Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, , 5:29:01 to 5:36:22
Discussion regarding the effectiveness of the departmental hotline for landholders and the lack of scientific modeling for new environmental thresholds.
Topics: EPBC Act, Land management
Speakers: Speaker 21, Speaker 12, Speaker 3, Speaker 20, Speaker 2, Speaker 1
>> All right. So the Minister for Environment's letter dated the 5th of February 2026 indicated 180 individual landholders have received assistance from the department departmental contact center. However, we're receiving reports that farmers are having issues with the 1800 hotline and staff manning the hotline failing to give definitive answers to questions. Um, Minister, are you well, you're acting so, but I'm I'm wondering if um or secretary, are you aware of these these challenges with the 1-800 number?
I >> I actually was watching your questioning yesterday, Senator, so broadly aware. >> Um, I think I won't speak for the environment department or the environment portfolio, but I think one of the some of the things we're talking about earlier in terms of regulatory uncertainty is possibly why people aren't getting the firm answers that they are seeking. those things are still being settled. Again, I don't know >> um the specifics of the issues people are having, but I just thought on that one element, I think until >> some of this work is done, which is really vital um you know, it is going to be difficult to sort of give really definitive advice to producers, but hopefully that will improve over the coming weeks and months as these things are settled and and that advice can be
more firm. I >> think that is the problem, isn't it? is that there is so much uncertainty. There's so lacking in data. There's no science really that supports the 15-year decision. And so that's would be my suggestion why there's uncertainty as everybody's sort of running around. You know, the deal was done to pacify the the Greens and yet how does it impact on people who are on the land. >> Um we don't know. Minister, can I ask you're a very practical person? Will you talk to the Minister for the Environment to encourage him to provide more pathways for producers to be able to get
that certainty? >> Uh, I don't know if that was praise or not, uh, Senator McConnell, but >> I certainly know that uh that Minister Collins uh is aware of these issues and I'm sure uh we'll be uh advocating on behalf of the department as well. Uh I'm always happy to take up issues uh with Senator Watt at the same time.
>> Thank you. Um has has DAFF made any representations or provided any advice to DQ about the impact of these requirements on farmers?
>> I think the best way to describe it is that we're working with DQ. Um we're in conversations with industry with DQ. So we're hearing the same things from industry that DQ is hearing. If um if um representative bodies or um or producers are are raising issues with us directly um we're very um we're very focused on ensuring that that information and those um concerns are provided to DQ as well.
>> All right. Minister Watt's letter states that these changes will likely capture only a small number of additional actions undertaken by the agricultural sector. That is because under the rules that have been uh operated since 2000, the continuing use exemption has only applied to activities that do not enlarge, expand, intensify, or change the location of land use. I note that the rules simply codify that in most cases land clearing vegetation more than 15 years old will not have the requirements for exemptions anyway because the time gap demonstrates use that has not been continuous. So my question is what happens to grazers who manage the vegetation on their properties and it is uh late in that cycle late in that 15-year period but they can't undertake a plan management due to rain, flooding, cost of fuel, access to equipment.
>> Um
>> they're going to have to seek an exemption to
the timeline. Um I' I'd say that's a matter for DQ, Senator. Um I don't know if colleagues have anything additional to add, but but probably as a starting point and and I know you're aware of this, Senator, it is simply um I guess a check um at 15 years um to see if the land clearing post that time would significantly impact matters of national environmental
significance. >> When will the bilateral with the states
be finalized? Uh that would be a matter for DQ,
Senator. Okay. >> The DQ website titled updates to agricultural action exemptions under the EPBC act states the 15-year time frame does not allow for variation in growth rate, inadvertent timing out or intent to clear. What does that mean?
>> Um I'm probably reluctant to comment on it in detail. Um, but I'm happy to take
it away and come back to you. >> Well, I think if you would because to me that's saying that we're doing 15 years and we're not going to consider variations in growth rates, inadvertent timing out or an intention to clear.
and and and I and as you mentioned, I did watch um um the discussions you had with DQ yesterday and Minister Watt and um I don't really have much more to add to what officials and minister what provided yesterday.
>> Senator, can I just add that I I know that DQ are updating their websites and guidance material uh quite regularly. They there are fortnightly uh meetings between DQ and industry pe bodies that uh we also participate in those discussions and and they uh then inform u areas where DQ updates their information or reviews their processes as an ongoing dialogue.
So, um I'm I'm sorry to tell you that I know that a lot of the language that's been used this afternoon of, you know, ongoing dialogue and confidence and whatnot will be not providing any confidence at all to landholders who had to um pay contractors while they had to stop work while farmers have been waiting for certainty on what the new regulations mean. Um we've got no understanding of what this will do to productivity and profitability uh onto properties. There was no RZ undertaken. Um so will is the department done or will you plan to do any modeling on the impact of the EPBC reforms on the prevalence or severity of bush fires or
floods? >> We don't have any plans at this stage, Senator.
>> Okay. A very unsatisfactory outcome to all those questions, isn't it? DAFF has been left out in the cold. You don't know what the impacts will be. There doesn't seem to be a budget for doing any formal modeling on that. And DQ has um we hope and pray going to continue doing the work that means that food security
is not compromised in Australia. on that then uh SA Brockman.