THE Federal Department of Environment has been accused of bullying Queensland landholders into potentially permanently halting the development of high value agriculture projects.
A letter has been sent to landholders with approved high value agriculture projects provide asking them to provide details of how they are avoiding breaching the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
The letter does not accuse the addressed landholder of any breaches of the EPBC Act. Instead it refers to unnamed ‘other permits’ which may have the potential to have an impact.
Queensland Country Life has sighted a copy of the ambiguous letter. However, the landholder has declined to be named fearing retaliation from the department and linked targeting by extreme green groups.
The information is required by the department by no later than December 23.
There are about 50 high value agriculture developments in Queensland including a handful of larger scale developments. Some 14 approvals have been granted since the minority Palaszczuk Government came to power in February.
High value agriculture is seen as an important way of developing Queensland’s agricultural capacity particularly in northern Australia. The projects are for horticulture, cane and cattle production and are mainly in coastal areas in northern Australia.
However, high value agriculture has been a particular target of anti-agriculture group WWF which released what it called Queensland’s tree-clearing ‘map of shame’ in September. The map identifies each landholder as well as the approved activity.
“The department has examined a number of other permits for high value agriculture which have been issued by the Queensland Government and is concerned that some of the approved projects have the potential to impact on matters of environmental significance which are protected under the EPBC Act,” the Department of Environment letter reads.
“These matters include, for example, the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area, nationally listed threatened species, and listed migatory species, among others.
“Substantial penalties apply to a person who takes an action without approval. An approval under the Sustainable Planning Act (Queensland) does not remove the need to refer under the EPBC Act if a significant impact is likely.”
The letter directs landholders to refer to the department’s website: www.environment.gov.au
Landholder group Property Rights Australia chairman Dale Stiller said the approach smacked of public servants using their positions to further an entrenched green agenda.
“I would be surprised if Environment Minister Greg Hunt even knows this has happened,” Mr Stiller said.
“This really seems to be environmental activism from within the public service.”
“There approvals for high value agriculture were granted legitimately and only after a complex and costly process before landholders were granted any approvals.”
A pro-forma response to the Department of Environmen letter is available at: www.propertyrightsaustralia.org
Mr Stiller said prior to the Queensland government issuing a high value agriculture clearing permit, a rigorous examination of the proposal was carried out to ensure that the development will comply with all environmental laws, water laws, land and soil laws, forestry and botanical laws of the state.
“The ambiguous nature of the letters sent to landowners is not helpful,” Mr Stiller said.
“It has all the appearances of a broad brush fishing exercise.
“Ii is attempted governance by activist public servants using innuendo and the threat of penalties under the EPBC Act.
“Landowners who have been granted these high value agriculture clearing permits have already been through a rigorous state-based process. This process is conducted within the requirements of the EPBC Act as well as State legislative requirements.
“Yet landowners need to be careful to how they reply to such correspondence, to ensure that they do not incriminate themselves in a response to something which a Commonwealth public servant has decided to introduce “over the top”.
“Landowners need professional advice which is both costly and impossible to obtain in such a short time frame, running into the Christmas/ New Year period.”
Mr Stiller said the Department of Environment’s letter turned on the meaning and interpretation of one word.
“There is nothing definitive or certain as to how ‘significant’ is interpreted in the letter,” he said.
“It could be interpreted as being benign or impossible to comply with, depending on the level that the Act defines.”
Mr Stiller said it was unacceptable for the department to suggest “referral under the EPBC Act may be necessary”.
“Either referral is required or it is not,” Mr Stiller said.
“The department must advise if formal referral is required and the section of the Act that supports this statement.
“The prospect of one branch of Government declaring a development lawful, while another suggests it may be unlawful – in this case, without any clear legal basis for doing so – is both preposterous and impossible to reconcile.
“Our elected representatives need to recognise that such a stance taken by a public servant is not simply unfair but unconscionable.
“Landowners who are acting within the law under a valid permit should be entitled to conduct their business unhindered by the personal agendas of government officers who may, for personal reasons, disagree with government policy.”
