Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you, Madam Chair. I am delighted that the minister eventually got to move this amendment, amendment (1) on sheet BR247. This is an important amendment, and it is an amendment that the opposition welcomes. We are in fact delighted that the government, albeit somewhat belatedly, did at least come to the party in presenting this amendment, thereby—indeed, as you hinted, Madam Chair—negating the opposition amendment that is listed to be debated next. We think this is a very important and valid approach. We think it is vital to make sure that these issues of land access for agricultural production are treated as being just as important as the other projects, areas of projects or kinds of projects listed in the existing and proposed section 56.

Let us just remind ourselves that this is the section that creates the kinds of projects that appear on the negative list—the draft regulations that the minister laid on the table this morning. These are the kinds of projects which, following the amendments of Senator Xenophon's that we endorsed, could have a material risk or a material adverse impact on one or more of the following. We already have the availability of water, the conserva­tion of biodiversity, employment and the local community listed as factors in this regard. We think it is important that land access for agricultural production equally be included, given the importance of food security issues in Australia and the import­ance of reflecting the concerns of many in the farming community. There is a real concern about the potential of this bill, along with a range of other factors at present, to have an adverse impact on farmers' ongoing access to farmlands.

The opposition had of course proposed inserting part (e) of this amendment with the words 'land and resource access for agricultural production'. The government has presented a slightly different version, 'land access for agricultural production', instead. That is fine. That is welcome. We certainly would not proceed with our amendment should this amendment succeed—and, given that the opposition supports this amendment, we certainly expect that it will succeed. I note that the government has circulated an explanatory memorandum to explain what this means. The explanatory memorandum highlights that it would require the minister to also consider whether there is a signifi­cant, now material, risk that a particular kind of project would have a materially adverse impact on land access for agricultural production:

... in, or in the vicinity of, the project area, or any of the project areas, for that kind of project.

The opposition pursued this issue by presenting our amendments at the earlier stage of debate on this legislation because we agreed with the concerns the National Farmers Federation had and with the recom­mendation they had put that it was important to have an amendment of this type included in this legislation. Also, the government circulated this amendment prior to the recess we have just had, and that of course means that the government has known for some considerable period of time that it was intending to insert part (e) into proposed section 56(2) and that land access for agricultural production would become a factor for consideration.

Minister, given the strong support around the chamber for this inclusion and given the fact that the government has intended to include it for close to a month and a half, I have a question for you that I would appreciate your feedback on: how is this new section reflected in the draft regulations that you have circulated and what work has been done to ensure that this new section, which you have intended for some time to include, is reflected in these draft regulations?