ENVIRONMENT minister Murray Watt has confirmed that dozens of investigations are underway into land clearing, talking up the potential for landholders to receive big fines.
Concerns were recently raised about the Department of Environment acting on an influx of claims of illegal land clearing from groups like the Australian Conservation Foundation, which they said they were obliged to investigate.
Quizzed about how the Federal Government’s updated Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation act was protecting the Great Barrier Reef at a recent press conference in Melbourne, the minister said the department was already investigating dozens of instances of potential land clearing.
“My department is already investigating a number of instances of land clearing that appear to have breached those laws,” Minister Watt said.
“If it stacks up that that land clearing is in breach of our laws, then we will take serious action that involves very big fines for people who are breaching that law.”
The minister also confirmed that the department was going after land clearing activities that had taken place before the Federal Government changed the laws at the end of last year.
“There were some forms of land clearing that were taking place even before we passed those changes of the law that were in breach of the laws as they stood then,”
“So, they’ve been under investigation for some time. But obviously when you change the law in a significant way like we have, and that commenced in December last year, then new investigations have been launched since then as well.”
Different messaging to landholders
The rhetoric in Melbourne was a lot more hard line than a recent visit to Central Queensland where the minister promised landholders that the Government was not trying to interrupt routine land management practices.
Officials from the environment department have also been trying to talk down the impact of the laws to producers pointing them to a self-assessment process – where producers determine whether their land management activity needs to be assessed by the Federal Government.
In interview in the below episode of The Week in Beef podcast, Agforce cattle board member and Russell Pastoral Operations managing director Adam Armstrong said the department’s rhetoric was concerning given the self-assessment process is “incredibly complex” and that groups like the ACF were ready to refer any land clearing to the department.
He said, in many cases, the department was now investigating landholders who had complied with already strict state laws.
Asked how many cases the environment was investigating, the minister said he did not know the number.
“I’d have to come back to you with an exact number, but I know that it is in the dozens of incidents that my Department is investigating as we speak,” Minister Watt said.
“We’re also doing a lot of work to educate landowners as well because we recognise that this is a change. Landowners need to understand what that change is, what they can and can’t do. So there’s a lot of work going on around that as well.”
Policy must be based on evidence, practical implementaion
In response to the comments made by Minister Watt, AgForce chief executive officer Niki Ford said:
“Queensland producers are committed to protecting the Great Barrier Reef and the environment, but environmental policy must be based on evidence, practical implementation and a clear understanding of how agriculture operates,” she said.
“Australian agriculture directly employs more than 255,000 people and supports approximately 1.6 million jobs across the broader food and fibre supply chain. Any regulatory reform must consider not only environmental outcomes, but also food security, regional communities and the economic contribution of farming families.
“We acknowledge the Minister’s commitment that agricultural producers should not face unnecessary administrative or financial burdens under the EPBC reforms. That commitment must remain central as the Government develops implementation arrangements.
“AgForce’s concern has never been about environmental protection. Our concern is ensuring routine and lawful agricultural activities are clearly defined, appropriately protected and not subjected to unnecessary uncertainty or duplication.
“Queensland producers have spent generations managing landscapes, improving environmental outcomes and investing in stewardship activities. Those efforts must be recognised within any future regulatory framework.
“We will continue to work constructively with the Government to achieve reforms that support both strong environmental outcomes and a productive, sustainable and globally competitive agricultural sector.”
Is this a smokescreen by Murray Watt to draw media attention away from the massive clearing of pristine land to build wind and solar infrastructure?
After contact with the CEO of dcceew Cormac
about ruinables hypocrisy to destroying trees he informed me that they have to provide offsets for trees destroyed to which i replied yes and under you new EPBC rules WE the FARMERS are covering that offset by your restrictive measures
He has not responded to that
The minister needs to define “what they can and can’t do” and give definite answers, not just weilding the big stick. At the moment all the risk is with the landowner as the dept will not give straight answers to a problem.
This Federal Government just loves having a crack at our Agricultural industries.
Obviously the recent budget changes have created havoc for most landholders and business owners across Australia.
Talking to people at Ag-Grow in Emerald yesterday, the recent EPBC is weighing heavily on the minds of every producer.
The uncertainty about maintaining regrowth control and what is legally permissible maintenance clearly has people very concerned.
Their businesses are in jeopardy and so is our food security.
Unfortunately government bureaucracy thinks that they know what good land management looks like.
They don’t.
A glaring example of this is ‘new generation’ tree thickening. Across parts of Australia, land managers talk about “thickening” — too many younger generation trees growing too close together to allow normal growth. The over population of younger trees compete for moisture, sunlight, and nutrients, and many never reach their full potential. In fact many die. Almost every ’new generation’ tree becomes stunted because there simply isn’t enough natural resources to support the greater tree community.
The consequences don’t stop with the trees. Many of our native wildlife species depend on large, mature trees with hollows for shelter and breeding. Species such as Greater Gliders, possums, microbats, owls, parrots, and cockatoos all rely on these large tree hollows as homes and nesting sites. When forests become overcrowded and trees fail to grow to their natural size, those hollows often never form. The habitat suffers because the forest system is carrying more trees than it can properly support.
So I ask the Environment Minister, please allow thinning to be a relevant, environmentally friendly activity in all our vegetation categories, to support our flora and fauna.
If only the EPBC had some distinct guidelines and would state exactly what could and could not be done re clearing. They come up with suggestions, but the final arbiter is still the Dept. The risk is left with landholder whether the action will “have a significant effect” on the environment- and determined by the Dept in the final analysis.
Thousands of ha will be rendered useless for improvement and such country will depreciate, not appreciate.