Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, , 5:18:48 to 5:26:34
Discussion on the potential impact of EPBC reforms on agricultural productivity and the department's role in representing the sector's interests during policy development with DCCEEW.
Topics: EPBC Act, Agricultural productivity, Food security
Speakers: Speaker 21, Speaker 12, Speaker 3, Speaker 20, Speaker 25
oversight and input? and and certainly um Senator we acknowledge that um there's there's a balanced outcome to be achieved. Um ultimately though the the reforms um still enable um land managers and farmers to manage their land. It introduces a specific I guess checkpoint um whereby um if the land holder believes that um there'll be a significant impact on a matter of national environmental significance then they'll need to seek a referral. But um but certainly I think we just acknowledge that there is still the ability for farmers to to manage their land. Um it just introduces a checkpoint
if you like. >> All right. Well, I had been requesting of the um environment committees legislation legislation committee of the environment committee to um to extend their hearings to allow for proper examination of this change because um I've been flooded with uh concerned landholders and peak industry groups trying to understand how that would impact with their ability to to manage and uh particularly things like Um uh whilst the minister assured me that it would only be a 50-day turnaround of requests to the department going forward, that of course isn't the case at the moment and that people who are coming up to that 15-year deadline would find themselves outside of the deadline and unable to progress an application. So, there's some real concerns in the community.
We we appreciate that and um we also appreciate that um there's there's a period for which to industry to adjust to these new um reforms or laws. Um what I can assure you senator is that while DQ is the lead and and certainly we respect that they they are the lead in this in this matter and the regulator um we have been involved as in discussions with industry in relation to the reforms and working with DQ in terms of the guidance material that they're providing
as well. So these same producers and land managers, how can they get regulatory certainty when the matters of environmental significance from the MNES species distribution modeling relies upon the national vegetation information system which has poor consistency across jurisdictional boundaries and huge spatial data gaps.
you might be getting into a level of detail that's outside my ability to um support you with answers. Senator, is there anybody in the department who can >> if there's anything they want to add?
>> So, certainly, Senator, I mean, I know this was discussed at yesterday's hearings and I know environment officials pointed to some of the investments they're making to improve the information and mapping and data uh that would be sort of enabled uh decisions by by landholders. uh and I can't add to sort of the evidence that they've they've given it's it's their sort of infrastructure and data and and tools that u sort of are part of this
process. So understanding that I guess you know my concern is is what specific agriculturally based decisionmaking tools and guidance will this department be able to provide to landholders to ensure that productivity levels and profitability levels aren't affected by
this arbitrary number. I think um I I think our focus is is really on working with DQ as the lead agency and the regulator regulator in this space to ensure that their materials um uh I guess reflective of the feedback that that we're both hearing from the sector as much as possible. Um, Senator, the other thing I'm aware of is that a lot of producers, I guess, are keen to understand and are mindful of state-based regulatory requirements as well in relation to land management. So, we're certainly aware of that as well and I think DQ's engaging with their state and territory counterparts in
relation to these reforms as well. So um with this 15-year threshold in regard to the MNES, there's not been any acknowledgement of the huge spatial data gaps as well as the huge taxonomic errors. Some vegetation species are listed under different species names in different states as well as having different conservation status. This this is huge regulatory inconsistency. And while I understand that you're saying this is not your policy and you don't have portfolio oversight, but it's the agricultural department who is responsible for the growth and the success of the agricultural industry in Australia. So how what perhaps I should ask the secretary who I'm sorry Miss Anderson because I do know this is whilst you've been in the department uh for a long time know what do you propose that you'll do to ensure that your department's work is not undermined by um the work of DQ
>> um thank you Senator and thanks for the acknowledgement. I've only been here a very short while. So, um, but obviously this issue was has been a priority. Um, Mr. Low, I think, briefed me on on the very first day that I started. So, it's not it's not something that is considered sort of an aside to our work. It's very much we we do take responsibility for having close engagement with DQ as Mr. Low has said and um really want to be at all of the relevant tables representing the interests of the sector and we're doing our best to do that. I do acknowledge there's some regulatory uncertainty at the moment. Our our best and um highest and best use is probably to ensure we're working closely with DQ to bring certainty to those uh areas of uncertainty as you've you've talked about as quickly as possible. So, um whilst I I can't sort of sit here and say we've got an easy solution, it's it's it's going to be a lot of hard work over the coming months, I can reassure you that it is not something that we consider side business. It is core business for us. It's just that we don't literally own the policy or regulatory responsibilities, but we certainly have the sectors in our portfolio that are feeling the impact of these decisions and that's um going to drive a strong
engagement from us going forward. >> So, um earlier we had some discussion about native forestry. How will private native forestry be protected from this 15-year ruling, noting that Queensland does not have an
RFA? Um I'm just trying to remember um specific detail in relation to that. I'll ask colleagues to come to the table, but I think they're >> I think that private native forestry is exempt >> from these provisions, Senator, >> but I'll just confirm with colleagues so
I'm not misleading you. >> Thanks. Uh thanks Mr. Low. the the amendments included specific carvebacks for forestry operations uh which would include uh private native forestry
operations. >> Oh, that's excellent. Well done. Thank you. Nice and simple. Um so that was my only question on that matter. Thank you for being so efficient.