Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, , 5:55:03 to 6:06:50
Inquiry into the impact of new EPA guidelines and EPBC Act 'continuous use' rules on farming land management.
Topics: EPBC Act, Land management
Speakers: Senator Paul Scarr, Jessica Mitchell, Unknown Speaker, Matt Lowe, Senator Glenn Sterle
>> requirements under the EPA,
>> is this the um ones that pertain to continuous use in land use?
So I guess just reflecting on um Senator Kennavan's previous line of questioning, not only do farming communities, farming families have to grapple with the discretionary t tax issue, discretionary trust issue, they also have to grapple with um the new guidelines issued under
are going to require some assistance potentially from external advisers, which is going to mean cost. Uh, was staff consulted on the statement of expectations for the national EPA?
>> Uh, Senator Jessica Mitchell, assistant secretary, sustainable agriculture. No, >> Not on the statement of expectations for the national EPA.
Given the actions of the national EPA and the position it takes with respect was with respect to things like continuous use etc will have an impact upon uh the farming industry. Should you
>> No, it's not usual practice. It's um uh that document is between a minister and their department. So it would be unusual to consult uh an external department in in drafting that document.
Did it ask for? So you didn't ask you didn't have the opportunity to ask for agriculture and food food security to be named among the government's objectives in that expectation statement. You weren't given the opportunity to give you any input.
>> No. And that that's um not something that the department would usually be involved in.
involved? Well, I'll let you ask the first question. So, the guidelines have
>> Yes, senator, we were involved. Uh, a part of our feedback to uh the department of climate change uh energy, environment and water and the national EPA is that um for landholders to understand their responsibilities, they do need to have clear guidance uh on the changes. So uh definitely in involved in providing that feedback and drafting of the document and I understand a significant amount of engagement happened with the agricultural industry as well in drafting that document. >> Yes. So we're talking about not necessarily guidelines. It's a guide. So it's a guidance document for the agricultural industry. >> What's the difference between a guide and guidelines? >> Doesn't a guide contain guidelines? >> Uh guidelines are regulatory instrument. We're talking about a guidance material. Um so how to interpret the legislation. Okay. um and some helpful templates and information for >> hopefully covers >> in my opinion helpful. Okay. Um so the uh reforms passed the parliament in early December. Um that's when we're made aware of what um what they contain. Y um we engaged with the department of climate change um uh energy, environment and water at that time about what that could possibly um mean for our sector. Um industry was engaged as well. I know there's lots of engagement with industry to explain um what the reforms meant in practice. Um from that time a lot of engagement. So we have interdep departmental committees where we all get together across government to to discuss the impacts to our relevant portfolios. Um that uh that engagement happened uh continuously. So um in July when the national EPA uh came into force, I know that uh the CEO John Bradley went out to meet with agricultural stakeholders and went to some farms in Queensland. um took staff from the national EPA with him to help understand the issues for agricultural stakeholders. Um we were provided with drafts. So were um agricultural stakeholders like AG force and the NFF. They provided comments on those drafts. Um and then it was uh later published. So a lot of engagement. I know it's still happening to this day. Um yeah, we're we're heavily engaged and so is the industry.
>> Okay. Can I ask you to provide on notice copies of any comments you provided uh in relation to the guide uh in terms of the drafting of the guide in terms of the methodology in the guide? Could you please do that?
>> We'll take that on notice. I I do note that a lot of um the conversations that we have are verbal and in meetings. So there won't necessarily be documentation of every uh piece of advice that we provided, but certainly we can make it
on notice. Isn't it useful for something so important actually put I know I would find it useful if I was working on a guide like this and you've got so many stakeholders you're trying to accommodate. Um I'm surprised that you wouldn't have put something in writing.
>> Oh no there will there will be sorry Senator there will be um there will be feedback in writing but we also do pick up the phone and we have regular meetings where we discuss issues.
>> Okay. And you referred to this uh interdep departmental committee that's been meeting regularly. >> It produces minutes. Uh, I'm not aware.
I'm not the secretariat. That would be a matter for the Department of Climate Change.
>> All right. But presumably you get copies of the minutes. >> Have you seen copies of the minutes?
>> Not to my knowledge. No.
>> Okay. Can I ask you to take on notice whether or not the department has copies of any minutes or any submissions that you've made uh to that interdep departmental committee. If you could so you were consulted on the guide before it was published. Uh, I note that the guide says that on its on its face that feedback is being sought from users of the guide. Uh, and presumably there's going to be another iteration of the guide. Have you provided any feedback as to what a further version of the guide should contain or how it might be amended to make it more user friendly?
>> Yeah, we do. We regularly provide feedback as we notice issues and I understand that the industry has similarly done so. Um I believe the next iteration is due to be published in December. So we haven't seen a draft of that um document but we would expect to throughout the month.
>> Okay. Can you through the is is
>> throughout this month they're coming.
>> Is there a timetable >> indicative timetable as you said this month? So, you've got an expectation. I think we're still in October, Chief. >> just uh are you [laughter] are you expecting in the next few days straight after estimates? [clears throat]
>> I'm expecting sometime in the next couple of weeks. If they're aiming to publish in December, we would expect to see something in November.
>> But that's just your reasonable expectation.
>> This is just my expectation.
>> A reasonable person. Yeah. Okay. Uh can I have copies of any feedback which you provided since the guide the first version came into effect and any feedback you provide provided that may well be hopefully reflected in the next version. Could you take that on notice
please? >> Yes, Senator.
we're getting reports of practical difficulties and cost involved in actually meeting uh the um suggestions if I can put it that way or guidance I use guidelines but the guidance provided in the guide. uh so the cost of say self assessing a grazing fence that runs a number of kilometers uh as a matter of practice the time it's taken to engage in the very rigorous self assessment I've looked at the template it is quite rigorous uh have you received feedback in that regard with respect to uh the cost it's t the amount of time taken to to complete these self assessments
>> we've certainly heard feedback um from industry particularly a force has has provided a lot of feedback to the department on on that. Um we do also uh receive feedback um from the national EPA who have engaged in a road show around Queensland um to discuss matters with with industry. So we we're aware of some of the feedback and some of the concerns, but also um understand that when landholders do engage with the national EPA to understand what's required, it it normally is is less than they expected.
>> Well, has it been raised with you that sometimes there's a discrepancy between what's said in the guide and what people are being told when they engage with the
National EPA? not aware of that level of detail.
>> Well, it's not really a level of detail. It's just the general proposition that there's the guide and then people engage with the national EPA and they're told something which appears to be contrary to the guide.
>> Right?
>> So, a disconnect between the guide uh itself, the written guide, uh and communication they might have when they're dealing with someone in the national EPA, which is leading to confusion. Are you aware of that issue?
And Senator, if there are specific examples you'd like to furnish us with, um, we'd be very happy. We have a regular dialogue with the National EPA on these matters and I'm sure they'd also be concerned to understand them as well.
>> Okay. So, one of one of the concerns is the guide says X >> and then you have a conversation with the National EPA and it's not just X, it's also X plus Y plus Z, >> right? Uh so things go further >> than perhaps what the guide provides. And obviously in this context, given the consequences, >> uh and given people want to do the right thing, uh you can understand why uh there's concern if there's a disconnect between the guide and what people are being told by members within the national EPA. Um you appreciate the issue.
>> Appreciate the issue and um obviously the intention of our involvement is to um work with the national EPA and work with industry to ensure that the material available and also the um guidance that's available um I guess in person or on the phone um does deliver that clarity and therefore that regulatory certainty correct >> that the agriculture sector is
interested in. I'm sorry, but I'll just let you know the media's in the room, so you're okay. Okay, mate. You're all good to go. Thank you. >> Oh, sorry. I'll just It's Osp. [laughter] Why am I asking? Come in. Sorry.
>> Can I get a com chair? Just
>> Okay. Who? [laughter] >> All right. Who orders OPIC? Come on up.
>> Okay.
>> Drop them in.
>> Not me.
>> Okay. Senator SC, sorry. You