A GOOD discussion about the future of agriculture was put on the table at last Monday night’s Mitchell Shire Council Questions and Hearings Committee, with the proposal of an Agricultural Advisory Committee put to council.
Developed by Protect Our Farms Inc, submissions were heard from president David Waye, secretary Therese Ryan and member Julie Ann Ashley to council.
The petition had 628 signatories and was gathered from multiple locations across the Mitchell Shire, according to Ms Ryan.
“Numerous businesses and sites hosted the petition across Seymour, Kilmore, Broadford, Pyalong, Tooborac, Tallarook, Wandong and Lancefield,” she said.
“These 628 signatures represent farming families whose sole income is from farming, people whose business and employment are intrinsically linked to agriculture, those enjoying the rural lifestyle in the rural living zone, and many in small rural communities and towns, who all want to see farming protected and remain viable close to where they live.
“Similar committees already exist in some Victorian shires, and I urge Mitchell Shire to embrace the opportunity these 628 signatures give – namely accept and utilise the knowledge and common sense which your farmers, agribusinesses and rural residents can offer for the overall benefit of the Shire.”
Mr Waye utilised examples of how an Agricultural Advisory Committee could benefit, referring to the Burke and Wills Track in 2018, a standpipe issue from late-2018 and Significant Landscape Overlays from 2021 to 2024.
Mr Waye proposed a solution to the issues with the committee.
“If there was a Mitchell Shire Agricultural Advisory Committee, then these issues could have been collaboratively reviewed prior to presenting to Mitchell Shire residents, shortening the duration of implementation. More importantly, Mitchell Shire and its agricultural and agribusiness sector would be working as a team,” he said.
Councillor Claudia James asked how such a committee would be structured.
“I’d like to know the structure of the advisory committee – how frequently do you think you’d have to meet, how many people would you expect and what would be the prerequisites to apply to be on that committee,” she asked.
Mr Waye said there would be options if the lobbying proved successful.
“I think it’d be like other advisory committees, such as the Heritage Advisory Committee from particular areas, representing various parts of the agricultural economy, such as agribusiness as well as they are very important here, and you have Seymour, Kilmore, Broadford have businesses which serve the agricultural community,” he said.
“There are others such as transport, reps from the farming community as well and if I remember with the Heritage Advisory Committee, they meet once every three months, so it would be something similar, and there would be a councillor and a council officer there as well.
“They could raise issues and help possibly set priorities, for example, with vegetation management on the roads, set priorities there, which would be important and other issues as well.”
Cr Bob Humm said it was important to hear from farmers in the community.
“I think given the fact what you are asking for and the rate base of this whole Shire, a very high percentage of that comes from farmers. They need to have an impact and have a say at local level, and I support a lot of what you’re saying. It’s a matter of bringing it forward and getting it organised,” he said.
In finalising the discussion, Mayor Councillor John Dougall took a both-sides approach.
“We get a lot of specialist reports, and they seem to be substituting for the advice we don’t have in Council. I suspect there is an argument that we can get experts in the field to provide advice in the form of consulting reports or other services as a substitute for what you are offering,” he said.
“That one view that might come up. Another view would be, where is the Shire headed in the big picture? Our rate-base, our community numbers, our industry types, the industry mix, it’s all going to skew. So, agriculture is right up there at the moment, and has been for a long time, that is going to change.
“One argument might be that agriculture becomes a declining component of our industry mix. Another view might be that we therefore need to understand more about it, because the knowledge base of the council as a whole will move in other directions, and therefore, arguably, you could say those areas such as agriculture or others need their own type of representation.
“I think a question for you to consider is how do you position 628 signatures, have an expectation that this group would provide the right advice, and how does the agricultural community ensure that you’ve got the best range of people there to provide public advice as opposed to personal kind of perspectives on matters?
“It is very difficult to separate the two at times, but that’s what’s required, it has to be a non-partisan professional opinion that is valued and the value of this is only going to come if that part is right, and that comes from the group of landowners in the north in particular, so it’s worth pondering and being able to contribute to that discussion.”
In a short statement, Protect Our Farms said they were encouraged by Monday night’s discussion.
“The members of Protect our Farms present at the session unanimously agreed that the Councillors reacted positively to the proposal for an Agricultural Advisory Committee. Several Councillors offered encouraging comments both publicly and privately,” they said.