Option 1: Allow the LLS Regulation to lapse
Under Option 1, the LLS Regulation would lapse on 1 September 2026. This means that the existing regulatory provisions would cease to exist, and no new regulation would be made in its place.
Lapse of the LLS Regulation would have a range of impacts, benefits and costs for the community, environment, businesses and government.
Summary of impacts, benefits and costs
The table below provides a high-level summary by reference to the relevant part of the LLS Regulation 2014.
Impacts | Benefits | Costs |
|---|---|---|
| Part 2 – Rates | ||
Considerably reduced funding for LLS. Requirement for funding to be managed at a local level. Challenges for LLS in maintaining service levels and regulatory oversight. | Potentially reduced financial burden on landholders, depending on how local funding requirements are managed. | LLS would have minimal control over rates including general rates, animal health rates and special purposes rates. Reduced revenue for LLS. LLS may face challenges in funding necessary services and programs, affecting their ability to support agriculture, environmental management, and community services. Without rates, there would be less funding for services that support agricultural productivity and land management for landholders/ occupiers, and this could impact these services. |
| Part 3 – Annual returns | ||
LLS would have limited ability to collect comprehensive data on land use and environmental impacts to inform decision making and respond to the changing environment. Reduced transparency and accountability for the community in land management practices. | Reduced administrative burden on landholders in reporting. | LLS may deliver ineffective response to an emergency (for example floods, bushfires, biosecurity outbreak) due to inaccuracy of livestock information with potential for substantial environmental costs. |
| Part 4 – Catchment contributions | ||
Funding for catchment management in the Hunter Catchment could diminish, affecting natural resource conservation efforts and flood mitigation works. Landholders receive reduced support for sustainable land and water management practices. Hunter Local Land Services may no longer be able to meet its legislative obligations under the Water Management Act 2000, as well as meeting resource condition and management targets in the Hunter LLS Local Strategic Plan. | Potential reduction in financial burden on landholders. | Degradation of catchment health may lead to increased environmental risks. Potential fines and penalties for non-compliance with legislative obligations under the Water Management Act 2000. |
| Part 5 – Travelling stock reserves and public roads | ||
LLS would have difficulty in ensuring equitable access to water sources for livestock. Uncertainty in reliable access to water sources for livestock. Unclear regulations could lead to disputes over usage rights and maintenance responsibilities for stock reserves and public roads. | Potential reduction in regulatory burden on landholders regarding infrastructure maintenance. | Disruption in livestock movements and potential safety hazards on public roads. Potential impact on animal welfare standards. |
| Part 6 – Stock watering places | ||
| Potentially inconsistent access to water sources for livestock, impacting animal welfare and management practices. | Nil. | Potential health risks to livestock due to inadequate watering places. |
| Part 7 – Impounding of unattended and trespassing stock and abandoned articles | ||
| Provisions which set out circumstances whereby stock would be considered not “unattended” would be removed. | Nil. | Potential increase in regulatory burden in cases where emergency or other circumstances requires stock to be left unattended. |
| Part 8 – Transportation of stock by vehicle | ||
| Provisions would no longer apply that support and clarify the particulars of transportation of stock by vehicle. | Nil. | Reduced safety in transportation of stock by vehicle. |
| Part 10 – Powers of authorised officers | ||
| Provisions would no longer apply that support and clarify penalty notice offences and enforcement actions. | Potential reduction in regulatory scrutiny and compliance costs. | Nil. |
| Part 11 – Eligibility for election or appointment of members of local boards | ||
| Reduced specificity and reduced requirements for local board appointments may allow underqualified, conflicted or ineligible person may be appointed as a member of a local board. | Potential reduction in administrative burden related to board appointments. | Poor decision making as a result of suboptimal board appointment may create additional costs. |
| Part 12 – Stock identification | ||
| LLS has not to date established/used a stock identification scheme. LLS retains its ability to establish a scheme in future if needed as per the LLS Act. | Nil. | Nil. |
| Part 13 – Miscellaneous (other than native vegetation land management) | ||
Provisions would no longer apply that support and clarify: Circumstances whereby a person may apply for a certificate as to rates, charges and other matters. Nuisance animals. Existing stock warning signs. Writing off charges. Certificates relating to animals. | Potential reduction in regulatory burden. | Nil. |
| Part 14 – Land management (native vegetation) | ||
Unregulated land clearing and degradation of native vegetation. Loss of biodiversity and ecosystem reliance. | Reduction in regulatory burden for landholders. | Potential for environmental degradation and reduced habitat for wildlife. |
| Schedule 1 – Elections for members of local boards | ||
| Lack of transparency, consistency and fairness in the election process. | Reduced administrative complexity and costs. | Potential to undermine trust, and allow for disputes/ misconduct without clear legal recourse or oversight. |
| Schedule 2 – Penalty notice offences | ||
| No provision in the LLS Regulation to issue penalties for non-compliance. | Reduced administrative burden and legal complexity. Potential to handle minor breaches with education or warnings rather than fines. | Reduced deterrence from non-compliance, and increased burden in courts. |
Consideration of the impacts, costs and benefits in the Table above highlights that the costs of allowing the LLS Regulation to lapse under Option 1 are considerably greater than the benefits.
While there are some potential reductions in administrative and financial burdens for landholders, these are outweighed by the broader negative impacts. Furthermore, allowing certain Parts of the regulation to lapse would result in no benefits.
Key costs and impacts highlighted in the table above include reduced funding and operational capacity for LLS, weakened emergency response and environmental management, loss of regulatory clarity and increased risks to public safety, animal welfare and biodiversity.
The impacts, costs and benefits of Option 1 are described further below.
Impacts
The impact of allowing the LLS Regulation to lapse would be significant.
Failing to renew the LLS Regulation would lead to reduced oversight and funding, limiting LLS's ability to support landholders, manage and enforce compliance, and protect natural resources. This would lead to weaker service delivery, environmental risks, and governance concerns.
The LLS Act cannot operate as intended without a Regulation to support its administration.
Costs
The cost of allowing the LLS Regulation to lapse would be significant.
Key costs include:
- Reduced revenue and limited control over rates would constrain LLS's ability to fund essential services and programs.
- Uncertainty in funding for landholders could impact agricultural productivity and land management support.
- Inaccurate livestock data may hinder emergency response and biosecurity efforts, increasing environmental and economic risks.
- Loss of livestock traceability and stock identification raises animal welfare, disease, and safety concerns.
- Poor governance and environmental degradation could lead to long-term financial, ecological, and compliance costs.
- Loss of prescribed amount payable for penalty notice offences would mean that all breaches of the LLS Act would need to be pursued by way of a formal prosecution, resulting in a lack of flexibility in dealing with breaches and significant resources directed towards prosecution.
The cost of taking no action and allowing the LLS Regulation to lapse would be very high and unacceptable to the community. Overall costs associated with Option 1 have been assessed as very high.
Benefits
There are limited benefits arising from allowing the LLS Regulation to lapse.
While some landowners may experience reduced, financial, administrative and regulatory burden in the short term, these benefits come at a significant cost as the essential services provided by LLS would be significantly impacted, and some would have to be discontinued.
LLS would still be required to administer the LLS Act but it would not have the prescribed powers in the LLS Regulation to support that administration.
The overall benefits associated with Option 1 have been assessed as very low.
Conclusion
Option 1 would create a significant negative impact compared to the current Regulation.
The LLS Act cannot operate as intended without a regulation that supports its administration. Allowing the LLS Regulation to lapse would impact all businesses, communities, government agencies and the environment currently supported by the LLS Regulation.
Option 1 – allow the LLS Regulation to lapse – is not the preferred option.
Request an accessible format of this publication.