Rural Boundary Clearing Code,  Extraordinary meeting of 17 Feb 2022
Channel: Councillor Nathan Zamprogno
Date: 2022-02-17

You may have seen ongoing coverage about whether Council should adopt the "Rural Boundary Clearing Code". It came to Council for the third time last night.

Why is this so contentious? 
It might strike you as an obscure decision about land-management policy. 
But it disguises a far more important principle, and it's very much at stake in this new Council, so it's important to know what this is about.

Some people feel the massive bushfires we endured demonstrate we should allow people more freedom to clear their land for fire safety. 
Some people worry (and we were shown proofs) that this threatens habitats and that fire safety will be used as an excuse for some to just clear their land for other reasons.
Others worry that the Code just won't do what its authors intended because of our local conditions.
All of these concerns are valid.

Passionate, honourable disagreements are why we sit as a Council of twelve to work through these issues. The solution is to consult the community and experts in the field, get informed, and then make considered decisions.
Almost every policy Council adopts follows this process.

But not, apparently, this one. 
This has been rammed through without any consideration or consultation – and especially with the RFS, who reminded us tonight of their own well-developed plan to improve fire safety. They're white-hot about the disrespect this lack of consultation represents.
And that's why I've differed in my opinion with my Liberal colleagues, with whom I usually agree on other issues.

The issue is why we would adopt a policy with such far-reaching consequences for our land management – which has enormous implications for endangered species like Koalas, and on which opinions differ sharply concerning whether it will actually improve fire safety at all – without *any* consultation with the local RFS. And no resourcing of Council to do compliance and mitigate against mis-use of the Code. And without any thought of how Council should help landowners navigate their eligibility and be good stewards of their land. And without the ability to even measure the impact on tree-cover across the LGA when that could easily be remedied with new off-the-shelf mapping tools.

Frankly, it makes the rhetoric of people who frequently say they respect the RFS, and like to make much of saying they support Koala habitats, more than a little hollow.

Worse, in the meeting tonight, debate was axed which cut off Councillors who were yet to speak to the chamber, despite having their 'zoom hand' up for half an hour. That was wrong. When we disagree, we shouldn't silence people just because you may not like what they might say. It's no way to run a respectful chamber, and I disassociate myself from those who use it as a tactic.

Look, ultimately it may be best if we adopt the Code. But we can't know because we haven't asked the right questions. 
And that's our job, so I don't apologise for speaking out.

More information at my website:
https://councillorzamprogno.info/2021/10/13/the-rural-boundary-clearing-code-how-do-we-balance-fire-safety-and-protecting-the-environment/