Letter to the editor - Kerry Brindle on land clearing

Dear Editor

I am writing to respond to the ‘opinion piece’ provided by Andrew Dunbabin on behalf of ‘FLAG’ in last week’s edition of Tasmanian Country. 

First and foremost, it is unfortunate for the Fergussons that they appear to be the first landholders to receive a large fine prosecuted for undertaking illegal clearing on their land. However, the explanations supplied by Andrew Dunbabin are incorrect and misleading.

Andrew stated that the Fergusson family were “Owners of the farm for over 75 years, new regulations have been imposed, which restricts the use of the land by the owners. Being unaware of the newly implemented restrictions was no defence as this family was dragged into court and treated to harsh treatment “as an example to others” and a fine of $100,000.”

This is simply not true. The new regulations (presumably he is referring to changes to the EPBC Act) were not relevant in this case. The Forest Practices Act has been in place since 1985, with amendments in 2017. These are hardly ‘new’ regulations.

The threatened vegetation communities that Andrew mentioned (Eucalyptus globulus - blue gum forest and woodland and Eucalyptus ovata - black gum forest and woodland) were listed as threatened under the Nature Conservation Act in 2002. Again, these are not new regulations.

There appears to be some confusion in the article around what is a threatened species and what is a threatened community. Andrew states that Eucalyptus ovata (black gums) were listed as endangered in 2020. However, it is the ecological community ‘Black gum forest and woodland (Tasmanian Forests and Woodlands dominated by Eucalyptus ovata/E. brookeriana)’, that was listed as Critically Endangered under the EPBC Act in 2019. 

Likewise, individual Blue gums, as a tree/species, are not threatened, but Blue gum forest and woodland as a vegetation community is threatened. Information on known locations of threatened species and communities is publicly available on LISTmap or by using the FPA’s biodiversity values database.

The argument that the Fergussons were unaware of the conservation significance of vegetation communities on their property and that a more appropriate action would be “to educate landholders before you start to prosecute them” may be true but there are several resources available to producers to enable landholders to better understand conservation values on their property and potential restrictions with respect to managing these assets. 

There have been several farmer-focused workshops and field days held in the region over the past 10-20 years, and there are many resources publicly available online. 

If all these resources are already available, how can landholders better engage with the information to ensure that on-farm actions are within the law?

Hopefully this case, hard for the Fergussons as it might be, might make all land managers learn more about the regulations around native vegetation clearance, and to seek advice from appropriate advisors if the information is unclear.