Maybe this would go part of the way to explaining why the agencies have this idea that if a minimum lot size is imposed, it will protect holdings from further fragmentation, and so maintain existing viability.

The concept is fine, but there are two serious problems. One problem is that lots are not holdings.

Within the Wellington LGA, a typical rural holding would be made up of many lots (or portions), some holdings have more than 100 lots. So, the imposition of a minimum lot size standard is of little relevance to the protection of holding sizes.

The second serious problem with the idea of a minimum lot size is that the majority of rural holdings are already well below the hypothetical ‘viable holding size’ of 400 hectares.

Therefore, imposing a minimum lot size standard would be about as effective as imposing a 500km/h speed limit on the Mitchell Highway to deter shoppers from driving to Dubbo.

Now I’m not proposing that the minimum lot size should be lowered and that the countryside should be subdivided into hobby farms. The issue that I wish to broach is that the current thinking on larger ‘viable holding sizes’ is to some extent based on an energy-dependant economy where the historical cost of energy has been low.

The indications are that things are changing and that the cost of energy will continue to increase (I think that the price of oil has doubled in the past year, and I note that there are some who believe that it will increase further).

If, as some argue, the price of oil was to continue to increase, what would the implications be for agriculture generally, and within the Wellington LGA specifically, and could, would or should the new LEP have anticipated these implications?

Well, the first step would be to examine what the implications might be. I imagine that unreliable winter rainfall, together with increasing fertiliser and fuel costs, would see cropping activities become a riskier undertaking.