EXPERTS say last week’s release of draft land clearing reforms was a moment of strength for the NSW Nationals.
But the same academic voices warn the bill’s complexity will see it more easily picked apart by conservation groups in the looming political scrap.
Experts across Sydney’s political and environment faculties say the proposed native vegetation laws - released by the Coalition for public eight weeks of consultation last week - are firmly in the favour of farmers.
But the reforms - which would roll the Native Vegetation Act, Threatened Species Conservation Act and parts of the National Parks and Wildlife Act into one piece of law - will also become a clearer target for those seeking to weaken it.
That’s according to Dr Peter Chen, an expert in media politics and public policy at the University of Sydney.
“The government has taken an omnibus-like approach - which means the flaws are going to be more easily recognised and fought against,” Dr Chen said.
“Often points of contention can slip between pieces of legislation or are carefully worded around - but not in something as broad as this. It’s all going to be right there.”
Dr Chen said a key concern for the government would be landholder anxiety over promised mapping that will ultimately decide what can and can’t be cleared without regulation.
“The mapping issue… this whole thing is kind of hard to talk about when it is yet to be finalised,” Dr Chen said.
“It’s all good and well for these laws to be based on self-assessment, but because the mapping hasn’t come out - there is an ambiguity and bit of anxiety over what they will be able to do.”
Professor Richard Kingsford - Director of the Centre for Ecosystem Science at the University of NSW - agreed the reforms hinged on what can and can’t be cleared.
“And the question a lot of people have is, how do you clear in a sustainable way that won’t impact on threatened species, or increase the chance of a species becoming threatened?” Professor Kingsford said.
Conservation groups have criticised the reforms as a gateway to Queensland-esque levels of land clearing and have vowed to fight the shift of power represented in the draft.
University of Western Sydney environmental economics research lecturer Dr Neil Perry agreed that negotiations during the consultation phase - and beyond - would likely centre on whether the Office of Environment takes more power from the Department of Primary Industries.
“I think, yes, the pressure will be from the environmental side of things,” Dr Perry said.
Dr Perry also flagged concerns about the impartiality of independent assessors who would undertake biodiversity management assessments to determine the value of offsets that would be paid out of the $240 Biodiversity Conservation Trust.
“The people doing the assessing of biodiversity offsets are private individuals. If they are getting paid by the people who are clearing land - or even protecting land - they have a conflict of interest,” he said.
Dr Chen also sees looming conflict over the trust - namely the tactics people could employ to get a slice of the pie.
“Essentially with the $240 million the government is saying (to farmers) we are going to ease the burden of you maintaining heritage by reimbursing you,” Dr Chen said.
“But we don’t do that for other types of heritage. You buy a heritage property in Sydney - and granted it is for cultural heritage, not biodiversity - but you’re not going to get money to maintain that.
“People will want to know how the $240 million is being distributed - will it be gamed by people wanting to cash in, or will it lead to neighbours calling each other out more?
“We won’t know until it is law.”
