EPBC Act Reforms

Question

In the 2026-27 Budget the Government committed to reducing regulatory burden by $10.2 billion each year - which includes the implementation of the EPBC Act reforms: 1. How does this figure account for the increased regulatory burden on agriculture? 2. Will the regulatory burden on agriculture be costed each year? In a Question on Notice (SQ26-000195) the Department stated that ''At a practical level most activities on developed agricultural land do not need to be referred for assessment because they have low-level environmental impacts and are below the level regulated by national environmental law'' 3. What is the Department doing to give this 'written' assurance to farmers that most farming activities don't need self-assessment and referral? And how will this be reflected in the regulations? 4. What is the definition of 'Significant Impact' on a Matter of National Environmental Significance? How can farmers easily understand what this threshold is? ? 5. AgForce have so far only gotten a 39-page document with no threshold, How do you expect producers to understand their requirements if you aren't willing to release the 'significant impact threshold' ? 6. How many farmers are expected to undertake a self-assessment process to determine if they may have a significant impact on a Matter of National Environmental Significance and require a referral? 7. Is there an estimated cost for a farmer to undertake a self-assessment process? 8. Can the Department provide a copy of the self-assessment process? 9. Do farmers need to know if migratory birds land on their property? 10. How accurate is the mapping that farmers must use to understand whether they have a migratory bird, threatened species and ecological communities on their property? 11. Is it spatially accurate, scale-appropriate and applied at the level of the specific activity and location? 12. If not - why not? 13. If not - are you reversing the onus of proof back onto agricultural landholders to prove an absence given the mapping is not accurate? 14. AgForce has estimated the cost of $184,000 as an indicative ongoing regulatory cost per business for referral and annual compliance - is the department aware of this cost? 15. AgForce provided a consultation submission to the Draft Environmental Standard (Matters of National Environmental Significance) 2025 - why weren't any of AgForce's recommendations included in the next consultation draft recently released (the Exposure Draft)? 16. Why can't agriculture be recognised as a distinct pathway in the Standard given it is different to a development-style proposal being a continuous and cyclical land use? 17. Why can't the Standard exempt routine agricultural activities from referral and self-assessment? 18. Why can't the Standard assess impacts in the context of long-term productivity, stewardship and landscape outcomes, rather than short-term disturbance? 19. Why can't the Standard recognise existing stewardship and natural capital outcomes already being delivered by farmers? 20. Why does the Standard include public engagement and Indigenous Heritage matters - shouldn't they be addressed through existing cultural heritage and land management legislation? 21. What is the government going to do to take into consideration these concerns farmers have? 22. When will the bilateral negotiations with the states be finalised? 23. Will the Matters of National Significance framework use state-based vegetation, water and land management systems where they are effective? The 2026-27 Budget included $26.4 million over four years for the Department to work with states and territories to develop new bioregional plans and strategic assessments that will fast-track environmental approvals in priority areas. 24. Is there any funding going to assist with bioregional plans and agriculture, or an agricultural pilot program? 25. Do any of the Natural Resource Management organisations assist farmers with these new environmental requirements? 26. Why do remedial activities come under the same scrutiny? Isn't this discouraging if every activity has adjoining legal risk? 27. Why did the Government cut $35 million over 2 years (from 2028-29) and $17.5 million from the agriculture stream of the Natural Heritage Trust (NHT)? 28. What activities will be cut? 29. Why wasn't that funding kept to assist farmers understand the new requirements and reduce regulatory burden? 30. What charging framework will be applied to the referral process?

Answer

Please see the attached answer.

Documents

• Question with answer (PDF) (opens in a new tab)
• SQ26-000597.pdf (opens in a new tab)