Native Vegetation Laws (Proof)

Hansard & Papers » Legislative Assembly » 24 February 2010 » Full Day Hansard Transcript » Item 42 of 47 »

About this Item
Speakers - Torbay Mr Richard
Business - Private Members Statements, PRIV

NATIVE VEGETATION LAWS
Page: 61

Mr RICHARD TORBAY (Northern Tablelands—Speaker) [5.10 p.m.]: Today farmers across the State gathered outside this Parliament to protest against punitive land-clearing laws. It would be wrong to suggest that farmers are unwilling to shoulder some of the burden of maintaining native vegetation and reducing the nation's greenhouse gases. They are not unrealistic. However, at present they are being asked to bear a lion's share of these burdens with no compensation at a time when governments are cutting back on natural resource funding and the energy sector is actually increasing its emissions. To penalise the productivity and viability of one sector but neglect to apply the same standards to other sectors is simply unfair. To do it without compensation is an outrage. If the Government wants to build a highway through someone's living room, the discussion is about compensation and the public interest. So it is with water rights, mining and the timber industry—all of which have been the subject of proper compensation or structural adjustment packages.

Until very recently in our history, clearing land was considered an heroic endeavour that added to the prosperity of the country. Farmers do not generally clear land because they like destroying native vegetation. They clear because they have bought or inherited land with the assumption that it is theirs to make a living from. Although our society values native vegetation, we have not accorded it any economic value. To many farmers trying to make a living, native vegetation often stands in the way of an enterprise that can deliver an economic return. Climate change and carbon accounting may have put an economic value on native vegetation in the form of the carbon it sequesters and stores. But to date even that opportunity has been denied to farmers. Australia is meeting its greenhouse gas emissions targets only because the Commonwealth has laid claim to carbon stored in vegetation that has grown since land-clearing rates began to slow in 1990. Again, there has been no compensation to farmers for these foregone carbon rights.

Land-clearing legislation has created a bureaucratic morass. It is difficult to interpret and its administration has been uneven thanks to over-stretched departments. The penalty system does not scale well. It heavily penalises many people unfairly and can apply for relatively minor transgressions. Yet the system has failed to prevent some major transgressions. The complexity of the legislation has meant that some well-intentioned farmers who attempt to do the right thing have broken the law, despite taking advice. It has driven many more to take covert action because they fear the consequences of asking advice, some of which is inconsistent.

Farmers to whom I have spoken express many concerns about the current Senate inquiry into Australia's native vegetation laws. They believe it is a hasty review and not sufficiently broad ranging to address all the issues. Today I call for a more comprehensive Commonwealth review of native vegetation laws involving State governments, farmer organisations, scientists, academics and environmental experts. If the farm sector is to carry the burden of feeding the nation, preserving remnant vegetation and meeting its carbon emission targets, government policies must reflect those roles. It has been suggested to me that a fair compensation regime would include an element of stewardship that I believe is worthwhile investigating. When the annual productivity loss to the farmer for locking up land is estimated, compensation can be paid to enable farmers to care for and manage that land. Removing noxious weeds and feral animals and ensuring a lower fire risk would be part of the process.

Other farmers have called for a more consultative regime under which they present their sustainable native vegetation plans to local catchment management authorities on an individual basis, have them assessed and then left open to inspection on an ongoing basis. That would be a big improvement on the confusion and fear that now pervades the issue. There are many stories of "Green Gestapo" tactics, which, correct or otherwise, do not help to instil an attitude of willing stewardship in farmers. Preserving native vegetation means, for many, submitting to what is perceived as a police state of satellite surveillance, neighbours being invited to report on neighbours, officials marching onto properties without notice, confusion about legislative requirements at all levels, and a lack of consultation. Many farmers are either afraid or openly contemptuous of the officers who have been given the unfortunate task of implementing these unworkable regulations. The system needs a total overhaul. It should be based on reasonable compensation for serving national environmental interests, and awareness of the need to balance good land management practices, productivity in the face of predicted global food shortages and the necessity of ensuring a viable and progressive farm sector. I believe that is a very appropriate way forward.