Mining – Government Regulation Reduction
Building approvals
Problem: Prior to the construction of accommodation villages and office buildings companies are required to obtain development approvals from local government shires under the Planning and Development Act 2005 and the Building Act 2011. These approvals are required even where state government approvals are also required.
Solution: The provisions within the Planning and Development Act 2005 and the Building Act 2011 which require local government approval on matters where approval is already required under state government processes should be repealed.
Environmental Impact Assessments
Problem: The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) is empowered by the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (EP Act) to assess proposals that are likely to have a significant environmental impact.
When a project is considered “significant” it must go through the Environmental Impact Assessment process.
However, the EP Act does not define the terms “significant impact” or “significant effect”. Bureaucrats at the EPA are therefore afforded wide discretion in their interpretation of what constitutes a “significant” impact or effect.
Solution: The EP Act should be amended to define the terms “significant impact” and “significant effect” as “actions that are likely to have a long-term and irreparable environmental impact on a geographical area extending beyond the private land of the proponent, and which cannot be mitigated through rehabilitation or environmental offsets.”
This will remove the discretion and power of environmental bureaucrats.
Frequency of reporting
Problem: Reporting obligations impose a significant red tape burden with no discernible regulatory or community benefit. For example, under Sections 85A(1), (2), and 85B(1) of the Mining Regulations 1981, holders of mining tenements are required to submit quarterly production reports and royalty returns.
Solution: Instead, holders of mining tenements should be given the option to submit production reports and royalty returns on an annual basis.
All other similar reporting obligations should be able to be submitted on an annual basis, and reporting for all low-risk and routine activities, such as water boring, transportation, and the construction of donga, food facilitates, and storage facilitates, should be repealed.
Duplicative reporting
Problem: Mining proponents are required to submit a range of reports which contain identical or similar information to different departments at the state and Commonwealth level of government. This imposes significant costs on proponents and on departments, with little or no benefit in terms of regulatory compliance. For example, under the Mining Act 1978 all mining projects with an Annual Environmental Report condition must submit an annual report. And under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, approval holders must submit annual compliance reports where required under their approval conditions.
Solution: The Western Australian government should remove all reporting obligations which are already required under federal government legislation.
Multiple permits for the same activity
Problem: Project proponents are in some instances required to obtain multiple permits for undertaking multiple identical or repetitive activities. For example, proponents may be required to obtain multiple Oversize Overmass permits from Main Roads to conduct multiple trips with restricted access vehicles.
Roy Hill was required to obtain 150 separate approvals for the haulage of heavy, wide, and/or long loads on gazetted (public) roads.
Solution: The state government should allow for one single project-wide Oversize Overmass permit. This permit should apply to unlimited trips of restricted access vehicles required for a given project.
Water management approvals
Problem: Management of water is covered under three separate acts in Western Australia, the Environmental Protection Act 1986, the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914, and the Mining Act 1978. As a result, there is some overlap between different acts which causes unnecessary regulatory duplication. For example, a license to take water must be obtained under the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 before a mining proponent can dewater a mine. However, in using surplus water from the dewater, proponents are often required to obtain environmental approval under either Part IV or Part V of the Environmental Protection Act 1986.
Solution: The requirement to obtain a water license under the EP Act should be abolished.
Cost recovery
Problem: Cost recovery obligations impose fees on proponents to compensate regulators for the cost of regulating. Examples of cost recovery affecting mining projects are licensing fees and charges under the Mining Act 1978, the Environmental Protection Act 1986, and the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914.
Solution: Cost recovery obligations should be removed with regulatory activities being funded through general revenue. Project proponents who are creating investment and jobs should not be required to pay for the cost of regulation, especially given the billions they contribute through company tax, payroll tax, GST, royalties, and stamp duty.
Annual environmental reports
Problem: Comprehensive annual environmental reports are required to be submitted annually under different legislation requiring variations of similar information. For example, mining projects are required to submit an Annual Environmental Report under the Mining Act 1978, an Annual Audit Compliance Report under Part V of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (EP Act),and Compliance Assessment Reports under Part IV of the EP Act.
Solution: These costly reporting requirements, with minimal environmental benefit, should be replaced with a system of reporting by exception. This would require mining projects to only report anomalies and non-compliances and be subject to risk-based auditing inspections by the relevant regulators.
The transition away from mandatory reporting could also be achieved by exempting projects from being required to report where they can demonstrate full regulatory compliance over a six-month period.
Agriculture – Government Regulation Reduction
Cutting regulation on pest control for the agricultural including fishing industry
The following 3 marine life, with amended government regulation, could be turned from causing deaths of people, into useful additional businesses, to help Australia recover from covid 19. And in turn, less dangerous Australian oceans would help to improve the tourism industry and the yachting industry.
Sharks
In 2019 the Queensland government was prohibited from continuing a shark culling program in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park after the Federal Court ruled that the program was inconsistent with the objects of the Commonwealth Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Regulations 1983. The Federal government should amend the regulation to allow state governments to cull sharks, recognising human lives are more important than sharks. Our oceans have dangerous predators, such as sharks and crocodiles, (shark attack articles follow) that could be turned into industries to help us recover from covid. Shark meat can be used for less expensive protein, Eg fish and chips, and used for sharks fin soup, potential export market to China , Singapore and Malaysia, and similarly for less expensive “scallops “ in Chinese restaurants, in sweet and sour sauce.
The Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) lists a range of sharks as vulnerable, endangered, and critically endangered. This makes it an offense to kill, injure, take, trade, keep, or move any shark on these lists without a permit. Additionally, any action that will, or is likely to, have a significant impact on these sharks must be referred to the Minister under the EPBC Act.
As a result, many sharks are protected under both State and Commonwealth legislation. The Commonwealth should remove sharks from the vulnerable, endangered, and critically endangered lists , and elevate human lives accordingly. Doing so would enable States to implement cull programs and grow shark related industries without requiring permission from the Commonwealth government.
Recreational fishers are subject to personal possession limits for sharks. In Queensland, the possession of white, sand tiger, speartooth, and hammerhead sharks are prohibited. Grey reef and whitetip reef sharks are restricted to a possession limit of one per person, and subject to a maximum size restriction of 1.5m or an interdorsal length of 60cm. All other sharks are subject to a further restriction of one per person or two per boat.
In the Northern Territory sawfish, northern river, and speartooth sharks are protected. All other sharks are subject to a personal possession limit of three.
In West Australia, speartooth, white, grey nurse, and whale sharks are protected. All other sharks are limited to a maximum interdorsal length of 70cm and a personal possession limit of three.
State governments should lift limits on shark possession for fishers, and let this new shark industry flourish. This would also see improvements for a safer tourism industry, and help to encourage the yachting industry.
Crocodiles
Controlling crocodile populations is severely limited across Queensland, West Australia, and the Northern Territory. For example, in Queensland, “problem crocodiles” may only be removed by a holder of a crocodile management authority – which is a permit. A problem crocodile is one that the chief executive under the Nature Conservation Act 1992 considers is, or is likely to become, a danger to humans, has passed through a prevention barrier, or is a danger to aquaculture fisheries resources, stock, or a working dog.
The crocodile management authority is granted for two to three years. The crocodile may be euthanised only if the chief executive is satisfied it is necessary under the circumstances.
In 2018 the Katter Australia Party introduced The Safer Waterways Bill 2018 to the Queensland Legislative Assembly. The Bill would have allowed landowners to kill or relocate crocodiles on their property. Landowners would have been permitted to kill the crocodile or accept payment from another person who wishes to kill the crocodile. The Bill also aimed to create a crocodile industry through egg harvesting that would incentivise landowners to sustainably maintain crocodile numbers.
The Katter Bill did not pass parliament and was subsequently withdrawn. The Bill should be reintroduced into parliament, expanded to permit the killing of crocodiles for commercial industries, and be replicated by all state governments. Again, another potential industry that could assist our country economically while improving safety for ourselves and stock, and making Australia more attractive for a safer tourism Industry and yachting industry. The yachting industry is being lured to New Zealand, and our government tape is helping New Zealand gain this valuable industry ahead of us.
Stingrays
This is another ocean opportunity, to turn into advantage instead of such marine life posing a risk to people’s lives. Stingrays, once treated properly, turn into a much sought after soft leather, especially prized by the yachting industry.
Camels and feral Pigs
The culling of camels and wild pigs on private property is allowed by state governments, but is subject to numerous restrictions including on the use of poisons, firearms, and traps.
State government regulations do prohibit or limit the culling of camels and wild pigs on indigenous native title land and in national parks.
This inability to effectively control wild animal populations on national parks and native title land means private landowners can only legally cull animals once they are on their private property – which imposes a substantial time and resource cost and poses a danger to human health and life. Feral pigs populate quickly, the mother’s can bear around 6 to 9 piglets at once, then within a year, these 6 to 9 piglets are capable of multiplying themselves.
To address this issue, state government should automatically provide permits for private landowners to cull camels and wild pigs on native title land or in national parks where their properties are immediately adjacent to the corresponding allotments.camels can be used for camel meat and for their hair, which can when treated be made into softer coats than cashmere.
State governments have also used bounties to incentivise the control of feral animals. In West Australia, for example, under the Wild Dog Bounty Scheme, landholders can claim a $100 bounty per wild dog scalp. Some local government areas have extended this scheme to other animals, such as camels and donkeys. State governments should introduce bounties to help to control the number of feral camels and pigs which can carry diseases and pose a threat to water sources, livestock, infrastructure, and other animals.
Government Tape Reduction in Agriculture for Queensland
Native vegetation
Problem: Laws around ‘regrowth vegetation’ are preventing economic development.
Solution: The Vegetation Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2018 extended the definition of ‘high value regrowth vegetation’ to land that has not been cleared for 15 years. The previous definition applied to land that had not been cleared since 31 December 1989. The clearing of high value regrowth vegetation requires approval and is subject to several conditions including the setting aside of an exchange offset area by the landowner. The Queensland government should re-insert the previous definition of “high value regrowth vegetation” and, given the real risk of bushfires, retain the original date on 31 December 1989.
Regulation of agricultural and veterinary chemicals
Problem: Certain chemicals used by farmers and landowners must be registered in Australia and regulated under Australian law even where those chemicals have been approved by an overseas regulator of good repute.
Solution: Automatically allow the entry of agricultural and veterinary chemicals onto the Australia market where they have been approved by an overseas regulator of good repute, such as US or EU regulators.
Forced removal of infrastructure
Problem: Mining companies are forced to remove infrastructure on farmland or pastoral land even where the farmer or landowner benefits from that infrastructure, such as dams, concrete pads, bore holes, building structures, and fencing.
Solution: Either repeal Section 318ZB (2) and (4) of Queensland EP Act, or insert a provision into the Act which allows landowners to agree to receive their land, add to their land, or parts thereof, in a certain condition.
Bushfire protection
Problem: Regulation on farmers and (delete private ) landowners which undermines their ability to manage and mitigate bushfire risk.
Solution: Amend the definition of “essential management” under the Sustainable Planning Regulation 2009 which allows for vegetation clearing on freehold land so that “essential management” means “where it is reasonably necessary to remove or reduce the risk that the vegetation poses of serious personal injury or damage to infrastructure.” And Schedule 21 of Planning Regulation 2017 should be amended to allow clearing of up to 300m from infrastructure such as a property for firebreaks, instead of the current 30m.
For farmers and pastoralists who break regulation to protect their homes from bushfires, there should be no criminal terms, and whilst fines could remain they should be reduced to one tenth of what they are currently.
Bureaucratic enforcement and penalties for farmers and pastoralists
Problem: Heavy-handed and intrusive enforcement of native vegetation laws by bureaucrats.
Solution: Repeal “Division 1: Enforcement and Investigations” of the Vegetation Management Act 1999 and in its place reintroduce “Division 4B” as in force from 2013 to 2016 so that farmers can undertake vegetation clearing under self-assessable codes of conduct.
For farmers and pastoralists who break regulation to protect their homes from bushfires, there should be no criminal terms, and whilst fines could remain they should be reduced to one tenth of what they are currently set at.
Green activists targeting farmers
Problem: Green groups and left wing lawyers using legal action against farmers and pastoralists, which is stopping agricultural development, with funding partly provided by government.
Part Solution: Stop government funding of the Environmental Defenders Office which received $233,000 in 2018 in grants from QLD government.
Management of pests and wildlife
Problem: Regulations limit the ability of private landowners to manage pests and wildlife which can be a threat to livestock, crops, and add or human health, such as in relation to crocodiles, poisonous snakes, camels, wild and feral pigs, and species such as sharks and stingrays in oceans and river mouths.
Solution: Remove the requirement for a farmer or landowner to obtain a license to manage or eradicate pests and abundant wildlife, such as rats and kangaroos, under the Nature Conservation (Wildlife Management) Regulation 2006. And remove “least concern wildlife” from the definition as a “protected animal” by removing Section 71 (a)(vii) of the Nature Conservation Act 1992. (“Least concern wildlife” is wildlife that is abundant and not threatened or endangered.)
Problem: Primary producers who have applied for a Category H (handgun) licence have been consistently rejected by the Queensland Police Services’ Weapons Licencing Branch in recent years without explanation, which is compromising the ability of farmers to manage pest wildlife on their property and lessening their capacity to help animals suffering in great pain.
Solution: Add an exemption into Part 5 of the Weapons Act 1990 relaxing the standards for primary producers to obtain a Category H licence.
Red Tape Reduction in Agriculture for West Australia
Bushfire protection
Problem: Regulation on farmers and private landowners which undermines their ability to manage and mitigate bushfire risk.
Solution: Amend Schedule 6 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (EP Act) to remove the need for a permit in order to clear native vegetation to minimise the risk to buildings and infrastructure that could be posed by bushfires. In December 2017, the Environmental Protection Amendment (Clearing for Fire Risk Reduction) Bill 2017 was introduced as a Private Members Bill by a member of the Opposition Liberal Party. If passed, this Bill would allow clearing of native vegetation within 25 metres of a private dwelling-house without a permit to prevent the risk from a bushfire event. This Bill should be amended to increase the permit-free clearing zone from 25 metres to 300 metres, to broaden the permit-free clearing zone to include other infrastructure (such as storage facilities), and to allow for unfettered clearing where the property is adjacent to a national park.
Pastoral leases
Problem: The Land Administration Act 1997 imposes strict limitations on the use of land under pastoral lease, inhibiting investment and development.
Solution: Amend the definition of “pastoral purposes” under Section 93 of the Land Administration Act 1997 (LA Act) to include “other commercial activities as specified by pastoral lease holder”, and remove Division 5 of Part 7 which requires the acquisition of permits for the undertaking of activities which are not directly related to pastoral activities. For example, permits are required for a lessee to undertake “non-pastoral agricultural activity” such as in relation to crop, fodder, and horticultural activities; to undertake a ‘tourist activity’, such as guided bushwalking; and to clear vegetation for the purposes of “promoting the growth of indigenous pasture of otherwise facilitating or improving the working of the lease.”
Native vegetation
Problem: Native vegetation red tape stops productive land management.
Solution: remove “dead vegetation” from the definition of “native vegetation” as per sub-section 3(1) and section 51A of the EP Act. This means that farmers and private landowners could clear dead vegetation, like dead trees, without the need for a permit.
Also remove the “grazing of stock” from the definition of native vegetation “clearing” as per Section 51A of the EP Act, so that stock would be permitted to graze on pastoral land unencumbered by native vegetation laws. The clearing of native vegetation should also be permitted so as to allow for the construction of infrastructure on pastoral land, such as airstrips, stock yards, roads, pipes, workshops, garages, tanks, and dams.
Also remove sections 51H Clearing permit conditions and 51I Some kinds of conditions from the EP Act so that conditions cannot be attached to native vegetation permits. Permits should be granted on the basis that the land on which native vegetation clearing is taking place is private land, not public property, and governments should not have the ability to interfere in the manner in which clearing takes place once a permit is granted.
Agricultural irrigation
Problem: Red tape prevents development on land under pastoral lease. To build an irrigation pivot on pastoral land requires eight different permits and licences including a Water License, a License to construct a bore, a Clearing Permit, a Diversification Permit, a Development approval, a Building License, Crown Land Access Licenses, and General Purpose Leases and Development Leases over Crown Land.
Solution: Removing restrictions on the development of irrigation imposed under the LA Act. The definition of “pastoral purposes” under Section 93 of the LA Act should be changed to explicitly include irrigation pivots as a supplementary use of land inseparable from, essential to, or normally carried out in conjunction with the grazing of authorised stock. To the greatest extent possible, rather than requiring explicit permission through a licence or permit, development should be allowed as long as it is carried out to existing health and safety and workplace standards and regulators can conduct risk-based audits to ensure that these standards are met.
Management of pests and wildlife
Problem: Regulations limit the ability of private landowners to manage pests and wildlife which can be a threat to livestock, crops, and human health.
Solution: Remove the requirement for a farmer or landowner to obtain a fauna causing damage licence under the Biodiversity Conservation Regulations 2018 in order to control or manage native fauna which is causing, or is likely to cause, impact or potential impact on public health, economic damage, biodiversity damage or an impact or potential impact on biosecurity.
Restricted access vehicles
Problem: There are limitations on which roads Restricted Access Vehicles (RAV) (heavy vehicles and combinations which do not meet the standards set out in the Road Traffic (Vehicles) Regulations 2014) can travel on. This raises transport costs, particularly for small and medium-sized businesses.
Solution: While there is scope for roads to be added to the RAV road network through an application, this network should be expanded by establishing clear guidelines in the Guidelines for Approving RAV Access, Standard Restricted Access Vehicle Route Assessment Guidelines, and Tri Drive Route Assessment Guidelines for roads to be included in the network and automatically including such roads.
Heavy vehicle registration fees
Problem: As part of the West Australian government’s COVID-19 economic response, the increase in registration fees for light vehicles due to increase on 1 July 2020 was delayed. Heavy vehicle registration fees, however, increased by 2.5% on 10 July 2020. This increase was over the expected inflation rate of 2%, and well above the actual inflation rate in year to June 2020 of -0.3%. This increases costs of transport, with a pronounced effect on small and medium-sized businesses.
Solution: The 2.5% increase should be scrapped, and those who have already paid the increase should either be refunded the 2.5% increase, or have an equal credit applied to their next registration cost.
Problem: The north of west Australia is very inhospitable, high temperatures, uncertain rain, poisonous snakes and spiders, remoteness from city facilities including hospital care, etc. job opportunities are short amongst aboriginal people, and this helps to cause social problems.
Solution: A low tax, low tape zone for the north of west Australia, such special economic zones being successful in many other parts of the world. Income tax parity could be achieved by rebates, as has been used in the north before, to encourage people to live in this sparsely populated country.
Red Tape Reduction in Agriculture for South Australia
Grazing of native vegetation
Problem: There are a number of restrictions on livestock grazing of native vegetation under the Native Vegetation Act 1991. These restrictions impose an unnecessary burden on farmers. For example, native vegetation can be cleared through grazing if it is an ‘ongoing grazing practice’, meaning that practices have not changed over the past 10 years in terms of the area grazed, manner, rate and stock species. If a farmer wanted to change the species grazing in a specific area, or slightly increase the area being grazed, that would require the landowner to prepare a Management Plan under the Native Vegetation Council’s Guideline under Regulation 11(26) of the Native Vegetation Regulations 2017, the Management Plan would have to be approved by the Native Vegetation Council, and the grazing must be undertaken in accordance with the Management Plan.
Solution: Repeal the Guideline under Regulation 11(26) of the Native Vegetation Regulations 2017, repeal Schedule 1, Part 3, clause 26 of the Native Vegetation Regulations 2017, and amend Schedule 1, Part 1, clause 5 of the Native Vegetation Regulations 2017 to allow for grazing of native vegetation in all circumstances and regardless of the species which is grazing, the area being grazed, or any related matters.
Notification for clearing of native vegetation
Problem: Landowners are required to provide notification to the Native Vegetation Council before they can clear native vegetation in order to maintain an existing vehicle track or to establish a strip of cleared land on either or both sides of a new or existing fence. This prevents landowners from properly maintaining access to and around their property and prevents the maintenance of the condition of that property and infrastructure on the property.
Solution: Remove the requirement for landowners to notify the Native Vegetation Council of clearing in relation to maintaining vehicle tracks by amending Schedule 1, Part 2, Division 13, clause 1 of the Native Vegetation Regulations 2017 to exclude ‘maintaining an existing track’ as an instance in which clearance is permitted but notification is required. Additionally, Schedule 1, Part 2, Division 14 should be moved into Part 1 of Schedule 1 to remove the requirement for notification when clearing in relation to establishing a strip of cleared land on either or both sides of a new or existing fence.
Transport of GM crops
Problem: An exemption notice is required under Section 6(2)(a)(iii) of the Genetically Modified Crops Management Act 2004 to transport genetically modified seeds through South Australia. This imposes a barrier to, and increases the costs of, internal trade by imposing a complex process to obtain an exemption notice with the alternative of transporting genetically modified seeds between Australian states through coastal shipping.
Solution: Amend the Genetically Modified Crops Management Act 2004 to allow genetically modified seeds to be transported through South Australia. Rather than imposing specific conditions on exemption notices issued to individual proponents, general standards can be set out under the Act and its associated subsidiary legislation to regulate the transport of genetically modified seeds through South Australia, such as requirements to seal seeds in a labelled, unbreakable container.
Management of pests and wildlife
Problem: Regulations limit the ability of private landowner to manage pests and wildlife which can be a threat to livestock, crops, and add or human health.
Solution: Remove the requirement for landowners to obtain a Permit to Destroy Wildlife to manage native animals under the National Parks and Wildlife (Wildlife) Regulations 2019. This will allow landowners to manage native animals that are causing or likely to cause damage to property, livestock, crops, the environment, or human health. Additionally, the definition of “protected animal” under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 should be amended to exclude native animals which are abundant or considered to be a pest.
Pastoral leases
Problem: The Pastoral Land Management and Conservation Act 1989 imposes strict limitations on the use of land under pastoral lease, inhibiting investment and development.
Solution: Amend the definition of “pastoral purposes” under Section 3 of the Pastoral Land Management and Conservation Act 1989 to allow land holders to engage in activities tangentially related to the pasturing of stock, such as to allow for tourism activities, cropping, and any activity required to prepare for droughts such as the implementation of water infrastructure including dams.
Financial costs of native vegetation clearance
Problem: Under the Native Vegetation Act 1991, landholders must apply for consent to either the relevant Minister or the Native Vegetation Council to clear native vegetation. Under Part 5, Section 28(3)(ii)(C), applicants must pay a fee to have their application assessed. This imposes unnecessary costs on landholders in order to use their own land, diminishing their property rights.
Solution: Part 5, Section 28(3)(ii)(C) of the Native Vegetation Act 1991 should be deleted to remove the cost burden imposed on landholders to apply to clear native vegetation. This will restore some of their property rights infringed by the Native Vegetation Act 1991.
A time restriction on approvals should also be added to legislation which should provide for automatic approval of projects if they are not approved within three months of the application first being submitted. Grounds for appeal in relation denied permits should also be included in legislation.
Principles of native vegetation clearance
Problem: The Native Vegetation Act 1991 sets out the principles of native vegetation clearance, which should guide the Native Vegetation Council’s opinion of whether or not native vegetation is allowed to be cleared. Currently, these principles only consider the environmental impact of native vegetation clearance, without allowing for the consideration of social, economic, or commercial benefits.
Solution: Schedule 1, Part 1 of the Native Vegetation Act 1991 should be amended to include considerations of social, economic, and commercial benefits in deciding whether or not native vegetation should be cleared. This will encourage the Council to recognise the opportunity costs of environmental protection, many of which are borne by private landholders.
Further, restrictions should be removed for investing in critical economic and social infrastructure, including homes, workshops, garages, dams, tanks, fences, roads, pipes, airstrips, and for firebreaks around all critical infrastructure.
Environmental authorisation conditions
Problem: Under Part 6, Division 4, Clause 45 of the Environment Protection Act 1993, the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) can impose conditions on environmental authorisations. These conditions are often unnecessarily onerous, overly prescriptive, and process-oriented rather than risk-based and outcomes-oriented.
Solution: Remove the ability for the EPA to impose conditions based on discretion. Instead, conditions should be based on clearly stated principles set out in the Environment Protection Act 1993. Authorisations should be granted on the basis that the land on which development is taking place is privately-held land, not public property, and government should not have the ability to interfere in the manner in which development takes place once an authorisation is granted.
Red Tape Reduction in Agriculture for the Northern Territory
Native Vegetation
Problem: Native vegetation red tape on agriculturalists and private land owners stops productive land management.
Solution: Repeal Section 10(2) of the Environment Protection Act 2019 which requires development proposals to undergo a cumulative environmental impact assessment process, meaning that the environmental impacts of a given proposal must be assessed alongside the environmental impacts of other proposals under consideration. Related provisions which apply to infrastructure construction and fire breaks should also be removed.
The Pastoral Land Board should add clearing of “vegetation regrowth” and “dead vegetation” to the activities not requiring approval in the Northern Territory Pastoral Land Clearing Guidelines as enabled by Section 38 of The Pastoral Land Act 1992.
Bushfire protection
Problem: The ability of local farming communities to effectively manage bushfires is undermined by increased centralisation of BushfiresNT and restrictions on clearing firebreaks.
Solution: Amend the Land Clearing Guidelines in the Northern Territory Planning Scheme 2020 to allow for firebreaks around property boundaries of up to 30 metres for all properties. Boundaries are currently restricted to 5 metres on properties less than 8 hectares and 10 metres on properties more than 8 hectares. Further, all restrictions on protecting infrastructure with firebreaks should be removed.
Restrictions on productive land use
Problem: The productive use of land is undermined by leasehold arrangements that remove incentives for long-term investment and development and can subject land to native title requirements which can result in more red tape.
Solution: Under current arrangements, the option to convert pastoral leases to freehold land is included in some but not all lease agreements between the government and agriculturalists. The option to convert pastoral leases to freehold land should be made a default of all agreements as allowed by Section 55 of the Crown Lands Act 1992.
Expand the release of Crown land to freehold land as allowed by Part 3 Division 1 of the Crown Lands Act 1992.
Pastoral Leases
Problem: The Pastoral Land Act 1992 imposes strict limitations on the use of land under pastoral lease, inhibiting investment and development.
Solution: Amend the definition of “pastoral purposes” in Section 3 of The Pastoral Land Act 1992 by removing “or other non-dominant uses essential to” and “or inseparable from” to allow for agricultural uses not directly related to pastoral activities.
Remove Part 7 of The Pastoral Land Act 1992 which requires a non-pastoral use permits for activities such as cropping, horticulture, and forestry activities.
Private dams
Problem: Farmers are subjected to unnecessary restrictions on the construction of private dams. This undermines the ability of farmers to access water and make productive use of their land. Add, and to prepare for droughts and fires.
Solution: The Environment Minister should widen the specification of dams interfering with waterways that are allowed to be constructed without a permit as enabled by Section 40(10) of the Water Act 1992. The current exemption applies to rural dams with a bank height of less than 3 metres and a catchment area of less than 5 square kilometres. This should be increased to a bank height of 10 metres and a catchment area of less than 20 square kilometres.
Livestock transport
Problem: Inconsistency in livestock transport requirements and unnecessary weighing requirements increases travel times which increases the transport costs and undermines animal welfare.
Solution: Remove the requirement for cattle trucks to be weighed at government bridges by amending page 90 if the Heavy Vehicles Driver’s Handbook and repealing Section 64(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1949.
Create a Special Economic Zone in Northern Territory.
Problem: The territory is suffering economically, with consequent crime and serious social issues affecting aboriginal communities.
Solution: A low government tape and tax zone be established in the Northern Territory, to encourage investment, businesses, opportunities and jobs. Such zones have been successful in the many countries they have been tried. Rebates could be applied, as have been used in the north in the past for income tax, encouraging people to work and live in the Territory.
Red Tape Reduction in Agriculture for New South Wales
Bushfire protection
Problem: Regulation on farmers and private landowners which undermines their ability to manage and mitigate bushfire risk.
Solution: Expand the radius around buildings for clearing to mitigate bushfire risk by amending the 10/50 Vegetation Clearing Code of Practice rule under the Rural Fires Act 1997. The current code allows for clearing of trees within 10 metres and the clearing of shrubs within 50 metres of residential accommodation, high-risk facilities, and farm sheds without seeking approval. The 10/50 rule should be replaced with a 25/100 change to 50 to 300 meter rule allowing the clearing of trees within 25 change to 50 metres and the clearing of shrubs within change to 300 metres 100 metres of residential accommodation, high-risk facilities, farm sheds, and other associated infrastructure.
Native vegetation
Problem: Native vegetation red tape stops productive land management.
Solution: Remove Section 60B(3) of the Local Land Services Act 2013 that extends the definition of native vegetation to dead vegetation. This means that farmers and private landowners could clear dead vegetation, such as dead trees, without the need for a permit.
Compensate landowners for offset requirements under the Biodiversity Offsets Scheme. Landowners should not be expected to cover the full cost of providing biodiversity outcomes for public amenity.
Repeal Section 47(c) of the Land Management (Native Vegetation) Code 2018 which prohibits the clearing of native trees and shrubs which fall under Parts 2 and 3 of the Code, and includes matters such as the thinning of woody native vegetation.
Repeal Section 13.28 of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 which places the onus of proof on the landowner to prove clearing was lawfully conducted.
Grazing in National Parks
Problem: The NSW government does not currently allow grazing in national parks. Allowing farmers to graze stock in national parks would add value to the agricultural industry and help mitigate bushfire risk by controlling fuel loads.
Solution: The Minister for Energy and the Environment should permit grazing in National Parks. The Minister has the discretion to do so under Section 40(2) of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 No 80.
Koala State Environment Protection Policy
Problem: Landowners are having their property rights curtailed by environmental policies such as the Koala State Environment Protection Policy (SEPP). The proposed Koala SEPP will widen the definition of Core Koala Habitat and expand areas subject to increased regulation. Farmers with land designated as Core Koala Habitat will be required to seek approvals for farming activities, such as erecting a shed, or pay for assessments to prove their land is not Core Koala Habitat.
Solution: The NSW government should not proceed with the proposed Koala SEPP.
Management of pests and wildlife
Problem: Regulations limit the ability of private landowners to manage pests and wildlife which can be a threat to livestock, crops, and human health.
Solution: Remove “non-threatened native animals”, such as kangaroos, rats, and poisonous snakes from the definition of “protected animals” under Schedule 5 of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (NSW), and remove licensing requirements for non-commercial culling of kangaroos.
Water Management
Problem: Farmers have had their irrigation allocations heavily reduced with many having no allocation at all despite dams being near capacity.
Solution: The Murray Darling Basin Plan has fundamentally failed to balance environmental outcomes with the water needs of farming and Basin communities. The Plan should either be reformed or replaced in order to increase water allocation to farmers. Agricultural purposes should be given priority allocation in dry years over environmental uses. The plan should cease water recovery from agricultural purposes. The plan should not allow for flooding of private land with environmental flows without the consent or compensation of landowners.