GINGIN Private Property Rights Group president Murray Nixon said the WA Government’s response to a committee report calling for repeal of the Environmental Protection (Environmentally Sensitive Areas) Notice 2005 raised as many questions as it answered.
But he was heartened by the inference the recently released A Guide to Grazing and Clearing of Native Vegetation by the Department of Environment Regulation (DER) might apply to land declared an ESA.
“Land owners want to continue grazing their properties in a sustainable manner, not clear them,” Mr Nixon said.
“Most of the 98,000 parcels of land declared Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) have been grazed for a long time, some for over 150 years.
“The major problems occur in a very complicated and badly worded Environmental Protection Act 1986 that current environment Minister Albert Jacob inherited.”
Mr Nixon said he doubted the guide, which was not a legal document, would solve that problem without support of a change to the Act and the regulations.
“There is a danger the definition of clearing in the guide makes every farmer a criminal if stock sever the stem or pull native grasses, legumes, rushes or reeds out of the ground, if used in the courts.
“Previously Mr Jacob has said that once land has been legally cleared, it was not an ESA, even if shown on the geomorphic maps that are used to declare land an ESA.
“This must be stated in law.”
Mr Nixon said when a Bill to amend the Environmental Protection Act 1986 was before the WA Parliament it would be an opportunity to ensure that once land had been legally cleared, regrowth could be controlled without a permit.
He said there was no need for the 20 year time limit rule, as was the case now, and that landowners should also have the right of appeal to the State Appeals Tribunal (SAT) reinstated.
The 20 year rule says you can’t clear regrowth after 20 years. Up until last year it was 10 years.
“The Peter Swift case also demonstrated that landowners needed a less costly system than the courts to defend themselves from misguided prosecution,” Mr Nixon said.
“I am disappointed Mr Jacob has not agreed to notify landowners if their property is listed as an ESA.
“If the cost of a letter is too much for the government, how can property owners afford the loss of use of their land because it has been declared an ESA?
“Hopefully the publicity generated by my petition to parliament has alerted citizens of the need to search the net to see if they are involved.
“The minister has indicated that improvements have been made to the Department of Environment Regulation’s (DER) website.
“In the past it has been very hard to access.
“At the committee hearing, DER’s expert could not find a location that is 150 years old.
“There is no doubt the maps are not accurate.
“Hopefully the Department of Parks and Wildlife will diligently review the maps to establish the true environmental value of those listed.
“Originally they were prepared for the Department of Water and Rivers and not meant to deal with clearing regulation.”
Mr Nixon said environmental protection policies (EPPs) were to be reviewed.
He said these documents had the full force of law and the past review led to the draft Swan Coastal Plain Wetland Policy which was rejected but was the model for Regulation 6 and the 2005 Notice.
“All Environmental Law should be subject to a triple bottom line assessment,” Mr Nixon said.
Clearly the 2004 amendments were never tested for environment, social, and economic consequences.
“All governments must realise that natural resources are not public resources if on private land and compensation must be paid if they are taken,” Mr Nixon said.
“The true test of the government’s response to the report will be if in future, the law is clear and land owners can continue to graze and use their land in a responsible manner.”
