Agricultural Land

<html><body>
Agriculture industry expert Daryl Quinlivan has been appointed the State’s first Agriculture Commissioner, delivering on a major NSW Government election commitment.
Minister for Agriculture Adam Marshall announced Mr Quinlivan’s appointment in Coffs Harbour today and said the Commissioner would champion NSW farmers’ rights.
“Establishing an Agriculture Commissioner was a major NSW Government election commitment and today’s announcement is an important step in delivering the protections and policies our farmers need to grow and thrive,” Mr Marshall said.
“Daryl is incredibly well regarded in industry, having served as the Secretary of the Commonwealth Agriculture Department and headed up the Productivity Commission."
The Agriculture Commissioner will review the NSW Government’s Right to Farm Policy and will have a particular focus on resolving land use conflict and identifying growth opportunities for industry. 
Member for Coffs Harbour Gurmesh Singh welcomed the announcement and said the Commissioner would be a strong voice for local farmers. 
Mr Quinlivan said he was honoured to be appointed to the role and would advocate strongly on behalf of the state’s farmers.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

NSW's first Agriculture Commissioner appointed

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
This week, an animal rights charity, Aussie Farms, unveiled an interactive map of factory farms, slaughterhouses and other “animal exploitation” facilities across Australia.
The group’s <a href="https://map.aussiefarms.org.au/" target="_blank">website says</a> the map "is an effort to force transparency on an industry dependent on secrecy. We believe in freedom of information as a powerful tool in the fight against animal abuse and exploitation".
The map – which also encourages visitors to upload photographs or videos obtained at the properties – drew ire from some farmers and politicians. National Farmers’ Federation President Fiona Simson called it a “<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-22/aussie-farms-map-sparks-outrage-from-farmers-and-ag-minister/10736006" target="_blank">gross invasion of privacy</a>” and <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/when-does-activism-turn-into-terrorism/10734448" target="_blank">told the ABC</a> it bordered on “terrorism”. She also said Aussie Farms should be stripped of its charitable status.
Agriculture Minister David Littleproud was equally unimpressed, <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-22/aussie-farms-map-sparks-outrage-from-farmers-and-ag-minister/10736006" target="_blank">calling the map</a> an “attack list” for activists. He said it posed biosecurity and other personal risks by encouraging vigilantes to break into properties.
So what does the law say about publicising materials like the map, or airing footage that may have been obtained when trespassing on private property?
Footage obtained through trespass
The law is somewhat ambivalent when it comes to trespassing on property to photograph and film the conduct of landowners. Trespassing itself is only one factor to be weighed up by the courts in determining whether to protect farmers’ interests.
Courts will only ban the use of footage obtained from private properties as a last resort. They will do so only if the trespasser acted in a manner that the average citizen would regard as unfair, and if the owner would suffer irreparable harm if the publication were to go ahead. 
The leading case on this subject is the 2001 case <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/http://eresources.hcourt.gov.au/showCase/2001/HCA/63" target="_blank">ABC v Lenah Game Meats</a>. Activists had placed a hidden camera without permission inside a factory in Tasmania’s Lenah Valley. They later retrieved the camera, which contained evidence of cruelty to brush-tail possums being processed for export.
On objection from the meat processors, a lower court granted an injunction, banning the ABC’s 7.30 Report from airing it on the show. The ABC appealed to the High Court.
The High Court lifted the injunction. It decided that although the footage had been filmed without the owners’ permission and involved a trespass, it was more important for the evidence of animal cruelty to be screened.
The public interest in witnessing greater transparency into suspect meat processing methods trumped the interests of a private business trying to shield its practices from public scrutiny.
What about just punishing trespassers?
So, if they cannot stop the publication, can the farmers targeted by Aussie Farms punish the trespassers privately through the courts?
Farmers can sue for damages (compensation), but they would need to find the actual trespassers and be able to quantify their losses, both of which may be difficult.
Also, what if the people supplying the footage were not trespassers but whistle-blowing employees? There is no joy for farmers here either, because there is no trespass.
Can farmers stop someone who is simply filming over the fence? The law does not assist landowners here either. We go back 80 years to find a <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/1937/45?stem=0&amp;synonyms=0&amp;query=title(Victoria%20Park%20Racing%20and%20Recreation%20Grounds%20Co%20and%20Taylor%20)&amp;nocontext=1" target="_blank">High Court decision</a> that says the rights of an occupier or owner don’t include a right to prevent neighbouring occupiers from looking over the fence, or filming from adjacent land.
What about <a href="https://theconversation.com/drones-finally-get-mps-talking-tougher-on-privacy-laws-29197" target="_blank">filming from drones</a>? The old law was if you owned the land, you owned the sky. This is no longer the case. <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House/Social_Policy_and_Legal_Affairs/Drones/Report" target="_blank">The rule today</a> is you “own” the land and sky to a depth and height only for your reasonable use and enjoyment of the land.
Unless the drone is a persistent nuisance, there is no remedy for breach of privacy.
What about revealing personal details?
But surely there must be a remedy for farmers whose personal details, such as names, addresses and maps of their properties, can be found online? Well, no, not unless the farmer can establish, under defamation law, he or she suffers an injury to their character by that publication. 
The test is: does that website, in naming people who it asserts may be cruel to animals, hold them up for contempt or ridicule, and harm their reputation in the eyes of right-minded observers? It’s not an easy case for farmers to win, because few people are going to think less of farmers just because they are slaughtering meat for the market.
The defendant may argue a right-minded person would give some leeway for primary producers in putting food in the marketplace, so the activists’ information-spreading exercise can’t be defamatory.
And if there was clear evidence of cruelty, the activists have a defence against a claim for defamation because what they were saying was true.
One would hope a constructive dialogue will emerge out of this that will usher in a world of best-practice farming. This should improve the live animal export business, which remains perpetually under a cloud. But it’s unlikely the use of the term “terrorism” by the critics of Aussie Farms is an ideal start for any such dialogue.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/110279/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
Rick Sarre, Adjunct Professor of Law and Criminal Justice, University of South Australia
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/animal-activists-v-private-landowners-what-does-the-law-say-110279" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Animal activists v private landowners: what does the law say?

<html><body>
Beef producer, the Australian Agricultural Company, has confirmed heavy rain and severe flooding in North West Queensland has “severely impacted” four of its 21 pastorals properties.
Wondoola is the most affected of the company’s Gulf of Carpentaria properties.
AACo’s earnings and profits are likely to take a significant hit from the flooding, but also drought elsewhere.
The four Gulf stations were subjected to rainfall of 500 millimetres.
Wondoola Station, about 480 kilometres north east of Mount Isa, lies between the Saxby and Flinders river systems on open downs country where AACo runs Brahman breeders.
Canobie, Dalgonally and Carrum stations, which have a total herd of 50,000 head, were expected to sustain “lower but still material losses”.
<div class="page" title="Page 1">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
"Our immediate focus is on our people, the welfare of our animals and the tight knit communities in which we operate," the AACo boss Hugh Killen said.
"The current conditions are still challenging and a credible assessment of the impact on livestock and infrastructure will only be possible once the flood waters have started to recede."
This is likely to occur over the coming weeks, with Killen noting there is still a possibility of further wet season storms.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body></html>

Floods affect beef producer, Australian Agricultural Company

<html><body>
There has been an increase of almost ten-fold in the volume of Chinese ownership of Australian agricultural land which shows China has climbed to second on the list of top 10 countries with the UK again in top position.
China’s volume of agricultural land in Australia now sits at 14.4 million hectares, according to the second report by the Commissioner of Taxation on the operations of the Foreign Ownership of Agricultural Land Register which was released recently by the Federal Treasurer Scott Morrison.
Of the 13.6 percent of all Australian agricultural land held by foreign investors, the UK owns about 27 percent and Chinese investors now own about 25 percent. 
The total area of agricultural land in Australia with a level of foreign ownership has fallen slightly from 52.1 million hectares at 30 June 2016 to 50.5 million hectares at 30 June 2017.
The proportion of agricultural land with a level of foreign ownership (foreign held) has fallen from 14.1 per cent (adjusted) at 30 June 2016 to 13.6 per cent at 30 June 2017.
<a href="https://nnimgt-a.akamaihd.net/transform/v1/crop/frm/DQPpmhQKY4q83RFKYAWNAF/a5fd4129-e8aa-4057-8afd-0d4222c1bfbe.png/r0_0_1133_770_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>  
<img src="https://nnimgt-a.akamaihd.net/transform/v1/crop/frm/DQPpmhQKY4q83RFKYAWNAF/a5fd4129-e8aa-4057-8afd-0d4222c1bfbe.png/r0_0_1133_770_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg" alt="" title="" width="1133" height="770" data-fixed-size="large" data-src="//nnimgt-a.akamaihd.net/transform/v1/crop/frm/DQPpmhQKY4q83RFKYAWNAF/a5fd4129-e8aa-4057-8afd-0d4222c1bfbe.png/r0_0_1133_770_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg">
According to the report, foreign investors held 13.6 percent of all Australian agricultural land as at June 30 this year; down from an adjusted 14.1 percent on the same date last year.
Queensland had the highest volume of farmland involving foreign ownership interests with 16,386,000 hectares, comprising 5,482,000 hectares in freehold and 10,903,000 hectares leasehold.
Victoria had 665,000 hectares in total comprising 589,000 in freehold and 76,000 hectares in leasehold.
The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) administers the Agricultural Land Register and receives information directly from foreign investors who are required to register their interests under the new reporting regime.
Measurements of foreign interests in agricultural land according to farm-use was dominated by livestock production with 42,954,000 hectares followed by cropping 1,639,000 hectares, forestry 1,422,000 hectares and horticulture 296,000 hectares.
</body></html>

Chinese agricultural land ownership in Australia set to exceed UK ownership

<html><body>
The rural property market around in far north New South Wales remains strong across most categories according to Herron Todd White's July report.
According to HTW, good quality avocado farms are in strong demand, with one example being the sale of Green Pigeon avocado farm, north-east of Kyogle, selling for around $5.12 million.
"This is a partly timbered 113 hectare red sandy loam soil farm in a high rainfall area with back up irrigation planted to about 5,720 mature Hass avocado trees," HTW said.
"Structural improvements include a dwelling, packing shed, machinery sheds and pump shed. The sale is understood to include plant and equipment. 
"The macadamia farm market remains strong.
"There appears to be a shortage of listings for sale of medium to large macadamia farms.
"Some small to medium size farms have been sold or are under negotiation on the Alstonville plateau in the general analysed value range of $65,000 to $85,000 per planted macadamia nut tree hectare.
"A 544.43 hectare beef cattle grazing property aggregation north-west of Kyogle with Eden and Chestnut Creek frontage has been sold for $3 million.
"The property has a stated carrying capacity of 450 breeding cows.
"This indicates a sale price of $5,510 per hectare or $6,667 per breeding cow overall. The property’s structural improvements include a main dwelling, machinery sheds, storage sheds and cattle yards. 
"Dry seasonal conditions in the Central West and Western NSW have affected the total area planned to sow to winter crops.
"Earlier sown crops require immediate rainfall to develop and the later planted crops will need a rain event to germinate.
"Some unusually cold weather and subsequent frosts have also weighed heavily on moisture levels in the area. 
"Irrigated and dryland cotton crops in the Macquarie Valley and Lachlan Valley have mostly been picked and have had below average results, mostly due to the extreme heat experienced earlier in the year during the growing period."
Property Observer found a property at <a href="https://www.realestate.com.au/property-lifestyle-nsw-kyogle-7909338" target="_blank">540 Gradys Creek Road, Kyogle</a> on the market for $475,000.
The 7.5 acre property (above) with a 3 bedroom country cottage has 400 metres of Gradys Creek frontage and riverbank soil.
The property on <a href="https://www.realestate.com.au/property-lifestyle-nsw-kyogle-7907182" target="_blank">365 Killaloe Road in Green Pigeon, Kyogle</a> (below), is on the market for $419,000. It is 25 acres and comes with a 4 bedroom home.
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2017/07/17/700_kyogle3.jpg" alt="">
</body></html>

jonathanchancellor-7SQnKwU6yx

Far north NSW rural property market strong

<html><body>
A parcel of 24 rural properties located in Victoria’s agricultural region of Colac Otway is being marketed by CBRE Agribusiness. 
Located between Geelong and Portland, the portfolio consists of properties ranging in size from 30 hectares to 240 hectares, including some harvested properties that will be available for purchase with vacant possession.
Comprising around 2,600ha of freehold land, it is currently planted to Eucalyptus Globulus.
CBRE’s Peter and Jarrod Ryan are marketed the properties. 
According to Peter, the portfolio represented an outstanding opportunity to acquire attractively priced land in a reliable, high rainfall agricultural region.
“Previous to its current use as a timber plantation, the properties were utilised for either high value dairy or grazing – and provide significant scope for reversion to these uses,” he said.
“Alternatively, post-harvest, the properties are suitable to replant to a range of timber species, with their location ideal for plantation management being situated within haulage range to export ports at Geelong and Portland, and also close to processing facilities at Colac, Geelong and Portland.”
The Otway Portfolio is being offered for sale either as a portfolio, individual properties or any combination to suit requirements.
Asset manager New Forests Asset Management is also seeking to enter into sale and leaseback arrangements with the purchaser, retaining management of the properties until the conclusion of each harvest.
</body></html>

Timber opportunity in prime Victorian forests

<html><body>
Strathvean, in the Eastern Riverina just outside Tarcutta, has been sold prior to online auction by Sydney rural property specialists Meares &amp; Associates.
There had been a price indication of $3.8 million to $4 million.
The purchasers are a farming family from the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area who intend on moving away from irrigation into livestock production.
This highly intensive and diversified <a href="https://www.meares.com.au/search-properties/details/Strathvean" target="_blank">holding comprises 888.3 hectares (2,195 acres)</a> of predominantly productive arable flats and undulating valley floors, with some timbered ridge lines, making it ideally suited to both breeding and fattening of sheep and cattle.
Strathvean was owned and operated by the Gaskin family for over 25 years and they are now looking to enjoy retirement.
Strathvean had previously carried 400 cows on a self-replacing herd basis, growing out their progeny to 400-480kg liveweight selling direct to Rangers Valley Feedlot. The success of the beef enterprise has over the years been underpinned by the piggery, which todays boasts a capacity of 3,000 grower pigs at any one time.
A feature of the property is the four to six bedroom homestead, originally built in the 1870s, and with extensions completed in 1996-1997. 
Chris Meares said Strathvean received 12 serious enquirers looking to inspect. 
"With the capacity to run 7,000 to 8,000 DSEs, combined with the piggery operation providing the ability to generate serious income from day one proved to be the catalyst for the high number of enquiries and its eventual sale”, Meares concluded.
</body></html>

Strathvean sold in the Eastern Riverina

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/57114/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
It is hard to think of an issue more likely to antagonise and enflame the wider Australian public than Chinese involvement in local agricultural land.
This is despite most only holding a hazy notion of either how agriculture as a sector works, or the mechanisms and reality of foreign direct investment. This area is laden with symbolism, whatever (and often despite) the underlying facts.
The tone of Treasurer Scott Morrison’s “preliminary decision" on the sale of the huge S. Kidman &amp; Co. estate to a predominantly Chinese-owned consortium, suggests it is much more likely the deal will not happen, even though the proposed buyers have until tomorrow to lodge an appeal.
Turning its back on investment from a source with the potential and importance of China would be a huge strategic decision for Australia. The Turnbull government may argue this is not what they have done with the Kidman decision.
But it certainly will be interpreted this way by some potential investors from China. It grates with the friendly messages being put out by, for instance, the large trade delegation that visited China in April. It threatens to show that this is all fluffy rhetoric and that, in many ways, as with the Huawei decision in 2012, Australia holds a hostile view to Chinese investment.
Land, particularly agricultural land, occupies an almost spiritual position in the Australian psyche. And the Kidman sale involved a significant chunk of it. The largest private estate in the country, it constitutes 1.3 percent of the whole Australian landmass. Even with Chinese investment becoming better known and increasing over the last ten years, this particular deal, at any time, would have been a contentious one.
The current political leadership in Canberra has shown they are as unwilling to break with the mould of the past and relinquish caution as their predecessors. Chinese President Xi Jinping may well have invited Australians to use “imagination and vision” over the bilateral relationship when speaking in Australian in late 2014, but his audience evidently hasn’t taken those words as having any application to an issue like this.
Chinese investment even outside of land has raised questions of just how closely the investors are linked to the Chinese state back home, what their real agenda is, and how much of a security issue they raise. A recent example was the Gillard government’s decision to prevent Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei from bidding for the National Broadband Network.
Land is about the most tangible thing there is to invest in. As Mark Twain once urged: “Invest in Land; they’ve stopped making it!” Any foreign purchase of land is often interpreted as an outsider buying a part of a country in a way that is fundamentally different from taking control of other parts of its economy. This is despite the fact that the latter may involve ceding far more influence than the former. Land is just so solid. Investment in it has a visibility and concreteness it enjoys in few other areas.
Morrison hasn’t spelled out in any detail the national security issues he may have based his preliminary judgement on. Regardless, there are two problems the Turnbull government now faces. The first is that despite much effort, no local potential replacement investor has been forthcoming. This is despite hopes expressed by Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce that one will eventually appear. If there were a queue of attractive counter bids, then the government would be in an easier position. In saying no to Dakang, they might be pushing away the only group at the moment that has the resources, desire and ability to buy an estate of this size.
And secondly, there is the larger political cost. For all the travails it is going through at the moment, China remains a global economic powerhouse. And an increasingly important part of that story is its outward investments. Chinese investment into the European Union has soared in the last 12 months. Australia has been a recipient for much of this global flow of outward money for several years now.
The problem is that for Chinese investors, the message they are getting from Australia is shifting from ambiguous (we like your investment, but only in certain areas) to ominously hostile. The Kidman decision reinforces this sense of hardening opposition to Chinese large scale investment.
If that does prove to be the way this decision is interpreted, and Chinese investors start to fall away, there currently appears to be no alternative source of new investment waiting in the wings.
Kerry Brown is professor of Chinese Politics; director, Lau China Institute, King's College London and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/kerry-brown-15537" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

Kidman & Co: the mixed message for Chinese investors

<html><body>
Hassad Australia, the $469 million agricultural land company owned by Qatar's sovereign wealth fund, has delivered a $3.46 million loss.
The Australian Financial Review reported it was yet to make a profit since arriving in Australia in 2010 with a combined loss of $27 million.
Hassad owns 14 agricultural property aggregations in Queensland, NSW, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia, totalling about 300,000 hectares of pastoral and cropping land. 
The Hassad board is chaired by Nasser Mohamed Al Hajri, who chaired the delegation of the state of Qatar at the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.
</body></html>

Agricultural Land

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Agricultural Land

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News