22/7/01

(1) Peta Seaton (NSW Shadow Env Ministert) comments

(2) Bill Sims (SA) & public good conservation enquiry

(3) QFF & EPBC act

(4) Bill Soko - Land management

(5) David Chambers & salinity model

(6) Water tables in SA & Qld - Leon Ashby

(7) Bood Hickson questions Veg Management

(8) Environment needs incentives

(9) Land act discussion - Qld

(10) SA Timber & water issues

(11) Native plants exaccerbate smog

(12) Landholders property rights lobbying position.

Hi Folks,

              Things are progressing steadily as far as contacting

politicians and people in green groups is concerned. There has been a lot of

correspondance this week so you may get another News & views in 3 days time

so you can see what others are writing.

(1) This is from Peta Seaton (NSW MP)

Thanks for telling me about your group.  I am keen to hear what you have to

say, and am exploring the idea of stewardship payments and other financial

incentives to assist landowners retain native vegetation.

l

I would be keen to hear from any NSW landowners in your group on this

subject.  I have also attached a copy of my speech to the Sydney Institute

which canvasses some of these issues. (*This will be in the next News &

views)

I will add you to my media release list, which will keep you up to date on a

variety of environment issues from a NSW Opposition perspective.

Yours sincerely,

Peta Seaton MP

Member for Southern Highlands

(2) This is From Bill Sims (SA)

I have today been in contact with Andrew Brian who is working with the House

of Representatives inquiry into the effects of "Public Good Conservation

measures and their effect on Farmers"  or an inquiry to that effect which

follows on from the inquiry of that name which I contributed to when the

inquiry headed by Ian Causley was in Adelaide in February (?) 2001.

Andrew Brian appeared not to know of the existence of "Landholders for the

environment",so I undertook to send him the emails which you have been

circulating.  I am not sure that he really does not know of the Group's

existence, so perhaps

you can include him in the list for circulation.  This particular inquiry is

due to report in September.

Keep up the good work

Bill Sims

(3) This is from the QFF

EPBC Meeting

Brianna Casey attended a meeting hosted by the Local Government Association

of Queensland Thursday 5 July 2001 on the Environment Protection and

Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EBPC Act) and in particular, progress on

a Bilateral Agreement between the Commonwealth and the State.  ( *This act is

supposed to have "just terms" in it for landholders unjustly affected by it`s

implementation - Will the just terms become actual? )

Stakeholder groups met with the Minister for Natural Resources and Mines in

Toowoomba last Thursday to present their final submissions on the cap for the

Queensland Murray Darling catchments.

In the next few weeks the Government is to make a decision on volumetric cap

for all water diversions to Condamine Balonne, Border Rivers, Moonie, Warrego

and Paroo catchments.

Irrigator groups that made submissions to the Minister highlighted the

following issues:

*The draft Condamine Balonne WAMP released in 1999 failed to accurately

reflect the current level of development, conditions of licence and farming

practices in the basin.

*There is still a great deal of uncertainty in all catchments about the flow

modelling and environmental assessments conducted for each plan.

* There was a great deal of concern that water entitlements established by a

water resource plan would not be as secure as promised under the new

legislation.

*All groups submitted that existing licences should be allowed to develop

within the cap to be imposed by the Government.

*The economic and community impacts of a cap must be outlined and addressed

as part of the cap decision.  These issues cannot be left to a later stage.

*Some groups indicated that if a cap decision did not allow existing licences

to develop, then consideration should be given in implementing the cap not to

impact adversely on investment made by property owners in purchasing and

developing their licences.

*The cap decision would do little to ensure better environmental outcomes in

all catchments.  Detailed planning to address flow and other environmental

issues would be more important.

*Flows from Queensland catchments into the Murray Darling system have very

little impact on the environmental flow conditions in NSW and Victoria.  What

impacts there are from these Queensland flows are felt locally and not

interstate.

*There is concern about how water will be obtained in the future for

development in many areas.

*Implementation of the plans could still take a considerable time in most

catchments.  Consequently uncertainty regarding the outcomes of the plans

will continue for some time.

*There is a risk that different licences will not be treated equitably

particularly in the light of the proposed staged introduction of the plans.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(4) This is from Bill Soko (Daintree rainforest foundation)

Hello Leon,

thanks for your letter from LE's

Big subject........land management.     Its very hard to have blanket

policies for

broad areas, you hit on solutions for specific situatuions.   To get a

perspective

on the biodiversity problem,  its good to realise that most people who

intensely

study ecology/biodiversity find we are actually past the "safe buffer" of

ecosystems managing themselves,  most systems are in decline measured by loss

of

species and producitivity.     Ecosystems are being broken up so much that

their

ability to regenerate even if left alone is doubtful.............and since

they are

still being simplified or removed that chance of natural regeneration is less

likely.   With ecology we measure a systems resiliance to bounce back if left

alone

and when  threating vectors are removed.  If it is not likely to return to its

former state then its  "vunerable", "threatened", "endangered" or finially

imperaled = lost.  Sometimes it may take decades for the final loss of a

specie or

community.  And sometimes we can see it going down with no chance of recovery,

like in acute salinity situations.

Its so late in the game that all landowners are being asked to save a bit of

whats

left..................you are right that many average people are caught up in

what

is a crisis of land management disasters or the ending of the acceptablity of

vastly unsustainable land pratices which threaten everbodys future.  You are

correct that much of the land should not have been sold freehold or even

leased

regards for your efforts.......are you funded to

write your emails?

Bill Soko

(*No funding via membership or anything else Bill, - it`s all voluntary)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(5) This is from David Chambers  (Land Management Society - WA)

A reply to Christine Jones. Re salinity.

Many experts, farmers etc will agree that perennial pastures can be a very

effective tool in salinity/watertable management.

It does seem that Christine is working from an Eastern Australian

environmental perspective.

In Western Australia were the salinity problem has been the severest for a

long time the natural landscape did not conform to the grassland vision

described as the original landscape. There was heavy forest in the south west

and low scrub to mini trees over the vast semi arid areas of today's

agricultural areas.

Yes there were plenty of perennials, mainly of the woody variety.

The standard salinity model appears to hold up better for the change of

environment in the West. It has been demonstrated that water managing the

upper areas of a catchment will significantly improve the lower portion. An

example that comes to mind.

A property owner tried the simple solution. Plant trees along the creek line

at the bottom of the catchment. As these trees established salt scalds broke

out above them, so more trees were planted up slope, again salt scalds broke

out up slope. This process was repeated until about a million trees was

planted with salt outbreaks constantly moving up slope. This example was

cited as a demonstration that starting at the top of the catchment is better.

(* David, was this water from the water table or from an impervious layer

just below the surface? - Leon)

It is agreed and our concern that far too much emphasis has been placed on

planting trees. It is easy to promote and produces a readily visible

landscape feature attractive to the city people and politicians. Trees are

only a part of a multifaceted solution. Particularly if agriculture must

co-exist in the landscape.

The solution must be based on plants/trees, water and soil management (no

expansion at this time)in essence farming in tune with the Australian

ecosystem.

The belief that a salt scald is a response to recharge at the same point is

not our experience. Many if not all scalds in the west are the result of

recharge elsewhere raising the water table most often at depth, building

pressure and forcing saline water flow up through a fracture or fault in an

impervious layer. Other scalds do result from the exit of water as an

impervious layer exits a slope.

Christine is to be complemented for her effort. No doubt there will be other

inputs

David Chambers

Direct Farm Monitoring

Land Management society

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(6) From Leon Ashby (SA & QLD) Re water tables & pasture water use

Almost all Qld Landholders I have discussed salinity with believe the inland

Queensland landscape would appear to fit Christine Jone`s model very well.

The lack of fire use resulting in tree thickening, the higher run off rates

and the loss of plant density with past grazing management, and less water

infiltrating the soil in higher parts of the catchments are very common

understandings.

In the lower south east of South Australia there is a much different land

geology to inland Qld and WA again.

There is a lot of limestone directly under the soil (from 1cm to several

metres soil depth) and a substantial unconfined aquifer is the result of

rainfall infiltration. (There are also confined aquifers lower down, but they

are another issue).   

The lakes and sink holes in the area have  fluctuating water levels. There is

very little run off. Occassionally swamps and drains fill and run into the

sea, but this has occurred very few times in recent years. Local stories

since settlement indicate that when water ran out of the ground, this was the

result of large rainfall events in the relatively immediate area infiltrating

a little way onto a slightly impervious layer and running out the side of a

rise or hill. It was not hydraulic pressure ( infiltrated water going down

and forcing water up elsewhere) No dryland salinity problems exist in the

lower southeast of SA.

 I was part of the latest irrigation water use trial that PIRSA conducted

last summer and noticed that their information says the usual water use on

pasture over the summer period is 450mm . Our irrigated pastures used 900mm

and next to none was measured going into the lower aquifer. This seems to

suggest that perennial pastures can use / hold lots of water without it going

into aquifers. What the pre settlement grass situation was is unsure but the

local native grasses do not seem to have been as effective at water holding

as irrigated perennial pastures.

(*As with what David Chambers has written. It is obvious that it would be a

good thing if each region could determine it`s own scientific research and

management methods, and not assume results from elsewhere.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(7) Bood Hickson (QLD) has written a Vegetation Management Discussion Paper

and is asking for comments

Jock Douglas (former Qld Landcare chairman ) and Dr Bill Burrows (Qld Tree

Scientist) have sent replies. Here is Bood`s introduction . We will put

everyones comments in full on the next "News & views".

This discussion paper has been written to try and address concerns that I

and other members of the Southern Highlands Brigalow Belt Regional

Vegetation Management Committee (SHBB-RVMC) have about the Vegetation

Management Act and the regional consultative process currently being

undertaken.

It appears to me that we are 'planning to fail'.  The RVMC process appears

to shift the blame from government for conflict over vegetation management,

and disguise pathetic legislation which barely begins to address the

concerns of either landholders or conservationists.  This criticism is not

directed at the regional bureaucracy, who are between a rock and a hard

place trying to implement this unintelligent legislation. I am hearing

similar concerns from other RVMCs around the state and believe that if

these concerns are not addressed as a matter of urgency, that the goodwill

displayed by many of the volunteers on RVMCs will soon be exhausted.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

These excerpts are from ABC radio

(8) Environment needs incentives - Julie Doyle

A new report has found excessive government regulations are deterring farmers

from conserving native vegetation and wildlife. The report released this

morning by the Productivity Commission has examined the constraints to

private investment in the environment. And it's identified complex tax laws,

native wildlife regulations and pastoral lease arrangements as real problems

when it comes to farmers protecting the environment. Commissioner Neil Byron

says native wildlife regulations, pastoral lease arrangements and in

particular, taxation laws are holding back conservation work. He says "if you

put in a dam to provide water for stock, that is tax deductible but if you

put in the same dam, in the same place to provide water for native animals

it's not deductible. So there are these sort of anomalies, we haven't

necessarily got answers for them, but we're just highlighting that these sort

of anomalies exist in tax treatment".

(* A Holistic framework concerning rights, compensation, incentives etc

across all land tenures, legislation & regulations is one of the things we

are beginning to lobby for - see our initial ideas further down on this email)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(9) Two way Land Act discussion - Nicol - Brisbane

Hundreds of primary producers are today digesting the news that the State

Government is making the Land Act more flexible to allow rural leaseholders

to diversify their land use and income, on pastoral leases and grazing

homestead perpetual leases. Agforce has welcomed the announcement saying it

will allow producers to diversify into compatable land uses such as tourism

and aquaculture. But conservationists are concerned that it will weaken tree

cleaing controls on leasehold land, a suggestion rebutted by AgForce who says

all the other regulations still apply. The Country Hour had representatives

from both sides debating the issue, both sides agreed in the end that giving

leaseholders more flexibility in how they use their land is good.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

(10)Timber plantation woes in the south east of SA lead to criticism of the Water

Resources Minister - David Claughton

Last year we saw a rush towards the establishment of blue gum plantations

around the greater green triangle in the South Australia`s South East. One

contractor alone put in 24000 hectares of plantations, but the industry has

run into problems. On top of tax issues and a loss of investor confidence,

criticism is now being levelled at the Minister for Water Resources Mark

Brindal. Mark Brindal's announcement that new plantations may require a water

allocation in the future is said to have created uncertainity in the

plantation industry, and sent whatever development there is across to the

Victorian side of the border. Many people associated with the industry, like

nursery owners and contractors who clear the land, are decidely unhappy with

the State government. Tim Altschweger invested millions in heavy earth moving

equipment, only to find the rug pulled from under his feet. Agrow is now

working in the wine industry and is also working on a forestry project on the

Tiwi Islands. Simon Cox is also critical of the state government. He runs the

Penola Tree Nursery, which sold millions of seedlings to the plantation

sector last year. He says Brindals announcement, together with a loss of

investor confidence and federal government tax policy, has shut down the

plantation sector in this region. Simon Cox also says the region is slipping

behind in the race to establish a pulp mill. Minister Brindal says he does

acknowledge that there is a problem in the plantation industry. Meanwhile the

Select Committee investigating the issue has also been considerably delayed,

and its report isn't expected now until late Spring or even as late as

Christmas. Despite the delays the Minister disputes Simon Cox's view that we

are losing ground in the race to establish a pulp mill.

From Land Management Society`s Newsletter

(11)NATIVE PLANTS EXACERBATE SMOG FORMATIONS

Research conducted by the CSIRO Energy Technology & Atmospheric Research has

shown that our native plants exacerbate smog formations by interacting with

other air pollutants.  Trees emit up to 25% of smog seen over cities.  

Understanding the contribution of natural sources will help predict when and

where pollution will occur.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(12) And Finally here is our first draft of our Property Rights lobbying position

which we will be sending to politicians soon  - Let us know if you can help

us improve on it

 Property Rights are crucial

Our lobby group "Landholders for the environment" has formed to promote

better understanding of environmental processes and more awareness to the

conflicts between greater environmental regulations and property rights.

Governments are pursuing two different philosophies at the same time.

 One is the deregulation of markets with price incentives for quality

products.

 Another is the increasing regulation of farm environments with no

incentives.

This displays political schizophrenia at it`s best.

Why we need Property Rights clarification

The erosion of property rights has emerged as the greatest threat to

landholders rights and confidence in continuing to farm. The threats come

from a range of legislation, including

* vegetation management,

* water management,

* conservation legislation,

* biodiversity legislation,

* greenhouse legislation,

* zoning laws,

* native title determinations

* and misguided scientific assumptions behind some laws

The fact that 3000 people turned up to John Howard`s native title address at

Longreach several years ago and the two biggest protest marches in Qld last

year (Winton - 1,000 people & Roma 2,000 people) which were about property

rights and native vegetation should be enough evidence of this fact.

Landholders do not have clear guidelines about where their rights begin and

end, and many law suits are landholders only just recourse as a result. Some

of the rights we are losing include

* Grazing

* Burning

* Ploughing

* Pulling timber

* Cutting posts

* Putting in new fencelines

* Flooding

* Spraying

* Irrigation

* Drainage

* Digging

* Diversifying into new industries

* Having stock in concentrated herds

* Even driving across a paddock

The way that regulatory processes now work sees Government departments and

green groups often having defacto proprietary rights over our properties. On

what grounds are they allowed to do this? How did they come by those rights?

Without a change of policy direction, landholders are coming under

environmental license and those determining the conditions have no practical

experience, a sure recipe for disaster that constipates progress and the

orderly advancement of innovative agriculture. Not dissimilar to the

situation in the former USSR.

A property rights bill should also include city owned private property so our

city cousins can be also included in the determination of their property

rights.

Other suggestions are to extend such a bill to include

* "Right to farm" issues, e.g. smells, noises, etc  so these cannot be

reasons to close down farms

* 3rd part interest not included e.g. a third party cannot take someone to

court to sue against a farming practice. (Health problems due to dust /

pollen / noise / smell / tractor exhaust etc, as long as standard farming

practices are observed)

Comments from the "institute for public affairs"

This is what the institute of public affairs said in part of it`s submission

to the House of Representatives cost of "Public Good" conservation inquiry

The Australian Constitution, like the American, incorporates the view that

individual freedom should prevail alongside a limited role for government.

Section 5 l(xxxi) requires that if the government acquires property from any

State or person, it does so on just terms. Just terms have been defined by

the High Court as 'full and adequate compensation' where the acquisition is a

compulsory taking.

However, section 51 (xxxi) only applies to the Commonwealth. It does not bind

the States nor do the States have 'just compensation' clauses in their own

constitutions.

Declining Support for Property Rights

There has been a substantial decline in support for upholding the security of

private property rights by the courts and by governments of all levels over

the last 50 years.This decline has not led to ignoring these property rights

altogether. Rather, it has led to the narrowing of the definition of property

rights, a widening of the definition of 'public use' and the limiting of the

grounds for compensation.When governments expropriate property outright,

taking title from the owner, courts relying on Section 5 l(xxxi) generally

require governments, at least the commonwealth government, to compensate

owners for their losses. The modern problem does not lie there. The problem

lies with governments taking part of the use of the property while leaving

title with the owner.

Courts have been reluctant to award compensation in such cases because they

have failed to grasp the principle of the matter---due, in part, to an

unwarranted deference to the regulatory state.The central principle is that

property is not a singular concept. Property is a bundle of rights and

different owners can co-exist by owning different services on the same piece

of land the normal case in Australia for mining rights and is also found with

water rights.

But if any of these rights is taken away the owner is deprived of

something.Contrary to this reality, takings law has clung to the idea that

only if the entire bundle is taken does the government have to pay

compensation. This all-or-nothing view enables government to extinguish

nearly all uses through regulation---and hence to regulate nearly all value

out of the property---yet escape the compensation requirement because the

all-but-empty title remains with owner.This is clearly wrong.

Compensation should be required when government takes any right---whether

partial or full title.

When Is Compensation Required?

It is preferable to answer the question when is compensation not required?

Rather than the question when is compensation required?Compensation is not

required·     First, when government acts to secure rights---when, for

example, it stops someone from polluting his neighbours land---it is acting

under its police powers and no compensation is due to the owner, whatever his

financial loss, because the use---pollution---was wrong in the first place.

Since there is no right to pollute, we do not have to pay polluters not to

pollute. The relevant question is not whether value has been taken by

regulation but whether a right has been taken.·     

       Second, if governments act to provide the public with some good and

that act does not take a right, then even if it results in a financial loss,

no compensation is due. For example, if a government builds a public housing

estate and neighbouring property values decline, no compensation is due

because the action took nothing that they owned. The neighbours own their

property and its uses. They do not own the value in their property.

Compensation is required when governments act not to secure rights but to

provide the public with some good---for example, a wildlife habitat or the

preservation of historic buildings---and in doing so take away some otherwise

legitimate use.The principle is quite simple: the public has to pay for the

goods it wants and takes, just like any private person would have to.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------

Just Terms - Property Rights Bill

As there is a requirement of "Just Terms"  in the constitution, we are asking

for a Federal property rights bill which will be a framework for spelling out

landholders rights and responsibilities, and where compensation is necessary.

The primary aim is to state when any legislation or regulation, takes away a

right that the landholder  previously had that reduces either his

* income,

* asset values,

* opportunity, or

* management options

then those things can be determined and payment or arrangements made to

compensate

Options for Just Terms

We believe a range of options should be given and the landholder can nominate

which option suits him best. These include

(1) Subdivision of land and the lost part paid  at twice the  pre

conservation commercial price paid for the land in dispute (Mining companies

pay twice the current valuation price and we believe this should be the

standard used)

(2) Govt purchase of the land (at twice the valuation), putting a

conservation covenant on it and reselling the land to someone who will keep

the terms of the covenant.

(3) A yearly payment (e.g. commercial lease at 7% of valuation) made to keep

land in a conserved state

(4) Repayment for (water) licenses and entitlements taken away, at twice the

commercial value

Aim of the Options

The aim will be to get the landholder into a position equivalent to his

position before his property and managerial right(s) were taken away. That

is, for the landholder to be able to either relocate or buy more land for a

similar enterprise with a similar potential.

 As we all know relocation costs time and money and family members have to

establish new friendships in a new area. Family farms also have sentimental

value. Sometimes new investments have been made recently, but the returns

have not been fully realised.

In these cases, simply paying for the land at the current value would not be

"just".

The above compensation options should be adequate to cover those costs and

inconveniences.

Landholder responsibilities

Landholder responsibilities will be spelled out such as the amount of

vegetation to be retained to keep a sustainable landscape. Most green groups

worldwide say 10% is the minimum. We believe a 15% retention rate would be

acceptable and fair, but we would also support a thorough research project

across Australia to determine the minimum retention rate (which could vary in

different regions)

Real estate responsibilities should also be spelled out to ensure open and

honest land transactions take place. E.g. residential properties that are for

sale within close proximity of a farm have to be notified of the right to

farm laws.

Appeal Process

An appeal process also needs to be set out , so landholders can appeal what

they believe are bad decisions.

Scientific Tribunal

Also a process to challenge  what is believed to be misguided scientific

assumptions should also be put in place. E.g. a scientific tribunal.

For example, the supposed recharge area of the Great Artesian Basin was

defined and restrictions brought in under the Cooper Creek water management

plan last year in Qld. Restrictions about stock numbers and enterprise

options now apply in this supposed "recharge area". Landholders believe there

is no recharge area in Qld. Now a university professor (Lance Endersbee) and

research being conducted by Qld DNR is also concluding the same thing. Will

landholders get their rights back? If not why not? How can the scientific

assumptions be challenged so the truth can be known?

Funds for Landholder research

One suggestion is to set aside NHT or similar funds for landholder initiated

research of environmental assumptions that landholders believe are incorrect

e.g.

* The current salinity discharge recharge model

* The Great artesian basin recharge model,

* What level of tree and vegetation retention is necessary to keep the

landscape sustainable (some say 10% others 30% - what is the truth?)

* What amounts of sediment comes off various types of farming enterprises and

why?

Equal Funding

Most Green groups get taxpayer funding to do much of their activities.

Landholder groups get no govt funds to do environmental research along the

line of enquiry we want.

Some environmental coordinators such as Rachel Seigwert (WA) are funded in

part by the Water And Rivers commission. How widespread is this practice of

government departments being in cohorts with green lobbyists? This is surely

a conflict of interest.

We are therefore asking for matching funding arrangements to give balance to

environmental decision making.

Email and internet conferencing Regional Discussion Forums

One final issue that could be easily done to help the bush is for all

regional groups (vegetation, catchment, etc) to be able to form recognised

email / videoing discussion forums to conduct most of their business with.

In conjunction with better telecommunications outcomes, why not also

subsidise regional people wanting internet connection, so almost everyone

will be able to participate in these regional discussions / video

conferencing  without leaving their property.

The present method of regional groups being made up of small numbers of

people making all the decisions means these groups can get out of touch

easily because the "battlers", those with young children, elderly and busy

people have no time or means of participating in these groups. E.g. the

Cooper Creek catchment is 1,000 kms long and very few people in the north

have the time or are  economically well off enough to be away from their

properties for 2 day meetings.

Summary

In summary. Only by giving certainty to landholders about their rights, will

confidence and goodwill towards governments return and a greater degree of

cooperation be achieved to solve our many environmental difficulties. We hope

you will seriously consider our views.

Leon Ashby

 (Convenor for Landholders for the environment)