and interference at the interface of the country and new residential development.

Despite the good intents of the 1995 legislation, farmers across the state are under unrelenting pressure from urban encroachment, restrictive regulatory overlays, increasing community expectations and rocketing input cost pressures that threaten their viability. It is clear that, unless these issues are successfully addressed, the positive economic benefits of a strong agriculture sector to the Tasmanian economy will be seriously threatened.

We need some consistent, transparent and equitable rules at this on-ground interface of town and country. Farmers need security of tenure and new land buyers need to know the environment they are moving into. The current legislation has failed to deliver this outcome – and the review of this one piece of legislation is not enough in itself.

In our submission, we have identified a range of measures that need to be taken if we’re ever going to overcome the current impasse.

Integral to these changes is the introduction of an overarching state planning policy that takes account of the critical role that agriculture plays in our economic, social and environmental life. This policy would clearly document the expectation that securing and expanding our agriculture industry is a key state priority. It would put agriculture at the top of the planning hierarchy, rather than pushing farmers into the spaces left when everything else has taken the space it needs.

We also argue for an urgent inventory of agricultural land. What we say is this: “Without knowing our overall asset base, it is impossible to develop a coherent planning approach, or to make any informed consideration of what is essential to future industry security and what can perhaps be traded or even be given up.”

It is essential that in the planning mix, particularly with local government zones, agriculture is not seen as a remainder, the bits that are left over when other uses have been catered for. Agriculture has to be seen as an almost industrial activity rather than a rural living area, a passive amenity or landscape resource. And no sensible planner would ever approve new residential housing in an industrial area!

That assessment of our role has to encompass the changing nature of farming and agribusinesses. Our tools of trade are being constantly updated – on this urban fringe, we have to be able to employ what modern technology delivers – just like farmers anywhere else in the world.

Of critical importance, we believe, is the introduction of a system of buyer beware certification, so that any intending buyer of land that adjoins a farm certifies that they have understood and accepted the existence of agricultural uses adjacent to the land they intend to buy. The certificate would detail likely impacts (noise, smells, livestock, etc). The clear intent is to block any future complaint or legal action against a farmer conducting their normal farm business practices. Other states have had similar requirements for decades.

We also suggest a government-funded familiarisation program for those seeking to move to a rural area. This would ensure they fully understand what to expect and what their obligations to their new communities will be – and can decide ahead of time if that is what they really want.

Finally, we call on governments to provide appropriate compensation where any legislation or regulation does impinge on the rights of a farmer to carry out their legitimate business. Farmers should be treated no differently to other citizens and are entitled to have their property rights recognised and respected in the same way as all other Tasmanians. The current practice of continual alienation of basic property rights of farmers without financial recognition has gone too far. It does not meet the Australian expectation of a ‘fair go’ and it is not sustainable into the future. Farmers are happy to carry their share of our community’s load – and sometimes even more than their share. However, they’re not prepared to fund the entire cost themselves – and, worse still, be continually harassed while doing so.

We’re looking forward engaging further in this discussion as the government moves forward in restructuring the state’s approach to our planning system.
TFGA chief executive Jan Davis