Victoria’s Agriculture Minister Jaala Pulford and Planning Miniser Richard Wynne have received the report of a committee, set up to look at the state’s intensive animal industry planning laws.
Ms Pulford said some of the 37 recommendations could be acted upon quickly, but others would take longer.
“We are going to take a little bit of time to have a look at it - I know there will be people who - no doubt - want to see it right now,” Ms Pulford said.
“But what I can assure people is that it is a really good piece of work.
“It is very thorough, they have listened to the concerns from community and industry and come up with a number of recommendations, which I think will help us all move forward in a way that recognises our desire to grow agricultural industries and the desire of people in community to not be really impacted adversely by intensive production.”
She said the Department of Agriculture now had a unit which focussed on early intervention, before planning disputes got out of hand.
“We are also developing agricultural expertise and capability in intensive agriculture, in our regional development offices, so there are a number of things we are doing we hope will relieve pressure,” Ms Pulford said.
The committee, under Lester Townsend, was formed last December, in response to what the Victorian Farmers Federation (VFF) and individual producers claimed was ongoing uncertainty in planning processes.
The issues were brought to a head with the Happy Valley piggery decision, at Mt Evelyn and high profile disputes between livestock producers, John Watson, with the Campaspe shire, and Wagyu prouducer David Blackmore and the Murrindindi Shire.
The committee’s terms of reference included looking at the “adequacy of the definition of 'intensive animal husbandry' in Clause 74 of the Victoria Planning Provisions.”
Public hearings were held at Colac, Bendigo. Melbourne and Traralgon.
Mr Blackmore’s submission was one of 145 received by the committee.
Ms Pulford said she believed the government was now doing a better job, at resolving planning conflicts.
“A lot of this conflict is caused by two parties, with two conflicting views, not properly appreciating one another’s perspective,” Ms Pulford said.
“There will always be conflict in planning matters, we need to make sure we get the balance right, where everybody has the proper right to put their view, so that industry can grow, but we need to balance that with community, environmental and other protections.”
Victorian Farmers Federation (VFF) president Peter Touhey said both Mr Watson and Mr Blackmore ended up in disputes, in response to their local councils’ demands they obtain intensive animal husbandry permits.
Under current rules, farmers must obtain a permit if they’re engaged in intensive animal husbandry, which is defined as “land used to keep or breed farm animals...by importing most food from outside the enclosures”.
“But what’s an enclosure?” Mr Tuohey said. “Is it a paddock, yard or pen? And do the animals have to be permanently housed there?
“And what does “most food” mean? Is it 51 per cent, 70 per cent, 80 per cent of feed? And is most measured by weight, nutritional value or volume?
He said the result of such uncertainty was conflict.
Mr Tuohey said the VFF had lodged a submission with the committee advocating the removal of the intensive and extensive definitions from the Victorian planning scheme and instead clearly defining what types of farming should require a permit.
