Mr PERRETT (Gympie—LNP) (12.32 pm):
I rise to speak on the Nature Conservation (Special Wildlife Reserves) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2018. This bill will make significant changes to property rights while establishing a new class of privately owned or managed protected area: special wildlife reserve; change procedural requirements for tightening and record keeping of conservation agreements and protected area declarations; and define who is bound by a conservation agreement entered into by a landholder. It will also streamline the process by which conservation agreements recognise the new class of protected area, clarify administrative arrangements for approving offset proposals and manage risks to the Great Barrier Reef.
This bill impinges on freehold property rights and raises serious property management issues. It
confirms that this is an extreme left-wing Labor government which is vying for the title of Australia’s
most socialist state. It removed freehold property rights under its vegetation management law and it is
again encroaching on those rights. If you try to bequeath or sell your property you will need government
consent to transfer the title. In effect, the government has ownership or management over your rights.
They potentially transfer an unfair management burden and financial impacts onto neighbours.
The government constantly spins that it is getting on with the job, yet we are debating legislation
which was introduced more than 12 months ago in February last year. It is also substantially the same
bill that lapsed from the last parliament. It is a pretty feeble example of what it means to get on with the
job. No wonder this state is in a mess.
Stakeholders have raised significant concerns, especially relating to the creation of special
wildlife reserves. Recommendation 3 of the committee report asks the minister to look at reasonable
amendments that would improve public accountability of management programs for special wildlife
reserves. Most Queenslanders would have thought that public accountability was one of the top
performance measures for any government, for any minister and for any department. Taxpayers grant
the government the right to use their hard-earned dollars and manage their assets with the reasonable
expectation that accountability would be a top priority.
The government claims that the amendments are to clarify the criteria the minister has to consider
in declaring these special wildlife reserves. The reality is that the amendments make matters worse. As
a grazier I have experienced the detrimental impacts of successive Labor governments pandering to
the agenda of environmental activists. I am not alone. Alarm bells should be ringing as a result of the
serious concerns that have been raised by many stakeholders. The Queensland Law Society said—
The amended drafting actually expands the matters to be considered when preparing a proposal to declare, effectively allowing the determination to be made based upon either or both of:
- the ‘economical, environmental or community interests’ (as determined by the Minister) under the definition of ‘State
interest’; - the second branch of the proposed section which appears may be applied so as to encompass land areas that do not fit easily into the definition of ‘State interest’.
The vagueness of what is meant by ‘state interest’ seems to give the minister unfettered power to make
declarations. At the very least it should require meeting both economic, environmental or community
interests and state interests.
This bill will effectively remove land from agricultural production and economic development.
Landholders’ property rights are again under threat of further erosion. The Queensland Farmers’
Federation said—
Management of SWRs will have flow on effects to the management of adjacent productive agricultural land. It is therefore
essential that restrictive management practices imposed on SWRs do not negatively impact productive agricultural land and the overall management of the farming system.
The management of pests and weeds on crown land have created ongoing issues for landholders that abut these
government-managed lands. The management practices used can be restrictive and frequently do not manage pests and weeds effectively.
The impact on adjacent agricultural producers is similar to those already experienced by
landholders adjacent to parts of Queensland’s national park estates. Agricultural producers already
struggle with inadequate and poor management of pests, both animals and weeds, on state land. As
someone with a property next door to a national park, I have firsthand experience. Let’s be very clear:
state-controlled land can be a haven for uncontrolled feral animals and pests, uncontrolled weeds and
it is often a fire hazard.
This government is hiding from any responsibility. It does not want an open and transparent
parliamentary inquiry into what fuelled last year’s bushfire disasters, despite some regional landholders
identifying that they were exacerbated by the fuel loads on state controlled land.
Mr Ryan: What a joke!
Mr PERRETT: It is not a joke, Minister. I will take that interjection. I see it next door to me. As I
mentioned earlier, there is no fire management on some of your state controlled land. There is none,
Minister. The government does not want to hear from a parliamentary inquiry that looked at the
government’s record on weed management. It passes the buck to rural landholders while at the same
time making it harder for them to be good land managers.
I am continually approached by landowners in Gympie and throughout the state who are seriously
concerned about land management practices to control fuel loads, innovative pests and weeds, the
management of our national parks and how they can protect their property and livestock. The
government’s approach is driven by their addiction to Green preferences and pandering to the agenda
of green activists, despite the cost to the environment and hardworking Queenslanders.
At considerable expense, and at no cost to the state, these landholders efficiently manage
declared and environmental weeds and feral animals. They manage fuel loads, thus preventing
catastrophic bushfires which destroy every living animal and plant in their path. They manage declared
weeds and animals such as giant rat’s-tail grass, groundsel bush, wild dogs, feral pegs, foxes and feral
cats and rabbits. They control environmental weeds such as lantana, Noogoora burr, wild tobacco bush
and cat’s claw creeper.
Graziers have worked side by side with Forestry and on-the-ground QPWS officers—those who
wear their khaki shirts and possum badges—to establish best management practices. These officers
regularly say they need the help of rural landholders. AgForce confirmed this and said—
We also know that simply locking away land does not always protect it, but rather opens the door to feral animal, pest and weed infestation and serious fire risks. AgForce anecdotally receives feedback from members that this occurs within the current public protected area estate.
The implication is that the management is clearly under-resourced and reliant on the input from
neighbouring landholders. It is concerning that the way the management plans of these reserves will
be policed is unclear. The government’s record does not give confidence. Landholders are justifiably
concerned that once a property is declared there is a good chance that wildlife reserve will not be
adequately managed and adjoining landholders will suffer.
The definition of those considered to be materially affected is inadequate. We do not know
whether adjacent landholders can claim to be affected, even though it is obvious they would be
impacted. The department expects landholders to be satisfied with its assurance that it is the
plain-English meaning. That is no reassurance, considering the state’s growing bureaucratic and
regulatory framework.
Then we have the government assuming the right to veto or approve whether someone can
lease, sell or bequeath a property. These are perpetual agreements, which means that future owners
will be tied to them. Their property rights and the ability to review or renegotiate an SWR are severely
restricted. There is not even a process to do so, even with a change in property ownership. In fact, there
are very limited circumstances in which it can be revoked. It will require a resolution of this parliament.
This takes bureaucratic and litigious nightmare to a new level. Clearly, it will affect property values as
well as those of neighbouring property owners. If future owners cannot meet their obligations, once
again the interests of neighbouring landholders are impacted.
Landholders are hamstrung by strict management requirements. I have a similar issue in my
electorate with constituents on a property that has been declared a nature refuge. They need to fence
the property to prevent stray livestock wandering on to it; however, they are hamstrung in accessing
financial loans to pay for the fencing because commercial banks view the property as high risk. It is high
risk because of the strict management obligations required by a covenant over the property. What we
have here is a situation whereby those management obligations are preventing them from being able
to fund meeting those management obligations. It is clearly impractical and lacks any appearance of
common sense. This bill is onerous and unfair, tramples on property rights and places more burdens
on neighbouring landholders. It should be opposed.