Protecting Australia's Prime Agricultural Land Bill 2026: what Andrew Gee's proposal would do

The short answer

Protecting Australia's Prime Agricultural Land Bill 2026: what Andrew Gee's proposal would do

The Protecting Australia's Prime Agricultural Land Bill 2026 is a private member's bill introduced by Independent MP Andrew Gee on 23 March 2026. Its central provision is straightforward: prime agricultural land must not be used for a purpose other than agriculture. The bill would create a statutory prohibition on the conversion of designated prime agricultural land to non-agricultural uses, which would affect sectors including renewable energy development (particularly large-scale solar and wind farms), residential subdivision, mining, and other forms of development that displace farming. As at 17 July 2026 the bill is before the House of Representatives, having been introduced and had its second reading moved on 23 March 2026. No second reading debate has yet occurred and no proposed amendments have been circulated.

This is a federal system guide. State constitutions, parliaments and local-government laws can allocate comparable functions differently.

The useful question is not only “what is the rule?” but also “who administers it, which document controls it, and when might it change?” That distinction prevents an accurate general explanation from becoming wrong advice in a particular election, chamber or policy setting.

Evidence review

What the bill proposes

At its core, the bill provides that prime agricultural land must not be used for a purpose other than agriculture. The bill would require the identification and classification of land as 'prime agricultural land' based on criteria that would be set out in the legislation or in associated regulations.

Once classified, that land would be subject to a statutory prohibition on non-agricultural use. The prohibition is absolute in its terms: it does not distinguish between types of non-agricultural development, applying equally to solar farms, wind farms, housing subdivisions, mining operations, and any other non-farming use.

The bill is a response to growing concern in some rural communities about the conversion of productive farmland to other uses. The tension between agriculture and renewable energy development has been particularly acute, with large-scale solar and wind projects being proposed on farmland across regional Australia. Encroaching residential development on the fringes of cities and regional centres is a related concern.

The bill would operate as Commonwealth legislation, which means it would need to interact with state and territory land-use planning systems. The constitutional mechanism for imposing a Commonwealth land-use prohibition on land within the states is a significant legal question that would need to be addressed as the bill progresses.

Evidence review

Who is affected

The bill directly affects several groups, each with different interests. Farmers and landholders who own prime agricultural land would be prohibited from selling or leasing their land for non-agricultural development, which could restrict their property rights and potentially reduce land values. A farmer who could sell to a solar developer for a premium above agricultural value would be unable to do so.

Renewable energy developers — particularly those seeking rural sites for solar farms, wind farms and transmission infrastructure — could find large areas of land unavailable for project development. This has significant implications for Australia's renewable energy targets, which require a substantial build-out of generation capacity, much of which is proposed for rural land.

Mining and resources companies seeking exploration or production licences on prime agricultural land would also face restrictions. The interaction between the bill and existing state-based mining and petroleum legislation would raise complex legal questions.

Residential developers operating on city fringes and in regional growth corridors could lose access to land identified as prime agricultural. State and territory governments, which currently exercise primary responsibility for land-use planning, would need to accommodate the Commonwealth prohibition within their planning frameworks. Local councils would be required to reflect the prohibition in their local planning schemes.

Evidence review

Current status and progress

The bill was introduced and read a first time in the House of Representatives on 23 March 2026, with the second reading moved on the same day. As at 17 July 2026, no second reading debate has occurred.

As a private member's bill — introduced by a backbench or crossbench MP rather than the government — it may not be scheduled for debate unless the government allocates time for private members' business or the bill's sponsor secures a debate through parliamentary procedures. Private members' bills compete for limited debating time and many never reach a vote.

No proposed amendments have been circulated and the bill has not been referred to a committee for inquiry. For the bill to pass, it would need majority support in the House of Representatives and then in the Senate, followed by Royal Assent.

The bill's prospects depend on whether it can attract support from a sufficient number of MPs and Senators, including potentially from the government or opposition. The crossbench in the current parliament holds significant numbers, but a private member's bill still requires government cooperation to be scheduled for debate.

Evidence review

Policy context: land-use conflict between farming and renewables

The bill reflects a policy tension that has intensified in recent years: the competition between agricultural production and other land uses, particularly renewable energy infrastructure. The Australian government's renewable energy targets require a substantial build-out of solar and wind generation, much of which is proposed for rural land.

At the same time, Australia's agricultural sector — valued at approximately $90 billion in 2024-25 — depends on continued access to productive land. The conversion of farmland to other uses, even where welcomed by individual landholders receiving lease payments or sale proceeds, raises questions about cumulative impacts on agricultural production capacity.

Andrew Gee, the member for Calare in central-western New South Wales, represents a regional electorate where these tensions are acutely felt. The Calare electorate covers significant agricultural areas including the Central West and parts of the Blue Mountains, and has seen proposals for large-scale renewable energy projects on farmland.

The bill aligns with advocacy from some farming groups that have called for stronger protections against what they describe as the industrialisation of agricultural landscapes. However, other farming groups and individual landholders have welcomed renewable energy development as a source of diversified farm income, highlighting the complexity of the issue.

Evidence review

Constitutional considerations

A significant legal question hangs over the bill: does the Commonwealth have the constitutional power to dictate land use within the states? Land-use planning and agricultural land management have traditionally been matters for state and territory governments under the Australian Constitution.

The Commonwealth's power to legislate on land use would most likely need to rest on one of its enumerated heads of power — such as the corporations power (section 51(xx)), the external affairs power (section 51(xxix), through an international treaty obligation), or the trade and commerce power (section 51(i)).

If the bill's constitutional basis is challenged, the High Court could strike down the legislation. The High Court has previously taken a broad view of the corporations power in cases such as the Work Choices decision (2006), but whether that extends to a direct land-use prohibition is untested.

This constitutional risk is a material consideration for the bill's viability. It is likely to be a focus of parliamentary and committee scrutiny should the bill progress, and the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills would likely examine the constitutional question in detail.

Evidence review

What happens next

For the bill to advance, it must be scheduled for second reading debate in the House of Representatives. The government controls the House's legislative program, and private members' bills receive limited debating time.

The bill's prospects may depend on whether the government, which has its own policies on both agriculture and renewable energy, is willing to allow debate. The government faces a tension between its agricultural constituency interests and its renewable energy targets, and may prefer to keep the issue at arm's length.

If the bill proceeds to debate, it may be referred to a committee — likely the House Standing Committee on Agriculture or the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee — for inquiry and report. Stakeholders likely to make submissions include the National Farmers' Federation, state farming organisations, the Clean Energy Council, the Property Council of Australia, and state and territory governments.

Given the constitutional questions, the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills would also likely examine the bill. The committee's role in identifying constitutional concerns could be influential in the parliamentary debate.

Common questions

Before you rely on the answer