Just Grounds Community

Real People - facing the forgotten issues with friendship and a little fun.

Charged for controlling parthenium

Property Rights Australia chairman, Joanne Rea said it is beyond belief that the Qld government would prosecute anyone for controlling weeds especially parthenium, a declared noxious, exotic weed which spreads aggressively into neighbouring property if not treated.

This follows hot on the heels of the capricious prosecution of Trenton Hindman of SW Queensland for renovating country infested with the invasive woody weed, turkey bush.

This reveals a pattern of unacceptable activism by some departmental officers. “What is the agenda of the State Government in pursuing people who have, in essence, done nothing wrong? Is common sense ever going to return to the pursuit of justice in this State?” Mrs. Rea, Chairman of Property Rights Australia said.”

The above quote was included in an article on page 9 in the 29^th December 2011 issue of the QCL written by Troy Rowlings called, Moore grazier defends weed ‘damage’ charge.

As the QCL article has not been posted at farmonline it has now been scanned and added as an attached file at the end of this discussion starter.

Peter Leo lives on the farm that his family first settled in 1897 not far out of the hamlet of Linville. In 1911 a railway corridor was cut through the farm and was used for this purpose until its close in 1989. Then in 2008 the Department of Infrastructure and Planning (DIP) took a sub-lease from the Department of Transport and Main Roads for the rail corridor land which was previously known as the Brisbane Valley Railway Line that ran from Wulkuraka Railway Station to Blackbutt. The DIP then started to develop the Brisbane Valley Rail Trail as part of the Queensland Government’s South East Queensland Active Trails Strategy and community greenspace network. The rail trail is supposed to be for walking, cycling and horse riding.

Photo sourced from ATHRA

The start of Peter Leo’s recent problems was the floods in January 2011; the same floods known nationally and internationally for the havoc they wreaked along the Lockyer Creek and the Brisbane River. After the flood waters had long gone, weeds germinated. In a phone call that I had with Peter he related not only of the abnormal amount of weeds but the variety of them, some that had not been seen before. Amongst the normal weeds such as noogoora burr were paterson curse and parthenium. The parthenium plants were found on the rail trail and Peter sent a sample to the Queensland Herbarium who confirmed that the plants were indeed parthenium.

The Brisbane Valley Rail Trail employs a Trail Ranger to whom Peter Leo reported the weeds on at least two occations but no action was forthcoming. Peter wrote a letter to the Minister whose portfolio included the DIP. When a new minister, Paul Lucas took over this department a letter was despatched to him as well. In all his efforts to have action taken about weeds on the rail trail after 8 months Peter received no satisfactory response. An unwelcomed response was for the Director, Resource and Landscape in DIP, Steve MacDonald, sending a letter of demand for records of any agreement that the family had with the railway. An unlikely event that even if there was any agreement of the chances of documents surviving from 1911.

By mid-August the weeds were out of control, Peter did not wish for the weeds to go to seed so he decided to control the weeds by the means of a tractor & a disc implement to plough the weeds in. “A light harrow job””, as Peter called it. At the end of August parthenium was found by Peter & a friend on the rail trail. Peter sprayed the parthenium and also ploughed again. This was the first time that he had ever found parthenium but controlling weeds and encouraging natural grasses had been practiced by Peter along this corridor ever since the railway had left.

On this map the railway is shown as a dotted line. Peter Leo's farm is just south of Linville.

After the weed control had been done the Trail Ranger turned up & reported it to the DIP. As a result a policeman paid a visit to Peter Leo, the policeman inspected the situation & left presumably satisfied that no charge was warranted. However the next day the policeman came back with the news that he had been instructed to charge Peter Leo. Peter found himself taken in, finger printed, a swab taken for DNA and charged. Peter had been told to plead guilty and take a $100 fine. In a state of disbelieve and indignant at his treatment Peter told me that he decided, as he put it, “I’m not a criminal; I am not pleading guilty.” He is convinced that the orders to charge him came from at a higher level in the DIP. The minister Paul Lucas was well aware of the situation, in fact Peter was told that “Paul Lucas had hit the roof”. Peter believes that this is a “political charge and that he has been subjected to intimation” and also that, “Independent discretion has been taken away from the police.”

If this is what occurred it is a very serious situation and of great concern for the administration of justice in Queensland.

Charging a person for controlling a declared noxious, exotic weed such as parthenium is bad enough but what is even more incredible is the charge brought against him, that he has to appear before a court for mention on January 6^th – wilful damage.

Peter Leo was told that he had damaged the integrity of the rail trail.

Peter Leo told me that he “just wants to be left alone”, but I can tell you from listening to him that he will not roll over on this one just to be rid of the situation as soon as he can; this is one determined man.

UPDATE #1 QCL article added as an attached file (see below)

UPDATE #2 Peter Leo's trail date has been set on the 13^th April at 9.30am at the Toogoolawah court house.

UPDATE #3

There are always two sides to a story and it now appears that evidence will be presented at the court case that is contrary to the account told by Peter Leo. We will have to wait until the court case to get to the bottom of this situation.

Tags: PRA, activism, control, intimation, justice, parthenium, paterson+curse, property, rights, weed

Attachments:

2011.12.29_QCL_Moore grazier.pdf, 505 KB

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by John Mikkelsen on January 2, 2012 at 7:12am

What an incredible story, Dale. Peter Leo deserves thanks and payment for the work he did to remove a noxious weed which the government apparently was not prepared to take any action over. This deserves widespread publicity but that is doubtful. Great story for an ABC doco or current affairs programs.

Permalink Reply by Joanne Rea on January 2, 2012 at 8:13am

From the links to brochures I see that horse riding is expected to be one of the major activities on the Rail Trail.

No horselover would want Parthenium on their trail. In quantity it makes horses itch, it is useless and inedible and is easily transported back to their home paddock where it can spread rapidly.

This weed is so aggressive that when most responsible property owners who do not have the weed in quantity find even one plant, they take immediate measures to destroy it.

In Queensland, Parthenium is a Class 2 declared plant. Under the Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Act 2002, Class 2 declaration requires landholders to control pests on the land and waters under their control. A local government may serve a notice upon a landholder requiring control of declared pests.

Obviously the State Government does not believe that this requirement to control applies to them.

According to CSIRO Paterson’s Curse is toxic to most grazing animals and is Australia's worst broadleaf temperate pasture weed.

It contains pyrrolizidine alkaloids that are poisonous to livestock

http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Food-and-Agriculture/Patersons-curse.aspx

Various levels of government are not fulfilling their obligations to maintain their property and they are careless in allowing this lack of maintenance to encroach on other people’s property rights.

Permalink Reply by Rory Donnellan on January 2, 2012 at 8:25am

So anyone who attempts to control noxious weeds is now guilty of "wilful damage"?

Is this what happens when greenies in our government smoke too much wacky weed?

Does the DIP warrant inclusion on our ever-growing list of greenie-terrorist organisations - UN, DEC, DERM, GetUp etc etc?

Permalink Reply by Rory Donnellan on January 2, 2012 at 9:09am

The police arrested the wrong person. The minister should have been fingerprinted, swabbed and charged.

Permalink Reply by John Mikkelsen on January 2, 2012 at 9:57am

It's just one more example of the sheer arrogance and incompetence of the bunch of misfits passed off as our state government. The sanctioning of environmental vandalism on a huge scale in Gladstone Harbour is another which is gaining more national media exposure as seen in two excellent articles in the Weekend Australian linked to in my long-running forum discussion.

http://justgroundsonline.com/xn/detail/3535428:Comment:332077

Permalink Reply by Lynette McDougall on January 2, 2012 at 12:40pm

The rail trail is not an easement (this word is mis-used so many times it drives me insane), so it is not part of Peter Leo's property and he has no rights to undertake the type of work he did on it to control the weeds, despite him doing it with the best of intentions.

The former railway line would have been resumed in 1911 and would have been held as either vested railway land or freehold owned by the Commissioner for Railways. In the late 1990s all the rail corridor land in Queensland was turned into a single Perpetual Lease held by the Department of Transport and Main Roads, so the tenure of the land running through Peter's property would have changed from whatever it was before to Perpetual Lease. The Brisbane Valley Line is sub-leased to the Department of Local Government and Planning (which I think is the current name for what used to the Department of Infrastructure and Planning) for it to maintain the rail trail for hiking, and horse riding. As the sub-lessee the Department of Local Government is responsible for controlling noxious weeds.

Permalink Reply by Heather Wallace on January 2, 2012 at 12:53pm

Lynette... this does not forgive the lack of action on a noxious weed. Peter had tried in vain to get the problem sorted. I note that you seem to have the inside running on all the reasons why Peter should not have done the weed treatment... how about a bit of inside running on why the govt didn't do the treatment.

Lynette McDougall said:

The rail trail is not an easement (this word is mis-used so many times it drives me insane), so it is not part of Peter Leo's property and he has no rights to undertake the type of work he did on it to control the weeds, despite him doing it with the best of intentions.

The former railway line would have been resumed in 1911 and would have been held as either vested railway land or freehold owned by the Commissioner for Railways. In the late 1990s all the rail corridor land in Queensland was turned into a single Perpetual Lease held by the Department of Transport and Main Roads, so the tenure of the land running through Peter's property would have changed from whatever it was before to Perpetual Lease. The Brisbane Valley Line is sub-leased to the Department of Local Government and Planning (which I think is the current name for what used to the Department of Infrastructure and Planning) for it to maintain the rail trail for hiking, and horse riding. As the sub-lessee the Department of Local Government is responsible for controlling noxious weeds.

Permalink Reply by Lynette McDougall on January 2, 2012 at 1:03pm

I have absolutely no knowledge about the weed problem on the rail trail. I only know it is not now, nor has it been since the land was acquired in 1911 for the railway, part of Peter's property.

I do know that property owners are responsible for controlling noxious weeds on their land. The State is not immune from having to do so.

Permalink Reply by Heather Wallace on January 2, 2012 at 1:05pm

So when the State is found to be negligent should all and one turn a blind eye?

Lynette McDougall said:

I have absolutely no knowledge about the weed problem on the rail trail. I only know it is not now, nor has it been since the land was acquired in 1911 for the railway, part of Peter's property.

I do know that property owners are responsible for controlling noxious weeds on their land. The State is not immune from having to do so.

Permalink Reply by Lynette McDougall on January 2, 2012 at 1:11pm

No - but it doesn't give you the right to do whatever you want on land you don't own. The local council is responsible for ensuring land owners (including the State) comply with noxious weed control.

Permalink Reply by John Mikkelsen on January 2, 2012 at 1:41pm

According to the report, he reported it to the appropriate authorities more than once and no action was taken. So according to the laws of the state, he should have done nothing and let it seed and spread to his land and probably others along the length of the horse trail, then he and others affected would be compelled to eradicate it. How stupid is that? He should have been paid for his efforts to prevent that happening, not prosecuted.

Permalink Reply by Beverley Prescott on January 2, 2012 at 1:47pm

Hi, Lynette,

I have always respected your information and still do. I always look forward to your very correct information and do not wish to dismiss that at all.

However, regarding weeds, this is another example of Government Departments being run by bureaucrats making rules from their airconditioned city offices. They list National Parks etc. so that others cannot enter or look after them whilst they themselves do not have the staff to do the maintenance that they should be doing. I would be very annoyed if I had property next to a national park which was not being cared for which is the case of many many people (in Queensland at least).

Most farmers are responsible people who try to keep their farms free of weeds and yet over the past few years since the Greenies have taken over, good people are not allowed to do what they have done over the years to keep properties weed free.

If the Governments want to resume all this land, at least have the people on the ground to look after it.

People who have property bordering Government owned land are complaining that National Parks are not doing their job properly in caring for the land any more.

I have sent this discussion for others to read as well as I feel it is so unjust, not knowing the particular case other than reading it here of course.

It is like the fellow who was fined prior to the Victorian Bushfires for clearing the trees around his house. He was one whose house survived the fires. That was the most hideous case as well. I'll bet he was not refunded the fine though.