FINALLY, in its second term of government, the Coalition has lived up to its promise and looks likely to kill-off former state Premier Bob Carr’s counterproductive native vegetation laws.
While it’s too early to say how good the reforms introduced to parliament for debate this week will be, and despite the time lag, the Nationals deserve credit for delivering regional-focused reforms in the risk-averse political climate – which was pushed through against the instincts of some sceptical Liberal MPs in urban electorates.
Agriculture and the environment are co-dependent, Primary Industry Minister Niall Blair told parliament yesterday. He couldn’t be more right. “Rural communities are suffering and our environment is in crisis. Agriculture is stifled and biodiversity is going backwards,” Mr Blair said.
There’s now hope these reforms could end opposition between the bush and the city - that is if green groups don’t keep demonising farmers as clear-felling freaks.
They say farmers will be paid not to cut down trees. But how can we expect farmers to manage and invest in a common asset, the environment, to deliver a public good, if the cost comes out of their own purse?
Environmentalists should welcome the fact that the new laws encourage landholders to invest in biodiversity – either in exchange for clearing lower-value vegetation for production, or with direct payment for taking care of valuable and sensitive environments.
The Shooters, Fishers (and now) Farmers party will complain the old laws should have been knocked on the head sooner, and Labor and the Greens howl about the looming destruction coming to the environment. Meanwhile, some farmers will say the red tape reduction doesn’t go far enough.
But Deputy Premier Troy Grant and Premier Niall Blair opened the government up to scrutiny in mounting a complex argument that landholders are the best tool to address the worrying decline in biodiversity that has occurred under Carr’s lock-it-and-leave-it laws.
They ran an extensive public consultation process and relied on independent expert advice to develop the new laws, ultimately adopting a risk-based approach to land management.
Looking forward, like with any reform, the devil will be in the detail, but at least now we’ll be picking over the finer points to find fault, not shaking our heads at the immensity of the old scheme’s failings.