Penfold's plan to map and protect top farmland lapsed
Alison Penfold, a member of Parliament (MP), wanted a national map of farmland. She wanted limits on federal money for projects that harm good farmland, and a new official to settle fights. The bill was dropped from Parliament's to-do list in September 2026 without a vote.
Official name: Prime Agricultural Land Protection Bill 2026
- The farm minister would have mapped the nation's farmland into three grades, from the best land to poor land.
- The federal government could not have paid for projects that harm the best farmland or hand it to foreign-owned companies.
- Projects on other farmland would have needed replacement land, a cash guarantee, help for farmers who must move, and a public report to the community.
- A new Agriculture Commissioner would have settled fights. This official would stand apart from the government.
- The bill was dropped from Parliament's to-do list on 15 September 2026. It did not become law.
Who it affects
- Farmers: Their land would be mapped. If a project paid for by the federal government moved them, they would get help to move and first pick of replacement land.
- Companies building energy, mining, housing or big public works like roads: To get federal money for a project on farmland, they would have had to meet new conditions.
- Foreign-owned companies and foreign governments: Federal money could not have helped them own or control the two best grades of farmland. The exact rules differ by grade.
- People living near a project: Anyone directly affected, or living within 50 kilometres, could challenge a project's community report.
- State, territory and local governments: The bill covers them too. So their projects paid for with federal money would face the same rules.
No national map of farmland
Farmland is under pressure from other uses. The notes that explain the bill list several. They are big building projects like roads, clean energy, mining, new housing and buyers from overseas.
No national law marks which land is best for farming. This bill would have made one. It would have used it to control how federal money is spent.
The bill only limits federal money. The notes say owners can still do as they wish on their own land if they do not take federal money.
Ms Penfold says protecting good farmland helps make sure Australia always has enough food.
Who brought it
This was a private bill. That means it did not come from the government. Alison Penfold MP brought it to the House of Representatives, the larger house of Parliament, on 2 March 2026.
A national farmland map
The farm minister would have to make a map of Australia's farmland. The minister would work with farming groups named in the rules.
The map would sort land into three grades, called tiers. Tier 1 is land that grows, or could grow, large amounts of food or fibre such as wool and cotton.
Tier 2 is other land that can grow food or fibre. Tier 3 is poor farmland. Detailed rules written later would say exactly what that means.
Land where farming is banned by law would not be on the map.
Protecting the best farmland
The rules on protecting farmland would beat any other federal law.
The federal government could not give money to anyone if it would make Tier 1 land less useful for farming.
It also could not give money if that would let a foreign-owned or foreign-run company own, rent or control Tier 1 land.
Say a company wants federal money for a project that would dig up a top paddock for crops. If that paddock is mapped as Tier 1, the money could not be given.
Conditions for Tier 2 land
A project might make Tier 2 land less useful for farming. The federal government could pay for it only if the company makes firm promises.
At the end of the project, the land must be as good for farming as before, or better.
The company would also have to make up for lost farmland. It would set up other farmland within 25 kilometres. This article calls that replacement land.
Farmers pushed off their land would get first pick to farm the replacement land. The deal must leave them no worse off than if the project had never happened.
The company would pay a bond. That is money held as a guarantee and paid back if the promise is kept.
Its plans would need a check by someone outside the company. If the landowner chose to fix up the land, they could be paid from the bond.
The federal government also could not pay for a project that lets a foreign government, or a company it owns, own or control Tier 2 land.
Help for farmers who move
Some projects on Tier 2 or Tier 3 land might force a farmer to leave their home. The federal government could not pay for those projects unless the company helped the farmer move.
The help would have to leave the farmer no worse off. That includes how good the new home is and how far it is from their farm.
Social licence reports
Social licence means the local community accepts a project. Some projects affect Tier 2 or Tier 3 land. Before federal money is looked at, the company would publish a report on its social licence.
The report would say how long the company talked with the community and how widely. It would show how the project follows this law. It would also show the real local benefits, during and after the work.
Anyone directly affected, or living within 50 kilometres, would have 28 days to challenge the report. They would go to the Agriculture Commissioner. The Commissioner would weigh the person's views and the effect on farmland.
The Commissioner would then say the report is good enough, or order a fixed version by a set date. No federal money could flow until this was done.
A new Agriculture Commissioner
The bill would make a new job, the Agriculture Commissioner. This person would be an official who stands apart from the government.
The minister would hire them full time for up to five years, after an open hiring process based on skill. No one could do the job for more than 10 years in total.
This official would settle fights about the map and replacement land. They would also settle fights about foreign control and community reports.
They could write community reports too. They could speak to MPs and the media. They would give Parliament a report each year.
The minister could only give them general orders in writing. They would have to say if a personal interest clashed with their work. They could be sacked for things like bad behaviour or long absences with no reason.
A body called the Remuneration Tribunal sets pay for top public jobs. It would set this official's pay.
Fair pay for taken property
The law might one day take someone's property. If so, the federal government would have to pay a fair amount for it.
The Constitution, Australia's founding rule book, says this payment must be fair. If the two sides could not agree on the amount, a court would decide.
The law would apply to the federal, state and territory governments. The government could write detailed rules to fill in the gaps without a new vote.
Planned start
The law would have started the day after Parliament set aside money for the Commissioner's office. The notes say this was so the office could work from day one.
Dropped after time ran out
Ms Penfold put the bill to the House on 2 March 2026. That day she asked for a vote on its main idea. The vote never happened.
On 15 September 2026 it was dropped from Parliament's to-do list under a House rule. That rule clears out bills from MPs that have not been debated for a set time.
The bill will not become law in this form.
Its journey through Parliament
| 02 Mar 2026 | House of Representatives: Introduced and read a first time |
| 02 Mar 2026 | House of Representatives: Second reading moved |
| 15 Sep 2026 | House of Representatives: Removed from the Notice Paper in accordance with (SO 42) |