Vegetation Management (Clearing for Relevant Purposes) Amendment Bill 2018

Argued the bill does not go far enough for landholders, promoted the LNP's alternative vegetation management proposals which she said would deliver more certainty and less red tape for high-value agriculture and fodder harvesting.

“The LNP proposals are more workable for landholders. They reduce red tape, deliver that certainty that landholders are absolutely craving in this area and do so much more than what is proposed in this bill.”— 2020-02-04View Hansard

As a KAP member who helped introduce the bill, strongly supports it as necessary to give landowners appeal rights when vegetation clearing applications are rejected, and to allow fodder harvesting during drought.

“This bill is also about giving landowners the right of appeal under section 22A of the act where the application has been rejected and drags on without even the chief executive making a decision.”— 2019-11-26View Hansard

As the bill's sponsor, argued the amendments are moderate compromises needed to allow rural industries to prosper, improve land management practices, and provide fairness through feedback on rejected applications.

“These amendments are really just getting rid of these silly anomalies that are in the act. By doing that, the industry has a vast array of activities it can conduct.”— 2019-04-02View Hansard

Opposed the bill, arguing it provides little support for long-term economic growth or sustainable environmental protections and would strip accountability measures that protect Queensland's natural environment and biodiversity.

“The amendments put forward in this private member's bill will look only to abolish the strong framework already in place and, if anything, strip any accountability and transparency measures that are there to protect our greatest asset, our natural environment and biodiversity.”— 2020-02-04View Hansard

Opposes the bill, arguing there is already an appeal process through the Judicial Review Act and that the refusal rate is only 0.3 per cent, making additional mechanisms unnecessary.

“After 20 years, Queenslanders are well and truly familiar with this law and they are working well with it. The vast majority of landholders are getting on with the job.”— 2019-11-26View Hansard

Opposed the bill as seeking to reinstate broadscale clearing provisions that were removed by the government's 2018 vegetation management reforms, arguing current appeal mechanisms are adequate and refusal rates are very low.

“This private member's bill should not be supported and I will outline the reasons for that, despite the very eloquent reasoning by the member for Traeger.”— 2019-04-02View Hansard

As the bill's sponsor, defended the modest reforms as a compromise acknowledging Labor had 'won the war' on vegetation management, but seeking fairness for landholders including allowing grazing on already-approved high-value agriculture land and improving access to mulga for drought fodder.

“I tried to present a bill that met the government halfway and said, 'Look, we understand you have won the war. We do not agree with it—we hate the fact that you won that war and it has created a lot of bitterness and animosity out in the bush—but we are stuck with that now. Let's try to tidy up these laws.'”— 2020-02-04View Hansard

Supports the bill as a first step in restoring balance and acknowledging that primary producers deserve fair treatment and the basic right to appeal departmental decisions.

“The right of appeal is a common principle of law in this state and it is a principle that should apply to every Queenslander regardless of their occupation or where they live.”— 2019-11-26View Hansard

Supported the bill to address gaps in legislation that constrain primary producers from clearing land for legitimate purposes and to enable access to a reasonable appeals process.

“This bill has been developed to address gaps within the existing legislative framework that constrain the ability of primary producers to clear land for legitimate purposes and enables access to a reasonable appeals process.”— 2019-04-02View Hansard

Opposes the bill, arguing that the need for further legislative amendment has not been established and defending the Palaszczuk government's 2018 vegetation management reforms.

“The need for further legislative amendment as proposed by the Vegetation Management (Clearing for Relevant Purposes) Amendment Bill 2018 has not been established and, therefore, I do not support the bill.”— 2019-11-26View Hansard

Supports the bill as a committee member, arguing that the right of appeal should be basic and that western producers should be allowed to access mulga during drought to keep stock alive.

“As I said before, a right of appeal should be a basic right.”— 2019-11-26View Hansard

Opposes the bill as inserting unnecessary provisions, noting there is already an appeal mechanism through the Judicial Review Act and that stakeholders want consistency and clarity in the existing laws.

“The Vegetation Management (Clearing for Relevant Purposes) Amendment Bill 2018 attempts to insert unnecessary provisions into the Vegetation Management Act. The need for further legislative change has not been established by those opposite.”— 2019-11-26View Hansard

Supports the bill as a commonsense proposal to improve transparency and accountability, arguing that farmers deserve the right to appeal decisions affecting their livelihood.

“If it is good enough to appeal a traffic infringement, surely it is reasonable that farmers and graziers have a right to appeal in relation to a decision that affects their very livelihood.”— 2019-11-26View Hansard

Opposes the bill as Minister for Transport, arguing the case has not been made out given existing appeal rights and the very low refusal rate of 0.3 per cent, and defending the government's election mandate on vegetation management.

“The case has not been made out. This was well debated last year in this place. It is a matter that this government took to the election. We have a mandate.”— 2019-11-26View Hansard

Supports the bill as a committee member, arguing farmers deserve transparency and an avenue for review when their applications are rejected.

“The amendment under debate tonight will make a positive difference to our agricultural industry in Queensland. I strongly encourage everyone in the House today to support its passing to allow our farmers the transparency they deserve.”— 2019-11-26View Hansard

Strongly supports the bill, arguing Labor's vegetation management laws are damaging to primary producers and that the bill will compel accountability and transparency in departmental decisions.

“Good environmental legislation at its heart is about stewardship. Countries around the world who are the most successful at environmental protection recognise that land ownership confers stewardship.”— 2019-11-26View Hansard

Supports the bill as making commonsense changes to enable a reasonable appeals process for farmers whose applications are rejected under section 22A.

“This bill aims to improve transparency and accountability in relation to unfair and restrictive laws. It makes commonsense changes and the LNP will not oppose the bill.”— 2019-11-26View Hansard

Strongly supports the bill as a KAP member, arguing farmers deserve the right to appeal rejected applications and that the regulatory burden on fodder harvesting during drought is harming farmers.

“What we are trying to achieve is to give our farmers the right to appeal. It is such a great thing for our farmers to have the ability to appeal.”— 2019-11-26View Hansard

Supports the bill, arguing Labor's vegetation management laws have aggravated drought conditions and restricted farmers' ability to manage mulga and feed stock during the prolonged drought.

“Labor's laws have had the effect of aggravating drought conditions by drawing more moisture from the soil. They have increased the number of trees and that has also increased the severity of the drought.”— 2019-11-26View Hansard