Chapter 5
Conclusions and recommendations
5.1
The committee believes that there are legitimate concerns about the
impact of the current native vegetation laws upon a small group of Australians,
namely landholders in rural and regional Australia. It is unreasonable that the
burden of broad environmental objectives is borne by a small number of
Australians. Where the current native vegetation laws have resulted in
reduction of property value for landholders, this is unjust and it is
inappropriate that this burden is borne by individual landholders. This situation
should be addressed to better balance competing objectives, the cost burden of
achieving these and to redress the current situation.
5.2
While land clearing and native vegetation laws have developed over
several decades, aspects of these laws remain a contested element of public
policy. There will, therefore, be ongoing debate about the appropriate
restrictions placed on land use where that competes with broader community
environmental objectives.
5.3
The committee notes that Australia currently enjoys substantial
environmental benefits that are the result of preservation, management and
restoration efforts conducted by agriculturalists and pastoralists.
5.4
In recent decades, laws focused on preventing broadscale land clearing
have become much more specific and involved a greater degree of government and
bureaucratic control over landowners' utilisation and management of their land.
Laws preventing broadscale land clearing with the objective of limiting wider
environmental degradation have become focused on the management of vegetation,
including on individual properties. Previously unregulated or exempt activities
are now much more subject to bureaucratic oversight or regulation.
5.5
This represents a significant change in the relationship between a
landholder and their own property as well as between the landholder and
governments, in this case primarily state governments.
5.6
A significant burden of this shift has been borne by those involved in
agricultural or pastoral activities – both in terms of new regulation and the
necessary cost this has entailed as well as the potential and varied economic
and opportunity costs.
5.7
Evidence received during this inquiry confirms that there is
considerable angst and concern at the impact of native vegetation laws by those
upon whom the laws impact, primarily agricultural and pastoral producers in
regional and rural Australia. This is not limited to economic or financial
issues, and encompasses personal and family costs. It is clear from the number
of submissions and some of the individual examples that have been presented to
the committee that there is substantial scope to improve the operation of these
laws to the satisfaction of all stakeholders and reduce these personal costs.
5.8
It also became clear to the committee from evidence presented that there
is a lack of trust and cooperation between affected landowners and various state
government agencies in the planning, implementation, management and enforcement
of native vegetation laws.
5.9
It was also clear that many landowners believed and felt that the
negotiation and consultation process prior to the introduction of laws, or
changes of laws, was inadequate.
5.10
Nevertheless the committee believes that it would be in the best interests
of landowners, government agencies and the broader Australian public in
achieving necessary land use regulation, if the processes involved were built
upon trust, cooperation and understanding to achieve outcomes that protect the
environment generally but at the same time maintain secure and sustainable food
production in Australia.
5.11
These concerns raised with the committee by affected landholders and
representative organisations include:
- the opportunity cost of land lost to production (both previously
uncleared and/or unutilised or that which has previously been cleared and/or
utilised);
- the loss of real or potential property value due to the
introduction of these restrictions on land use;
- restrictions that effectively remove the right to continue to
utilise land in a manner in which it has previously been used;
- the lack of compensation for these 'losses';
- enforcement and compliance mechanisms utilised by State
Governments under these regimes and opportunities for review of determinations;
- the application of these laws to individual properties, including
restrictions on what appear to be quite minor changes to vegetation, including
with respect to very small patches of vegetation or even single trees;
- the long-term environmental impact of these laws, specifically
whether they will achieve their stated objectives of improving native
vegetation cover and environmental outcomes; and
-
the ongoing liability of landholders for land they own but over
which they do not have effective control, including the payment of rates and
management of noxious plants and feral animals.
5.12
Furthermore, the issue of compensation for future restrictions on land use
also needs to be addressed.
Compensation
5.13
While the committee does not believe that it is always inappropriate for
government to regulate the use or utilisation of private landholdings, there
comes a point at which regulation of land may be so comprehensive as to render
it of a substantially lower economic value to the landowner. In such
circumstances consideration should be given to compensation being provided to
the landowner in recognition of this.
5.14
The committee notes that in its 2004 report the Productivity Commission
considered the issue of compensation and made two recommendations. First, that
landholders should bear the costs of actions that directly contribute to
sustainable resource use and hence, the long-term viability of agriculture and
other land-based operations. Second, 'over and above agreed landholder
responsibilities, additional conservation apparently demanded by society (for
example, to achieve biodiversity, threatened species and greenhouse
objectives), should be purchased from landholders where intervention is deemed
cost-effective'.[1]
5.15
Just as the ongoing protection and nurturing of the environment is the
responsibility of all Australians, introducing imposts which unreasonably
diminish the value of an asset should trigger compensation for the people
involved.
5.16
In short, where the community has a need for a private asset, then the
cost of acquiring that should be borne by the community.
5.17
The committee believes that the passage of further laws and regulations
that govern and restrict the use of agricultural and pastoral land should be
considered in the context of the economic cost and burden borne by the
landholder as well as environmental objectives that are desired by the broader
community.
5.18
Where future legislation or regulation reflects an outcome desired by
the broader community and the cost of this will be borne by the landholder, the
committee considers that the Productivity Commission's recommendations in
relation to compensation provide an equitable basis for compensation payments
to landholders.
5.19
Where the cost of compensation for past legislative and regulatory
actions is prohibitive, consideration should be given to reducing the current impediments
upon landholders as a remedy.
5.20
Many submissions expressed concern at the reductions in effective
property rights. The committee strongly believes that effective property rights
are critical to a market-based economy. When these rights become uncertain,
this reduces the likelihood that others will undertake significant investments
in purchasing or utilising property as the rights to use this property may be
substantially limited in whole or part at a later date. The committee is
strongly of the view that it is inappropriate for government regulation or
activity to pose this risk to landholders.
Recommendations
5.21
Considerable evidence before the inquiry highlighted the unintended
consequences of native vegetation legislation particularly in relation to
restrictions on land clearing.
5.22
The Committee recognises the need, therefore, for a nationwide
assessment to determine the impact of such legislation on biodiversity and
environmental sustainability and the legitimate objective of maximising
agricultural production based on the best available science.
Recommendation 1
5.23
The committee recommends that COAG re-examine the native vegetation
legislation and its 2006 recommendations with a view to establishing a balance
between maximising agricultural production and best practice conservation.
Recommendation 2
5.24
The committee recommends that the Commonwealth initiate, through the Natural
Resource Management Ministerial Council, a national review to assess the impact
of various native vegetation legislative and regulatory regimes, particularly
those at the state level. In undertaking such a review, the following issues
should be specifically addressed:
- the liability of landholders complying with native vegetation
laws for the payment of rates or taxes for land that is not available for
productive use;
- the right of landholders to manage competing environmental objectives
over land where restrictions have been imposed, for example the management of
noxious weeds and pests in protected native vegetation areas;
- the institution of inexpensive, accessible, timely and
independent administrative appeals processes against decisions of enforcement
agencies or officials regarding the granting of permits or institution of
regulatory regimes over private land;
- the application of statewide regulations where there are distinct
and notable variations in both the environmental conditions and objectives
across regions within states;
- the burden of these laws on newer farming areas and communities
as opposed to more established ones; and,
- the imposition of caveats by state authorities which prevent or restrict
the existing use of land when converting title from leasehold to freehold.
5.25
Where the imposition or outcomes
of respective native vegetation legislation impacts the provisions of the Environment
Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, the Commonwealth will be
responsible then to investigate.
5.26
The committee recognises the need for action across all jurisdictions in
relation to stewardship initiatives. Towards this objective, it appreciates
that a shift in the approach away from regulation to that of stewardship
implies reorienting the focus of the relationship between landholder, land and
government.
5.27
Whilst evidence before the committee emphasised the need to dismantle
the regulatory framework, the committee recognises that to work effectively,
stewardship initiatives require extensive consultation and collaboration.
Recommendation 3
5.28
The committee recommends a review of best practice in relation to
stewardship initiatives across the country with a view to re-orienting future
regulatory activities.
Senator Scott Ryan
Chair
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page