Farmer fined $60k for clearing native vegetation north of Adelaide

In short: 

A farmer has been fined for removing native vegetation at a Port Wakefield property. 

The 73-year-old pleaded guilty to removing the saltbush and samphire but claimed it was for environmental purposes. 

What's next? 

The man was ordered to pay a fine of $60,000.

A South Australian man with "lifetime involvement in pastoral and agricultural enterprises" has been fined $60,000 for unlawfully clearing 277 hectares of native vegetation at a property about 70 kilometres north of Adelaide.

The 73-year-old farmer was fined last month in the Environment, Resources and Development Court of South Australia after pleading guilty to clearing native vegetation contrary to the Native Vegetation Act 1991.

In his judgement handed down on September 23, Senior Judge Michael Durrant said the man was leasing the land, at Port Wakefield, "for agricultural purposes including grazing and cropping" and that the clearing "occurred progressively between November 2023 and March 2024".

"The vegetation affected comprised native vegetation within the meaning of the Act. It included indigenous plant species and native chenopod shrubland communities including saltbush and samphire associations," he said.

"The material before the Court established that the vegetation was mature and had existed on the land for many years."

Process 'not unfamiliar territory' for defendant

Senior Judge Durrant said the clearing was "not authorised" because the man had not obtained consent from the Native Vegetation Council.

"The real vice in the offending was the defendant's decision to proceed without first obtaining approval," he said.

"He was familiar with the approval process and knew that the proposed clearance required consideration under that process.

"Importantly, this was not unfamiliar territory for the defendant. He had prior involvement in a Native Vegetation Council approval process affecting nearby land."

Senior Judge Durrant said that it was submitted to the court by the prosecution that the "offending possessed a commercial dimension" while "the defence submitted that the purpose was environmental improvement".

"In my view neither description entirely captures the circumstances," he said.

"I am not satisfied that the offending was motivated solely by commercial advantage."

He added that a report tendered to the court from an accredited native vegetation consultant identified "significant regrowth across many of the sites reviewed".

"It records substantial soil cover and regeneration of native species at many of the sites reviewed, together with encouraging prospects for continued recovery," he said.

Act to 'improve the land'

Senior Judge Durrant said materials brought before the court showed the man had "lifetime involvement in pastoral and agricultural enterprises".

He added that he accepted "significant regeneration has occurred" and that the "defendant has actively participated in recovery efforts".

"I accept the defendant believed he was acting to improve the condition of the land," he said.

"The offending is serious because extensive native vegetation was deliberately cleared without the approval required by law. It goes to the very heart of the system set up by the Parliament."

Senior Judge Durrant recorded a conviction against the 73-year-old and ordered he pay a fine of $60,000.