The Independent Australian
a politically incorrect magazine of ideas and comment outside the mainstream
LAND CLEARING. One rule for the Country, no rules for the City
All over Australia rules are being promulgated and enforced on land clearing on private property.
Country Farming Areas
... Clearing should be restrained for the broader good. ... However there are questions on whether the owners of properties should be compensated by the government for maintenance and lost opportunity. Enforcement is an issue which needs to be handled in a commonsense manner.
The position in each State is different. ...
In September 2003 the WA Government passed the Environmental Protection Amendment Bill with the support of the Greens, but Hon Christine Sharp (Greens) made a few useful points in her speech. Among them were:
‘The Greens (WA) accept that the increased conservation and biodiversity protection work that will occur as a result of these amendments will in many cases be carried out by farmers on behalf of the entire State of Western Australia. It needs to be recognised that one particular sector is supplying a public good. That recognition should not be stingy; it should be adequate for the real purpose. The heart of the problem is that, for many structural reasons, the patches of remnant vegetation that will be protected by the new provisions have very little market value. The Government organises the taxation structures, such as land tax and the differential rating that is available under the Local Government Act, and it can do all sorts of things to help. However, I put on the record that any changes to the rating of remnant vegetation should not represent a financial burden to local government shires.’
The Government was vague on compensation and also on trading the removal of trees on one part of the property for planting on another part. In practice the legislation led to controversy as zealous bureaucrats implemented the new laws. ... Similar problems exist in other States.
Urban Clearing
Sharp again: ‘The activities authorised under the Town Planning and Development Act not only are exempt from the clearing permit system, but also, as members know, have special protected privileges relating to part IV assessments of other parts of the Environmental Protection Act. I want to put a finger on that. When will we make sure that urban developers stop clearing important remnant vegetation in Western Australia? The Government needs to come to terms with that and it must attend to it. It is urgent and critical.’
Examples abound around the Perth metropolitan area, In Forrestfield there is a housing estate along Apricot Road where established trees have been ripped out to create the bare land so beloved by developers. ...
... increased population will require more land for housing. Naturally the population spread is into pleasantly green fertile country, rendering it unproductive, or into bushland, attractive to many, especially ‘green’ folk. The other area which is attractive to people is adjacent to the sea. The spread of holiday homes and permanent dwellings along the coast is exciting comment. ... Some Queensland coastal councils have active anti-development groups and Noosa is trying to limit over-development.
The Age recently ran a series of articles about the struggles between the developers and the traditionalists (preservationists) along the Victorian coast. The articles did not once mention that the problems were created by population pressures. One solitary letter to the editor, pointing out the inevitability of what was happening, was published. This could have been due to the bias of The Age, which is in favour of high immigration, or to the blindness of people, well exemplified by the Greens and other political parties that pretend to have green credentials.
Country Farming Areas
... Clearing should be restrained for the broader good. ... However there are questions on whether the owners of properties should be compensated by the government for maintenance and lost opportunity. Enforcement is an issue which needs to be handled in a commonsense manner.
The position in each State is different. ...
In September 2003 the WA Government passed the Environmental Protection Amendment Bill with the support of the Greens, but Hon Christine Sharp (Greens) made a few useful points in her speech. Among them were:
‘The Greens (WA) accept that the increased conservation and biodiversity protection work that will occur as a result of these amendments will in many cases be carried out by farmers on behalf of the entire State of Western Australia. It needs to be recognised that one particular sector is supplying a public good. That recognition should not be stingy; it should be adequate for the real purpose. The heart of the problem is that, for many structural reasons, the patches of remnant vegetation that will be protected by the new provisions have very little market value. The Government organises the taxation structures, such as land tax and the differential rating that is available under the Local Government Act, and it can do all sorts of things to help. However, I put on the record that any changes to the rating of remnant vegetation should not represent a financial burden to local government shires.’
The Government was vague on compensation and also on trading the removal of trees on one part of the property for planting on another part. In practice the legislation led to controversy as zealous bureaucrats implemented the new laws. ... Similar problems exist in other States.
Urban Clearing
Sharp again: ‘The activities authorised under the Town Planning and Development Act not only are exempt from the clearing permit system, but also, as members know, have special protected privileges relating to part IV assessments of other parts of the Environmental Protection Act. I want to put a finger on that. When will we make sure that urban developers stop clearing important remnant vegetation in Western Australia? The Government needs to come to terms with that and it must attend to it. It is urgent and critical.’
Examples abound around the Perth metropolitan area, In Forrestfield there is a housing estate along Apricot Road where established trees have been ripped out to create the bare land so beloved by developers. ...
... increased population will require more land for housing. Naturally the population spread is into pleasantly green fertile country, rendering it unproductive, or into bushland, attractive to many, especially ‘green’ folk. The other area which is attractive to people is adjacent to the sea. The spread of holiday homes and permanent dwellings along the coast is exciting comment. ... Some Queensland coastal councils have active anti-development groups and Noosa is trying to limit over-development.
The Age recently ran a series of articles about the struggles between the developers and the traditionalists (preservationists) along the Victorian coast. The articles did not once mention that the problems were created by population pressures. One solitary letter to the editor, pointing out the inevitability of what was happening, was published. This could have been due to the bias of The Age, which is in favour of high immigration, or to the blindness of people, well exemplified by the Greens and other political parties that pretend to have green credentials.
