In the emotionally charged days following the recent bush fires in Victoria, the media ran many stories blaming council native vegetation clearance regulations on the severity of the fires. 

A story that gained prominence in the media was the Liam Sheahan case. I believe this story first emerged from an article written by Richard Baker and Nick McKenzie that appeared in the Age on 12/2/09.
 
Their article argued that the Sheahans had been victimized by the local council for clearing 250 trees from their block of land in Reedy Creek. According to the article, the Sheahans claimed that although they had been fined $30,000 for clearing without a permit, their actions had helped save their house during the fire. Following the publication of this story, Sheahan has been raised to hero status in many sections of the media for battling the mindless council bureaucrats and has been frequently used to justify immediate changes to native vegetation clearance regulations..  

Sadly, the media has neglected its responsibility to properly investigate and report all the facts and the public has not been given a balanced presentation of this case.  When I contacted the council last week, I was astonished to hear that NO journalist had bothered to contact the Mitchell Shire Council to investigate their version of the story.

My curiosity over this case was sparked when I read about the large fine that had been imposed and I was curious to find out the reasons for such a large fine. After 5 minutes searching the Internet, I was able to locate minutes from the Mitchell Shire Council meeting of 12/9/05, which provide a summary of the Sheahan case to council. These minutes are available at www.mitchellshire.vic.gov.au/Files/12_Sept_05_minutes.pdf.

I believe that any journalist who had bothered to properly research this story would have quickly found that the Sheahan case was quite fascinating, but not for any of the reasons that have so far appeared in the media.

Problems with the Age story “Fined for illegal clearing, family feels vindicated” (12/2/09): 
 
1)      “Fined $50,000”
Liam and Dale Sheahan were each fined $15,000. The court awarded $20,000 council costs against the Sheahans.
2)      “Bulldozed trees to make a fire break”
These were not just any trees- the Sheahans bulldozed 1.2 Ha Old Growth eucalyptus forest that was part of an environmental overlay on their property. Their property is around 40 Ha adjoining State forest, so they bulldozed around 3% of their property. The Age story fails to disclose the significance of the felled forest and fails to give an accurate account of the extent of the logging.

When “Today Tonight” covered this story, they raised the possibility that the reasons for the clearing were more than just fire prevention. The Sheahan’s keep horses, and it is possible that the reason for the scale of the clearing was their need to create a cleared paddock for their horses. (The property is hilly and the cleared area is one of the flatter areas of the property).

The Age reporters simply accepted the Sheahan’s reason for the clearing and failed to investigate other reasons that may have explained the large scale of the clearing.

3)      “got them dragged before a magistrates court”

The article fails to mention that the council action was initiated after they received complaints from local residents about the clearing.
 
The article fails to mention that from November 2002 until early 2005, the Council had attempted on numerous occasions to come to a settlement with the Sheahans. A reading of the Council minutes will demonstrate that the Council was trying to avoid a court battle with the Sheahans.

Reaching a settlement with the Sheahans was not going to be easy. In the Herald Sun of 6/8/2004, an article covering the case states that the Sheahans had written to the Council and complaining residents and told them to “get stuffed” when asked to explain their actions. The letter is quoted at length in the Herald Sun and states:

“We could not care any less than we do now what any self righteous self appointed  ‘green police’ person thinks about what we are doing. It is our place, not theirs. We have owned it since 1982. We paid for it not them and they can go and get stuffed.” 
 
Despite this, in 2003, the Council and the Sheahans did reach a settlement. They agreed to pay $2,500 Council costs and undertake some revegetation work. Unfortunately, the Sheahans failed to honour this agreement. Rather than immediately commence a Court case, the council again attempted to reach a settlement with the Sheahans. These attempts eventually failed and a Court case began in April 2004.

Had the Sheahans stuck to the agreement they signed in 2003, they would have avoided prosecution, legal costs and the fines.  Claiming that the Sheahans were ‘dragged’ to the Magistrates Court is a twisting of the facts that hides key parts of the story from the public. 

4)      “Illegally clearing trees to guard against fire”
The language used in this part of the article could lead the reader to believe that the Sheahans had felled the trees and removed all the dead wood from their property. 

When I spoke to David Huxtable, Mitchell Shire Council’s Environmental Services Officer, I was told that in fact the Sheahans had left most of the felled trees piled up on their property.

5 weeks after the complaint was first investigated, the Council sent a fire hazard assessment expert to check the extent of the logging. In the opinion of this expert, he felt that the piles of dead wood had created an increased fire hazard for the Sheahans.

This inspection was made at the start of the 2002/03 fire season, a season quite similar to the current season. I understand from Mr Huxtable that in 2003, the Council issued the Sheahans with an order to remove a fire hazard from the property ( A photo in the Herald Sun article from 2004 shows some  burnt trees still  piled up on his property nearly 2 years after the complaint was made).

Huxtable believes that the efforts of the Council and the local CFA in having the cut down trees removed from the property may have helped them survive the recent fires.
It is a pity that Baker and McKenzie didn’t contact the Mitchell Council – they would have found that the story is substantially more complex than the caricature presented in the article. 
 
According to the Council minutes, when the Sheahans were asked to defend their actions, they claimed that the logging operation had been done for fire preventionand was therefore exempt from a planning permit.

However, when the case went to court, the Magistrate rejected their defence stating “they only sought to consider exemptions under the Mitchell Planning Scheme after the fact”.
5)      “Mr Sheahan is still angry about his prosecution, which cost him $100,000 in fines and legal fees”
As mentioned above, the fines and prosecution would have been avoided if the Sheahans had honoured their 2003 agreement with the Council. 
 
If the journalists had done their job properly, it would have been interesting to find out why they dishonoured their agreement and decided to engage in a Court battle using a prominent, expensive barrister from Melbourne.
 
A reading of the relevant Council minutes shows that the large costs incurred by the Sheahans and the prosecution were quite avoidable. 
 
6)      “The council planning laws allow trees to be cleared only when they are within 6 metres of a house”
This statement is incorrect. The 6 metre rule only applies if a land owner wants to remove native vegetation without a permit.  According to David Huxtable, the Council can consider other clearing proposals but these go through a permit process. This would require payment for permits and possible additional payments to pay for the costs of expert reports or to pay for offset revegetation. The current regulations appear to have some flexibility and are not as black and white as depicted in the article. 
 
7)      “He would like his convictions overturned and fines repaid”.   
If either of the reporters had spoken to the Mitchell Shire Council, they would have found that they had decided not to pursue recovery of the Council’s $20,000 costs in May 2008.
The issue of native vegetation clearing will no doubt feature prominently in the coming Royal Commission hearings. This is an important issue and I certainly hope that the public will be better informed about the issues in the future. It has been disappointing to find that in the days after the fire, normal journalistic standards have been dropped by the ‘Age’.

Since this story was published, I understand that  Council workers have been subjected to a number of abusive calls and emails. It is quite appalling at this time when so many of these people are putting in long hours at work to help people affected by the fires, that misguided pieces of journalism like the Sheahan story are adding to their stress.