The two sides of the vegetation management debate were on display at a public hearing convened by the Parliamentary Agriculture and Environment Committee in Townsville in mid-May.
The committee rolled out a series of public hearings in northern and central Queensland to give people an opportunity to be questioned and to speak to submissions made on the Palaszczuk government’s proposed vegetation management law amendments.
In Cairns, the majority of presenters were opposed to the changes, with the inaccuracy of mapping, a flawed submission and consultation period, the impact on economic development opportunities and a contradiction between federal and state policy common themes.
People such as Cape York Sustainable Futures board member Kathy Hughes told the committee that economic development and investment were being deterred by legislation flip-flops.
Formal statements were taken from four groups in Townsville, including the Great Barrier Reef Marine Authority, North Queensland Wildlife Care, the North Queensland Conservation Council, and Queensland Canegrowers, with the first three expressing a need for trees in the environment, to improve reef quality, to maintain wildlife habitat for greater numbers of endangered species, and for their impact on climate change.
GBRMA Reef Recovery acting director Leith Gray told the hearing the changes would improve reef quality, but in response to questions as to whether he thought there was any way of clearing land and replacing it that wouldn’t impact water quality, he said it would depend on variables such as the crop and soil type.
“If you can slow water travelling across the ground by ground cover, you could do,” he said, adding that torrential downpours were a problem in tropical environments.
When questioned as to how an ecological expansion of agricultural enterprises could occur under the proposed legislation, he said the existing model of land use didn’t allow for further expansion and innovation, or allow land to be used for a higher value crop.
“I think with a bit of innovative thinking, with looking at other alternatives, with looking at better ways to undertake the agriculture that we currently undertake, we can actually improve those practices and reduce the potential impacts on the reef whilst still allowing sustainable use of the catchment,” he said.
He agreed with the extension of the protection of the Vegetation Management Act to three additional catchments—East Cape York, the Burnett-Mary and the Fitzroy – saying the fact that most of the sediment is currently derived from the Burdekin and the Fitzroy catchments would support the further expansion to the Fitzroy in particular.
“When we are managing the Great Barrier Reef we are managing an entire ecosystem. You cannot simply manage one area in isolation and expect to get an overall outcome across the entire ecosystem itself.”
On the other side of the coin, Queensland Canegrowers representative Wayne Smith told the inquiry that growers from the Burdekin had made considerable financial commitments and were very frustrated to put so much capital in and not be able to do what they had planned.
“Canegrowers is of the view that the current framework forms a solid foundation for cane growing and agricultural production in Queensland.
“Further, we believe it has the ability to strike the right balance between proactive management of vegetation and protection.”
The group has particular concerns about the treatment of high-value agriculture and high-value irrigated agriculture clearing permit provisions under the proposed legislation, and Mr Smith told the hearing the removal of these vegetation management considerations was against the interests of members wanting to sustainably grow or better manage their existing business.
“Category R, the 50-metre buffers and the definition of watercourses, wetlands and drainage features and its potential impact to cane production are other areas of specific concern,” he said.
He added that the reverse onus of proof provision, when linked to inaccurate mapping and the possibility of prosecutions, was a direct affront to the liberty of farmers.
Around 100 people attended the public hearing in Emerald the following Wednesday.
People such as Theodore’s Peter Mahoney travelled hundreds of kilometres to address the all-party committee, expressing a view that the current legislation adequately protects vulnerable vegetation.
Mr Mahoney said the natural cycle of a wet 2010-2011 saw tremendous growth of vegetation, of which the much-vaunted increases in clearing are a normal byproduct.
Further hearings will take place this week, in Bundaberg and Gympie on June 1, in Charleville and Roma on June 2, and in Brisbane on June 3.