ONE of Australia’s longest-serving voluntary rural property rights advocates believes landholders may only gain meaningful certainty about what they can and cannot legally do on their properties under the amended EPBC Act when somebody is forced to defend themselves in court.
Retiring Property Rights Australia leader Joanne Rea says confusion surrounding key provisions in the recently amended Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act has left landholders facing major unanswered questions, with little practical guidance available.
“I really think that we won’t know until we have a court case and probably run it through to its full end in the High Court,” she said in an interview with Beef Central at the recent Property Rights Australia conference, where was awarded with Life Membership of the organisation for her decades of voluntary advocacy work on behalf of rural landholders.
‘The whole thing is just so badly written’
She singled out the new rule preventing clearing of regrowth that is 15 years or older in the recent EPBC Act amendments, and the ongoing inclusion of a “continuing use” provision, as a key area of uncertainty.
“They still have the continuing use in there,” she said.
“Continuing use suggests that if you were running cattle there, and you’re still running cattle there and you haven’t turned it into a feedlot, it is continuing use, and I really think that is a contradiction.
“And landowners are going to get no guidance on it, I wouldn’t think, until we have a court case.”
She also raised concerns about the range of powers the independent CEO of the Environmental Protection Agency will have under the new arrangements.
“The whole thing is just so badly written, and so lacking in clarity.
‘You’re going to have an independent CEO of the Environmental Protection Agency, and that CEO is going to have enormous power’
“You’re going to have an independent CEO of the Environmental Protection Agency, and that CEO is going to have enormous power.
“That has to be spelled out in the legislation, when he can stop projects, when he can withdraw approvals and things like that.
“I mean that is huge, once somebody is approved, withdrawing it has to be for a very, very good reason, but it has to be spelled out in legislation.”
‘People just have things thrown at them’
Mrs Rea said she first joined Property Rights Australia because she believed agricultural property rights had been “very badly trodden on”, and she thought if landholders could get together and built really good case they should be able “to wind things back a bit”.
“Well, no such thing has happened,” she said.
“We’re at a stage now where people just have things thrown at them all the time. Whole industries are destroyed without compensation and sometimes without very much notice.
“And I can bring in the Western Australian fishing industry on that case.
“And the EPBC Act. It is not clear, they’re putting out requests for submission on tiny patches of land all the time, including three that are due in a week.
“Nobody knows where it is going.”
Advocacy a ‘long and slow process’
Reflecting on her experiences as an active campaigner for rural landholder rights, Mrs Rea said there were no silver bullets, and the process required patience and “wearing away at things for a very long time”.
Success in advocacy required a multi-pronged approach to get the public onside, including painstaking research to build evidence, learning how to use social media effectively, harnessing the support of well-informed professionals and building networks between aligned industries.
She used words like crowded, complicated, cluttered and chaotic to summarise the current advocacy space, noting that voluntary groups like Property Rights Australia compete to get landholder voices heard above those of green groups with millions of dollars to spend, well paid full-time staff members and tax-deductible charitable status.
“It was necessary that somebody do it”
Few people have stuck at active and voluntary rural advocacy for as sustained a period as Mrs Rea.
Asked what keeps here going, she answered simply: “Belief in what I was doing”.
“It was belief that it was necessary that somebody do it.”
“Do it hard”
What advice would she give t0 someone stepping into a rural advocacy role today?
“Do it hard”.
“If you’re going to take this on, do it hard, put as much time into as you can without effecting your own life and your own business.
“Make sure you do your research
“Get on board the people that you need to help you. And go hard, but also, ensure you behave with integrity. Don’t throw anyone under a bus.”
Tribute to past leaders
The retiring advocate also paid tribute to previous Property Rights Australia leaders, particularly former chairman the late Ashley McKay, whom she described as possessing a rare mix of intellect, diplomacy and analytical skill.
Ashley McKay
“I’d also like to pay tribute to all the previous chairmen of Property Rights Australia, because they were mostly people that I have worked with before and had a lot of respect for, and particularly Ashley McKay, who had a great intellect.
“He could analyse anything.
“He could put pick the pros and cons of anything.
“And he was also a great personality, so that he was able to smooth over disagreements between various people.
“So he was really a huge gentleman, a huge intellect, and an all round very competent person.”
Her major hope for the future is that politicians and corporations re-evaluate how they view about Australia’s food, farming and fibre industries.
“They (Governments) have a very negative perception at the moment.
“I must say listed companies also need to re-evaluate their attitude to food and fibre industries, because now they’re also on the bandwagon, having been converted and instructed by environmental organisations and they have taken what they have to say on board as gospel, and a lot of it is very bad advice, it is bad science and it is bad law, quite often.
“So they need to have more of the respect, and re-find respect all the agricultural and primary industries.”
‘If we don’t keep at it, we’re going to be steam rolled’
While admitting there times when she questioned whether the effort was worth it, Mrs Rea said she always felt that she was “doing something that was necessary”.
“I never thought, for very long anyway, that it was a total waste of time, but I do believe that if we don’t keep at it, we’re absolutely going to be steam rolled.
“We can’t just way it is a waste of time, you can’t talk to the politicians, they won’t do it, if you don’t keep at it you’re never going to make any progress.”
- Beef Central will take a deep dive into the complications with the EPBC in the coming days.
RE: New EPBC law
In NSW farmers could manage regrowth grown since 1990.(36 year old) The new EPBC law says you can only manage 15 year old regrowth. Effectively The land longer than 15 year old must now have self assessment process.
The tools provided for a farmer to do that are not fit for purpose. We need an easy farmer friendly process.
If that does not happen farmers will end up donating more land to Gov for nothing. I fought to get property rights recognised on native vegetation and water. The coalition gave us water but not native veg. Has cost us millions.