• Farm businesses are subject to a vast and complex array of regulations. Regulations are in place at every stage of the supply chain — from land acquisition to marketing — and are applied by all levels of government. The number and complexity of regulations affecting farm businesses means that the cumulative burden of regulation on farmers is substantial.
• The need for regulation is not disputed by farm businesses. In fact, some regulations, such as biosecurity and food safety regulations, were highlighted as providing clear benefits to Australian farmers. Rather, Australian farmers want 'better' (or less burdensome) regulation.
• Some regulations lack a sound policy justification and should be removed. Examples include restrictions on the use of land held under pastoral lease arrangements, state bans on cultivating genetically modified crops, recent changes to tighten foreign investment review requirements for the agricultural sector, barriers to entry for foreign shipping providers, mandatory labelling of genetically modified foods, and statutory marketing legislation relating to rice in New South Wales and sugar in Queensland.
• Other regulations and regulatory systems need to be reformed so they can more fully achieve their objectives.
  • Native vegetation and biodiversity conservation regulations need fundamental change so that risks and impacts are considered at a relevant landscape-wide scale. Environmental regulatory decisions also need to take into account economic and social factors.
  • Animal welfare regulations seek to achieve welfare outcomes that (among other things) meet community expectations. However, little is known about these expectations.
  • The process for setting standards for farm animal welfare would be improved by applying scientific principles and evidence through the creation of a national, independent body responsible for building the evidence base on community expectations, as well as for developing national farm animal welfare standards.
  • The standard for the level of gluten allowed in foods labelled as 'gluten-free' needs review.
  • International evidence could be put to greater use in assessing agricultural and veterinary (agvet) chemicals, reducing the time and cost taken to grant registration.
• Inconsistent regulatory requirements across jurisdictions make it difficult for farmers to understand their obligations and add to the cost of doing business. A more consistent approach would improve outcomes in the areas of heavy vehicle regulation and road access, and the use of agvet chemicals.
• Governments could also reduce the regulatory burden on farm businesses by:
  • improving their consultation and engagement practices. There is scope to better support landholders to understand environmental regulations, and to reduce duplicative and unnecessary information gathering regarding water management by farm businesses
  • doing more to coordinate their actions, both between agencies and between governments
  • ensuring that good regulatory impact assessment processes are used as an analytical tool to support quality regulation making, not as a legitimising tool or compliance exercise.

The Regulatory Burden on Farmers Must Be Reduced

The Productivity Commission released their draft report on Agriculture Regulation today.

'Farmers are straining under a heavy burden of regulation. They face complex regulations at every stage of the supply chain — from land acquisition to marketing. These are imposed by multiple agencies across three levels of government,' said Commissioner Paul Lindwall.

'The resulting duplication, inconsistency and redundancy this creates in areas such as heavy vehicle and road use regulation should be addressed promptly,' said Commissioner Paul Lindwall.

The Commission is also calling for regulation to be better informed by the evidence.

'Some regulation is simply not supported by the evidence, such as bans on genetically modified crops in some states. The recent tightening of the foreign investment regime for agriculture by the Australian Government also lacks a sound policy justification. These regulations are not in the public interest and should be unwound,' said Commissioner Paul Lindwall.

'Farm animal welfare standards also need to be consistent and based on the evidence, including the scientific evidence on animal welfare and community values. A national, independent body should be created to deal effectively and comprehensively with the evidence in this area and develop nationally consistent farm animal welfare standards,' said Commissioner Ken Baxter.

'International evidence should be used more when assessing agricultural and veterinary chemicals. This would reduce the cost and time taken to grant domestic registration,' said Commissioner Ken Baxter.

Native vegetation and biodiversity conservation regulations need improving.

'Conservation of the natural environment is important to the community, but regulations must give due weight to economic and social factors, and be proportionate to the risks posed,' said Commissioner Ken Baxter.

The report is a draft and people can make submissions through the Productivity Commission website. Public hearings will be held in August 2016.

Download the infographic

• High resolution - Regulation of Agriculture (PDF - 1430 Kb)

Regulation of Agriculture (Text version of infographic)

Farmers are straining under a heavy burden of regulation

'We face complex regulations at every stage of the supply chain - from land acquistion to marketing.'

Such as bans on genetically modified crops in some states

'Some regulation is simply not supported by the eviidence.'

Animal welfare standards also need to be evidence based and consistent

'A national, independent body should be created to develop farm animal welfare standards and guidelines.'

Other areas for reform

• Native vegetation and biodiversity conservation
• Agricultural and veterinary chemicals
• Food labelling.

Read the draft report and make a submission.