How_Is_Land_Clearing_in_Australia_an_Example_of_the_Conflicts_Between_the_Needs_of_the_State_and_the_Needs_of_the_Individual_

Land clearing, which is a term that describes the removal of native vegetation or habitats, is not a new concept in Australia. In fact land clearing has been happening for at least 200 hundred years, however recently it has become a widely discussed issue, with two main parties concerned. These two parties are the government and landowners (in particular farmers). Legislation prohibits land clearing in certain areas for the purpose of protecting native vegetation and wildlife, or to attempt to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Landowners generally feel that ownership comes with the right to clear land if needed. The government has the duty to create policies that ensure the overall wellbeing of the country and it’s people. Individuals all have needs, basic needs that are similar for everyone, for example the need for education or street lighting can be met easily by the government, however some individuals, or groups of people have needs which conflict with the needs of the state. An example of this conflict can be seen when the Howard government introduced the Northern Territory National Emergency Response, which was established in response to alleged child abuse. This brought about a conflict between the state and the individual, as the policy aimed to improve the overall wellbeing of children in aboriginal communities, however it removed many rights individuals had in the community, such as the right to use a certain portion of welfare money on items aside from necessities. (1) Individuals also have duties, such as to follow the law. In the next example a conflict has risen after individuals failed to meet their duties. The new proposed laws to ban bikie gangs, and to prevent members of gangs from associating with each other was a response to a brawl that occurred at Sydney Airport on the 22nd March 2009 where rival members of the gang Comanchero beat a man from the gang the Hells Angels to death. Due to the violent nature of the attack, and previous violent bikie behaviour, the state made this proposition with the aim to protect the overall community, and ensure a safer environment for everybody. These laws would mean that the needs of the state, which in this case is protection from violence would be met, however such laws would take away certain rights from individuals, and have been said to be unfair for gangs which might not necessarily be violent.(2) Similarly, when it comes to land clearing, there is a conflict in the needs of the state and the needs of the individual. There is the need for environmental protection, as “5% of Australia's higher plants, 7% of reptiles, 9% of birds, 9% of freshwater fish, 16% of amphibians and 23% of mammals are listed as Extinct, Endangered or Vulnerable”(3) largely due to land clearing. However farmers may need to clear land for agricultural reasons in order to obtain a living or profit. In this way, this issue is very similar to the two previously mentioned issues, as the overall wellbeing of state is improved at the expense of certain individuals who have had rights taken away from them. Many landowners cannot clear land due to legislation such as the Vegetation management and other legislation amendment act 2004, which in Queensland, the biggest land clearing state, regulates the clearing of land. Under purposes of the Act, part 1a states; the purpose of this Act is to regulate the clearing of vegetation in a way that conserves the following— (i) Remnant endangered regional ecosystems; (ii) Remnant of concern regional ecosystems; (iii) Remnant not of concern regional ecosystems (4) The above points are three of many listed as part of the purpose of the act. In NSW, another large land clearing state, there is the Native Vegetation Act 2003 (103), which aims to “prevent broad scale clearing unless it improves or maintains environmental outcomes”(5). A major court case that came about as a result of this conflict is the Hudson Case. Mr. John Hudson and Mrs. Lynn Hudson, owned a property known as Yarrol, in the Moree Plains local government area, about 60km west of Moree. The property has an area of 2,126ha and had mostly been used for sheep and cattle grazing. Mr Hudson authorized the clearing of 486ha of native vegetation on his property, and this was considered an offence under the Native Vegetation Act 2003 (103), the second offence was his refusal to enclose any information about the clearing. He was prosecuted in the NSW Land and Environmental Court, the clearing is thought to have happened between November 2006 and March 2007. The hearings were held on the 1st December 2008 & 2nd December 2008, and the judgment day was the 11th February 2009. He was found guilty on both charges and fined $400000 for the clearing and $8000 for his second offence. Three tree types, Eucalyptus coolabah, Casuarina cristata (“belah”) and Acacia stenophylla (“river cooba”), all of which are considered indigenous trees were cleared, and a nesting site for rare birds was also cleared. The Judge for the case, Justice Lloyd stated that; “The offence was self evidently done for the purpose of making more land available for agriculture”. (6) The Hudson case is a clear example of when the needs of the state and the needs of the individual conflict, and where this conflict has resulted in a court case. Mr. Hudson felt he had the right to clear the land for agricultural purposes, whilst government legislation prohibited such clearing because of the indigenous trees and endangered wildlife. There are many formal and informal means of challenging state power when it comes to the issue of land clearing. A formal challenge would be to appeal to a court, which is what David Mackenzie did. Mackenzie appealed to the Land Court of Queensland against refusal of a land clearing permit under the Land Act 1994 (Qld), this was known as the Khyber case. The appeal was refused in a decision in August 2004 and a review decision in November 2005. An informal mean of challenging state power in this issue is to protest. In July 2007, farmers being fed up with not being able to use their land how they wanted “began a civil disobedience campaign by cutting down one tree on each property”.(7) The farmers claimed that it was unfair that clearing land was an offence under the government’s strict land clearing laws. Steve Trueman, a Queensland agricultural marketer said; “We are losing tens of thousands of hectares of formerly productive land [because of] these laws.” The protest was an informal way of trying to change the laws. When the needs of the state and the needs of the individual conflict, often the needs of the state will be prioritized, this can be seen in all three examples provided, the needs of the wider community prevailed over the needs of individuals in certain aboriginal communities, of individuals in bikie gangs, and of individuals who owned farms. When the needs of the state are met, a greater number of people benefit in comparison to when only the needs of specific individuals are met. A conflict in the needs of the state and the needs of the individual is evident in the issue of land clearing in Australia, the conflict can be seen in the Hudson Case, the Khyber case and the farmer’s protest. This issue demonstrates how in some cases, the needs of the state and individual are not harmonious, and that in such a case, the needs of the state are prioritized. (1) Northern Territory National Emergency Response Wikipedia Page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Territory_National_Emergency_Respons (2) Sydney Morning Herald March 23, 2009 – Bikie Killed in Airport Brawl (3) The Bush Heritage Australia - http://www.bushheritage.org.au/what_we_do/natural_world/natural_world_land_clearing (4) Vegetation management and other legislation amendment act 2004 – This document can be viewed at: www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/ACTS/2004/04AC001.pdf (5) Native vegetation Act 2003 (103) – This document can be viewed at: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/nva2003194/ (6) Environmental law publishing – The Hudson Case: http://www.envlaw.com.au/hudson.html (7) The Times July 4, 2007 – Farmers fell thousands of trees in mass protest over land-clearing laws