Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I always say that you can always trust a man with hair on his face. I would like to say that the member for Blaxland is a very trustworthy person. I wish to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2005-2006 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2005-2006. In particular, I would like to refer to the additional funds of $1.2 million allocated towards the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, which include items such as fishing adjustments, timber industry support and drought related exceptional circumstances. I want to relate those to some activities within the Department of the Environment and Heritage, because I believe that the spending within that department is having a harmful effect on how some of our land management is being carried out.

I do not believe these two departments work together in their overall consideration of land management. While one area is in crisis because it is tied up in red tape, another is being fed large sums of money to lock up very usable and sustainable land. I am particularly concerned about the changes in a number of pieces of legislation, including the Nature Conservation Amendment (Threatened Native Vegetation Communities) Bill 2005, the Forest Practices Amendment (Threatened Native Vegetation Communities) Bill 2005 and the Forest Practices Amendment (Threatened Native Vegetation Communities) Regulations 2005. They are all aimed at trying to control activities on private land.

Some of this was raised under the regional forest agreement bills, but the rest came though as additional legislation under another hat altogether. Like the recent fisheries legislation, it seems to have been drawn up without consultation with any reference to those who will be most affected by it. Tasmania is not the only place that has suffered from this very heavy handed approach to legislation. I ask the question: who is actually paying the cost of all this work and to what end? Huge amounts of information have been collected, as can be seen by documents on the net and provided by various researchers.

However, the starting point appears to be wrong and, therefore, a lot of work will have to be done again if the federal government is serious about the consultation process. Recently in Tasmania there has been widespread concern, so much so that a group of farmers and retired farmers got together and called a public meeting to see what is going on. The ABC’s Landline was invited, too, and the main thrust of that meeting was to seek answers about what was going on and why this was being done without consultation.

Six months went by and another meeting was called. By this time, some of the legislation under discussion had been received and one of the farmers, Don McShane, sifted through all the information provided and came up with some questions and some interpretations. Don did an excellent and very precise job on the material and has kindly lent me his notes as background for this speech. The discussion paper put out to look at threatened non-forest vegetation had all the hallmarks of being written by someone working off a theoretical base who had been asked to undertake a study on how to deal with threatened species without really seeing if the species are threatened and what their extent is in Tasmania.

Many of these species are prolific on farmland that has only been used for grazing. They could only be threatened if all the land was suddenly intensively farmed for cropping, as has happened with the vegetable farmers and dairy farmers on the north-west coast of Tasmania. Many farmers are puzzled by this, because they have not changed their land use generally for some time, and many of the areas discussed are sheep and cattle grazing runs. They cannot see why any species on them should be any more threatened now than it was 30 years or 60 years ago. So any comment through the consultation process would have had some basis from which to start.

The question that was raised here was whether there were not more workable ways of achieving the required outcome. For instance, in the explanation for the requirement of a regulatory impact statement, the introduction to that paper made the point that the Treasury and Finance Regulation Review Unit made an initial assessment that the proposed legislative amendments to restrict the clearance and conversion of threatened non-forest vegetation communities on private land would impose major restrictions on competition and have a significant negative impact on business.

This is not a very encouraging start. Farmers are not going to be asked to place voluntary restrictions on the use of their land so as to save species that might be threatened or that might be threatened if farmers change the use of their land in the future. The reason given for this was that Tasmania was out of step with the rest of Australia, that there had been public and political pressure to restrict the use of certain private lands and that there was a gap in the legislation in that some non-threatened, non-forest vegetation communities were not explicitly covered so that all non-forest vegetation communities would end up being protected, whether they were threatened or not. Questions were asked at the meeting about why Tasmania was out of step, who was complaining or putting on the pressure and whether the gap would mean that all unimproved farming land would be locked up. The notes on the legislation certainly did not provide any answers to that.

Using this legislation as a guideline, it would mean that, if farmers wanted to apply fertilisers to their land or plough it up, they would require the equivalent of a forest practices plan. At the moment, a forest practices plan can require the use of a professional planner to draw up a plan to harvest timber that would take into account all of the forestry regulations on water zones, species on the ground, biodiversity and everything else that the forester had to deal with. This can cost up to $5,000 each and a minimum of about $600, depending on how many reports are required, just to plough a paddock to get some better grass for your stock.

The midlands and the east coast of Tasmania consist of a lot of rocky ground and steep slopes. They are unlikely to have strong pressure on them for change. As Don says, do the authors of this legislation understand what the application of seed and fertiliser or the use of technology such as direct drilling can do to stony ground? Some farmers have achieved amazing results, particularly in better economic times. Yet, within all of this, there seems to be little reference to where the farmer can find the additional funds to afford to carry out these changes. If they do decide to carry out some minor land conversion and they fall foul of the legislation, the fines can be enormous. The penalties for noncompliance go up to $100,000.

What are we dealing with here? Talk about using a jackhammer to crack a nut! Farmers know what sort of impact their activities have on their land. They would be stupid not to know, because it affects their livelihoods. They have bought their land in good faith to undertake what is required to run a sustainable and profitable farm. Legislation that comes out of the blue without any discussion with the land user because somebody somewhere is worried about a few native plants but cannot actually say what those plants are, the extent of their range in Tasmania and whether they would indeed be harmed by current farming practices where they occur has to be considered unfair. It is not what people expect in Australia and it is not what Tasmania is all about anyway.

If there are concerns and if farmers are consulted and assisted in ensuring that enough of the species are left to assist with biodiversity, the rest is not necessary. Where there is a need to develop reserves, appropriate compensation should be available and management plans drawn up by the farmer and the management body to ensure that any impact from the reserved land does not impinge on the farmer’s land. As with forestry, some stewardship arrangements can be made available so that the farmer can be encouraged to look after that part of his or her farm that is required to be reserved.

After experience with the assessment for forestry compensation, many farmers are cagey about allowing just anyone to assess the value of their land in production. An acceptable system should be to ensure that there is a standard assessment process that everybody knows about and that there is a profit market of valuation on the land to be reserved. There should also be an understanding that many farmers use their farms as their superannuation and that when they come to the end of their working life they need to have something of improved value to sell to give them some retirement prospect, like any other businesspeople.

The regulatory impact statement talks about ‘potential compensation to affected landowners in prescribed circumstances’. However, it also states that ‘up to a certain point of duty of care, landowners are expected to provide environmental protection on their properties without compensation’, but there is no description of the point of duty of care, should this apply. As usual with this sort of thing, it is so indefinite that any interpretation can be used by those who make the regulations. The questions have to be asked: do we need more controls; what on earth are we going to control next—maybe it is the number of sheep and cattle each farmer is allowed; and do we not think that control has just spun out of control?

Many comments and concerns came out of the meeting, but the bottom line is that policies that fail to engage the cooperation of landowners will themselves ultimately fail. This group is deeply concerned about the outcome. They are certainly not stupid and will resist any efforts to have anything forced upon them. But they are willing to talk and see something sensible come out of this. The preferred option is something like the model developed for the Regional Forest Agreements Private Forest Reserve Program, but there has to be an agreement between the state and federal governments to undertake a proper consultation and be provided with proper scientific data on which to develop any guidelines. The stuff that has been provided so far is totally inadequate and from the wrong perspective.

If funds are to be spent on this sort of activity where the federal government is trying to appease some of its greener constituents, let us get it onto a rational basis so that if a new environmental policy is being developed it at least starts with the proper information, the scientific basis and the likely impact on the traditional land users, whether they be European or Aboriginal. Australians are proud of their land ownership because few people around the world have the sort of acreage that we have in our care. No-one wants to really ruin it for the future. Past practices have pushed farming into some pretty marginal land—but then economics have driven them out again. Those who are farming today are on the lookout for new ideas and new ways of helping the earth to produce our needs. We should be funding research and development, especially to assist with things like drought proofing, having more skilled people and keeping them healthy and housed. It is here that our farmers need some practical assistance, not having someone to tell them how to conserve their land and being left to grow weeds, promote bushfires and become unproductive in every sense.

This can be much better handled and I believe that this government should be well advised to take heed of what that meeting and the one that was held at Oaklands had to say. There is an avenue for negotiations to restart. There is a will between both state and federal parties to vary the agreements. And, quite honestly, it is vital that this be done. Any further funds spent on developing a hollow case is not what this is all about. If this government were fair dinkum then there should be no ifs and buts; it should be on the road to a new agreement by now. I look forward to seeing something more positive come out of this and not seeing more money being wasted.

The present position that applies is one where a farmer 10 years ago ploughed up his sags and land that had been used for grazing for the last 100 years and put in poppies. Because the price of wool was not giving the return that it used to, he looked to the poppy industry and the spud industry. That was okay 10 years ago. His neighbour now is forced to look for an alternative way to return money, to get a new cash flow, and he is being denied that opportunity. This, in anybody’s opinion, is very unfair and denies natural justice.

When we look at these issues, if areas have to be set aside to safeguard biodiversity, then that is in the public interest. This occurred in my electorate, in the Mole Creek area, where karsts exist and where people sit above caves and have sinkholes on their properties. Their lives were put on hold for years because of the disruption that was put on them when land use issues took over and people were denied the right to harvest their forests because it was said that there were karsts beneath them. I do not mind having a public interest. I believe in the public interest. I believe that government has a responsibility to take care of the public interest. But, if we are going to look after biodiversity and things like karsts and the cave systems that apply within our country, and if we say that this is in the interests of the public, then the public has to pay for the public interest.

There are all sorts of opportunities that can be developed, like the stewardships where some landowners will fence off certain areas and will only use those for grazing and they can be paid rent on a yearly basis. There are some taxation issues with that, which are difficult, but it is still an income. There are some people who are quite willing to do that and have already gone into those sorts of arrangements. These are quite acceptable processes that we can continue to develop to enhance these programs. However, we are coming along and saying to a person who, 10 years ago or less, saw their neighbours plough up the sags and grasses and put in the poppies and spuds because wool was in a downturn and they could not make the same amount from the property that they used to with the same management techniques or processes, so they had to look for another cash flow: ‘You cannot do what your neighbour did 10 years ago, and we’re not going to compensate you. But it’s in the public interest. That’s why you can’t do it.’

There is something wrong when that happens, and natural justice is being denied to people. As I said, I am about the public interest if it needs to be put forward, but I am also about natural justice. You would think that The Nationals would have some sort of an interest in this kind of legislation when it goes through this parliament, but The Nationals seem to have let these bills go through without any consideration. That is probably one reason why people say that that party is now failing rural and regional Australia.

See this speech in context