Pressure intensifies over defence farmland grab as Joyce visits Shoalwater Bay

Mr Joyce also sits on the National Security Committee but is being urged to intervene and assist local landholders who are fighting back against efforts to acquire their farms in a $2.25 billion deal to expand military training facilities through an agreement with the Singaporean government.

Defence Minister Maris Payne recently visited the area but refused to rule out compulsory land acquisition after meeting with anxious stakeholders and graziers.

However, she said the Department of Defence had been urged to minimise farmland use and would move fast to compile and finalise a strategic plan pinpointing where, if any, farm land may be required.

Mr Joyce has made some media comment on the land grab issue this week ahead of visiting Shoalwater Bay tomorrow where a private meeting will be held involving impacted graziers and local community members.

Farmer representative groups including AgForce and the National Farmers’ Federation (NFF) will also engage in talks with the Nationals’ leader on the grazing property, Couti-Outi, which shares a border with the Australian Defence Force's (ADF) planned facility expansion at Shoalwater Bay.

Mr Joyce said this week “the dilemma” underpinning the issue was the need to “defend the nation” while also considering agricultural interests and potential community benefits to be gained, from the 25-year military training deal.

“At this point in time there has been no compulsory land acquisitions,” he said.

“We don’t want to create unreasonable disturbances - but rather than start giving proclamations about what I intend to do before I get there, I’ll go up and have a yarn with the key stakeholders and see if there’s anything we can do to sort of mollify the situation.

“Obviously I do prefer if there wasn’t any compulsory acquisitions - but I’ll go up there to hear what’s going on”

It’s understood about 65 landholders representing about 300,000 hectares have been notified of the government’s intention to acquire land.

Labor Shadow Defence Minister Richard Marles said focal farmers, business operators and community members would find little comfort in claims by Queensland LNP Leader Tim Nicholls saying he’d spoken to the Prime Minister who’d asked the Department of Defence to investigate alternative sites and locations.

Mr Marles said the Prime Minister needed to talk to locals, “not cut political deals with his mates”.

He said Labor leader Bill Shorten wrote to Malcolm Turnbull yesterday, calling on him to urgently explain what other land options it had considered and on what basis have these been ruled as unsuitable.

“Surely there are other alternatives to acquiring prime grazing land,” he said.

“Removal of up to 70 000 head of cattle from this land, for instance, will directly impact on local abattoirs and cost Australian jobs.”

He also described Mr Joyce’s trip tomorrow for meetings with local stakeholders as a “Clayton’s visit - the visit that’s not really a visit”.

“If Barnaby Joyce doesn’t front everyone affected it will show just what he thinks of the views of regional Australians,” he said.

The NFF said in a statement this week it was disappointed Mr Joyce wouldn’t rule out the compulsory acquisition of farmland in northern and central Queensland for defence training purposes, given farmers were in limbo.

NFF CEO Tony Mahar said his group was pleased the Agriculture Minister had “finally engaged with this deeply concerning matter” but were “dismayed that the person who should be Australian farming’s biggest advocate does not see fit to categorically prioritise farmland for agricultural purposes”.

Mr Mahar said it was puzzling to understand why the Deputy Prime Minister was only speaking to affected farmers in the Marlborough region.

“The angst and concerns of all landholders in this defence debacle are of equal weight and we are questioning Deputy Prime Minister Joyce’s decision to seemingly ignore the Charters Towers affected landholders,” he said.

Mr Mahar said NFF and AgForce Queensland would be seeking clarity from the Deputy Prime Minister as to how the government would communicate the results of the strategic report due.

“With now less than three weeks to go we are lacking information as to how the potentially-disturbing news will be conveyed to those affected,” he said.

“To date this process has lacked transparency and frankly, compassion - we’re seeking assurances this will be improved going forward.”

Mr Mahar said there had also been no formal recognition of the impact the acquisitions would have on the communities the impacted farms support.

“Whether the acquisitions are compulsory or not – taking any farm business out of these local economies will have flow-on affects for small businesses and the employment opportunities for the residential farming community,” he said.

“We want advice from the Deputy Prime Minster as to how the government will address this impact.

“As the Deputy Prime Minister correctly proclaimed agriculture is in a golden era.

“Australian farm exports are currently our nation’s biggest industry second only to iron ore and catching up fast.

“Any plans to compulsory acquire what is productive farmland does not exactly back up the sentiments from the message of the Deputy Prime Minister.

“Quite simply it is not the way to treat farmers and families in both these regions who in some cases have been on their land for more than 100 years.

“It reflects extremely poorly on the government - the public demand more and there simply must be other options.”

One Nation has also weighed into the controversial debate with party leader Pauline Hanson and fellow Queensland Senator Malcolm Roberts saying they would advise farmers in Marlborough and Charters Towers regions that the proposed land acquisition may breach the Land Acquisition Act 1989 and be unconstitutional.

Senator Hanson said there was no proper consideration of the interests held by the Australian landowners or broader Australian public.

She said therefore “where exactly is the ‘public purpose’ as required by the legislation”.

“There is no ‘public’ support in this acquisition, nor is there any ‘purpose’ behind it,” she said.

“The army has stated the public will benefit from this acquisition; however no benefit can be demonstrated.

“I believe that if the farmers affected by this land grab were to take the matter to the High Court they would have a very arguable case that they might very likely win.”