Reply to letter published August 26 from K. Walsh
FIRSTLY, I want to be clear that this is my personal point of view.
In short, the council’s decision is not “short-sighted” but rational: it ends an inequitable and inefficient subsidy. The reality of receiving a very generous double dip of a “Farm Rate” on land with often no agricultural output and a very low per-acre valuation due to no commercial output, means a further gift from fellow ratepayers to support individual choices is not sustainable.
In fact, other ratepayers would find confronting how low covenanted properties’ rates notices may already be.
Kate Walsh presents her argument based on untested assumptions and selective reasoning. The first flaw is her reliance on the idea that council rebates to covenanted property owners are essential for biodiversity protection. This is incorrect. Landholders who place covenants on their land overwhelmingly do so from a pre-existing conservation ethic, not because of a minor grant. The rebate simply rewards behaviour that would occur anyway, making it an inefficient use of public funds.
Walsh ignores the basic equity problem. Rebates for covenant holders shift the financial burden onto other ratepayers – many of whom also engage in responsible land stewardship without recognition or subsidy. In a climate where many have learnt to rely on the money of others to fund their lifestyle, I can see how the previous gift was enthusiastically embraced by the recipients, a farmer investing in soil regeneration, erosion control, Agro forestry or water management contributes to environmental health just as meaningfully. Why should the council elevate one model of stewardship above all others? Once upon a time council managed to fund chemicals rebates for weed control in the farm zone, a program also no longer funded.
Her argument collapses when tested against simple principles of fairness.
Walsh fails to address agricultural productivity concerns with the loss of land. Australia faces increasing food security pressures, and locking land into perpetual conservation arrangements risks constraining future adaptive land use. Unlike national and state parks – which provide conservation at scale under clear governance – private covenants are often dispersed, inconsistently monitored, and difficult to integrate into long-term regional planning. To present them as superior is a distortion.
Finally, Walsh treats the council’s decision as an attack on conservation, when in fact it reflects fiscal discipline and recognition of competing priorities. Local government has an obligation to spend scarce resources where they deliver the greatest measurable public benefit. Covenanted Land Rebates fail this test. If the objective is biodiversity protection, targeted grants, coordinated planning, and investment in large crown-owned reserves will always outperform blunt rate rebates on private land.
When you dig deeper, Council has already engaged in a very generous arrangement of support in kind and monetary funding of Landcare and also a separate program providing trees to landholders.
Commercial reality dictates that the bucket of council money is not endless.
Scott Rae, Foster North
