THE net zero carbon emissions policy will unleash a torrent of green activism which will have dire consequences for Australia's agricultural industry and cause the sector's red tape problem to grow.
Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) deputy executive director Daniel Wild said the critical task for the sector was to make sure that energy policy and net zero remained a contested space, highlighting that it was possible for it to be shelved just as the carbon tax was in July 2014, following a backlash from angry voters about rising energy prices.
Mr Wild presented at the Pastoralists and Graziers' Association (PGA) of WA annual convention last week, one day before the Federal government's landmark Climate Change Bills passed the senate, ensuring Australia's emissions reduction target of 43 per cent from 2005 levels by 2030 and net zero emissions by 2050 will be enshrined in legislation.
He was frank in his analysis that the net zero policy would be a "game-changer" for the agricultural sector, and not in a positive way.
"Firstly the legislation of net zero will provide an almost limitless remit for government intervention and harassment of the agriculture sector and environmental legal activism, which will add more red tape and delays to critical agricultural projects through protracted and vexatious litigation and never ending court action," Mr Wild said.
"Our analysis has shown that practically any major carbon emitting project, such as the construction of a dam, rail lines or critical road infrastructure could now be the subject of legal challenge."
As a direct result of the legislation of net zero and the emissions mandates made under the Paris Climate Agreement, of which Australia is a signatory, it would become "relevant to considerations that a minister would need to take into account when making an approval decision".
READ MORE:
"Section 5 of the Administrative Decisions and Judicial Review Act allows a person to challenge a ministerial decision of a major project as an improper exercise of that power, if a minister fails to "take a relevant consideration into account in the exercise of that power"," Mr Wild said.
"This provision combined with Section 487 of the Environment Protection and Conservation Act, which exclusively gives green groups legal standing to take projects to court, would mean environmental activists could challenge any carbon emitting project, on the basis that the minister failed to consider how that project could contribute to our detract from Australia's net zero goals."
Acknowledging that the net zero policy had so far been mostly focused on the energy and mining sector, Mr Wild said the agricultural industry would be next in the firing line due to its energy intensive nature.
"Whether it's the diesel in your tractor, the electricity you rely on in a packing plant or a shearing shed, the energy involved in manufacturing the distribution of fertiliser, transportation of goods for market, exporting produce overseas, selling produce in shops and supermarkets - every single stage of the production line will be touched in one way or another by emissions mandates," Mr Wild said.
However despite Australia's moves towards its net zero targets, when the IPA asked Australians how much they were willing to personally pay for the country to meet its net zero emission by 2050 target, 92pc said they were willing to pay a maximum of $100 a year.
Australia's green tape army
Providing the audience with some stunning figures to back up his claims about the over-regulation of the agricultural industry, since the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act was introduced in the year 2000, WA's environmental bureaucracy spend has increased by 635pc yet the State's agricultural sector has increased by only 115pc.
"This means the growth of the Western Australian environmental bureaucracy is 5.5 times the growth of the WA agricultural sector," Mr Wild said.
"Staffing in WA's environmental bureaucracy has increased by 320pc but employment in agriculture in WA has declined by a third."
Looking at Australia as a whole, Mr Wild said total government spending on environmental bureaucracy at the Federal level had increased by 470 per cent, while the size of Australia's agriculture sector had only increased by 175pc.
"This means that the Federal government with its environmental bureaucracies has grown at nearly three times the rate as that of the entire agricultural sector," Mr Wild said.
"Staffing in the Federal environmental bureaucracies has increased by 250pc while employment in agriculture has declined by a fifth."
Further driving home his point in Australia's primary industries being over-regulated, Mr Wild said those employed by environmental departments and agencies around the country, or Australia's "green tape army", was now bigger than Australia's actual army.
"There are now a staggering 34,600 people employed by environmental bureaucracies around Australia -Australia's actual army is just over 29,000," he said.
Over-regulation of privately held land
While permission to develop on privately held land is often only granted with a suite of conditions, Mr Wild said permits should not have the ability to interfere in the manner in which clearing and development took place.
"Simply stated, permits should be granted on the basis that the land on which native vegetation clearing is taking place is privately held land," he said.
Providing numerous examples of the over-regulation and 'green tape' impacting farmers, Mr Wild highlighted Section 51A of the Environment Protection Act (EPA) which requires farmers and private landowners to obtain permits from government agencies to clear dead and remnant vegetation, even when those actions are being undertaken to mitigate bushfire risk.
"To build a single irrigation pivot on privately held pastoral land, requires no less than eight different permits and approvals including a water licence, a licence to construct a bore, a clearing permit, a diversification permit, a developmental approval, a building licence, Crown land access licences (plural) and general purpose leases and development leases over Crown land," he said.
"That is just for one single irrigation pivot on private land."
