The Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association is confident the state government will update compulsory land acquisition legislation, after concerns raised by primary producers.
Under Tasmanian legislation, land can be compulsory acquired by government business enterprises or companies, if it is deemed essential that a particular property or parcel of ground is required for a public purpose.
TFGA president Ian Sauer said the current legislation wasn't "fit for purpose."
"We have spoken to a lot of our members and people in industry and they all agree the act is old, it's clunky, it's not contemporary and needs to be reviewed," Mr Sauer said.
The TFGA would write to Agriculture Minister Jo Palmer asking the government to review the act.
He said the TFGA was "absolutely rock solid" in supporting ongoing development in Tasmania.
"We think it is absolutely terrific - all we are concerned about is that we want the legislation to be contemporary, we want it to be open and we want it to be transparent," he said.
"The other thing that goes with that is the most appropriate compensation for farmers for the loss of land, future profits and amenity," he said.
"The [compensation] model needs to able to take into account, not only the CPI but also the increase in land value over time and loss of productivity."
Mr Sauer said he believed there was an appetite for change, from the government, as it was very supportive of the state's agricultural sector.
It comes as TasNetworks has said it's committed to, and is undertaking, a review of its existing compensation framework when it needs to acquire land.
A spokesman said TasNetworks was currently working on a set of revised compensation principles and approaches, which would be provided to landowners.
He said TasNetworks was also working with its shareholders, the Australian Energy Regulator and other government bodies regarding the revised compensation principles.
Read more:
Mr Sauer said the TFGA had members "caught in the crosshairs of acquisition" for land deemed to be of a 'public nature'.
"We have a member's farm in Cressy literally 'criss-crossed' with various types of infrastructure - transmission towers, tailrace channels and high-voltage poles and wires," he said.
"This family absolutely understands the need for public infrastructure, but I am left with the feeling there has to be a way for the government business enterprises (GBEs) or state-owned companies (SOCs) to work more collaboratively to minimise the impact on some of the best farming land in the world.
"Surely these government companies could work together to share easements and other infrastructure."
Oliver Scott Young, has a sheep and cropping enterprise at Cressy, Tasmania, and said he had issues with both TasNetworks and Tasmanian Irrigation.
"We are unlucky with having the Palmerston sub-station, Poatina, in the middle of our farm, so have got a few TasNetworks lines going in various directions," he said.
"That limits where we can put centre pivot irrigators."
TasNetworks had approached the family to put the upgraded Marinus Link transmission line, between Tasmania and Victoria, in parallel an existing one that would be removed.
He said TasNetworks told him they would be building two new towers on the property.
"We are not impacted anywhere near as some of our neighbours, but just because it doesn't have as big an impact doesn't mean we should roll over and just cop it."
The way the compulsory acquisition legislation was written meant farmers "didn't have a leg to stand on," he said.
He said Tasmanian Irrigation also wanted to build a 580 megalitre storage dam for the proposed Northern Midlands scheme in the property's central paddock.
Tasmanian Irrigation chief executive Andrew Kneebone said there had been extensive consultation with the Scott Youngs.
"We have been trying to talk with them and negotiate this for 12 months, I have met with them twice," Mr Kneebone said
Tasmanian Irrigation was seeking to develop the $170-180 million scheme to deliver 24,500 megalitres of water to about 40 farmers, as far down as Campbell Town and Ross.
"In order to do that we need a buffer storage that's going to allow us to collect water, as we are reliant on the Poatina power station as a water source," he said.
"We have to take water when it's available - when the power station is running, we have to store water and deliver it.
"There is very little, in the way of options, as to where that storage might be," he said.
It was always a fine balance between allowing part of a property to be used for public infrastructure.
"We always try to do this by negotiation," Mr Kneebone said.
"Because we are operating these schemes for 100 years we want to be good neighbours and have good relationships with the people we deal with" he said.
He said TI was sympathetic to the Scott-Youngs situation "but I have to look at what the opportunities and options are - and they are very limited." he said.
Mr Kneebone said TI would continue to discuss the siting of the dam.
"At the end of the day, without a buffer storage this scheme won't work and can't proceed," he said.
Compulsory acquisition was a last resort - "we haven't got there yet," he said.
The Tasmanian government has been contacted for comment.
Andrew Miller
I'm a general reporter with Stock & Land, with a special interest in irrigation issues. I completed my cadetship, with the Age, in 1980. Over my career, I've worked for ABC radio news (Mt Isa, Qld) and at provincial and suburban newspapers.
I'm a general reporter with Stock & Land, with a special interest in irrigation issues. I completed my cadetship, with the Age, in 1980. Over my career, I've worked for ABC radio news (Mt Isa, Qld) and at provincial and suburban newspapers.
