NNAA NORTHERN NSW AGRICULTURAL ALLIANCE

1 February 2019

Committee Secretariat The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources PO BOX 6021 Parliament House CANBERRA ACT 2600 via email: [email protected]

Subject: Submission on Behalf of The Northern NSW Agricultural Alliance – Impact of Vegetation and Land Management Policies, Regulations and Restrictions

Introduction

Thank you for the opportunity to make a submission to this important inquiry.

The Northern NSW Agricultural Alliance (NNAA) is a local movement founded in Northern NSW that has come together to stand up for a fair go for Australian farmers.

The NNAA was established in November 2018 to advocate for reforms to legislation which restricts the ability of farmers to manage their land and unfairly prosecutes farmers without prior independent mediation. The NNAA was essentially founded as a result of multiple dealings that family famers in Northern NSW were having with the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH).

The Alliance has quickly grown to a movement representing the voices of more than 90 farming families and hundreds of other supporters across NSW who have been affected by laws regulating native vegetation management in NSW.

Many of our families are multi-generational and based primarily in the areas of Moree, Walgett, Narrabri, Wee Waa, Mungindi, Burren Junction, Collarenebri, Coonamble, and . We advocate for a balanced, fair and practical approach to the management of Native Vegetation and we maintain that an emphasis should be placed at all times on the ‘triple bottom line’ approach which provides for social, economic and environmental outcomes.

Executive Summary

1. The economic and social impact of regulated native vegetation management practices and restrictions have had overall negative impacts on regional communities and farmers.

2. The burden and expense associated with native vegetation management has unfairly fallen on landholders and, by extension, onto regional communities. Many farming families in the North West of NSW have suffered and continue to suffer significant lost opportunities due to native vegetation regulations. These lost opportunities then ‘flow on’ to the regional communities that are based

1

NNAA NORTHERN NSW AGRICULTURAL ALLIANCE

primarily around agriculture. An unfair burden is placed on the landholder for the benefit of the environment and the wider community, however the landholder receives no reward or payment for unfairly carrying this burden for the so called greater good.

3. The history of native vegetation management in NSW has ultimately caused a complete lack of trust between the farming community, the government, and organisations such as the OEH that are tasked with compliance.

4. For native vegetation management to be truly effective in NSW, the government must move away from a “one size fits all approach” and implement regionally or locally based solutions. Such an approach will enable the specific characteristics of individual areas to be considered which will ultimately result in a more effective approach to native vegetation management by taking into account the social, economic and environmental aspects of the surrounding district and/or catchment area.

Background

According to the National Farmers Federation Farm Facts report1; • there are approximately 85,681 farm businesses in • 99 percent of which are Australian owned and operated. • Each Australian farmer produces enough food to feed 600 people, 150 at home and 450 overseas. • Australian farmers produce almost 93 percent of Australia’s daily domestic food supply.

Landholders and farmers and not environmental vandals as many in the media like to portray. Farmer’s livelihoods are forever connected with the health of the environment on their farms. The notion that all farmers wish to “moonscape” their properties of vegetation is offensive and plainly incorrect.

1. Economic and social impacts

In 2004 the Productivity Commission found2 that the entry of new and young people to farming in certain areas was being made more difficult by the regulations surrounding Native Vegetation Management. This was said to be due to restrictions on land management which meant that, in some places, it was difficult to take up new technology and there was a lack of flexibility in land use. These issues can result in lower economic returns, acting as a barrier to new entrants, or to the younger generation taking over the family farm.

A further factor which makes the current “one size fits all approach” inequitable is the fact that existing native vegetation management regulations and laws have not affected all landholders in NSW in the same manner. There is a spread of outcomes wherein some landholders have experienced economic gain, economic loss, and no change at all as a result of the management laws (Middleton 19993, Sinden 2004, Sinden 2005, Productivity Commission 20044).

1 NFF (National Farmers Federation) Farm Facts Report 2017 2 Productivity Commission, 2004. Impacts of Native Vegetation and Biodiversity Regulation (No. 29). Melbourne. 3 Middleton, M.M., Lockyer, M.J., Dean, N.A., Sinden, J.A., 1999. The opportunity cost of preservation of woodland on farms. Australian Forestry 4 Productivity Commission, op cit.

2

NNAA NORTHERN NSW AGRICULTURAL ALLIANCE

This social and financial impact is a result of applying ‘one size fits all’ regulations to farms with very different circumstances in very different areas. In general, the impact of native vegetation management laws on well-established farming regions (such as Breeza and ), where little native vegetation remained at the commencement of regulatory environment for native vegetation, has been low.

Landholders with high opportunity losses are generally in areas where alternative agriculture such as sheep and wool production was previously favoured for many reasons. As a result these past management practices have resulted in large areas of native vegetation remaining on farms at the time that native vegetation became regulated. For example, the number of landholders with lost economic opportunities is high in Walgett, where 78% of native vegetation remained in 2003, and much lower in Yallaroi, where only 30% of native vegetation remained (Sinden 2004).

The current ‘one size fits all’ approach to native vegetation fails to take into account the unique and specific environmental, managerial and productivity of individual regions.

The focus of native vegetation management has also traditionally fallen on farmers and regional communities, and not other industries. This focus (private land in regionally zoned areas) is inherently unfair, as it fails to take into account other land uses that could impact upon biodiversity. Activities such as mining and housing development in urban and coastal areas have been exempted from the regulatory framework in NSW. In order to be permitted to clear and develop country that would be illegal to do so if farmed, one would only need to re-zone the rural land and develop those areas into a housing estate in order to avoid the native vegetation regulations. In the past this has enabled urban, coastal and industrial development to go ahead without having to maintain or improve environmental outcomes. The framework is therefore grossly unfair by not requiring sustainable development state wide, and placing the cost burden of native vegetation retention on a small proportion of rural landholders and their communities.

Native vegetation regulations have also reduced land that would otherwise be available for agricultural opportunities. It is a sensible and well put argument that as a society we should be using the most productive agricultural land for agriculture, especially in light of the worlds growing population5. It is more proper for less productive land to be tasked with native vegetation preservation (provided the cost is not worn solely by the landholder) and using productive country for the continual growth of food.

The value of rural property is also impacted by native vegetation regulations. Sinden (2004)6 found that the net loss in land value on over 620 farms in the (where approximately 48% of native vegetation remained) was $450,000 per farm, along with a 23% loss in potential asset value. This is a direct cost that has been passed onto the farmer for which there is no compensation.

There is also a complete mistrust between many in the farming community and the government organisations who are responsible for compliance. Many (if not all) of our members do not wish to engage or have any involvement with compliance officers for fear of expensive and protracted compliance operations and proceedings. This relationship needs to be restarted, and it is our submission that the most effective way to do this is to introduce regionally based regulations or codes.

5 Bartel, R., 2013. Vernacular knowledge and environmental law: cause and cure for regulatory failure. Local Environment 6 Sinden, J.A., 2005. Conservation of native woodland by farmers in Moree Plains Shire, . Australian Forestry

3

NNAA NORTHERN NSW AGRICULTURAL ALLIANCE

2. Regionally based codes or regulations There are obvious benefits to landholders and farmers when native vegetation is retained and managed. Such benefits can often have positive flow-on effects for production, particularly in areas that have poor water or soil. A significant problem with the current legislative approach in NSW is that the particulars of management for soil and water health at a regional level are not considered.

Some farmers under the current laws are forced to keep far more native vegetation than is actually beneficial to their area. Native vegetation need not have any significant environmental value in this case but must be retained merely due to the fact that it is ‘native.’ This restriction is in force while other farmers, on existing cleared land (that perhaps is not overly suitable for cultivation), miss out on the environmental benefits of re-vegetation (Productivity Commission 2004). A frequently cited study near in northern NSW, Walpole (1999)7 found that farm pasture output increased as a result of having a maximum of 34% of the pasture area under woodland vegetation. The study also found no further increases in pasture output where higher levels of pasture area were under vegetation. As such, there were no immediate pastoral benefits to retention of higher levels of native vegetation on properties. Regulation made at a regional / local / catchment level could more effectively consider the appropriate extent, quality and type of native vegetation that needs to be conserved for that area, tied in with that area’s salinity, water and biodiversity targets. Such an approach would be more effective at meeting simultaneous environmental, economic and social outcomes than the current Act (Productivity Commission 2004).

3. The Terms of Reference Turning now to the particular TOR of the committee we submit as follows;

• Past and current practices of land vegetation management by the agricultural sector and regional industries. The NNAA repeats and adopts the submissions made herein and again presses the point that the one size fits all approach that has been adopted by the NSW legislature over the years is failing and as incapable of success. Native vegetation management needs to be done on a localised regional basis so that the particulars of each unique area can be recognised. Such an approach is the only way that a triple bottom line outcome can be achieved.

• The science behind activities such as back burning, clearing and rehabilitation. Nothing to submit.

• The economic impact of vegetation and land management policies, regulations and restrictions. The NNAA repeats and adopts the submissions made herein

• The impact of severe fires on the agricultural landscape, agricultural production and industry in regional, rural and remote areas; Nothing to submit.

• Factors that contribute to fire risk in regional, rural and remote areas; Nothing to submit.

7 Walpole, S.C., 1999. Assessment of the Economic and Ecological Impacts of Remnant Vegetation on Pasture Productivity

4

NNAA NORTHERN NSW AGRICULTURAL ALLIANCE

• The role the agricultural sector has in working with emergency services and forestry management officials in managing fire risk. Nothing to submit.

We trust that this short submission is of assistance to the Committee.

5