Alison Penfold (Lyne, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The world's population is growing, but the world's prime agricultural land is shrinking. Food security has never been more important, and it will increasingly be so. This bill is about something fundamental. It's about the land that feeds us, clothes us and underpins our regional communities.

Once prime agricultural land is lost, it is almost never recovered. You can't rebuild soil that took thousands of years to form. You can't make rain fall where you would like it to. You can't easily relocate or expand irrigation systems. You can't replicate growing conditions with a click of your fingers, nor can you automatically replace the multigenerational farming knowledge tied to a particular place.

This bill puts a simple principle into law: Australia's best farming land should be protected first, not sacrificed for political agendas. I and the Nationals are proud to bring this bill forward, after years of work consulting with farmers and regional communities. The Nationals are the party for regional Australia. This bill is informed by best practice around the world and improving on it so Australia has the very best protections for prime agricultural land on the planet.

As population grows, as global hunger grows, as housing spreads into farming areas, we must do more than just get the balance right.

We must show the world how it is done.

We may have 'bounteous plains to share' but once the good plains are gone, it's bloody difficult to create new ones.

Why T his B ill I s N eeded

Across Australia, farmers are under pressure. Pressure from poorly planned development.

Pressure from projects that promise jobs but leave land worse off.

Pressure from foreign controlled interests buying or controlling our most productive farmland.

Pressure from an Albanese Labor government hell-bent on a political energy target without a care for the prime ag land it renders unusable to feed and clothe our nation.

In my own electorate, the farming communities of Mount George, Wherrol Flat, Bobin and Mooral Creek are facing the prospect of open-cut mining for serpentine rock.

The project proponents—MCi Carbon—are in the exploratory phase but their actions—or lack thereof—have failed to engage the community and absolutely failed to earn the project a social licence to operate.

This mineral carbonation project is touted as a carbon capture and storage project—one necessary to meet Australia's net zero ambitions.

It's a project that—despite its ongoing and repeated failures to engage the community and answer simple questions has received $26 million in federal government funding.

That's $26 million in federal government carbon capture and storage funding despite not even producing a carbon lifecycle analysis to prove its net zero worth.

That's $26 million in federal government funding when it has refused to engage with local residents and give straight answers to serious questions.

The project requires the mining of serpentine rock—a rock that contains naturally occurring asbestos. To mine it, you have to strip mine—a long narrow open-cut mining process that increases the risk of contaminating surrounding areas through its entry into water sources and dust exposure for residents of the area.

The rock is found in the Manning Valley—a highly productive beef and dairy country, smack bang in the middle of the Manning Valley water catchment area.

How a project that has the potential to destroy the productive farming capacity of a region receives so much federal government investment is the very reason why this bill is so important.

In my National colleague, the member for Mallee's electorate, several farms have been purchased or at risk of compulsory acquisition for mineral sands mining projects. In one case, north of Horsham, an intergenerational farming family is being compelled to leave their family home and farm.

Farmers are highly dubious about the proponents' claims that the land will be rehabilitated back to full production, because they have seen elsewhere within the electorate, the land has been returned with significantly reduced productivity and unacceptable undulations.

The 240-kilometre Victoria to New South Wales Interconnector (VNI) West transmission line project—a Victorian government project—has been given draconian powers to force their way onto farmers' land to progress a project that will result in towers up to 80 metres tall, about 500 metres apart, with around 600-square-metre footprints each, on easements about 70 metres wide, supporting transmission lines about 15 or more metres above the land, which severely limits how farmers can farm their land, limits productivity and brings additional fire risk to their properties.

And I note that VNI West and other projects add up to, at best, one-tenth of the 28,000 kilometres of transmission lines under Labor's Net Zero Plan.

This bill doesn't shut down development. It doesn't block investment.

It doesn't say 'no' by default.

What it says is this: if you want to use agricultural land for something else, you must prove the land, the farmer, and the community are respected and protected.

Mapping What Matters:    Knowing Our Best Land

The first practical step in this bill is simple but powerful: we must map nationally our agricultural land properly.

There are national tools like the Agricultural Production Systems Simulator (known as APSIM), the Australian Collaborative Land Use Mapping Program (ACLUMP) and the Queensland and New South Wales statutory mapping of their prime agricultural land. But Australia lacks a national, uniform map.

Australia very quickly ascertained and mapped where the critical minerals are, but we don't seem to have the same focus on mapping where our critical farmland is.

Under The Nationals' Prime Agricultural Land Protection Bill, the agricultural minister, working with peak farming bodies, must produce a national map that divides agricultural land into three clear categories:

Tier 1: our best farmland;

Tier 2: good land with productive potential; and

Tier 3: marginal land.

Tier 1 Land:    The Non-Negotiables

Let me be very clear about tier 1 land.

This bill draws a firm line.

The Commonwealth must not fund any future project that: reduces the farming productivity of tier 1 land, or allows foreign owned or foreign controlled corporations to take ownership or effective control of prime ag land.

This is not radical. It's responsible. It's in the national interest. Nations are searching the world for prime ag land to bolster their food security—we have plenty right here to not only secure but ensure we produce food for the world.

If land is among the best we have for farming then governments should not be using public money to damage it or hand it over.

Tier 2 land:    Responsible d evelopment

Tier 2 land allows more flexibility—but not a free-for-all.

Projects can proceed only if they meet clear conditions.

If a project risks reducing agricultural productivity, the proponent must: return the land to the same or better condition after the project, and ensure farmers are no worse off by providing a first option to those disturbed by the project to farm nearby without financial impact on their farm.

Returning farmland back to equal or better productivity is a claim some make, but the evidence is sketchy and farmers are highly sceptical about project proponents' promises.

In some cases, farmers are left in hell—or limbo, if you prefer—waiting for a proponent to finish rehabilitating their farm, which just isn't working. This bill will give them to option to finish the job properly and get on with their lives.

These are not empty promises.

Under the Nationals' Prime Agricultural Land Protection Bill, project proponents' promises of proper rehabilitation must be backed by independently reviewed plans and a refundable bond so landowners and the public aren't left holding the bag if promises aren't kept.

Protecting f armers' h omes and l ivelihoods

The bill will also ensure that if a project funded by the Commonwealth forces a farmer out of their primary residence, that farmer must be properly supported.

Farmers must be no worse off—not in housing quality, not in distance from their farms, not in their ability to keep farming.

Social l icence:    Giving c ommunities a r eal v oice

One of the most important parts of this bill is the ironclad principle of social licence.

Before Commonwealth funding is provided for projects affecting tier 2 or tier 3 land, the bill will require the proponents to produce a genuine social licence report.

A new Agriculture Commissioner will be the independent umpire on whether social licence has been secured fair and square.

Too often we see governments and corporations pay lip service to social licence—no more.

Regional Australians have had an absolute gutful of box-ticking consultancy exercises. This is about trust and being treated with the same respect you get in the city

The bill will establish the Agriculture Commissioner, who will blow the whistle on poorly handled social licence, and will resolve disputes over land classification and arbitrate conflicts.

In closing, let me be clear: this bill is not anti development. It's not anti investment.

It is not anti renewables, mining, or infrastructure.

This bill is pro farmers, pro food security, and pro community.

See this speech in context