By Sandy Bolton Noosa MP
After months of research, discussions and a three-day debate in Parliament, the vote on this Bill was not an easy one. With farmers in my family going back to the 1800’s, I understood the intense hardships of country life, and had seen the negative impacts 20 years of see sawing laws have had on our farming families and the environment. I also understood that the current status quo was not tenable.
Arguments from both sides of the house were relevant, researched and often cut to the core of who we are, what we do and how do we do it. Many questions were raised surrounding the farming economy and its future, the accuracy of statistics, and the rights of all landholders, not just farmers. How does any landholder feel when their property is devalued through a decision taken for the betterment of all? This was debated passionately, and rightfully so.
As I said during my speech, statistics, whichever way you read them, or from whatever angle you look at them, showed clearly that action was required. This legislation will provide much needed breathing space to halt the clearing rates, investigate questions raised during debate, obtain improved accuracy through expanded SLATS, and work with our farmers to increase viability and productivity through innovative options. As well, it will alleviate the intense pressure unfairly put on our farmers and farming sector, whose demonization has been uncalled for and is very un-Australian. They need our support, not our judgement, as does our natural environment and its furry, feathered and scaled inhabitants.
During this time we could also look at our decision making processes. As a thinking and progressive State we should ask – is our future to be one of ‘top down’ approaches instead of ‘grassroots up’ that we speak of as necessary for long term solutions? And what does legislation that ‘blankets’ our State do to communities who seek customisation and self-determination to achieve their endeavours? As a proactive society we should probe our predisposition to seek the sanctity of increased legislation and regulations versus targeted prosecution to deal with offenders.
This debate, as with others, raises the importance of working together. Without a future bipartisan agreement, our farming sector and natural environment may continue to be in a state of upheaval as has been seen since 1999 with changes in government bringing about subsequent changes in laws. Both need surety and support through respectful negotiation ‘around the table’ as a way forward, not fodder for Facebook or political gain. Good, long term outcomes can only be achieved by a united agreement, and it is time to put aside the anger and accusations.
That one Bill can raise so many questions should be considered a positive and I hope these, and many others in the coming months, become lively conversations at your dinner table or in your own deliberations?
Until next month
Warm regards
Sandy
