Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Liz Innes on March 2, 2010 at 4:42pm

Hi Alex

I have just drafted my submission together and Im getting a friend to help proof read it but I put these reccomendations in and would like any feed back

A) Repeal all Native Vegetation Legislation thus restoring land rights to farmers.

B) Set in place an incentive scheme that recognises and financially rewards landowners for maintaining and enhancing native vegetation on their property.

C) Ensure that industry and the wider community pay for any compensation or incentive to landowners ie: "If you want my land then pay for it "

D) Commit to the provision of Just Terms and insist that where land tenure is compromised that compensation is payed.

I won't be back on line till later but again any feed back thanks.

Permalink Reply by Ian Gordon Hampton on March 2, 2010 at 6:48pm

Liz I think - good. Also, I think incentives always "work" better than "punishment" (for want of a better word...) incentives do bring about creativity (and a cooperative spirit) ie an incentive is a positive motivation - "locking up" probably results in an overall "less good" outcome in terms of the public good that is meant to come about from native legislation vegetation..

Permalink Reply by Julene Haack on March 2, 2010 at 9:11pm

Thanks for sharing your thoughts: Excellent.

I've started my submission and was going to discuss these negative outcomes of the legislation:
1. Erosion of property rights (which are foundational to freedom)
2. Loss of productive farmland, when we have an obligation to feed ourselves and others.

For recommendations, good list from Liz. The Productivity Commission from 2004 agrees. I'm thinking of attaching the Overview to my submission. Here's the link http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/77863/overview.pdf

Regarding the wider community paying, my mind has been pondering an "environment levy", which would be something like the Medicare Levy. (Last financial year the Medicare Levy, at 1.5%, brought in over $8 billion.) It probably wouldn't be very popular, though ....

Julene

Permalink Reply by Ian Gordon Hampton on March 3, 2010 at 5:23am

Well done Julene and thanks for the link - "stuff" that I instinctinctively "felt" (and had been told) ie "native vegetation" laws are a BLUNT instrument and counterproductive is there!!!!

Permalink Reply by Alex Davidson on March 3, 2010 at 8:22am

Thanks for drawing attention to the PC report. The illustration showing the extent of native vegetation says it all – why do we even need to be talking about ‘protecting’ native vegetation when it covers most of the country?

However I don’t like the way they fenced off the issue of private property rights from the outset: “The inquiry is not about arguing the case for or against promotion of environmental objectives - the desired extent, location and condition of native vegetation is for the community to determine”.

The proper way for ‘the community’ to express the desired extent, location, and condition of native vegetation is to let each individual owner freely manage it on his own property without outside interference. In other words, to respect private property rights. Only then will we see what it is that ‘the community’ truly wants. Anything else is simply the imposition of ends that some want, but are not prepared to pay for, upon others, in a process that undermines the foundations of our society.

I've come across this type of thing a lot in my dealings with government. The premises must never be challenged - debate is only permitted on the detail and methods of execution. Reminds me of stories of the SS debating over the most efficient way to murder...

I note that the PC report used the term ‘landholder’ throughout, as does the wording in the Terms of Reference to the current inquiry. Another example of the subtle way language is used to shift perception and meaning – we are no longer landowners, but merely landholders, compelled to follow the plans of the true owners, the government...

Permalink Reply by Liz Innes on March 3, 2010 at 10:24am

Hi Alex

very relevant. I like what you said about landholder Ive been on about that for years. All through my submission I have refered to us as landowners and I hope that this gets up their noses just a little(well maybe alot)

Permalink Reply by Julene Haack on March 4, 2010 at 7:11pm

You're right about the terminology - there is a difference. I have been using landholder and landowner interchangeably. I'll fix that in my proof-reading!
Julene

Permalink Reply by Julene Haack on March 7, 2010 at 12:00pm

Got mine in Friday afternoon - so pleased to have got that done!
Julene

Permalink Reply by Mark Berry on March 11, 2010 at 3:24pm

Hi Liz,
Was just about to email you to see if you had drafted a submission ... and then I found this excellent thread. Thanks, I'll try to put something together before the 17th.
Mark

Permalink Reply by Mark Berry on March 11, 2010 at 3:37pm

Another point about terminology in submissions etc.
These infringements on property right affect many industries and not just farmers. As Peter has highlighted, it has affected the fishing industry and in our own case, it could seriously impact on our Rural Tourism business, even though our land is not particularly suitable for farming and is prposed to be re-zoned E3 under the NSW draft LEP standard Instrument. It could widen the appeal if we are mindful that this can affect all sort of property owners, in our communications.
Mark