Peter Spencer's background story Part 3 of 3

In January 2011, Peter Spencer became aware of an interesting extract from the Queensland Government Hansard which seems to show proof of collusion between the Commonwealth and Queensland Governments to use uncleared land for the Kyoto Protocol requirement.

2011 was a very promising year for Mr Spencer. He was in court several times and turned up many documents which seemed to prove that an agreement existed between the Commonwealth and the State. Access to Cabinet documents was approved by Judge Emmett with access to be granted by State and Federal governments progressively to 2nd September, 2011.

The latter part of 2011 and into 2012 was spent haggling over documents which were required to be disclosed. Many of the 3500 Commonwealth documents were redacted or refused on the grounds that they had “Cabinet privilege”.

On 26th November, 2012 three High Court judges struck down Mr. Spencer’s access to Cabinet documents which were needed to show that state and federal governments colluded to introduce land clearing legislation to lock up carbon on Australian farms so it could meet carbon targets under the Kyoto protocol without compensation.

For four years, the approach taken by the Australian Government Solicitor (for the Commonwealth) had been to deny the existence of any documents showing the existence of informal agreements between the Commonwealth and the Sates (relating to sequestration of carbon and land use change laws and measures) before and after the Kyoto meeting of the UNFCCC in 1997.

In May 2013, still in discovery hearings with Justice Cowdroy ruling that if relevant documents can be found they must be handed over. On 30th May 2013 Mr. Spencer had a productive day in court before Justice Cowdroy.

Barrister Peter King started by giving a detailed chronological account of signed international treaties, intergovernmental agreements, commonwealth/state legislation, commonwealth/state agreements and commonwealth/state committees starting with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992 and followed on citing in detail many High Court authorities with regards to the merits of the case.

Justice Cowdroy ordered that various State and Commonwealth documents be produced within eight weeks with the court able to reconvene with three days’ notice in the event that this order not be honoured.

24th November, 2014 was the start of the major hearing in the Federal Court to determine if there was a clear direction to the States by the Commonwealth.

In spite of the considerable evidence showing dialogue between the Commonwealth and the States about Carbon emissions, the Judge managed to find that an informal arrangement between the states and the Commonwealth was not proven.
Justice Mortimer handed down judgement in July 2015, rejecting Peter Spencer’s claims against the NSW and the Commonwealth Governments

To read more, this web page documents this major court case - Peter Spencer verses The Commonwealth.

Mr Spencer appealed, with a 3 day hearing starting on February 27 2017 before a Full Court of three judges of the Federal Court. Eventually decision was published on 15 February 2018 to the negative.

But Peter Spencer was not giving up, on March 20 2018 it was announced on the Support Peter Spencer & Australian Farmers Facebook page that he is taking his case all the way back to the highest court in the land - The High Court. Read more [here]

The action through the various courts beginning in 2005, looks like it has come to an end on June 21, 2018 when Peter Spencer was informed that  the application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia was refused with costs. 

Further reading:
'The Death of Property Rights' by Alan Moran

Support Peter Spencer & Australian Farmers Facebook page

No just terms on 'acquisition' with quotes from Murdoch University law lecturer Lorraine Finlay. 

'Courts refuse to protect Australian private property rights' by Alan Moran
'Carbon credit hunger strike farmer Peter Spencer returns to court in fight against Commonwealth' by Michael Condon

***

Peter Spencer's background story Part 1 of 3

Peter Spencer's background story Part 2 of 3

Peter Spencer's background story Part 2 of 3

“In recent decades, thousands of farms have become economically marginal and have gone out of business. What is not widely known is that this “marginality” has often been the result not of market forces but of government regulation. In particular, governments in pursuit of urban green votes have imposed a vast range of devastating new costs on farmers”
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4089&page=0

Peter Spencer wrote this in 2006 after he commenced legal action in 2005 for just compensation, unable to re-clear his farm to bring it back into productivity.

On 22 November, 2009 after reportedly 200 court events and the threat of bank foreclosure on his property, Peter climbed up a wind-monitoring tower on his property (later dubbed “The Tower of Hope) and commenced a hunger strike.

Chris Berg’s article, ‘Lost property: home in deed but not in fact’ published 10th Jan 2010:
“NSW farmer Peter Spencer is coming up to the 50th day of his hunger strike. Spencer is arguing that he should be adequately compensated for native vegetation regulations that prevent his chopping down trees on his land.

Tower of Hope, photo sourced ABC

The Government hasn't literally taken Spencer's property away. He hasn't been kicked off: he's still allowed to wander his land at his leisure. He still holds the title. But his right to use the land has definitely been taken. And if Spencer is not compensated for this regulatory taking, how is it much different from legalised theft?

Peter Spencer's hunger strike in defence of his human right to property is drastic and dangerous. We can only hope it won't be tragic. But his desperation must make us rethink our attitude towards this essential, but increasingly neglected, human right.”

Two days later Peter Spencer ended the hunger strike. His drastic action achieved 3 results. On Feb 2nd 2010 the Property Rights Rally was held on in Canberra, attended by thousands of farmers, with Alan Jones as MC. Following the February Rally came the Senate Inquiry into Native Vegetation Laws, Greenhouse Gas Abatement and Climate Change Measures. The inquiry received almost 400 submissions. The Report was completed in April 2010, and received support from both Labor and Coalition Senators, although to date it has not been acted upon. Importantly avenues to pursue the legal case were opened.

Alan Jones with Peter Spencer at the Property Rights rally, Canberra Feb 13, 2010

On Wednesday 1 September 2010, the Full Bench of the High Court held that the case Spencer v Commonwealth of Australia should not have been summarily dismissed in the Federal Court in March 2009 on the grounds that Mr Spencer had "no reasonable prospect" of successfully prosecuting the proceedings (under section 31A of the Federal Court of Australia Act).

This allowed Peter’s legal battle to continue.

Further reading

https://evacuationgrounds.blogspot.com/p/peter-spencer.html

'Peter Spencer' by Justin Jefferson 

"Tower of Hope" or vale of tears by Brian Bahnisch

'Pole sitter farmer Peter Spencer in tears over massive support for his cause' 

'Peter Spencer wins right to appeal to High Court'

***

Peter Spencer's background story Part 1 of 3

Peter Spencer's background story Part 3 of 3

Peter Spencer's background story Part 1 of 3

Peter Spencer with his oldest daughter, Sarah in 1980,
after he purchased his farm at Shannon's Flat near Cooma, NSW

In 1980, Peter Spencer bought 14,000 acres in southern New South Wales (near Shannon’s flats and on the ACT border). It had previously been significantly cleared during the 1930’s and 40’s, however, regrowth had occurred so that only about 2000 acres was uncleared at the time of purchase.

Throughout the 1980's Peter was involved in tourism in the Papua New Guinea highlands. He became close to Jiga tribesman Paias Wingti, who when he regained office as Prime Minister of PNG bought Peter to Port Moresby in the mid 1990's. Peter drafted a National Law and Order policy which dealt with corruption, which later may have been the reason an attempt was made on his life and encouraged a permanent return to Australia to begin work as a farmer on Shannon's Flat.

Peter returned to find the laws had changed and he could no longer manage the regrowth to return the land to productivity. In 1997, the Federal Government under John Howard decided to meet its Kyoto Protocol commitments with shifty accounting: they offset greenhouse-gas emissions with uncleared vegetation on private property. To avoid any obligation for compensation (under the Australian constitution), legislation to prevent land clearing was used at State level. NSW Premier Bob Carr introduced the Native Vegetation Act.

Peter attempted to use his land gainfully with a trout fishing enterprise – this ran into water problems. He set up a fine wool breeding program (in association with CSIRO) – the Canberra fires of 2003 destroyed surrounding national parks, driving dogs and kangaroos onto his property, killing many of his sheep.

In 2005, Peter commenced legal action for just compensation for the loss of his property rights.

Read - 'The war on farmers' by Peter Spencer, written in 2006

Further references for the above background information:

http://evacuationgrounds.blogspot.com/p/peter-spencer.html

'Farmers are pushed beyond limit' by Micheal Duffy

'White tribesman at home in a wild world', The Australian 

'Hunger strike up a wind mast is an act of tragedies', by Micheal Duffy

***

Peter Spencer's background story Part 2 of 3

Peter Spencer's background story Part 3 of 3

Peter Spencer - Not giving up - Back to the High Court

Peter Spencer is not giving up, he is taking his case all the way back to the highest court in the land - The High Court.

[first published March 21 in a Facebook post]

Peter writes: "'I am writing this brief to bring all supporters up to date with developments surrounding the ongoing court proceedings in the struggle for property rights in Australia.

This submission will is supported by a number of documents - being the High Court of Australia (HCA) - Application for Leave to Appeal and the HCA letter of acknowledgement and instructions.

I do point out the number of applications made to the HCA for Leave to Appeal are successful at the ratio of only 6% to 8% of the applications. 92 to 94% are rejected and that means for them - there is no other appeal path.

However, previously an Application to Appeal in this matter ACD 24 2007 was granted that right in appeal from the Federal Court of Australia (FCA) and the judgement of Emmet J and the FCA full bench.
This application was successfully heard, and Judgement handed down on September 1 2010.
It was significant in that all 7 High Court Judges agreed with our application.

In this matter, as submitted, we are saying that the FCA did not adhere to the HCA of Australia’s Orders handed down in the September 2010 Judgement. Therefore, there may be a higher potential for the HCA to hear this matter.

Further, I do point out in making that statement, that is only my opinion - I have no experience in such matters.

It must be appreciated; the Respondents have the right to defend the Judgement and oppose our submissions. 

Thank you all for hanging in there for the long duration – such a saga, and thank you for your ongoing support."
Peter Spencer

***
The immediate requirement is that Peter Spencer needs $10,000 of donations by about 9 April to keep this Appeal on track.

Payment Methods for the Farmers “Property Rights” Fighting Fund. Please remember any payment is appreciated and needed - Property Rights is a fundamental institution of our liberty.

Method 1:
Crowd Funding Link.
www.gofundme.com/property-rights-high-court-appeal?utm
Please provide an email to Leslie Hillam with details of any payment - see below.

Method 2:
Payment using “Pay Pal” facilities.
Supporters intending donations find it on Pay Pal web site.
This is the procedure –
The supporter goes to the PayPal site on the web and accesses the payment indicator advising that they want to pay money.
The page will request the code needed to identify who the payment is for. Then type in this ID –
ozpond@live.com
and that is the access code to the instructions and payment will process thru to the farmers “Property Rights” fighting fund.
Please provide an email to Leslie Hillam with details of any payment - see below.

Method 3:
For direct payments to the “Tower of Hope” Bank Account.
The “Tower of Hope” Bank Account details.
National Australia Bank.
BSP No. 082 535 Account No. 48 464 3925 The account is in the name of the:
Peter Spencer - “Tower of Hope” National Australia Bank.
Please provide an email to Leslie Hillam with details of any payment - see below.

Method 4:
For direct payments to the Fighting Funds Bank Account in Dubbo
The fighting fund Bank account details are as below:
BSB No: 032646 Account No: 494974 The account is in the name of the:
“NSW Regional Survival Group Fighting Fund” at Westpac in Dubbo

Farmers Fighting Fund Administrator’s Contact details:
Lesley Hillam: e-mail address: lesley.hillam@bigpond.com
For any assistance with payments regarding all above methods and notice of all payments.'

***
Please go to the Support Peter Spencer & Australian Farmers Facebook page for a lot more information posted there last night in a 4 part series

Part 1 - advice provided by Barrister Peter King to Peter Spencer dated 28 February 2018
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10157258718078047&id=234917523046

Part 2 - Application for Special Leave to Appeal
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10157258924763047&id=234917523046

Part 3 - response letter from the High Court confirming Spencer's application for special leave and setting out the timeline for further submissions
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10157258956508047&id=234917523046

Part 4 - Peter Spencer's email & links to articles published by Alan Moran and David Evans

Peter also writes:
"I intend to brief as many farmers as possible, on the judgment, the decision to attend the High Court for “Leave to Appeal” and the reasons.
Anyone who can organize meetings - 50 or so farmers and as many meetings in one general area as close together so my visit is productive.
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10157259021058047&id=234917523046

Tree Laws - THERE IS A BETTER WAY!

First published at Beef Central

24 April 2018

THERE IS A BETTER WAY! – in social media capitals denotes shouting and this is what many Qld farmers and graziers  feel like doing, caught out in the midst of the rough and tumble of the latest match of vegetation management political football.  The frustration is palpable, as seen in the rural media, social commentary, in submissions to this latest Bill and to the inquiry hearings.

The people, who provide food for the table of Queenslanders, all Australians and also contribute to the economy through exports, are feeling demoralised, denigrated and misunderstood. The explanation given by the Palaszczuk government for the latest changes to the Vegetation Management Act (VMA) and the contrived debate in the lead up, is not the reality known to those who live and work with these rural landscapes. Statistics are used out of context to create alarm and an imperative to toughen up the VMA. But if government did care to listen and embark on genuine consultation and two-way communication with food producers, it would learn that at fault is not what adjustment is made to the VMA, but the very basis of the VMA is at fault. A different approach is needed – there is a better way.

At the Longreach hearing Dominic Burden, chairman of natural resource management group Desert Channels Queensland, called for an outcomes approach instead of regulatory approach.

“An outcomes based approach allows for some flexibility in achieving that goal and can produce some innovative methods for managing vegetation that cannot be achieved through prescriptive systems.”[i]

At the Cairns hearing Justin MacDonnell outlined how the government’s use of vegetation management as a political football creates fear, encourages what clearing can be done and is punitive to prudent land managers.

“We need to see vegetation management resolved and removed as a political football. It is not acceptable for you to trade my family’s future and the future of people in this room and our viability just so you can attract some political gain and achieve favourable preference deals by chasing inner city green votes.” [ii]

In the submission that I wrote, I never bothered with what provisions were in the Bill but tried to communicate the frustration of the bush and to leave the prescriptive approach using the tools of control & coercion to an outcomes approach using the tools of cooperation, on ground reality and respect.

“Such methodology creates distrust, division and resentment. It creates minimal adherence to an alien constraint to the realities that agricultural producers live, work and know. The urban politician who make these types of laws and the public servant who administers the law appear oblivious to how they, through these legislative instruments, indifference and ignorance, cripple the farming community and all those other levels of the community reliant on farmers being able to continue effective and profitable farming.”  [iii]

The Palaszczuk government would do well to replicate the approach taken by Major General Michael Jeffery as The National Soil Advocate in his report, Restore the soil: Prosper the nation. It calls for collaboration and knowledge sharing. This is a call for a better way we should aspire to of how environmental considerations are meshed with agricultural production

“The policy will recognise Australia’s soil, water and vegetation as key national natural strategic assets, better support our 130,000 farmers as stewards of about 60 percent of the Australian continent, and seek to reconnect urban Australians with their rural roots through establishing school gardens in every primary and junior high school through the National Curriculum. The policy will support long term research directed at priorities identified through a stocktake of our scientific knowledge of soils and Research Development and Extension capacity, and where possible encourage regulatory consistency for farmers.”  [iv]

There is a Better way which is not the false different approach in an opinion piece last week where it was proposed that farmers and environmentalists should bypass Governments and work together.  For goodness sake, allowing environmental non-government organisations (ENGO) have such a large input is why landowners find themselves in the current untenable situation.  Talk to landowners who represented agricultural interests on government tree clearing consultant/ reference committees over the years.  Negotiations prior to the introduction of the VMA were marred by the practice of the ENGO’s engaging landowners to reach a compromise position. The ink was barely dry on signing off on an agreement and another campaign would launched by the ENGO’s leading to another round of negotiations. It’s called the ratchet effect – take up control one click at a time. At the same time the ENGO’s would be trying to short circuit the negotiations by getting in government’s ear.

For an insight into the disingenuous, underhanded way that ENGO’s approach negotiation with farmers read what they say themselves in the document, ‘Rethinking deliberative governance: dissecting the Queensland landclearing campaign’. Look under the heading of ‘Rethinking deliberative governance’ on the top of page 7. [v]

The Queensland Seafood Industry Association (QSIA) has been forced into a reform process by the Qld government and are questioning the role of environmental groups.

“Environmental groups pose a significant threat to the long-term viability of the commercial seafood industry in Queensland. The Queensland Seafood Industry Association will continue to advocate for the removal of any environmental group representative on working groups.

The interest of the environment can be protected by government agencies that have a conservation mandate – the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and Department of National Parks, Sport and Racing. Why then should environmental, special interest groups have a seat at the policy table with commercial and recreational groups as well government?”  [vi]  [vii]

WWF has revealed in its submission that beyond the government’s current amendments that WWF wishes to ratchet up further controls. This includes removing the protections of PMAV mapping; severely restrict the use of bulldozers to push mulga to feed livestock in drought and have graziers lop mulga;  and that thinning operations be done selectively with a chainsaw.

This is the organisation that on a number of occasions called regrowth control, deforestation.  Now marry this thought with the policy of the WWF initiated Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef (GRSB) of zero deforestation. [viii] The author of the above mentioned opinion piece calling for farmers and environmentalists to work together, Greg Brown when as President of Cattle Council Australia tried to take the entire Australian beef supply chain into membership of GRSB.

A new approach is needed for environmental law. Without change the ENGO’s will continue to ratchet up a click at a time tighter controls, just as a python constricts its victim.  The Qld ALP appear addicted to the need of a new calamity scenario at election time to gain that extra few percentage of votes to get a few candidates over the line. Not only should the different agricultural sectors unite against this unacceptable situation but also stand with other primary producers and support QSIA call for removal of ENGO’s from the policy table.

THERE IS A BETTER WAY!

---

[i] [page 8] http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/committees/SDNRAIDC/2018/5VegManagOLAB2018/trns-ph-29Mar2017L.pdf

[ii] [page 39] http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/committees/SDNRAIDC/2018/5VegManagOLAB2018/trns-ph-13Apr2018.pdf

[iii] https://evacuationgrounds.blogspot.com.au/2018/04/why-bother.html

[iv] http://www.soilsforlife.org.au/announcements/restore-the-soil-prosper-the-nation

[v] http://www.thechangeagency.org/tag/james-whelan/

[vi] https://qsia.com.au/2018/04/16/questioning-the-role-of-environmental-groups/

[vii] https://qsia.com.au/2018/04/11/conservation-groups-and-fisheries-reform/

[viii] https://grsbeef.org/resources/Documents/News%20Releases/Global%20Conference%20Advances%20Beef%20Sustainability_Final.pdf

Mining open slather on underground water continues

by George Houen, Landholder Services Pty Ltd

Image sourced [here] 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Miners will get to keep the Newman government’s gift of open slather on groundwater, plus the waiving of both the water licence requirement and the obligation to justify the volume of water they extract - and they will be able to use or dispose of the water any way they wish including by evaporation, which for obvious environmental reasons was banned in coal seam gas fields years ago.

At least miners who dewater will, for the first time, be subject to Chapter 3 of the Water Act which imposes a make good obligation and requires underground water impact reports. Successive governments have assured bore owners that if there is bore damage from dewatering the Chapter 3 make good scheme will protect them – that is false and when the scheme is called upon for a contested make good scheme the affected owners will find it is tragically flawed.

Natural Resources and Mines Minister Anthony Lynham announced on 10th November which parts of the previous governments water amendments he intends to repeal or amend. But open slather for miners stays – and after consultation with the Environment Minister and with stakeholders as to how it will operate it will be proclaimed into force, including for existing mines, on a date to be agreed.

Provided a mining lease and an environmental authority have been granted, unlimited dewatering is OK, even in a worst-case situation where dewatering is virtually certain to damage or destroy water bores as well as groundwater dependent flora or fauna.

Under present laws, groundwater impacts are a major factor in any environmental impact assessment for mining - often giving rise to objections supported by high-level expert evidence in the Land Court’s objections hearings. The Court directs any resulting recommendations on groundwater to the Environment Minister for consideration in deciding the environmental authority application.

But the Court under present laws doesn’t have jurisdiction to make recommendations about the licence for dewatering which - until proclamation of the change - is under the separate jurisdiction of Natural Resources and Mines. This segregation is artificial and should have been removed. However, under the Water Act an interested person who disputes grant of a water licence can request internal review of the decision and can also appeal to the Land Court about it.

Allowing dewatering without a water licence doesn’t alter the Environmental Protection Act assessment process for the proposed mine, nor does it alter the Land Court’s role as the independent assessor which makes recommendations to the Minister. Both of those phases are designed to assess and test the evidence on overall environmental impact (including impacts on groundwater and water users) and applications for environmental authority.

In spite of the miners gaining open slather dewatering, the current process of overall environmental assessment including the impacts on groundwater resources and on users of water bores, with a right for the public to object and be heard in the Land Court, will continue.

This tussle over the Newman government’s amendments gave Minister Lynham a golden opportunity to remove artificial demarcation and integrate the approval of dewatering with the well-established environmental assessment system – he let it slip. Now I expect that, true to form, mining company lawyers will use the advent of open slather dewatering and abolition of the requirement for water licenses to argue that objections about groundwater be no longer permitted.

RELATED PREVIOUS PUBLISHED ARTICLES

The Newman Government’s Water Act amendments: Part 1 - Deregulation of the Dewatering of Mines 

The Newman Government’s Water Act amendments: Part 2 - Uncoordinated Approval System 

The Newman Government’s Water Act amendments: Part 3, Make Good 

The Newman Government’s Water Act amendments: Part 4 - Stream diversions

Dewatering Mt Gibson Iron Ore mine, photo sourced [here]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PRA: Landowner denied rights must not be repeated

Photo sourced - The Chronicle

Premier Palaszczuk’s election campaign launch speech promise[1] to reinstate the repealed Vegetation Management Act (VMA) could almost be forgiven as being ill informed but now after 100 days in office for the Premier to outline it as a priority task to be achieved is highly alarming. In a letter to the Minister for Natural Resources & Mines Anthony Lynham, the Premier gave the direction to,[2] "Re-instate the vegetation protection laws repealed by the previous government to reduce the clearing of native vegetation”.  

Property Rights Australia is most concerned that senior members of the Palaszczuk government, including the Premier herself, have failed to grasp that the VMA was not repealed but amended[3] and amended modestly at that. Unlike the over the top approach taken in resource legislation, the Newman government amendments to the VMA were restrained, responsible and restored basic tenets of our legal system; civil rights that the wider community take for granted but had been denied to landowners. There have been many column inches devoted to the horror of the reversal of the onus of proof under the so-called “bikie laws”[4] including by the Labor party.[5] Qld was the first jurisdiction in Australia to reverse the onus of proof[6] and it happened under the Beattie Labor government’s Vegetation Management Act.[7]  We expect this type of attack on the Justice system not to be repeated 

The current government should be wary of pressure by various “green groups” which are continually being proved to be lacking in substance or in touch with real situations impacting real people in Queensland at this time.  Activists with an environmental agenda have lost no time in getting in the governments ear with the incorrect notion that the VMA had been repealed and landclearing is again out of control.  Published articles by a group of academics calling themselves “concerned scientists”[8] show little scientific integrity, deceptive selection of the facts and exaggerated conclusions.  WWF in its latest Living Forests report[9] devote a whole chapter with the use of “projections” to forecast a resulting deforestation from changes to environment legislation.  WWF believes that your brigalow suckers are “critically important” and without a word about compensation of production loss to the landowner states the desire to see brigalow regrowth to mature for 30 years to provide wildlife habitat. Typically Dr Tim Seelig, Queensland Campaign Manager for the Wilderness Society makes gross exaggerations,[10]

”The LNP substantially weakened land clearing controls in Queensland, resulting in a return to large scale clearing and an impending tree clearing crisis on a massive scale.”

In responding to questions in the Queensland parliament on May 13 from the Member for Warrego Ann Leahy, Dr Lynham said that,[11] “we have no plans to change those specific portions such as the self-assessment criteria.”  PRA believes to revert back to the old arrangements of a deadly slow time frame to obtain permits to harvest the self-regenerating acacia mulga crucial for drought fodder would defy logic.[12]  

With 80% of Queensland in drought it is most likely graziers concerned for the welfare of their livestock; feeding mulga will most likely be the greatest contributor to any increase in the area of land clearing.[13] Mulga is well known for its ability to re-establish itself.

Photo sourced ABC Rural - New tree clearing laws in Queensland

Going by where the most fervour of the radical environmentalist is directed, provision of clearing for high-value agriculture[14] is the area most at risk for attention by the Palaszczuk government. Tim Seelig in his dedicated vehemence says,[15]

“The LNP approved at least five massive land clearing projects in northern Queensland, including at Olive Vale. Those five projects total 113,000 hectares. Other approvals include almost 60,000 hectares at Strathmore Station in the Gulf Country.” 

To provide some perspective Qld is a large state covering 1,727,000 square kilometres with over 200 national parks covering 6.5 million hectares.[16]  Most agricultural production essential to feed our population by necessity occurs off land that is thinned of its vegetation or a large percentage cleared.  Land has been set aside for different purposes and its time environmentalists reserve full conservation management to National Parks only and don’t transfer these expectations to agricultural production systems. The introduction of the VMA caught large tracts of north Qld under developed with landowners uncompensated for declining production.  

Recently the federal member of Leichhardt, Warren Entsch, gave some perspective of the clearing being undertaken at Olive Vale calling activists claims, “emotional clap-trap.”[17]  Mr Entsch owned Olive Vale up to the early 2000’s said that,

“He believed the area to be cleared – which represents less than 10 per cent of the station – was mostly open country with few trees. 

“There’s not a lot of agricultural opportunities in Cape York, but those areas that have been identified through the scientific process are areas where we should be going, giving an economic opportunity for people living in the area,’’

 

It is rather inconvenient for the environmental activists the recent release of the international scientific paper, ‘Recent reversal in loss of global terrestrial biomass’[18]  that showed vegetation in Australia has actually increased with the encroachment of trees into grassland a key factor. Dr Bill Burrows in a 2013 paper, “Bushland at risk of continued tree and shrub thickening in Queensland” wrote,[19][20]

“Many other land types were, and remain, subject to increased “thickening” of the over-storey or sub-canopy tree and shrub cover, or both, over time. Likewise trees are actively encroaching on some native grasslands . Examples of this changing structure and composition of the vegetation include mulga thickening in country east of the Warrego River, gidgee encroachment onto Mitchell grasslands , increased eucalypt cover in the Desert Uplands and Central Highlands/Burdekin Catchment  and tea tree invasion of grasslands in Cape York. Even National Parks and reserves abutting grazing land are subject to ongoing tree thickening e.g. the disappearing grassy balds of the Bunya Mountains, acacias invading grasslands on Moorinya N.P. and rainforest invading wet sclerophyll forest in the wet tropics.”

 

Rural Queensland does not need a repeat of the full extent of the poor archaic Beattie Labor government legislation that was enforced in a vindictive, punitive manner.[21] [22]

 As stated by Premier Palaszczuk in her directive to Dr Lynham,[23] “it is important to achive the best outcomes for Queenslanders” and “to make all decisions and actions in the public interest”.  To reverse the current strict guidelines already in place for tree clearing in Queensland will not deliver the best outcomes for Queenslanders and as seen in the past, replacing cooperation with coercion and heavy-handed administration creates more problems and is not effective or productive.

Photo sourced ABC Rural - the hot issues as Queensland

 

PRA has been aware and is highly concerned that in recent months of DNR&M staff appear to have been given directives to find someone to hold up as an errant example to what would appear to be an excuse to review the current tree clearing legislation to appease election promises made to green groups.  Legal firm Ferrier & Co principle Tom Marland recently made the statement based on evidence from a number of clients who have been subjected to formal inspections last month that,[24]

“it was clear from the imagery and mapping that DNRM were not inspecting irregularities but were inspecting properties to support prosecutions.

“DNRM have sufficient information to determine whether charges should be laid. The purpose to inspect and speak with landholders is to falsely obtain a confession or some form of omission of guilt.”

 

PRA strongly advises landowners that if departmental staff approaches them on a land clearing matter to immediately seek legal advice. In these circumstances usual country hospitality and openness should not apply.

Previous published related article

Activism drives land clearing misinformation

 

---

[1] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-21/alp-reignites-landclearing-debate/6032484

 

[2] http://rti.cabinet.qld.gov.au/ministers/assets/Charter%20Letter_The%20Hon%20Dr%20Anthony%20Lynham%20MP.PDF

 

[3] http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/edition/4_july_2013/20130704/a_clear_path_ahead_navigating_queenslands_vegetation_management_framework.page

 

[4] http://www.amnesty.org.au/news/comments/33255/

 

[5] http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/labor-lnp-swapped-views-on-bikie-laws-20150106-12icp3.html

 

[6] http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/stories/s812799.htm

 

[7] http://www.samuelgriffith.org.au/papers/html/volume17/v17chap2.html

 

[8] http://evacuationgrounds.blogspot.com.au/2015/04/activism-drives-land-clearing_5.html

 

[9] http://theconversation.com/wwf-fires-a-warning-shot-over-australias-land-clearing-record-40952

 

[10] https://www.wilderness.org.au/lnp-opened-queensland-large-scale-land-clearing-palaszczuk-government-needs-fix#sthash.L2nBzFfo.dpuf

 

[11] http://www.queenslandcountrylife.com.au/news/agriculture/general/news/fresh-veg-management-concerns-arise/2732896.aspx?storypage=0

 

[12] http://www.queenslandcountrylife.com.au/news/agriculture/general/news/wyoming-producer-welcomes-reform/2680666.aspx

 

[13] http://www.queenslandcountrylife.com.au/news/agriculture/general/healthcare/drought-drives-mulga-hunger/2724451.aspx?storypage=0

 

[14] https://www.qld.gov.au/environment/land/vegetation/agriculture/

 

[15] https://www.wilderness.org.au/lnp-opened-queensland-large-scale-land-clearing-palaszczuk-government-needs-fix#sthash.L2nBzFfo.dpuf

 

[16] https://www.qld.gov.au/about/about-queensland/statistics-facts/facts/

 

[17] http://www.cairnspost.com.au/news/cairns/tree-clearing-claims-emotion-claptrap/story-fnjpusyw-1227339249247

 

[18] http://www.iflscience.com/environment/despite-decades-deforestation-earth-getting-greener

 

[19] http://propertyrightsaustralia.org/issues/vegetation-management-act/

 

[20] http://www.queenslandcountrylife.com.au/news/agriculture/general/news/wwf-in-wilderness-on-veg-reform/2659251.aspx?storypage=0

 

[21] http://evacuationgrounds.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/betrayal-of-trust-part-2_26.html

 

[22] http://evacuationgrounds.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/betrayal-of-trust-part-3.html

 

[23] http://rti.cabinet.qld.gov.au/ministers/assets/Charter%20Letter_The%20Hon%20Dr%20Anthony%20Lynham%20MP.PDF

 

[24] http://www.queenslandcountrylife.com.au/news/agriculture/general/news/fresh-veg-management-concerns-arise/2732896.aspx?storypage=0