Land clearing costs Mullewa farmer $85,000

Mr Broad pleaded guilty to the charge to avoid prosecution of his wife Dianne as an accessory and in doing so lessened his fine and avoided a five year jail term.

"The DEC really have been the neighbours from hell," Mr Broad said. "This land is not in a marginal area, it will have good soil once it's developed, it is now and has always been agricultural land and it's owned freehold by myself."

The Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) charged Mr Broad with causing serious environmental harm.

But he is unrepentment claiming "blanket legislation" which unfairly targets farmers.

The land in quesiton is located in the far north west corner of the Broad's 3035ha property, visible to two bordering neighbours and part of a 1000ha paddock first cleared in 1974, re-cleared in 1984 and subsebquently used as a grazing paddock.

Mr Broad re-cleared 500ha between July 2007 and March 2008 to use the paddock for cropping purposes because of the lower number of sheep, cattle and farmed goats now grazing his Casuarina Farm.

"I cleared the land for a third time in the belief that exemption applied to this case because it had been used continuously since 1974 for agriculture in the form of grazing," Mr Broad said.

"I dispute the DEC's claim the area was pristine bush because it was low sparse re-growth.

"In my opinion I was charged because we changed the use of the land from grazing to cropping."

The Broads first application to DEC to clear the land in 2006 was rejected.

An appeal was launched later that year which Mr Broad also lost and a further application was made to the DEC again in 2007.

After losing the appeal he decided to clear the land.

"The appeals process is deeply flawed because you have to appeal to the same people who have rejected the original proposal," he said.

According to Mr Broad, the DEC argued that salinity and connectivity issues were a leading factor in their decision to prosecute him.

"I dispute the salinity issue that was raised by the DEC's prosecutor in court," he said.

"All of the country at that end of the farm is sandplain.

"Sandplain seeps are fresh water that with evaporation will be slightly saline freshwater.

"Freshwater pools occur with the movement of the water table in that area and are not and never have been a problem.

"As for connectivity, the DEC made an issue of connectivity for native fauna between bits of bush.

"What a joke when they buy pastoral stations, remove all the waters and perish everything.

"There's not much connectivity there.

"The DEC prosecutor said there were no other big areas of native bush within 15km of the now cleared land, when in fact we have 300ha of crown land on our east boundary, barely four kilometres from the cleared area."

Apart from the $85,000 fine Mr Broad will spend nearly $40,000 on monitoring costs as required by a DEC Vegetation Conservation Notice, more than $40,000 on legal fees and $20,000 on fencing.

"If the DEC want to turn my land into a nature reserve and deny me use, surely it is a fair case for compensation," Mr Broad said.

"They won't participate in any of our fencing projects but I'd be happy to split the costs with them like I would any other neighbour.

"When our first application was refused the area was unfenced so livestock had access to the area when stubbles were grazed.

"There was no initial effort made by the DEC to protect the native flora and fauna then."

DEC spokesman Matt Warnock said the charge reflected the legislation that was put in place to protect the environment.

"The magistrate involved in the case made a point of saying that it was a very significant case and a very serious matter of its type," he said.

"Unauthorised clearing causes a lot of harm in Australia every year and the DEC has had access to WA aerial imagery from the 1950s.

"The DEC reviewed imagery from the past and discovered evident fire scars from the 1970s and 1980s in the area recently cleared by Mr Broad."

Mr Warnock couldn't say if animals were grazing the area over the last 10 years

"All I can say is it wasn't cropped and a permit was required to clear land," he said.

"The land wasn't fenced immediately in 2006 when the Broad's lodged their first application because in the assessment it was vegetated and in good condition and there are no provisions for the DEC to fence private property."

As for the question of appealing to the same panel who declined the initial application, Mr Warnock assured growers that this wasn't the case.

"Appeals are directed to the Office of the Appeals Convener to review," he said.

"Individual cases are then passed on to the Minister for Environment to make the final decision."

Mr Broad's case has been timely in prompting a call by WAFarmers land management and climate change spokesperson Dale Park to the Minister for Environment Donna Faragher, to show support to the State's farmers and address the clear inconsistencies in the management of the State's landuse by the DEC.

"WA farmers endure blanket vegetation clearing bans without any recognition or compensation for their diminished earning potential," Mr Park said.

"Other industries, such as mining and other areas, particularly in metropolitan areas, are seemingly given free reign, or receive little impediment in their land clearing.

"The State's farmers care about the environment but the State's legislation is unworkable and must be changed."