Mr DEAN (Windermere ) - Mr President, I shall not be long at all in my presentation. Suffice to say, Mr President, it has been a very interesting week - cows mooing, legs cut off and put under beds for several days at a time before being found; it has certainly been an enlightening week. I have found out a lot this week.
I might say at the beginning, Mr President, that I am somewhat up in the air on this bill. I am not quite sure which way I should be going yet so I will be interested in hearing the rest of the debate and the summing up of course by the Leader towards the end of this process. I am really not quite sure where I should go. It is not an easy bill at all to handle.

I just make comment on the position of the member for Montgomery who referred to some of the legislation that farmers have now to deal with. It is immense, there is a huge amount of it to comply with. Also they have the unpredictable changing weather patterns, changing markets and it just goes on and on for them. It is not surprising that farmers in this circumstance are concerned with the implementation of further legislation which will control and will impact on their ability to do what they want to do on their properties within reason.

I have a farming background from a number of years ago however my knowledge of farming is not as great as some other members' in this House, I would think. If my father were here today and had to come to terms with this legislation he would look at it in disbelief and I think that he would be very outspoken about it as well. He always believed that his farm was his property and that he could use that farm in the best way possible to provide him with a reasonable return and a reasonable lifestyle and, indeed, that is the way in which he farmed that property.

The farmers are the salt of the earth and I think that has already been mentioned by other members. They are the people Australia was built on. They are the people who have made this the great country it is, and I do not think anybody would argue with that fact. Without them we would not be eating the best vegetables, the best meats, the best cereals, drinking the milk, cream and whatever else it is that we consume. We have the highest-quality products, in Tasmanian in particular. This is really what I think Richard Bovill was about when he drove his tractor to Canberra identifying the Tasmanian brand and making it very clear to the people that we were indeed privileged to have the best quality products of probably anywhere in this country and the world for that matter, Mr President.

Farmers are proud people and, as I said, assiduous people and prepared to take on the challenges out there. We know that farmers need to diversify to make a reasonable living and that is one of the difficulties now with farming. Whilst you may have run fat lambs for the last 10 or 15 years, it is not an industry that you can definitely say that you will be in for the rest of your life because it just changes. It changes from fat lambs to wool, for example. Farmers around the country now and particularly where I have a small property in the Forth area, have had to change from produce, vegetables to flowers. There is a big market now for flowers so they have had to diversify into a number of other areas and therefore they want to know that they can farm their properties to the best of their ability and with some assuredness -

Mr Parkinson - Fat lambs would still be okay? Still bringing good prices, are they?

Mr DEAN - Well, no, they are not. They certainly were not that highly priced here recently unless the prices have increased, Mr Leader.

Mr Parkinson - That was sheep, that was the others.

Mr DEAN - Prices are not all that great this year.

They were good briefings in Launceston. In a few places they were a little hurried but then I think the Leader had to push those briefings through as quickly as he could so that we could meet our other commitments. During those briefings an issue was raised about farmers being able to change and Mr Swain made the comment that if you had been using a property for grazing for 100 years and if a threatened species or community is found you would still be able to pursue grazing on that property. I understand that is the position and I guess that would hearten some farmers.

During the briefing I raised the issue of costs and what the changes here would likely do to farmers. In the briefing at the time was the manager of a bank and it was as though it had been scripted, I suppose, as I was not aware of that at the time. When I raised that issue the bank manager elected to answer. He said there would be an impact, there would be an impost on farmers and particularly on people wanting to buy and develop properties. He said that banks would be very interested to know just what they could do with those properties in the future if this legislation is supported, and no doubt it will be because I think I can read the numbers around this Chamber today.

It is an issue that is of some concern. I do not know whether or not it has been mentioned but there is a property that is currently for sale in the Cleveland area which has caused some angst. I understand a potential buyer has approached a bank and the bank is reluctant to provide finance unless they are given some guarantee of the further and future development of that property which they say may well be restricted if this legislation is supported. In that instance I understand a buyer wishes to develop so there are two segments to that loan. So it will have some impact on farmers and their ability to purchase and on sales of properties into the future. I notice the member for Rowallan is lifting his eyebrows.

Mr Parkinson - That is severely overrated, that aspect, because this is really minimal impact legislation, the whole thing, and to suggest that it is going to affect bank financing is a real furphy, I believe.

Mr DEAN - Well I do not believe it is a furphy and I just wonder how the Leader is able to say that when there is already one example where a bank has questioned a potential buyer of a property.

Mr Parkinson - What does 'questioned' mean?

Mr DEAN - The bank wants to know about the future of that property. Can the property be developed?

Mr Parkinson - Well that is understandable. It would be a normal question for a bank, wouldn't it?

Mr DEAN - I would not have thought it would have been to the same degree that it currently is and I would have thought that the bank would be looking at -

Mr Parkinson - 'You want money from us, what use are you going to put the property to? What is the income from the property going to be?'

Mr Harriss - Yes, and what are the threats to that property? Be realistic about it.

Mr Parkinson - That is true obviously but then with a minimal impact that we are talking about here you should be able to satisfy any bank about finance.

Mr Harriss - Oh, yes? You obviously were not listening to the briefing.

Mr PRESIDENT - Order. The honourable member may proceed.

Mr DEAN - Thank you Mr President. I just wanted to go through one or two of the comments that have been made to me since this adjournment and through some interviews and briefing sessions I had this week.

One of those was from a member of the TFGA. I made the comment during this briefing that, if this legislation is being supported by the TFGA simply on the grounds that the Federal Government may introduce harsher legislation, then I think their supporting or defending of this bill is flawed. I would hope that this is not the situation.

Mr Wilkinson - It should be taken into account though, shouldn't it? In some ways it is a bit like playing Russian roulette, one could argue.

Mr DEAN - I have a difficulty with even supporting that it should be taken into account. I am of the belief that this legislation should be tested on its own merits. If it is good for farmers, or farmers can live with it and work with it, that should be the determination, not the fact that hanging over the farmer's head is the threat of more draconian legislation.

Mr Parkinson - Any reasonable analysis of it would answer that question. It is good and farmers can live with it. On any reasonable analysis.

Mr DEAN - If this legislation is supported then very clearly farmers are going to have to live with it, aren't they? They are going to have to make some adjustments to get through it.

Mr Parkinson - Anybody who understands it, that is.

Mr DEAN - Are you saying that some do not understand it?

Mr Parkinson - I do not know whether you understand it or not. I hesitate to say that you do not understand it.

Mr DEAN - Anyway, Mr President, leading on in that discussion with the representative of the TFGA I am satisfied that is not the case. I am told that the TFGA are satisfied that they have now negotiated a good position for farmers, that the legislation does look after them and can be practically applied. The legislation provides certainty which is minimalist, simple, practical and devoid of red tape as far as possible. That was the comment made by this member representing the TFGA to me. I guess there is always going to be red tape, isn't there? We cannot get rid of all of that.

They also went on to say that threatened communities are listed in this State so a purchaser has the ability to do a due diligence test and I might say that that is something the Government is not good at. A farmer will be able to do a due diligence test to determine if any threatened communities are identified on the property that they might have an interest in. The tools to do this have been negotiated and will be in place before proclamation and I guess the Leader might well be able to provide an answer at the end of this. I understand that if due diligence is done, all of that information will be available to a purchaser, or to a bank, real estate agents or whoever wishes to acquire that information.

They further say they have sought to shore up things and get more certainty and are now content that the proposed position is workable and provides for a reasonably clear direction forward. That does give me some heart. Very clearly there has been a considerable amount of work done on this since the adjournment was taken on this matter, Mr President.

I want to conclude. I have spoken with one farmer in this State and she said that farmers really want to be able to work their properties. They want to work their properties the way that they see fit, within reason. They want to make a reasonable living. That is what it is all about at the end of the day. That farmer and a number of other farmers strongly support the trialling of a voluntary program in the first instance. That has been mentioned to us and that was brought up in the briefing at Launceston as well. I do not know whether or not that would be successful but farmers are very reputable people, they are very honest people, very down-to-earth people, and I am very confident that, if a voluntary program were to be put in place, they would comply with it and they would make it work.

Mrs Rattray-Wagner - Some are happy too.

Mr DEAN - I understand a certain ex-member of this House on the north-east coast is very happy with it. It was suggested that a voluntary program should be introduced before a regulatory program was introduced as we are doing here today. It is a position that was put forward.

Another comment made there was that certificates for exemption and/or conditions should be available to real estate agents and lending agents and farmers. The area to be protected is 25 000 hectares. Will the progressive tally be posted and what happens when it is reached? What happens from there? The Leader might be able to provide some answer there.

Some farmers believed that the right to farm has not been considered in depth and that farmers will be subjected to even more impediments to their pursuits. Also there is still that strong belief that costs, Mr President, are not spelled out to farmers - that is, the costs that are likely to be incurred by farmers as a result of this legislation. There are also other issues that some of our farmers out there are not happy with.

That is my contribution, Mr President and, as I said at the beginning, I still have not made a decision on which way I should go. I listened intently to the honourable member for Montgomery, who with her background ought to know very well what this legislation is likely to do to our farmers, so I do take a lot of notice in this instance of the member. My brother, who was also a farmer, indicated to me that he probably sold out and got off his farm at the right time, Mr President.