Feed aggregator

The Tasmanian Government’s inquiry into Rushy Lagoon matters because this was never just a private land sale. At the centre of it is a simple question. Did Commonwealth taxpayer funding help a foreign-backed buyer acquire Tasmania’s largest farm and put Australian agricultural buyers at a disadvantage? The Clean Energy Finance Corporation committed $69 million to a broader $142 million Gresham House investment platform. On top of that, the Tasmania Natural Asset Trust, managed by Gresham House, was awarded an $8.8 million plantation establishment grant before the Rushy Lagoon acquisition had received foreign investment approval. The trust had been established just six days before grant applications closed. The inquiry needs to establish who approved what, when they approved it and whether taxpayer support strengthened the buyer’s position before the foreign investment decision was made. The CEFC’s $69 million investment was also approved by its Investment Committee under delegated authority rather than by the full board. That may be perfectly lawful, but with taxpayer money, foreign ownership and Tasmania’s largest farm involved, the level of oversight should be tested. When government puts tens of millions of dollars behind one investment strategy, it is no longer standing on the sidelines. It is helping shape the market. That is why claims this was simply a private transaction do not stack up. Public investment helped finance the buyer. Public grant money supported the plantation. Federal approval enabled the foreign acquisition. Gresham House must also provide clear answers about what it intends to do with Rushy Lagoon. How much land will be planted to trees? How quickly? How much will remain in agriculture? What farming will continue? The community needs firm commitments, not shifting numbers or distractions about agritourism and mountain-bike trails. The claimed 190 jobs also need to be tested. How many are short-term planting jobs? How many will be permanent? How does that compare with the jobs Rushy Lagoon could support through dairy, beef, contracting, processing and other agricultural activity? The same applies to the environmental argument. Carbon sequestration may support Australia’s net-zero goals, but climate policy should not come at the expense of food production. The Paris Agreement itself recognises that climate action should not threaten food production. The principle matters here. Finally, Rushy Lagoon was also not continuously on the market for nearly a decade. It was offered for sale in 2017, withdrawn, and formally returned to the market in September 2024. That distinction matters when claims are being made that Australian agricultural buyers had years to act, we must be extremely careful with the spread of disinformation in the community on this point. The inquiry must follow the money and the decisions. Who approved the funding, when was it approved, what influence did it have on the sale, and was Tasmania’s agricultural interest properly considered? Clearly, in this case there have been several failures to protect Tasmania’s interests. Federal safeguards have not worked, and the state has had no mechanism to fall back on to protect agriculture. This inquiry is important because when the Federal Government fails to act in Tasmania’s interests, we need our own safeguards to protect productive farmland, agriculture and regional communities. That is why this inquiry matters. Nathan Calman is CEO, TasFarmers

The post Opinion: Nathan Calman – the failures to protect Tasmanian interests at Rushy Lagoon appeared first on Timberbiz.