During Estimates hearings on Tuesday 30 July 2024, I asked the Director General of the Department of Resources and Critical Minerals about land clearing in Queensland.
You can read my questions and his full response below, or in the official Parliamentary record of proceedings (Hansard) here.
Mr BERKMAN: Thank you, Chair. I will put my first question to the director-general, if I might. It is in relation to the latest SLATS report, which shows that nearly 323,000 hectares of woody vegetation were bulldozed in the 2021-22 financial year, including 24,500 hectares of unexplained and potentially illegal land clearing. I understand $9.8 million over four years was committed in last year’s budget to reduce emissions from unexplained land clearing. Director-General, what has that funding been spent on so far and how many instances or hectares of illegal land clearing has it identified?
Mr Agnew: I thank the member for the question. I can absolutely confirm that we received an additional $9.8 million over four years from the 2023-24 state budget and had some discussions at this committee last year in that regard. That support is there for supporting landholders to comply with the vegetation management framework. Our posture here is first and foremost compliance education in that regard. The $1.573 million allocated to the 2023-24 financial year has been used to hire an additional 12 staff in the Department of Resources. The 12 staff will be increased to 16 for years 2 to 4 of the program. As a result of the increased funding, we have been providing more support to landowners and, as I say, our posture is around its understanding.
In particular on our actions with the 12 staff, I am happy to report that 73 vegetation audits were undertaken as part of the annual compliance program. The department attended 89 workshops and field days across the state, informing and guiding our stakeholders and the broader community about their obligations and encouraging voluntary compliance. Some 358 advisory letters were sent to landowners giving the department an opportunity to support and educate them on their obligations. Where noncompliance is identified, we use our risk-based approach to determine the most appropriate action and to deter future noncompliance. Whilst most landholders do the right thing, in the 2023-24 financial year, 34 formal warnings and four penalty infringement notices for noncompliant vegetation management practices were issued.
Mr BERKMAN: There is a lot in that answer. From the activities you have described, it does not sound as though there is a specific number of instances or an amount of clearing that can be attributed to having been found through that program; is that a fair comment? Obviously there is the penalty infringement notices and those advisory compliance letters, however described.
Mr Agnew: Again, our key posture is on prevention and seeking landowners to understand their obligations so that we are preventing any further clearing. In terms of data for those, we did issue notices to; I do not have that detail I am sorry.
Mr BERKMAN: That is okay, thank you. The response to my prehearing question on notice said that departmental officers conducted only 31 field inspections in the 2023-24 financial year. That struck me as a surprisingly low number. Director-General, can you advise how that number compares with the number of incidents of clearing that were reported to the department in the same period?
Mr Agnew: On the direct relationship between any reports and those audits, I cannot comment directly in terms of what mobilised our officers into the field in relation to specific reports. That would be a level of detail I cannot furnish you with right now. In terms of our broader compliance and auditing, obviously the satellite imagery is very useful to us. That is something that we do use as a department, again, to proactively seek to view and look for disturbance before it gets to a level beyond an existing level of clearing and any activity of tractors and so forth in areas that we might suspect need to be addressed.
Mr BERKMAN: Going back to the SLATS report, it tells us that 78 per cent of the clearing that occurred was in category X, which is unsurprising given that it is unregulated, although category X does not necessarily mean that that is vegetation without potentially significant ecological value. Does the department have any measure of or any idea of how much of that clearing in category X was vegetation of high ecological value?
Mr Agnew: I would need to seek advice from one of our experts in that particular area. If it is okay, member, I will ask Mr Lyall Hinrichsen to come to the table. He is our vegetation clearing expert.
Mr Hinrichsen: I am the Executive Director, Lands Policy and Support in the department, so thanks, Director-General, for the referral. In relation to that question, we rely very much on the science that is performed by the department of science and innovation. I do not have a particular number as to how much of that vegetation might have been of high environmental value. The point that the member makes around some of that category X vegetation having regenerated since it was designated as category X is acknowledged. That point was certainly highlighted in the scientific expert panel work that was done in relation to vegetation management in Queensland. That identified that there was opportunity to identify that vegetation and to use incentives to work with landowners in looking to protect those areas. That is work that is certainly ongoing between our department and the department of science and innovation in looking at the likes of environmental offsets and carbon credit units and securing those areas so that that vegetation can be maintained, recognising that a lot of the category X is land that had been cleared and has been frequently re-cleared. The focus of our vegetation management has always been on the higher value either regrowth vegetation that is more than 15 years old or the remnant vegetation.
Mr BERKMAN: That leads me to my next question. I also noted there was what seemed like a concerning 22 per cent jump in the clearing of high-value remnant areas, which accounted for 20 per cent of all clearing, with almost two-thirds of this clearing resulting in full removal of woody vegetation. Director-General, can you comment on what additional work this has spurred on within the department or is this particular cause for concern within the department?
Mr Agnew: I will refer to Lyall to answer the question, but I can say particularly from the department’s perspective that the latest SLATS report I think did highlight and prove the case to be where we are at in terms of employing additional compliance activities in a proactive nature across the department. The support to ultimately have 16 officers onboard in the department to be working in that space, I think, is supported by the data we have just seen and supplied.
Mr BERKMAN: I am content with that response, unless you have anything further to add, Mr Hinrichsen.
Mr Hinrichsen: No.