Farmers harvesting for oil and fencing say new rules ruining livelihoods
Eucalyptus oil has been distilled from blue mallee around West Wyalong in the Central West region of New South Wales since the early 1900s, and for the last 50 years, mallee-broombush has been harvested to provide a popular alternative to timber or metal fencing.
But that has come to a halt for many property owners due to laws protecting environmentally significant native vegetation.
Over decades, Gaye Wheatley and her late husband Ned expanded the areas of mallee-broombush on their property to provide an alternate source of income to cropping, sheep, and cattle.
"We could see how we could make it productive, encourage the bush and have the income," she said.
"[Harvest involved] weaving through the bush in a mosaic way, leaving certain trees and taking dead wood to regenerate, making sure that we got the strangle vine down so that bush could replenish itself."
More than 40 per cent of Ms Wheatley's property is now classified as sensitive regulated land, which means clearing is not permitted and a limited range of activities are allowed.
"It's virtually stopped our industry, and my three sons were involved with it … and it has greatly affected my income too," she said.
The Lynch family has been harvesting broombush in the West Wyalong district since the 1970s, manufacturing brush fencing panels that are sold across the country.
Len Lynch said his family had invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in equipment, but now most of their traditional harvest areas were off limits.
"The economy in the town is affected, the landowners get a royalty, and all the truck drivers — it's a big loss to the township."
A group representing about 45 affected landholders and businesses called Landholders Right to Farm will meet with NSW members of parliament in Sydney on Wednesday.
They claim data used in 2010 to list woodland and shrubland dominated by mallee and mallee-broombush as a critically endangered ecological community under-represented the amount of habitat remaining.
The group also argues that new draft native vegetation mapping is flawed and does not recognise the continued use of the bushland for eucalyptus oil and brush fencing.
Significant areas of blue mallee plantations have been established in the West Wyalong district but on some farms, stands of bush have also been harvested.
Landholders Right to Farm spokesperson Annabelle Davis said to produce eucalyptus oil, the blue mallee was cut down near the base and allowed to regrow.
"The trees are hedged to about 20 centimetres above the ground," she said,
"The leaves and the branches are taken up to the distillery where it's boiled, steamed, distilled and the oil is extracted."
Ms Davis said the restrictions on land use were "ruining livelihoods".
Landholders Right to Farm said several members had been fined or accused of illegal land clearing.
Ms Davis's family company disputes an accusation of illegal clearing, and Ms Wheatley has a remediation order over part of her property.
The meeting at NSW Parliament was organised by Member for Cootamundra Steph Cooke, who said current mapping had left many people too afraid to continue a sustainable practise due to the threat of legal penalties.
In a statement, a Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water spokesperson said the department continued to work through mapping and compliance issues.
The spokesperson said landowners could seek approval from the independent Native Vegetation Panel to clear broombush in the critically endangered ecological community.
The statement said NSW Environment Minister Penny Sharpe had met with landholders and continued to investigate alternative solutions.
Landholders Right to Farm said its members had only recently become aware they could apply for approval to harvest broombush.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Perth Now
an hour ago
- Perth Now
Australia, UK to ink 50-year deal to underpin AUKUS
Australia and the UK will ink a 50-year deal to underpin delivery of the AUKUS nuclear submarine agreement, amid concerns about a US review of the trilateral pact. AUKUS, formed in 2021 between Australia, the UK and US to address shared concerns about China's rising military ambition, is designed to enable Australia to acquire nuclear-powered attack submarines in the 2040s. But doubts have been raised about the future of the $368 billion program after the Trump administration this year initiated a review of the deal to examine if it met its "American First" criteria. Defence Minister Richard Marles said he remained confident about the future of US involvement on the eve of Australia and the UK signing a multi-decade bilateral deal cementing their commitment. "It is a profoundly important treaty that we will sign," Mr Marles said on Friday alongside Foreign Minister Penny Wong and their British counterparts John Healey and David Lammy. "It forms part of a trilateral agreement that we have and we are really confident about the progress of all three countries in bringing that to fruition." The treaty, to be signed in Geelong on Saturday, would allow "comprehensive co-operation" on the design, build, operation, sustainment, and disposal of AUKUS submarines, the ministers said in a joint statement. It will also support development of personnel, workforce, infrastructure and regulatory systems for Australia's nuclear-powered submarine program, the statement said. Mr Lammy said the treaty showed the strength of Australia and the UK's commitment to AUKUS. "It's clear that the UK-Australia relationship is an anchor in what is a very volatile world, providing stability in troubled waters and a relationship that holds steady whichever way the geopolitical winds are blowing," he said. Mr Healey said the UK was confident it could meet its obligations under the deal on industrial capacity to deliver SSN-AUKUS submarines. "We have the technology and the designs to be able to deliver our commitments to the SSN-AUKUS and we will," he said. Australia will pay $5 billion to support British industry to design and produce nuclear reactors to power the future AUKUS-class submarines. Australia will acquire at least three Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines from the US in the early 2030s. On Sunday, the ministers will visit Darwin to observe joint military exercises known as Talisman Sabre, which comprise more than 30,000 personnel from 19 militaries. This year, the war games involve the UK's Carrier Strike Group, led by the Royal Navy flagship HMS Prince of Wales - the first UK carrier strike group to visit Australia since 1997.
Daily Telegraph
4 hours ago
- Daily Telegraph
Campaigners say tanker carrying Russian oil to dock in WA
Don't miss out on the headlines from Breaking News. Followed categories will be added to My News. A tanker purportedly full of Russian oil is set to dock in Western Australia within days, despite sanctions being in place against Moscow, Ukrainian and anti-Russian oil campaigners According to DFAT, the 'import, purchase or transport' of several goods is prohibited 'if they were exported from, or originated in, Russia'. That includes oil and petroleum products. The ship Seferis left Sika in India two weeks ago full of oil from the Jamnagar refinery, and it is due to arrive in the outer-Perth suburb of Kwinana by 4am Sunday. The Jamnagar refinery is notoriously fed by Russian crude oil, with as much as 55 per cent of their 2025 stock coming from the European pariah. This means the imported oil, which originated in Russia, could end up fuelling Australian vehicles on the road. Anti-Russian oil campaigners allege this ship is full of covertly imported Russian oil The alarm has been raised about a 'loophole' that allows Russian oil to be bought and sold in Australia, with local campaigners and parliamentarians calling for immediate action. Independent federal MP Andrew Wilkie raised the issue in Question Time on Thursday, asking the Defence Minister Richard Marles 'Why are the loopholes in our sanctions so big you can drive a tanker through them?' 'In July, two vessels reportedly docked in Botany Bay, with some 175,000 tonnes of petrol from the Jamnagar refinery in India, which uses up to 55 per cent Russian oil,' Mr Wilkie said. 'So these vessels effectively carry some 90,000 tonnes of Russian-sourced petrol, paid for by Australians, which will help fund Putin's war in Ukraine.' Independent MP Andrew Wilkie questioned the government about the 'loophole'. Picture: NewsWire / Martin Ollman Mr Marles largely avoided the question instead focusing on the sanctions that had been put in place. 'Sanctions, which is the topic of the question the member has asked, is an important part of what we are putting in place to stand with Ukraine,' Mr Marles said. 'And our government will stand with Ukraine. 'I know the Australian people will stand with the people of Ukraine for as long as it takes for Ukraine to resolve this conflict on its terms.' The loophole has recently been closed in the European Union, which has banned the importation of petroleum products refined form Russian crude oil in its 18th sanctions package against Russia. Defence Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles defended Australia's sanctions. NewsWire / Simon Bullard. The Australian Federation of Ukrainian Organisations has urged Australia to take similar action. 'This decisive action closes a glaring and deeply exploited loophole that has allowed Russian crude to enter global markets through refineries in third-party countries – undermining sanctions and fuelling the Kremlin's war machine. 'We urge the Australian government to take similar action and close this loophole in Australia's own sanctions regime. 'Since February 2023, Australia has imported an estimated $3.7bn worth of Russian crude, as a component in refined petroleum products from Indian refineries – sending around $1.8bn in tax revenue to the Kremlin. 'This flow of profits directly helps fund Russia's brutal war against Ukraine.' Originally published as Tanker carrying Russian oil set to dock in WA despite sanctions, campaigners say
ABC News
6 hours ago
- ABC News
Geraldine Doogue takes on the future of journalism in 2025 Andrew Olle lecture
This is an edited version of the 28th annual televised Andrew Olle Media Lecture delivered by ABC journalist Geraldine Doogue in Sydney on Friday, July 25. What a year to be delivering the lecture on the media of the future — or on any subject that requires some certainties or good prophecy — because nothing seems certain in our lives. For quite a while after the invitation to present the 2025 Andrew Olle Media Lecture arrived, I'd settled on those immortal WB Yeats lines as my title: "The centre cannot hold … The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity." Yes, those words certainly describe our times. But it just felt too defensive and grim, and I didn't want to leave you all like that. So I settled on "Not Drowning, Waving" as my title, which somehow seemed more apt, with a touch of irony. It is all a bit grim: no doubt about it for those of us who love the media, love working inside it, consuming it, believing it's vital to our way of life. Roy Greenslade, the UK media analyst, was pretty blunt back in 2016 when he said: "It is time to recognise that the whole UK newspaper industry is heading for a cliff fall, that tipping point when there is no hope of a reversal of fortune." The Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at the University of Oxford has been forensically examining this. Prospect magazine headlined their coverage of the institute's latest report with: "Journalism is in freefall — and the public doesn't care". That rider has stayed with me. "The public doesn't miss yesterday's news, but journalists miss the public," writes the article's author, Rasmus Kleis Nielsen. As he explains, current trends suggest at best a continued retreat, as the press serves fewer people. It may ultimately end up with a role akin to contemporary art or classical music: highly valued by a privileged few, regarded with indifference by the many. That's our existential crisis, though the fine print of the Reuters research does indicate that the public, in theory, is still with us. It's just that other options loom as better. An article by 360 Info, an outlet that bills itself as "Research Reuters", argues that media players are involved in a war of attention, competing against outlets whose stock-in-trade is harnessing rage and anger. Of course, it is also true that media consumers have become our competitors by creating their own bespoke news outlets — a great irony. "Scare stories about the problems associated with digital media will not bring people back to news," Nielsen writes. "A wiser course of action might be to impress people, rather than try to depress them. "The people best positioned to forge a different path are those journalists and publishers who accept that the next step is to meet people where they are. The aim should not be to take journalism backwards, but to create something new." But what would that look and sound like? Christopher Clark, a professor of modern history at Cambridge University, recently wrote an essay called "The End of Modernity". "A crisis is unfolding before our eyes — and also in our heads," its subtitle read. Before the modern age, people obtained information "from individuals, by word of mouth". With the advent of the modern media industry, "rumour-mongers gave way to trained journalists". The media of the modern era, he writes, "created its own mythology, a story we could tell ourselves, a means of situating ourselves in time, of understanding where we came from and where we were heading". But this modern system, Professor Clark says, is disintegrating before our eyes. "The multi-faceted nature of contemporary politics, the present of turmoil and change without a clear sense of direction, is causing enormous uncertainty," he writes. "It helps explain why we are so easily unsettled by the agitations of the present and why we find it so difficult to plot our course." Maybe, he wonders, there's a general reversal taking place. The gossip-mongers of the internet have once again seized the initiative, leading to the fragmentation of knowledge and opinions. "It has never been so difficult to think calmly," Professor Clark writes. And yet, how necessary it is. Perhaps our journalistic egos have become wrapped up in hitting the headlines ourselves. Who among us can honestly say we were impervious to the Woodward-Bernstein achievements around Watergate? Two young bloods, nobly jousting with the deeply flawed Richard Nixon and his establishment and bringing him down. Journalistic nobility, then super-stardom! We media workers will always have a duty to warn citizens of danger and incompetence, alert them to what's not solved, why today might be different from yesterday: the classic role of the fourth estate. However, I do wonder whether the breadth of the community and its range of tastes and interests are sufficiently canvassed, and whether we're more energised by displaying incompetence rather than searching for competence. The latter could be a real service, though it may not yield that fabulous rush of revelation and schadenfreude. I have long believed that reporting achievements makes for a very good first paragraph. It might in fact persuade doubters that we really are interested in the wider community, not just overturning governments or winning a scalp. Mathias Döpfner, head of German media group Alex Springer, believes one of the reasons people are losing trust in the media is because many confuse "journalism for activism". "More and more young people want to become journalists because they want to improve the world," he told The Sunday Times. "I think that's a dangerous misunderstanding of journalism." In this communitarian model I'm reflecting on, I see a renewal of the covenant between the public and the journalist, of clearly making the effort to be fair and accurate. We're not there to tell people about the comfortable status quo. To some extent, we are there to bother them, to introduce some alert and alarm. And no, we can't guarantee we'll be fully objective, but we can observably try, and be seen to be doing so or judged for not. The public can draw its own conclusions. Intellectual openness is, for me, the glittering prize. That's what I look for in colleagues. And I suspect the public does too. This all dovetails with other, bigger needs within the culture. I would argue that we might well have reached peak-individualism, a sociological urge that manifests in all those solitary searches on the net for some bliss — maybe sometimes found. And yet so many of them are seeking ways to avoid loneliness, separateness or alienation. I don't think we thrive on individualism. We're all looking for green shoots: that's the truth of it. After all, the BBC had to invent all those looks and props and sounds around news presentation, which we simply take for granted now. Moving past individual gossip to something more formal involved massive creativity. We clearly need it again. And to my mind, we need to lionise creativity and service beyond individual achievement to routinely engage lots more people, more regularly. Otherwise, we simply won't have an industry at scale. It won't be prosperous enough to offer careers or cadetships to young people. All sorts of people will end up as artists working in garrets, rationing their time and money, occasionally striking it rich, mostly doing something else. That's no answer. I haven't talked about AI, or the innards of dis- or misinformation. I can't even give you specific new models of this communitarian emphasis I'm discussing. I wish I could. But if we're passive, we might lose this gem of ours, this buoy of modernity. We might lose this industry that I adored from day one, back in 1972, when I wandered up the corridor of Newspaper House at 125 St Georges Terrace, Perth, on a hot January day and said, "Is there a way in, I wonder?" Thank goodness they said yes.
