Most people would understand that the pet gripe of farmers is unnecessary red tape and that their common enemy is the army of shiny-arsed bureaucrats who seek to enforce that red tape. But more and more of that red tape is actually green – rules and regulations that require farmers to take more and more steps and spend more and more money on ‘protecting’ the environment.
Recently, in a rare display of co-operation, the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Industry Group and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry warned that ‘green tape’ is jeopardising $900 billion in resources and infrastructure projects. They have demanded that state and federal governments slash unwieldy environmental assessments and approvals processes. In making this call, they gave an example of one major mainland resources project that took more than two years to get environmental approvals, involved more than 4000 meetings and presentations with interest groups, and prompted a 12,000-page report. The project was approved with more than 1200 state conditions and 300 federal conditions, with a further 8000 sub-conditions.
So it is not just farmers who are complaining about burgeoning green tape.
Nobody argues that farmers have a basic duty of care to ensure their activities don’t unnecessarily impact on the natural environment. But things are getting right out of hand when community expectations are so high that farmers can’t make a living off the land they own, maintain and pay rates on because of more and more ‘environmental protection’ requirements.
We used to hear a lot about the triple bottom line – balancing economic, social and environmental concerns. Most Tasmanian farmers do that on a daily basis. In fact, farmers are probably the biggest private investors in environmental activities in the state, spending large amounts of their own money and time to achieve outcomes that benefit both the environment and the community at large.
However, these days, we see more and more emphasis on things environmental and less and less interest in the other two legs of the stool – namely economic and social outcomes. The forestry IGA is a perfect example of this – but that’s a story for another day.
A perfect example of what frustrates farmers was a recent call from the Southern Tasmanian Councils Authority seeking comment on a draft set of “biodiversity offsets guidelines”.
Apparently representative of the 12 local government bodies below the 42nd parallel at Oatlands, this mob has dreamt up some guidelines “for the use of biodiversity offsets by council planners, NRM officers, applicants, developers and their consultants”. These guidelines would “assist in providing for improved management of biodiversity values and achieve net gain in the extent and quality of threatened native vegetation and threatened species habitat that is securely protected and effectively managed in southern Tasmania”.
Our first question was not, as might have been expected, what on earth was meant by a ‘biodiversity offset’. Unfortunately, we spend so much time dealing with public servants at all levels of government that we’re actually quite fluent in ‘bureaucratese’. Rather, we were dismayed by what seems to a fourth – and unelected – layer of government in what is without doubt the most over-governed state in the nation.
Tasmanian farmers are responsible for approximately 80 per cent of the land in private ownership in Tasmania; yet the TFGA was not consulted in the development of the draft guidelines, nor were we even made aware that this process was underway. In fact, as far as we can tell, the process was conducted behind closed doors by an unelected and unrepresentative group of bureaucrats and ENGO representatives with no individual landholder representation at all.
Perhaps they haven’t heard of the federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, which already imposes significant biodiversity protection requirements on landholders. Perhaps they haven’t heard of the Resource Management and Planning System, which already provides a general offsets principles guide. Or the Forest Practices Code; or the Assessment Committee for Dam Construction process; or the chemical use regulations that require buffer zones and offsets? I could go on … and on.
There is no need for another layer of unproductive and costly green tape.
We are not aware of any significant failing of the current biodiversity regulations at any level with respect to agricultural land use, and we do not accept there is a need for another overlay of regulatory bureaucracy. Even if there had been any egregious breakdowns in current rules and regulations, it would surely be better to address these specific failings, rather than develop yet another new and stand-alone system.
We were of the understanding that the state government was aiming to achieve more consistency in planning guidelines across the state; and so we find it difficult to understand why these guidelines have been developed for only one area of the state. Can we expect to see a similar process about their colleagues in the north and north-west of Tasmania?
No wonder we have more public servants per head of population than any other state in Australia. We really don’t need a further layer of governance in a landscape that is already significantly over-governed.
Give us a break.
