Additional comments from Government Senators
Howard Government’s role in supporting anti land clearing laws
Government Senators note that the previous Government
actively and publicly pressured both New South Wales and Queensland State
Governments to pass laws preventing the broad scale clearing of native
vegetation as the Commonwealth Government does not have the constitutional
power to pass such laws. This fact is not disputed by Coalition Senators or by
farmers’ associations and other participants making submission at the inquiry,
even though the Coalition Senators have studiously attempted to ignore the
Howard Government’s role in anti land clearing laws.
Numerous statements by Howard Government Environment
Ministers such as Senator Robert Hill and later Dr David Kemp demonstrate the
Howard Government’s desire to push for a stop to land clearing.
For example, Minister Hill said to the Senate:
“Five years ago, the Governments of Australia set the goal of
reversing the decline in the quality and extent of our native vegetation by
June 2001..."
“The exceptionally high rate of land clearing in Queensland
is still the single most substantial factor in the failure to achieve the
national goal... While a number of States have effective regulatory systems for
land clearing in place, the main reason why the national goal has not been
achieved is that many States have not contributed sufficiently to the national
endeavour. The goal cannot be achieved as long as Queensland land clearing
rates remain at current levels, and New South Wales clearing rates also remain
too high. Significant improvements in other States and Territories are also
required.”[1]
Minister Kemp continued this pressure on the states when he
became Minister for the Environment:
“Every other Australian state in its bilateral agreement with
the Commonwealth on the Natural Heritage Trust has undertaken to protect of
concern vegetation on private land. The only government that has not done so,
so far, is the Beattie government.....
“I do not think anyone in this country who cares for the
environment does not believe that vegetation clearing, at the rate that it is
going, is a very significant environmental problem, particularly in two states
– Queensland and New South Wales – with Labor governments that have had the
capacity for quite some time to address this issue. It was not until the
Natural Heritage Trust and the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water
Quality were put in place by this government that solutions to these problems
have become possible.”[2]
Minister Hill further made certain Commonwealth Government
funding to the states contingent on laws restricting land clearing being passed
in priority areas:
“Commonwealth funding for the (National Action Plan for
Salinity and Water Quality) is contingent on the States and Territories
committing to implement the whole package of measures outlined in this
Agreement, which includes policy reform relating to land and water resource
management."
“The Agreement commits the States and Territories to put in
place controls which at a minimum prohibit land clearing in the 21 priority
catchments and regions where it would lead to unacceptable land or water
degradation.”[3]
When New South Wales and Queensland State Governments passed
these laws, the Howard Government took credit:
“I was delighted to record in the House only a week or so ago
that, via the agency of the Natural Heritage Trust and the National Action Plan
for Salinity and Water Quality, a complete halt will now be put on broad scale
vegetation clearing in New South Wales. That is something that the
Commonwealth is very pleased about. I know that landholders and environment
and conservation groups are also very pleased about it. It is something we
have been seeking, along with regional reform, to push the New South Wales government
into for some time.”[4]
Both Ministers made it clear that the reason that they
wanted these laws to be introduced was because clearance of native vegetation
was “a fundamental cause of dry land salinity”, to provide “multiple
productivity, biodiversity and greenhouse returns” and “to help us meet out
greenhouse emissions abatement commitments”[5]
For example, Minister Hill stated:
“Reducing the rate of land clearing in Queensland remains one
of the most significant opportunities to address our greenhouse emissions. The
Commonwealth has offered Queensland unprecedented financial assistance to
implement an improved land clearing regime that would deliver substantially
reduced clearing rates and a significant greenhouse outcome beyond that
resulting from the existing Queensland legislation and reform commitments. In
order to meet our greenhouse commitments, certainty of outcome is essential.
The delivery of this certainty and a sustained reduction in greenhouse
emissions can only be achieved through the implementation of statewide caps on
clearing of native vegetation."[6]
Years later, former Treasurer Peter Costello proudly
acknowledged that the Commonwealth stopped land clearing to meet its Kyoto
target:
“This was all designed to stop land clearing and we stopped
land clearing and it’s helped us to meet our Kyoto target. If I may say so,
Australia actually did something practical.”[7]
Effect on farmers and funding support offered
While initially welcomed by the New South Wales Farmers’
Association as “a great step forward for farmers in NSW”[8]
when first introduced, the laws have become unpopular among the farmers’
organisations. It appears that some of the farmers; frustrations are
legitimate, for example, where state laws are perhaps unduly inflexible, even
where environmental benefits of native vegetation would be maintained
offsetting, by moving the vegetation to another area of the farm. Furthermore,
there does not appear to be an appeals mechanism at a state level that would allow
farmers to appeal decisions in a cost-effective way. Farmers should not need
to go to court to appeal an administrative decision that affects the way they
are able to use their property.
However, it should be noted that while the Queensland and
New South Wales state governments offered significant financial support to
farmers affected by these laws, there was no financial support that can be
found from the then Howard Government.
Questions remain unanswered as to why the Howard Government
reneged on an agreement with the Queensland Government to jointly offer a $150
million assistance package to farmers. A media release issued ON 22 May 2003
by Minister Kemp explained that Howard Government ministers David Kemp
(Environment and Heritage); Warren Truss (Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries);
Ian Macfarlane (Industry, Tourism and Resources) and Ian Macdonald (Fisheries,
Forestry and Conservation) met with Mr Larry Acton of Agforce, Mr Gary Sansom
of Queensland Farmers’ Federation (QFF) and other primary industry leaders to
outline the native vegetation laws and discuss the financial assistance to
farmers. The package offered at that meeting “met the Commonwealth
Government’s objectives of a substantial reduction in the clearing of remnant
vegetation, in greenhouse gas emissions and the additional protection of the
biodiversity of ecosystems”, according to Minister Kemp. The media release
also stated: “The Commonwealth indicated it is willing to consider
alternatives to the proposal that achieve the Commonwealth’s objectives in an
assured, timely and cost effective manner.”
However, ultimately, no such funding was provided by the
Howard Government when the laws were passed by the Queensland Government. The
Queensland Government apparently paid all $150 million itself. It is
unfortunate that the committee was not able to ascertain the reason behind this
back flip by the Howard Government – industry leaders do not appear to
understand the reasons for the decision.
In addition, in New South Wales, a similar amount of funding
went directly to financial assistance for farmers affected, usually in the form
of incentive schemes, although a portion was spent on compensation for farmers
whose land was rendered unsuitable for agriculture due to the extend of native vegetation
protected.
The comments provided in this report by other senators refer
to “unintended consequences” of the native vegetation laws being passed.
However, it is indisputable that there were several prominent reports from
reputable organisations such as the Productivity Commission and the Australian
Bureau of Agricultural and Resources Economics available at the time that the
Howard Government was “pushing”. The Productivity Commission report, for
example, analysed the financial impact these laws would have on farmers in
certain regions. Furthermore, Queensland farmers’ association, Agforce, was
very clear very early about is opposition to the laws in Queensland. Some
other farmers’ organisations did not appear to develop an opposition, apparently
on the basis that they realised the laws were aimed at meeting the Howard
Government’s Kyoto target, despite the Howard Government making it clear it
wanted these laws to meet “greenhouse gas abatement commitments”.
The committee also received evidence of farmers’ meetings
being held to discuss their concerns with the laws.[9]
For example, one witness said there were hundreds of people at a public meeting
in Dubbo in 2003 and participants “tried very hard to get this (issue) on the
national agenda at that time, as did other people and groups.” Despite the
fact that National and Liberal party members under the Howard Government, such
as Senator Nash, appeared to have done nothing to communicate their concerns to
their senior Howard Government ministers. It is therefore quite concerning
that these same Senators are now claiming that the effects of these laws on
farmers were unforseen or unintended.
Compensation
Some farmers wanted compensation for what they argue is an
abrogation of property rights. As the National Farmers Federation noted, this
issue is subject to a High Court Appeal.[10]
It would therefore not be appropriate to comment on the issue of compensation
for the laws passed by the states prior to the Rudd Government’s term and with
the support of the Howard Government.
Government Senators note that the Opposition has rules out providing
compensation. In an interview with The Australian’s Matthew Franklin, Senator
Barnaby Joyce, the then Opposition Finance Spokesperson said, “If you are going
to compromise their capacity to utilise their assets, you should compensate
them.”[11]
Matthew Franklin wrote that Senator Joyce then “contacted The Australian again
shortly after the initial interview to stress that he accepted that
compensation would be too costly.” The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Tony
Abbott, also said on the same day of the farmers rally at Parliament House on 2
February 2010 “we are not proposing any additional policies directly on the
subject of land clearing.”[12]
Impact of climate changes policies on farm use
Witnesses before the committee consistently agreed with the
statement that there has been no change to land management regulations under
the term of the Rudd Government. However, some farmers’ associations,
particularly the National Farmers’ Federation and the NSW Farmers’ Federation,
argued that, while the Rudd Government did not orchestrate these laws like the
previous Government did, the ratification of Kyoto amounted to a “cashing in”
of the carbon credits.
However, submissions from the Department of Climate Change
and Water make clear that the ratification of Kyoto does not result in the
Government removing or acquiring any existing rights that farmers might have to
carbon on their land. Furthermore, in relation to the Rudd Government’s
proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, no liabilities for greenhouse gas
emissions from deforestation or agriculture will be imposed, but the CPRS
package included measures to promote voluntary action to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions from these sources. Participation in offsets for avoided
deforestation or in reforestation is purely voluntary. Furthermore, the CPRS,
had it been passed by the Senate, would not have imposed any constraints or
penalties for land clearing.
Conclusions and recommendations
On the basis of the evidence presented to the inquiry,
Government Senators believe that farmers concerns relating to the
administration of the native vegetation legislation warrant further scrutiny.
Government Senators therefore support the essence of the
recommendations. The Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council (NRMMC)
should review state native vegetation laws with a view to:
- Ensuring, where practical, that the laws are sufficiently
flexible in each state to allow farmers to offset clearing where that leads to
an equal or enhanced environmental outcome
- Introducing into each state a cheap and quick mechanism for
merits review of decisions to refuse permission to clear land
- Ensuring that native vegetation policies encourage and allow for
effective weed and pest control
- Devising a strategy to ensure that the land is not effectively
‘locked up’ and left without maintenance
- Ascertaining whether farmers can access affordable technology to
assist farmers to manage native vegetation – for example, satellite imagery
- Establishing uniform protocols across the states to guiding enforcement
and investigative procedures
-
Establishing training for Government officers carrying out these
duties
- Making available helpful and relevant information to the public
to assist landholders to understand processes and aims of the laws
- Reviewing incentive-based programs available to landholders, such
as environmental stewardship programs or access to sustainable agriculture
grants, that allow landholders to earn income for protecting high quality
native vegetation to ensure that policy settings across governments assist
farmers to deliver environmental outcomes
-
Ensuring native vegetation laws reflect scientific data regarding
the best means to ensure enhancement of our natural environment while also
enhancing productivity at the same time.
Senator
Helen Polley Senator Doug Cameron
Senator
for Tasmania Senator for New South Wales
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page