Native Vegetation Inquiry
Productivity Commission
LB 2 Collins St East
MELBOURNE

NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON LANDHOLDERS

1.	Native Vegetation Conservation Act & Threatened Species Act, have impacted on viability and value of investment to landholders to an enormous degree – see annexure A & B. This is consistent throughout the full North Lachlan Bogan regional vegetation area. It has greater impact on primary production than other uses due to its direct cause of degradation ground cover loss.

2.	It has major impact on agricultural practice and production:
a	Restricts to an ever-declining production of grazing due to invasive woody weed and canopy out competing with ground cover to a stage where production will become greater than 25 to 1 of country that still has option of management to maintain an open, healthy and sustainable landscape;
b	Restricts land use to either weather or goat grazing practice in a situation that is not sustainable;
c	Restricts opportunity to have restoration of degraded landscape;
d	Denies intergenerational transfer because this legislation will render many areas in this region non-viable.

3.	Outcomes because of this regulation is worse than permanent due to this accelerated degradation of ground cover loss nett loss of flora species and ever increasing soil erosion. Regulation will render area where management is denied to a state of sterile wasteland as stated by Dick Condon past NSW Soil Conservation and Western Lands Commissioner.

4&5	There are extreme costs associated with this … regulation. As stated before, greater than 25 to 1. The extended cost to local region State and Nation where there is little or no wealth generated and the ever on going cost of degradation and soil erosion that will become unredeemable. Alternate land use in this region if management was available would be greater than 100 to 1 and would be sustainable.

6&7	Investment in infrastructure is stagnant because finance providers have stated timbered area that is heavy with no opportunity to manage has no value for them to mortgage against as stated in annexure A & B.

8.	Due entirely to regulation denying restoration back to a healthy landscape and this problem of ever declining production.

9.	Just not possible to have a profitable sustainable healthy enterprise under this regulation.

10.	Land has been repeatably cleared in the past. It is a perpetual problem to manage re-growth till it is farmed. Time and money have been the limiting factors.

11&12	Regulatory regimes in this region have been probably greater because farming has been not so long done within the region. The change from sheep to cropping accelerating over the past 30 years(so has the invasion of woody weed). Areas to the east have 90% and more cleared for production of cropping and grazing so it will not impact on this region much at all. This region intends to have a minimum of 35% under Native Vegetation. Greater that 15% on private land would be managed in a healthy sustainable way offering better food source and habitat for fauna.

13.	Many properties in region would be captured by legislation in a 100% state so any interference would be measurable according to its percentage of scrub.

POSITIVE IMPACTS

Only One
Would give a guaranteed area managed for conservation of a minimum 34% within this region if government adopts this regions native vegetation plan. The plan accommodates all scientific and world standards and landholders would take ownership and responsibility.

One could extend ones argument to the cost to the environment and landholders a lot more.
A point of importance you have not mentioned is, what the landscape was like and what it should 

look like and how government and landholders and work towards having a healthier vibrant and sustainable LANDSCAPE.

Peter Weston
Chairman
North Lachlan Bogan Native Vegetation Committee

I also have in my possession a journalist report dated 1878 of Description of the landscape & regrowth on the overflow station at that time. Can forward a copy if you wish.

Peter Weston
NSW