NSW takes lead on laws
NSW Biodiversity Act takes science into account
We continue our investigation into the Queensland vegetation management laws. This week we check in with New South Wales to compare their clearing regulations.
IN NEW South Wales, when it comes to clearing, farmers have a lot more room to move.
However, NSW Farmers’ conservation and resource management committee chair, Bronwyn Petrie, said they still had a long way to go before achieving the best outcomes for growers and the environment.
“The new biodiversity laws are far from perfect, but they do not allow wide-scale clearing. The laws require land to be more actively managed to deliver a triple bottom line outcome which benefits the environment and provides more land for productive agriculture, be that grazing or cropping,” Ms Petrie said.
“Before we were only able to thin native invasive species, such as the cypress pine, at even spacing, and it didn’t solve the problem of that dense growth and lack of ground cover.
“With changes to the laws around invasive native species, you’re allowed to clear 90 per cent, but you have to keep 20 trees per hectare.
“It doesn’t stop them from seeding and spreading. If you had cancer you wouldn’t treat 90 per cent of it.
“But at least it is an improvement on the previous rules.”
In NSW, the laws were replaced after an independent review by a panel of scientists, according to Ms Petrie.
“They found that in the 20 years of legislation that was supposed to protect biodiversity, it actually did the opposite,” she said.
“Farmers had two decades of lost opportunity and had to watch land degradation as a result of these laws.
“They should be hanging their heads in shame and guilt for what they’ve done to the environment.
“Down here in NSW the Labor opposition are saying they’re going to claw back some of the reforms that have been made.”
Ms Petrie grew up in western Queensland around Cunnamulla, and is now a beef and timber producer near Tenterfield in NSW.
She said thickening of the mulga in Queensland caused the same kind of damage as the thickening of the cyprus pine in NSW.
“Those sort of rules are a disaster waiting to happen,” she said.
“You get dense thickening, no ground cover, and high erosion.
“It completely changes the biodiversity in the area. The box and the iron bark are struggling to survive amongst the cyprus pines. The grass eating marsupials have nothing to eat. And forget about the farmer and any production value to that land.
“It ruins any biodiversity and destroys the natural landscape.”
Ms Petrie said environmental laws focused too much on trees, and that policy makers needed to step out of the office to see what overgrown vegetation was doing to the landscape.
“I cannot believe that they would restrict the thinning of mulga. It’ll get so thick the cattle won’t be able to walk through it,” she said.
“In the drought it’s become very obvious that after a light shower you’ll get a quick flush of feed. But where there are dense trees there’s nothing.
“There would be more feed for livestock if there weren’t so many dense trees.”
The fire break laws in NSW also give land holders a bigger opportunity to protect their land from inferno.
The new laws allow a 30m fire break around fences and roads on private property, while the old laws only allowed 20m. On public land, only 6m is allowed for a fire break.
Ms Petrie said the new Biodiversity Act in NSW was working, despite a recent report released by the World Wildlife Fund, claiming land clearing rates had sky-rocketed under the reforms.
“In their first full 12 months in operation, more land was preserved under active land management protection than was cleared. The environmental movement refuses to accept that the old regime led to a loss of biodiversity – they simply want to lock up the land without reference to science”, Ms Petrie said.
“Claims that farmers are
❝ There would be more feed for livestock if there weren’t so many dense trees. — Bronwyn Petrie
destroying koala habitat are equally false. No farmer wants to see koalas killed. It is interesting to note that WWF is completely silent on the loss of koalas due to intense bushfires on public land – why is it that farmers are always to blame?
“The new and old laws have been ineffective for the better management of invasive native species and woody weeds.
“Unless we further reform these areas, our natural environment will be choked and biodiversity will further decline.
“Active land management means we can preserve the good flora at the expense of species which crowd it out and kill trees. Koalas, for instance, won’t feed on woody weeds.”