Are farm voices lost in veg biffo?

A BIODIVERSITY battle played out over 20 years is hurtling towards its climax.

But as political stakeholders and lobby groups continue to dominate native vegetation discussion in NSW - the average farmer is being lost in the maze of debate. 

That’s the view of former Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics director Dr Brian Fisher, who says the voices missing from the debate seem to be from a middle ground deemed unacceptable to opposing sides.

Dr Fisher, who remains a public policy consultant, was an associate commissioner to the Productivity Commission’s native vegetation report in 2004. He said now - as it was then - farmers know better than most how to balance land and environment.

“Farmers are perfectly capable of making up their own minds about assessing what is best for them and their land,” Dr Fisher said.

“I think ... a lot of people are giving advice on something that does not necessarily affect them. 

“A lot of people in Macquarie Street and the city don’t necessarily see the difficulties that farmers face in the bush. Most wouldn’t go further than the Blue Mountains - if ever.”

In 2012 the Bureau of Statistics reported just under a third of the nation’s farmers were in NSW - meaning up to 60,000 producers could have a stake in the final make-up of the biodiversity conservation reforms. 

For the moment, the laws are hidden behind the curtain of Cabinet. 

If city-based members of the Liberal Party maintain Coalition solidarity the legislation could succeed with support from two Upper House crossbench MPs - most likely the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers, or the Christian Democrats. 

Primary Industries Minister Niall Blair remains tight-lipped - but has assured producers the laws will enter parliament during the next two months. 

In the meantime stakeholders continue to reference the farming public for leverage amid the clamour.

The release of the NSW Land Management Biodiversity Conservation Reforms Submission Report this week showed 5350 of the 7166 submissions to the draft legislation were made by supporters of the anti-reform Stand Up For Nature Alliance.

NSW Farmers highlighted that 96 per cent of the Alliance’s submissions were via a standardised online form, and hit out at the “click and submit” opposition. 

The Alliance was quick to point out only 150 submissions were from the farm sector, and argued this was proof the reforms had been crafted to further the interests of a vocal minority who stand to make money from land clearing.

The Alliance had previously said the rolling debate was not about pitting farmers against environmentalists.

The conservation-minded Farming Future group also waded in last week, asserting that most producers in NSW believed the proposed legislation was harmful, and should be re-written to incorporate and focus on modern practices, including soil health. The group’s proof was presented to NSW Labor, Greens and the Animal Justice Party last week in a petition signed by 660 farmers - or 660 people who identified as ‘farmer’ on the online survey.

Inverell beef producer and Farming Future spokesman Glen Morris – who rode his horse in traffic across Sydney Harbour Bridge in June - nominated not one part of the reforms but “pretty much all of it” when asked what settings he disagreed with. 

“This is going back 25 years to the bad old ways,” Mr Morris said. “We need to be moving towards a system that promotes our soils, our water and our health.”

Meanwhile, NSW Farmers has maintained its pro-industry push to scrap proposed caps on the rate and scale of clearing permitted, and is pushing for government to amend access to biodiversity offset schemes. 

The Association’s conservation and resource management committee chair, Mitchell Clapham, said the reforms, in their pre-cabinet state, were asking some producers to wait another 20 years before they can sustainably develop farming areas.

Dr Fisher, meanwhile, hopes for a speedy conclusion to the debate.

“That would be the biggest thing for me, how long it has taken this government to address the issue of native vegetation,” Dr Fisher said.