Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

This is a report into native vegetation laws, greenhouse gas abatement and climate change measures. It was a particularly interesting inquiry. The inquiry raised many issues that are not normally before this place, because most of this legislation is within the domain of the various states and territories—and this is a key fact about this report. These are state laws, and many of the issues raised by the hundreds of submissions we received related to enforcement of these laws and the behaviour and actions of state governments. The majority report of the committee reflects concerns that have arisen, in some cases decades ago, since the passage of these laws—these are not laws that are merely the product of the last decade—that regulated the management of native vegetation on private land.

I note that these laws have represented a significant change to many. The laws guaranteeing retention of native vegetation on private land represent a change because in past years a condition of title or a condition of lease was in fact the clearing of land. So there has been a substantial change for many involved in the agricultural and pastoral industries who are affected by these laws.

The inquiry highlighted many issues and I would like to outline a few this evening. I know that some of my colleagues—I assume on both sides of the house—will add to this later on. In my view, laws that were once about broad-scale land clearing have now become significantly more about the management of native vegetation on individual properties. We heard of many examples of effective micromanagement of individual properties. In particular, there was an absurd example where a farmer was not allowed to remove a single tree in the middle of a paddock, even if he guaranteed to plant native vegetation elsewhere, that would have allowed much more efficient and modern utilisation of that particular land for farming use. Situations like that are absurd. I think they reflect the change in what these laws originally were about, which was broad-scale land clearing, and how they now seem to have become more about the management of individual properties.

Similarly, many witnesses outlined to us numerous examples of problems with the enforcement of these laws. The committee report highlighted a couple of these. Landholders are in fact liable for the payment of rates on land they cannot use or land that has been locked up, which the committee felt was an issue that needed to be reconsidered. There was also potentially the clash of legal regimes. Laws that required the management of noxious weeds may clash with laws about the retention and management of native vegetation. In certain jurisdictions there is a lack of administrative appeal of certain decisions made on behalf of government officials. It was put to the committee that in the state of Western Australia these decisions were one of the very few decisions that were not able to be appealed through the administrative appeals process of that state. The committee highlighted that as well.

There was also some concern that the state-wide application of laws would not always take into account regional, environmental, economic, social or, indeed, other differences. Even as a federalist myself, the lines drawn as our state boundaries do not always take these differences into account, and there might be a case for more regional flexibility within states. In my view, and in the view of a number of members of the committee, there appears to be at least a partial breakdown in relationships between enforcement agents and property owners. What underpins this? It is difficult to determine this from a simple Senate inquiry at the Commonwealth level into state laws. It is clear that some property owners are bearing a burden on behalf of the wider community. I hasten to add that the committee did not determine it to be inappropriate for the state to regulate the use of private landholdings or how they are utilised, but the committee was of the view that when someone pays for a benefit desired by the broader community through a direct economic cost there is a legitimate claim to consider compensating the landholder in that case for the burden they are bearing.

On a more philosophical level, I think another cause of this is the lack of common ground between urban policy makers and those involved in primary production, be it agriculture or pastoral production, in regional areas. There is much less shared experience, in my view, across the community than there was several generations ago between those who live and are raised in the cities and those who live and are involved in primary production in our regional areas. This lack of understanding has led to a more blunt degree of regulation by the states and a high degree of frustration by those who are regulated. If I look at my own experience, I realise that it is limited itself in this regard, and this is one of the many reasons I found this inquiry particularly interesting.

I make a final comment regarding the additional comments from government senators. Despite the attempts of the government senators to constantly pin the blame for these laws on the Howard government, it is clear that these laws are state laws. They were passed by state parliaments. They are enforced by state enforcement agencies. There is no Commonwealth head of power with respect to land management other than through treaties we have ratified and legislated through this parliament. These issues, such as biodiversity, were not prominent in our hearings or in the submissions received by this committee. These problems are primarily ones of legislation, regulation and enforcement at the state level.

Finally, I express my thanks to my colleagues who participated in this inquiry. It was done under a particularly tight time line. I particularly thank the committee’s secretary, Christine McDonald, and the committee secretariat, who worked extremely long hours during a very tight time line dealing with hundreds of submissions. I also thank the hundreds of Australians who made submissions and the many who appeared at our committee into this inquiry.