SCL policy framework needs sharpening

THE State Government’s strategic cropping land (SCL) policy appears on the surface to have the mettle to alleviate any tension between intensive farming and minerals exploration.
But as the policy progresses it appears to becoming like the policy equivalent of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Not only that, but the very aim of the policy should not even be to crack the nut – but rather, say, break an egg.
Let me explain. The SCL discussion paper was triggered by the mounting call to protect quality agricultural land from destructive mining activities.
We have plenty of open space in this country, but fertile and productive land is a precious resource in finite supply.
The SCL policy development came as pressure grew not just against open cut mines on the Darling Downs, but also as it became apparent just how big the coal seam gas (CSG) industry would become in the Surat Basin.
The current framework lays the foundation to protect prime agricultural land from permanently destructive activities such as open cut coal mines.
But when it comes to the insidious nature of CSG projects creeping across the land with small individual wells, the sledgehammer is missing the target.
We do not have anything against CSG companies, or gas as an energy source.
But in this context the speed of development is outstripping the ability for the Government to be confident about the impact or to protect the rights other resource users.
Furthermore it is the proactive policies of Government that are spurring on the development. Who can blame the companies for responding?
The SCL framework published for discussion by the Government is trying to play catch-up but as yet it doesn’t adequately cover CSG development under its umbrella.
This is primarily because the premise remains that development will continue and impacts will be monitored, and any adverse affects will made good or compensated.
But what if they can’t?
Therefore, if the government thinks it can use its SCL sledgehammer to protect our farms for the future, then it needs a sharper instrument.
In the long-term, good SCL policy must be put into the context of broader agricultural policy.
I have said many times there is a need for a Food Act or Agriculture Act in Queensland, and this would include not just protection of good land from permanent alienation, but would also ensure the broader profitability of farmers and the farm sector by referencing all policy decisions against the State’s overarching food, fibre and foliage production priorities.
The very fact that we have the SCL framework under development is a good start and opens the door for such policies in the future.
We must remember that as much as we have a shortage of prime agricultural land, we also have a shortage of farmers, farm workers, and water.
Protecting our farms for the future also means ensuring that our farmers are profitable in the long term and they have the drive to keep operating.
There is little point protecting farmland from destruction if there aren’t farmers around to till the soil, or if it is simply too hard to find workers, or if farm margins are under such pressure that it is impossible to run a profitable business.
There’s a long list: a review into increasing SunWater charges, water cuts in the Murray Darling Basin Plan, reef regulations, and cuts to rural R&D to name a few.
Ultimately, we need to start with fixing the gaps within the SCL framework. This means recognising that 40,000 gas wells will very much permanently alienate farmland, even though each gas well on its own may have a small impact.