Immediately after the March 9 state election, re-elected Premier Colin Barnett stated his desire to pay more attention to the plight of WA's farmers, many of whom were doing badly. Low milk prices, poor seasonal conditions, restrictions on the live animal trade, high labour costs, competition for labour with the mining industry, an aging farm population, loss of services as rural populations decline: clearly, many farmers were finding it hard to make a profit.
I don't have answers to all of the problems facing our farmers, but one issue has been quietly ignored by successive governments. I explained this issue and provided a solution in an email I sent to the Premier on April 10. I have yet to receive an acknowledgement or a reply, so I have to ask if the government is really serious about helping farmers. Here's what I said to the Premier:
Attention: Premier Colin Barnett
cc: Hon Albert Jacob, Minister for the Environment
Dear Premier,
May I congratulate you on your strong win at the March 9 election? It's
pleasing that you have a clear majority in the Legislative Assembly to
allow you to govern without the uncertainties that currently exist in
our federal Parliament.
In recent weeks, you have made public statements of support for farmers
who are doing it tough in the wheatbelt. I wish to raise with you an
issue that is a legacy of the Gallop government and which is causing
significant financial harm to a small group of genuine farmers
throughout the south west land division of WA.
One of the great injustices arising from the time of the Gallop
government during its term from 2001 to 2005 was the clearing ban
imposed on private property owners in WA. As you are aware, I was the
shadow minister for the environment at the time and I was basically lied
to by the then environment minister Judy Edwards who said the ban would
have a low impact on the farming community. By the time the extent and
impact of the ban became clear in about 2004, I had resigned from the
Liberal Party for reasons that I'm also sure you're well aware of.
Nonetheless, the fact remains that between 50 and 200 farmers have from
25 to 75% of individual farming properties covered in native vegetation
and hence incapable of providing them with an economic return on the
financial investment they or their predecessors made when purchasing the
land.
The problem therefore is three-fold. First, these 50 to 200 farmers are
unable to earn an income from land for which the owners had a reasonable
expectation of being able to turn into economically productive farms at
the time of purchase.
Second, if these farmers are attempting to manage their areas of native
vegetation to protect environmental values, they are paying money out of
their own pockets to protect assets which were determined by the Gallop
government and hence, by implication, all successive governments
including your own, to provide public benefits.
Third, if these farmers are unable or unwilling to allocate money to
adequately manage the bushland remaining on their properties, then the
public of WA are losing environmental values from native vegetation
which an act of Parliament had deemed to be worthy of protection by
imposing a ban on clearing.
It is my understanding that, of the 50 to 200 farmers seriously
disadvantaged by clearing bans, many (possibly a majority) are in the
midlands area along the Swan Coastal Plain between Gingin and Dongara.
However, a significant number are in the central and eastern wheatbelt
where financial pressures are the greatest.
I believe the Royalties for Regions program is ideally suited to paying
compensation to this relatively small number of farmers affected by the
clearing ban. Your government, possibly through a Parliamentary
committee, could urgently investigate the seriousness of this issue with
a view to buying from aggrieved farmers those parcels of bushland which
are currently a financial millstone around their necks.
Clearly, some minimum conditions would need to be imposed on such land
purchases, for example, the minimum area of bushland on an individual
property title would need to be at least 50 hectares and would need to
constitute at least 25% of the area of the property. The option of
paying these farmers an amount of money per hectare to manage their
bushland should also need to be considered, together with a government
subsidy to fence off bushland from productive farmland, recognising that
fencing is undoubtedly the largest cost facing the owners of bushland on
private properties. It may even be desirable for government to buy
suitable parcels of bushland affected by the clearing ban and then pay
adjoining farmers to manage the bushland on an on-going basis.
To act now to correct this injustice will be seen by the WA community as
a decisive, fair and positive way of helping farmers in need, while also
protecting the environmental values of remnant bushland in farming areas
that have generally been extensively cleared over the past 100 years.
I commend this suggestion to you.
Regards
Bernie Masters
Member for Vasse 1996-2005
No comments:
Post a Comment