Motion: Select Committee on Agricultural Land

Ms BURNET (Clark) - Speaker, I rise to make my points against this proposal, and I've heard the honourable member for Franklin and the justification for having an inquiry, but I don't know that you have inquiries if they're not justified, if they're bringing this discussion or an inquiry into something around a decision that has effectively been made. I know, and I thank the minister and his staff for providing the briefing this morning, which was very instructive.

I suppose there are concerns, and many of those have been ventilated really effectively by Dr Broad and Ms Badger, in relation to the class 5 and 6 land which I understand to be at Rushy Lagoon. I know that the State Policy on the Protection of Agricultural Land 2009 is to protect prime agricultural land from conversion to non-agricultural uses, and no matter what the honourable member for Franklin has said, these are what locals are using as their land. If this isn't prime agricultural land, like the class 1, 2 or 3, then it's not necessarily going to be the best land for agriculture. I suppose coming into this debate, I've been interested in what potential there has been for Rushy Lagoon, whether it's been that gold standard or the prime producer for any sort of agricultural means. We've heard some pretty interesting anecdotes or stories, particularly from Dr Broad, in relation to what has been some of the crop failings, particularly with potato yields, also the runoff into the wetlands.

I see this as a significant potential project of mixed farming. I'm not one for suggesting that softwood plantations are the best way to go. However, if those things could be managed in a different and sustainable way, with particular harvesting and sustainable approaches, then we may see that this land is actually going to be used for better effect. If there is that Ramsar protection of the wetlands, and an improvement in the way that agricultural processes might be occurring some regenerative agricultural processes, and improvements to the land then that would be a good thing as well. I see that there is potential, that may or may not be delivered with this project.

I do have a number of questions, if I might, for the minister. I'm interested to know whether this is class 5 and 6 land, and whether the proposed use of Rushy Lagoon by the purchaser is captured by the State Policy on the Protection of Agricultural Land. I wonder - if the minister's taking questions - if the state government has a problem with the sale to a foreign investor for a specific use, is it reviewing this policy? If it is covered by the policy, did the minister raise the policy with the federal government, and in particular his federal counterpart, or with the CEFC or with the purchaser before the sale was approved? I have another question in relation to whether the state government wants to control what farmers do on class 5 and 6 land and what the outcome might be for Tasmanian farmers, if that's the case.

My last question is around, given that the sale has gone through, what will the investigation of this inquiry actually achieve? The sale, from my understanding, cannot be stopped.

Finally, given this is something that has been looked at by the CEFC and the FIRB, which are all federal considerations, I'm not sure that this House is the best place to undertake this inquiry. I wish the purchasers of Rushy Lagoon - I want to see a really innovative protection for the Ramsar area and some good outcomes in those plantations that might occur, which is part of the land, not all of the land obviously. Also, whether there will be some restorative practices in any of the land on Rushy Lagoon, but also regenerative processes in farming. It would be good to see what might come of this.