Property Rights Australia (PRA) respectfully requests that you cast your vote against the Nature Conservation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2015.
PRA is a membership organisation formed to protect property rights of all descriptions.
We note that the proposed amendments would curtail the rights of many Queensland citizens and could have severe economic and social consequences in some cases.
We ask you to consider the following:
Currently, the Act states that: The object of this Act is the conservation of nature while allowing for the following
(a) the involvement of indigenous people in the management of protected areas in which they have an interest under Aboriginal tradition or Island custom;
(b) the use and enjoyment of protected areas by the community;
(c) the social, cultural and commercial use of protected areas in a way consistent with the natural and cultural and other values of the areas.
Under the proposed amendments, the sole object of the Act would be the “conservation of nature”, excluding any future opportunities to invest in, benefit from or enhance environmental outcomes.
PRA believes the proposed amendments are not warranted and would result in undesirable social outcomes.
Removing “the involvement of indigenous people in the management of protected areas” as an object of the Act would severely limit the ability of indigenous people to derive income from or contribute to the management of traditional areas.
The proposed changes will also amend the Aboriginal Land Act 1991 to streamline the process to convert regional parks on Cape York Peninsula to jointly managed national park (Cape York Peninsula Aboriginal land), otherwise known as national park (CYPAL).
This will dilute indigenous control over traditional lands. PRA notes the Prime Minister’s report “Closing the Gap” released on Feb 10 2016 that employment outcomes for indigenous people have been declining rather than improving.
While PRA acknowledges that it may be necessary to restrict public access in some circumstances (e.g. while pest control is in progress), it should also be noted that the removal of the “use and enjoyment” provision could also be used to lock up areas to prevent the public from seeing any pest problem and thereby avoid public scrutiny.
The Bill could well have a negative effect on eco-tourism operations. Instead strategies should be developed that encourages community involvement, indigenous and nonindigenous, in the operation of National Parks providing a local sense of ownership and responsibility.
Eco-tourism can provide improved conservation outcomes, local employment and stimulating the local economy while providing an enriched visitor experience.
PRA believes that this Bill will have the opposite effect.
Finally removing the provision to allow “the social, cultural and commercial use of protected areas in a way consistent with the natural and cultural and other values of the areas” could have adverse outcomes for a broad range of Queenslanders.
PRA notes that a previous Labor Government converted many forest grazing leases to “national park” status on a whim, with no environmental values assessment by the Government.
There was no thought for the consequences for the lessees, many of whom had occupied the land for generations.
This amendment will exclude leases for agriculture, grazing or pastoral purposes on protected areas from the rolling term lease provisions under the Land Act 1994.
The change will allow the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service to remove these land managers when leases expire.
The conservation of nature will not be advanced in any meaningful way by this amendment.
Declaring small non-contiguous areas as National Parks does not create the environmental space in which true conservation can be furthered.
It is also obvious that such declarations would not be made unless the management activities of the lessees had maintained a suitable degree of environmental integrity.
In this case, it is apparent that the objective of conservation would be better served by continuing the lease than locking it up and allowing pest problems to develop.
Unfortunately, some National Parks staff do not seem to appreciate that lessees practice pest control and that pest problems often follow the termination of a lease unless some alternative management plan has been developed.
- The board of Property Rights Australia
