WESTERN Australian farmers are trying to repeal a controversial environmental law that they argue is destroying the value of thousands of properties.
Farmer and former state Liberal member Murray Nixon told a state parliamentary committee on Wednesday that many farmers were unaware that they were legally prevented from grazing livestock on designated sensitive areas given the classification system was snuck into legislation without adequate consultation.
"It snuck through without any debate at all," Mr Nixon said.
"You all know nobody reads the government gazette. At least it could have gone to the rural press."
The legislation was introduced in 2005 by the then Labor state government to protect wetlands in farming regions. The designated "environmentally sensitive areas" were compiled through aerial photography.
“I'm telling you nobody is coming through my front gate”
However, few out of the 3000 to 4000 affected property owners either knew their land was now subject to the new clearing restrictions or that the act of grazing was considered to be clearing under the terms of the legislation.
The legislation went largely unnoticed until Manjimup farmer Peter Swift was charged in 2009 with illegally clearing parts of his land. He won the court proceedings, but he says the deterioration in his health suffered during the intense litigation and subsequent work difficulties has meant he is now facing foreclosure.
"I've worked over 30 years on my little piece of Australia," Mr Swift said.
"I've done nothing wrong and now the bank is holding a Colt 45 to my head. I'm telling you nobody is coming through my front gate."
The Department of Environment Regulation has defended the consultation process by arguing that 17 associations and industry bodies, including at least two farming groups, were consulted prior to the 2005 legislative change.
Several committee members asked department officials on Wednesday why affected individual land owners were not consulted, given interested parties were supposed to be included in discussions.
"I want to contend the department has taken the path of least resistance," Nationals member Paul Brown said.
The committee is discussing whether the 2005 legislation should stand, be repealed or be amended. There is also an argument that any environmental restrictions should be publicised on a certificate of title so land owners understand what restrictions are on their properties.
Farmers can apply for a permit to graze livestock on sensitive areas.
Environmental issues have been hotly debated in WA's farming regions in recent years, given there has been a sustained decline in rainfall.
In the early 1900s, the south-west experienced a year that could be classified as a "wet year" about one in every two. That has diminished since the 1960s, to the extent that the state went through a period of more than two decades without a wet year recorded.
Experts tend to blame a combination of climate change, land clearing and normal cyclical factors for the drying climate. While there is still debate over how land clearing affects precipitation and how forests "attract" rain, it is widely accepted that felling trees reduces rainfall.
Scientists in WA have previously called on the government to reforest with native vegetation and, where possible, with tall trees that are allowed to mature.
Mr Nixon said on Wednesday that if someone's land was devalued, there was an obligation by the government to offer fair compensation.
An investigation by The Australian Financial Review last month revealed private landowners might not get a fair offer for land acquired for roads, rail and parks unless they went to court.
In documents concerned with the settlement of a land dispute in 2013, a WA Planning Commission representative said that a large payout that year meant the department was "constrained" in its ability to purchase land by negotiation, even in hardship cases.
