Press Releases

24 December 2010 - FutureFood QLD welcomes protection of prime farmland

To all FutureFood members and subscribers

Given the newspaper headline of a couple of weeks ago, and having attended an SCL advisory committee meeting last week, I thought it a good time to report on developments on the strategic cropping land policy. Contrary to that headline, my summation of progress thus far is that, apart from the disappointment of the time lines drawing out, things appear to be fairly well on track.

The Government has contracted the services of an independent firm of soil scientists to work with its own team to “road test” the draft set of SCL assessment criteria and thresholds. These guys have thus far spent a week in Southern Qld and tested over 40 sites. They have deliberately chosen some sites which should logically be SCL, some that logically should not, and some that are difficult to decide. They report that the assessment process is delivering results that appear logic, and match the expectations of the team. Given this team accounts for well over 100 years experience, it is fair to say that their “gut feel” should be a fair measure. They are considering some minor fine tuning of some of the criteria, but by and large, the criteria and thresholds are working quite well.

The plan was (before flooding intervened) to spend another week testing the process in CQ and coastal regions, but that is now looking very difficult, and will certainly be significantly delayed as weather delays run into the Christmas/New Year break. It remains to be seen whether the remaining tests are done early next year, or whether the 40 odd tests already conducted are deemed to be adequate ground truthing.

On the broader question, as to the Governments commitment/sincerity toward the whole concept of protecting strategic cropping land raised by some sections of the media, I can only say that I am convinced there is a strong level of commitment within Government at both the elected and bureaucratic level, to see SCL policy through. There is a consistent tone that progress needs to be made with some urgency, but not at the expense of good quality results. I can see no change in intent of the policy from its initial discussion paper to now. There has always been a clear commitment to identify, through scientific assessment, the states “best” cropping land, and then protect it from developments that would permanently damage it. The trigger maps were always going to outline a larger area than will ultimately become SCL, and it is clearly stated in the document that the trigger map is intended to illustrate where SCL may occur. Farmers who are not in the trigger map area but believe they have land that is SCL, will be able to apply and have it assessed, and if it passes the test it will be deemed SCL. This seems fair enough to me.

The area of most concern for all will be how the Government chooses to apply the words “best” cropping land. Clearly “best” implies the land which demonstrates superior qualities in some way or other, but it is very much a matter of opinion, and therefore in this context a matter of policy, as to what percentage “best” is. Very clearly not all cropping land can be best, and hopefully it will not be applied to only the best hectare in the state, but just how much the government chooses will be what dictates whether the SCL policy is ultimately seen as a visionary and ground breaking piece legislation, or a farce. I believe it will be the former, but am also concerned not all areas that should be protected will be.

To me the biggest concern with the process thus far, is how long it is going to take to get this through to enacted legislation, and how much more SCL country will be lost to mining in the interim. There has been some discussion on to how to handle the period between then and now, or “transitional arrangements” as Governments like to call it. We have not been close to these discussions, and I believe they are at a very formative stage, but their outcome will be very important.

It is disappointing that one of the stakeholders on the SCL committee managed, either deliberately or through carelessness, to leak the information that lead to the QCL article and headline. We need to be very conscious that if we do not respect the confidence that is part and parcel of participation in such a process, the Government will simply not use a collaborative process in the development of such policies, which will ultimately be to the determent of ourselves as landholders. We must all accept that as these things are a work in progress, ideas come and go, and having all that played out in public will cause confusion and misunderstanding that simply does not benefit anyone.

There has been some reaction to the approval of Xstrata’s Wandoan project without it being subjected to the SCL assessment. This is a difficult one and I must confess I can see both sides of it. It’s certainly disappointing the SCL process wasn’t far enough developed to have been applied, and it highlights the need for urgent progress on this ground breaking new policy. I also think we need to acknowledge that Governments almost never apply laws retrospectively, and for good reason. The challenge here is to strike a reasonable balance. There are many projects “in the pipeline”, and some of them are on country that is very likely to be SCL. Clearly we can not have a situation where all these projects are exempt from the SCL process. A decision needs to be made that, prior to an agreed date (I would suggest the date of the initial discussion paper where the Government announced “a new policy position for Queensland” ) any project that did not have a Mining Lease or Environmental Authority, or had not reached some other readily identifiable milestone in the process, should be subject to the SCL assessment process.

We need some discussion on this, so feedback is welcome on this or any other issues arising. In closing I would like to thank all our members and supporters for their support throughout 2010. We look to 2011 with a determination to having an effective SCL policy implemented. I wish all members a Merry Christmas, and hope the heavy rain forecast for the next week does not eventuate – for the time being at least!

Regards,

Geoff Hewitt. Co Chair. FFQ