If there are any farmers out there who have been reluctant to join the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association, let me cite just one example of where our advocacy on behalf of primary producers can save them much more than their membership levy.

In Tasmania primary production land (PPL) is exempt from land tax. That doesn’t happen automatically; you have to first convince the State Revenue Office (SRO) that the land is actually being used for primary production purposes.

Just as importantly, you have to be able to show that there is a realistic prospect of you making a profit from the primary production activities on that land. (If you are starting up an orchard or you have just planted some vines, it may be quite a few years before you can start contemplating taking a profit, but that’s another story.)

The red tape for securing an SRO exemption from land tax has become more and more complex. It used to be a one-page form; it grew to three pages and is now 12 pages; that application has to be accompanied by a business plan, financial statements from the last three years and a breakdown of how the land is used for primary production.

That is not an easy process and usually involves paying an accountant and/or lawyer to provide information to support the application; or even to actually prepare the application.

You might hate bureaucracy, paperwork and loathe paying taxes; but you can at least understand the logic of the process.

A change of ownership or change of title flags a review of any exemption that had been granted on the land. That is also understandable.

However, in a case that the TFGA took up with State Treasurer Peter Gutwein, a farmer had a small corner of his land acquired for a state highway upgrade. That created a change to the farmer’s title and triggered an SRO review of the land tax exemption he had been enjoying.

In effect, the SRO’s default position was that he no longer had an exemption unless he could remount and prove his case. Not only was it an absurd proposition, but also it threatened to be expensive just to get him back to the status quo before the compulsory acquisition. And the SRO were insisting that the supposed duty – something like $50,000 – be paid before considering the reapplication.

We took this case to the Treasurer. He agreed that, while the process for maintaining the exemption from land tax after a compulsory acquisition was technically correct, it was clearly ridiculous.

“I agree that having to reapply in full for a farm’s PPL classification following a compulsory acquisition of part of the land is unreasonable,” Mr Gutwein wrote to us.

“The SRO has assured me that situations like the one described in your letter should be avoided in the future.

“In the majority of such cases, an e-mail from the property owner confirming that the land is still to be used for primary production purposes will suffice.”

Well done, Mr Gutwein. Commonsense prevails.

Of course, we won’t stop there. We believe that with some further effort on our part we can streamline a range of other possible scenarios in situations where there is a subdivision.

In his letter to us, Mr Gutwein commented:

“I commend you on the advocacy that the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association provides on behalf of its members to support the economic viability and sustainability of their farms.”

It is not often that a senior politician provides such a positive endorsement of a lobby group’s advocacy efforts. We pat ourselves on the back for that recognition.

What it demonstrates is the value of an advocacy body such as ours that acts on behalf of its members.

Imagine what might have happened if that farmer had no group to represent his interests?

TFGA CEO Jan Davis