Despite receiving 777 genuine submissions (there were an additional 13,100 ‘form/template submissions’) and conducting eight public hearings across Queensland where almost 130 witnesses appeared, the State Development, Natural Resources and Agricultural Industry Development Committee has not listened to the farming community.
The committee recommended the proposed Vegetation Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2018 be passed by government, further frustrating and disappointing Queensland farmers across the state. The committee’s report demonstrates a failure to take on board the genuine concerns about the implementation and effect these laws will have on Queensland’s agricultural sector and its reliant regional communities.
Travelling vast distances to attend public hearings, using poor regional internet connections to have their say online, and picketing at various protests and rallies across the state, farmers actively engaged in and held out hope for the Parliamentary process.
Unfortunately, the process has failed them. And while many may not be surprised with the findings and recommendations in the committee’s report, it brings into question whether the basic mechanics of our Parliamentary process is fit for purpose.
During the consultation process, the committee heard very conflicting evidence, interpretations and views of the vegetation management framework. At the very least, this should have convinced all committee members that there are considerable knowledge gaps both with the information and data around land clearing, regrowth and change in land use away from agricultural production; and with the understanding and interpretation by key stakeholders of the information that is currently available. A logical and appropriate response to this would be to stop and properly review the situation before proceeding.
Further, the weight of evidence in the written submissions also appears to have been ignored. For example, 40 per cent of individual submissions opposed removing the already heavily regulated clearing provisions for high-value agriculture (HVA) and irrigated high-value agriculture (IHVA), while only 18pc supported this unjustified proposal.
Politicians elected to public office need to treat this issue more seriously, not just as a political wedge. Farmers, regional communities and the environment deserve a stable, workable framework that can endure and meet triple bottom line requirements. A sustainable, long-term solution will not be reached without broad, effective consultation and compromise. The issue is too important to rush and it’s in everyone’s interest that we get it right.
Ironically, our sector is part of a proper process regarding the government’s desire to increase regulations in the reef catchments – where the government has made the same reef protection justifications as it has for tightening the vegetation management laws.
The committees are our ‘house of review’. They must be able to genuinely review legislation and put forward informed recommendations to improve law making in the interests of all Queenslanders. Disappointingly, this committee process appears to have been little more than a partisan rubber stamp. Voters are unlikely to continue being as involved in our Parliamentary processes where this is the case – a sad day for democracy.
For QFF and its members, this committee process has failed. It has not properly considered the implementation and effect the bill will have on farmers, regional communities or the environment. An independent forum must now be established. It must conduct a transparent, inclusive consultation process, and deliver recommendations to government based on science and evidence.
