Efforts to build a sound and strategic asset on the Burdekin River that offers drought-proofing as well as economic productivity could be one of many casualties if the Vegetation Management (Reinstatement) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill becomes law.
This was one of the submissions made to the public hearing into the proposed land clearing law changes in Townsville recently, which attracted a crowd of 60, opposition leader Tim Nicholls, deputy Deb Frecklington, shadow Natural Resources Minister Andrew Cripps, and shadow Agriculture Minister Dale Last amongst them, along with local ALP MPs Coralee O’Rourke and Scott Stewart, and KAP’s Shane Knuth.
Charters Towers graziers Noeleen and Colin Ferguson succinctly spelt out what the changes would mean for their plans to boost their existing 18ha irrigated fodder plot beside the Burdekin to 80ha of irrigated lucerne and forage sorghum.
“This opportunity is crucial to allow us to move forward,” Noeleen told the committee. “This small, critical value-adding area will significantly increase the economic productivity of our property’s enterprise without adversely affecting the adjoining natural environment.”
The couple moved from a coastal cane-growing area to Cardigan station, south-east of Charters Towers 20 years ago and have successfully operated a commercial beef enterprise on their 17,600ha upper Burdekin leasehold property.
They made use of an existing 18ha irrigated fodder cropping plot to become self-sufficient and to drought-proof themselves and others, and have already begun the permit process to clear trees beside the existing irrigation to expand this to 80ha.
This includes 29ha of remnant vegetation.
Lateral irrigation is currently in use for the cropping area but the expansion would allow the Fergusons to use two centre pivots with a full 360 degree rotation.
Noeleen and Colin say the removal of the section of the current Act that allows irrigated high-value agriculture clearing as a relevant purpose for making a development application under the Sustainable Planning Act will not just impact current and future business plans, but will impact them as a family.
Without this diversification option, expansion will be difficult and could break up the family unit.
“If this section of the Bill is passed and no alternative relevant purpose is proposed, this cropping expansion is definitely ‘dead in the water’, along with our adult children’s family plans to remain and work on the property” Noeleen said.
“This will be a once-in-a-generation lost opportunity. That’s our reality in a nutshell.”
She added that small-scale efforts such as theirs had been captured by Green politics.
The couple say the guidelines already in place for determining high-value and irrigated high-value agriculture are extremely stringent, requiring performance outcomes for wetlands, watercourses, connectivity area, soil erosion, salinity, conserving endangered and of concern regional ecosystems, essential habitat, and acid sulphate soils when they applied to clear the native vegetation.
“We commenced pre-lodgement with DNRM in early 2015 and no part of this process can be deemed unregulated or self-assessable, as claimed in the public arena,” Noeleen said.
“On the contrary, we would say since engaging in the process it would be one of the most rigorous under the current Vegetation Management Act.
“In reality, if the on-ground comprehensive land suitability and soil sampling tests, in conjunction with environmental considerations, do not make the grade in any one circumstance, the application does not progress any further.”
Noeleen also told the committee hearing in Townsville that removal of a key provision such as high-value agriculture via the VROLA Bill would have “far-reaching unintended ramifications for current and future development of agriculture in Queensland”.
She said this was in direct conflict with deputy Premier Trad’s comments when introducing the bill into parliament, when she stated that it “restores the right balance between protecting vegetation that plays a critical role in maintaining healthy and sustainable ecosystems while not diminishing the ability of our agricultural sector in this state to expand and flourish”.
“Why will that not include our proposed development,” she asked.
Noeleen said she had spoken up at the Parliamentary hearing because she and her husband felt it was an important matter, not only for themselves, but for others in similar circumstances, many of whom are yet to realise the critical impact the removal of the provision to clear for high-value agriculture will have on future agricultural development in Queensland.