NFF probes prime ag land protections

He also believes there’s growing awareness about climate change impacts and associated opportunities among farmers but they don’t have a “rent seeking mentality”.

With nation-wide debate raging over whether farmers should have rights to reject coal seam gas (CSG) mining activities or other land use conflicts, the NFF Members Council is debating the topic this week in Canberra.

Mr Talbot said the NFF’s member base was being forced to face the controversial issue as were the National Party and other political forces and community groups.

“It’s something that’s going to be a big part of the political agenda and the challenge we face is to collectively start solving this issue or else it’s going to be solved for us and that won’t be in the best interests of farmers,” he said.

That point was also made to the NFF during a briefing meeting with National Party parliamentary members in Canberra.

Mr Talbot said the solution required a delicate combination of not over-regulating prime agricultural land but also not under-regulating it and taking away from farmers’ rights.

“There’s no doubt that the Shenhua and Adani mines are figuring strongly in the minds of both the NFF members but also various backbenchers and political parties,” he said.

“There’s confusion about how we resolve the issue and there’s also concern that on one hand we’re saying we’re pro-foreign investment but on the other hand we’re being restrictive against large foreign investment projects.

“We will have a robust debate at the NFF Members’ Council but I suspect there will be a resolution or consensus that we need to have a national debate about protecting prime agricultural land.”

Mr Talbot said about 3 to 5 per cent of Australia’s landmass was likely to be considered prime agricultural land.

He said after the NF’s policy discussion, they would also need to elevate the debate into the wider political sphere, to seek broader solutions.

“If we don’t take up the mantle and encourage this debate about protecting prime agricultural land, who else is going to do that?” he said.

“It could be extreme groups, which wouldn’t be in farmers’ best interests.”

Mr Talbot said drawing lines on maps – to define prime agricultural and or other policy areas like drought support – would always be contentious.

But he said the NFF’s role was to start the conversation and promote a transparent fact-based debate, “not an emotive debate”.

“Ultimately that could mean lines being drawn on maps or using metrics based on farm productivity,” he said.

“But what we need to be cognisant of is how productive agricultural land is going to change over the next five, 10 or 15 years.

“I don’t think we’ll be at the stage where we’ll be pulling out a map and putting red ink on it.

“But I do think we need to acknowledge that 3 to 5pc of Australia’s landmass is prime ag land and it needs to be debated as to whether we want to give that land special consideration or we don’t.

“At the moment we’re in no man’s land and that’s not helpful.”

Mr Talbot said another great area for discussion on NFF policy development was in relation to climate change and carbon trading.

“Ultimately the farmer has the most to lose or gain from the climate change debate,” he said.

“They can control the way they manage their soils but they can’t control the climate around them, which is the other dominant interface.”

Mr Talbot said there was a “growing realisation” in the farm sector that climate change, drought and agricultural productivity were all part of a complex matrix that can’t be ignored.

“I think two things are changing,” he said.

“I would not say farmers have a rent seeking mentality.

“But I would say they’re getting more inquisitive around the impacts of climate change and how to better prepare for it and better manage it.

“I’ve put my head above the parapet a few times and pressed a few buttons on how we feel about climate change; not just with NFF members but also the broader agricultural community.

“It’s fair to say there’s a big shift moving towards, ‘we need to understand this better and if we don’t understand this better, then we do have our heads in the sand’.

“And the feedback also is that some big money may have been left on the table in the past by us being climate deniers.

“Now we’re certainly not climate deniers by the policies we have in train at the moment.

“But I wouldn’t say we are advocates for climate change compensation either.”

Mr Talbot said there was a growing awareness about the impacts of climate change and the need for fact based data among the farming community.

He said there was also growing support about the need to develop better tools to tackle climate change risks and manage farm operations efficiently, like Multi-Peril Crop Insurance.

Rather than individuals heading to the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris from November 30 to December 11 claiming to represent Australian farmers, Mr Talbot said policy developed via robust debates, like those held by the NFF, were preferred.

“It’s frustrating that fragmented or splinter groups run off and think they represent Australian agriculture,” he said.

“I don’t know where they can feel they get their mandate from but my door’s always open and the phone’s always on, to have a conversation.”

Mr Talbot said the NFF would be represented in Paris by the group’s Water Taskforce chair Les Gordon who was speaking on water.