Despite assurances from the federal government about the revised Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act's framework impact on farmers, AgForce Queensland still has many unanswered questions.
AgForce CEO Niki Ford has cautiously welcomed suggestions that agriculture will not be disproportionately burdened under the revised legislation, but said the current legal framework told a different story.
"Our work investigating this legislation over the past six months shows that the only pathway for producers to eliminate legal risk is to undertake a formal EPBC referral process," Ms Ford said.
"This requires producers to lodge detailed documentation outlining proposed activities and how their potential impacts on matters of national environmental significance are managed and assessed.
"That assessment requires First Nations engagement, ecological assessments, public consultation and multiple lodgings and interactions with the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW).
"All of this adds up to a substantial cost for producers.
"In fact, AgForce estimates that compliance under the current system could cost Queensland producers $3.5 billion annually."
Ms Ford said this cost burden came at a time when producers were grappling with the rising costs of fuel and fertiliser due to the Middle East conflict.
"The cost of these essential components for producing food and fibre is rapidly reducing margins for producers and forcing difficult decisions to be made," she said.
"They're also dealing with the impact of rising interest rates, inflation and growing labour expenses.
"These additional costs will inevitably flow through to food production, impacting food security and cost of living for all Australians."
AgForce also confirmed that DCCEEW has not modelled the cost of compliance for the agricultural sector from the Reforms, and does not intend to do so.
In addition, there is no clarity on budget commitment around technology to facilitate this process, raising questions about whether economic and social impacts are being adequately considered.
Time is another factor affecting producers.
AgForce also believes the referral process can take up to 18 months, placing considerable operational strain on farmers and time-critical activities.
The self-assessment option
While producers have been encouraged to rely on self-assessment pathways, AgForce General President Shane McCarthy said compliance activity in Queensland suggested otherwise.
He said there were currently about 30 compliance investigations underway in Queensland relating to activities between 2021 and 2026 on Category X land.
"These producers were undertaking lawful activities under state vegetation and planning laws," Mr McCarthy said.
"Yet they are being scrutinised under federal provisions relating to continuous use and alleged impacts to Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES)."
"For context, about 80 per cent of Queensland is classified as regulation remnant (Category B) vegetation which is subject to strict management protocols.
"Less than 20 per cent falls under Category X, where more flexible use is permitted to support agricultural production.
"And we must also remember that producers remain the frontline managers of invasive species like rabbits, wild dogs, feral pigs and cats, which are widely recognised as the primary driver of biodiversity decline in Australia."
AgForce was also concerned about the possibility of retrospective enforcement action even where producers undertake self-assessments or engage accredited consultants.
"Even after the fact, if DCCEEW determines that an activity like improving your fencing, weed control or maintaining or renewing firebreaks has impacted a threatened ecological community, compliance measures can be imposed," Mr McCarthy said.
"These include environmental remediation orders, land-use restrictions or "lock-up" for revegetation and mandatory Environmental Offsets.
"Under the Act, enforcement operates on a 'balance of probability', meaning it does not need to be proved that species were present at the time, only that it is more probable than not that it was there."
Another major concern remains the absence of any clear definition of a 'significant impact' threshold nor definition for continuous use under the EPBC Act.
"Despite repeated requests, AgForce is yet to receive formal guidance from the Department on the definition," Mr McCarthy said.
"This creates uncertainty for producers where land use patterns vary because of seasonal and regional conditions.
"Without this clarity, we fear there is a possibility that routine management activities could be at risk of being retrospectively interpreted as non-compliant even where producers have not been clearly informed of their requirements.
"And until we see legal clarification suggesting otherwise, this will remain."
New federal agency
AgForce has also raised concerns about the proposed establishment of a federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
"With an independent CEO and a primary enforcement mandate to recover costs, there is limited confidence that the practical realities of agriculture will be sufficiently considered," Ms Ford said.
She said AgForce continued to engage constructively with DCCEEW to advocate for a workable framework recognising the realities of agricultural production while also supporting real environmental outcomes.
"A compliance-heavy, enforcement-first approach will not work," Ms Ford said.
"We remain committed to representing our members and constructively engaging government, but we are questioning whether the legal framework behind this can recognise cyclical agriculture.
"Significant changes are needed to ensure the EPBC Act supports both environmental protection and a sustainable agricultural future."
