{"id":239838,"date":"2019-07-17T13:15:37","date_gmt":"2019-07-17T03:15:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/southburnett.com.au\/news2\/?p=239838"},"modified":"2019-07-17T13:16:03","modified_gmt":"2019-07-17T03:16:03","slug":"agforce-links-fire-risk-to-laws","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/southburnett.com.au\/news2\/2019\/07\/17\/agforce-links-fire-risk-to-laws\/","title":{"rendered":"AgForce Links Fire Risk To Laws"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>
AgForce CEO Mike Guerin
(Photo: AgForce)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

July 17, 2019<\/strong><\/p>\n

AgForce says the State Government has failed to heed farmers’ concerns for two years about the Vegetation Management Act which it blames for contributing to last year’s\u00a0catastrophic bushfires in Queensland.<\/p>\n

The lobby group said the Inspector-General of Emergency Management’s (IGEM) review had found the bureaucratic, restrictive and confusing nature of the laws had hamstrung landowners in both preventing and managing bushfires.<\/p>\n

The review found exemptions to vegetation management\u00a0legislation, that allow for land clearing specific to\u00a0bushfire mitigation, were not understood by everyone.<\/p>\n

It noted that some landholders saw legislation and “permit to light” regulations that guide mitigation\u00a0activities as complex, and a barrier to effective\u00a0bushfire mitigation.<\/p>\n

It recommended that to make planned burning and land clearing easier\u00a0to understand and implement for landholders, a\u00a0single point of contact for all bushfire mitigation\u00a0inquiries and permits should be established.<\/p>\n

Recommendation 9 stated that “Given an increasing risk of intense fires, the\u00a0framework of legislation relating to vegetation\u00a0management, bushfire mitigation and hazard\u00a0reduction, together with mitigation and preparation\u00a0priorities should be re-assessed. The re-assessment should aim to enable more appropriate and flexible\u00a0means at the local level for the reduction of intense\u00a0fires.”<\/strong><\/p>\n

However,\u00a0 Inspector-General Iain MacKenzie later clarified this last recommendation, saying he was not calling for a change to legislation:<\/p>\n

“I advise that the desired outcome of the recommendation is, given the propensity for large scale\u00a0events in the future, to enhance the ability for the reduction of risk through consistent and practical\u00a0means of identifying, implementing and monitoring mitigation activities at a local level.\u00a0It is not the intent of the recommendation to initiate legislative review or reform of any particular\u00a0piece of legislation but to develop improved means of navigating and applying existing legislative\u00a0frameworks to achieve the above.”<\/em><\/p>\n

AgForce CEO Michael Guerin said his organisation had been warning the government about the dangers of “ill-considered, ideologically-dogmatic” vegetation management laws for nearly two years.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe 2018 bushfires proved that the Vegetation Management Act was impractical, if not impossible, from a landholder\u2019s perspective, and prevented them from implementing effective fire prevention measures, such as adequate backburns and firebreaks.\u201d<\/p>\n

Mr Guerin endorsed Recommendation 9.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe applaud the IGEM for the thoroughness and honesty of his review and can only hope the government reflects on and implements \u2013 not just \u2018in-principle\u2019 accepts \u2013 the recommendations,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

\u201cIn particular, his conclusion that frequent and regular changes to the VMA over many years have left landowners confused as to what they can and cannot do to prevent fires without breaking the law is frightening.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

The report found “frustration and fear” pervaded conversations with landholders, including the fear of breaking the laws as they saw them.<\/p>\n

It said: \u201cOne property owner in Central Highlands demonstrated his need to build a break larger than the legislated 10 metres along the fence line, because the breaks on adjacent State land were inadequate\u201d but that “this approach, while highly practical and undoubtedly effective during these events, was technically in breach of legislation.”<\/p>\n