This update follows on from our recent electronic direct mail (EDM) to AgForce members regarding the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 and the six related Bills. Several producers have sought further clarification, and the information below provides additional detail on how these reforms may interact with clearing decisions, Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES), and ongoing land management.
We again note that the Environment Protection Reform Bill does not ban clearing, but it does introduce new consequences where clearing occurs on vegetation that has not been cleared for 15 or more years, or where proposed clearing may have a significant impact on MNES. As a reminder, MNES include threatened species, ecological communities, wetlands of international importance, World Heritage areas, the Great Barrier Reef and certain water resources.
The Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW) is expected to release updated guidance later this week (Wednesday or Thursday). Some of the links in our member update on Friday were updated by the Commonwealth over the weekend and may no longer resolve correctly, so a revised list is provided at the end of this update.
What the Environment Protection Reform Bill Changes
To recap the key amendments:
• Clearing within 50 metres of a watercourse, wetland or drainage line in the Great Barrier Reef catchment no longer has a "continuing use" exemption.
• Clearing vegetation that has not been cleared for at least 15 years now requires assessment if it may have a significant impact on MNES.
• Forestry operations remain exempt from the 15-year rule.
• The Federal "water trigger" for coal and gas projects remains in place.
• The definitions for both significant impact and unacceptable impact have been tightened, with language such as "likely" replaced with "will," increasing the threshold for risk.
This legislation does not automatically prevent clearing, but it changes the consequences for clearing in areas where there are MNES or where the clearing falls within the 15-year definition.
Clearing Decisions and Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act Referrals
Although the Environment Protection Reform Bill has passed both Houses and is now awaiting Royal Assent, operational guidance, decision tools and formal National Environmental Standards (NES) are not yet available.
Producers who are:
• planning to clear vegetation older than 15 years, and/or
• believe clearing may affect MNES, and/or
• believe their activity may be considered a "significant impact" under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act)
should exercise caution.
Until clearer guidance is published, producers should not rely on previous interpretations of the EPBC Act and should consider:
• contacting the DCCEEW general Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) enquiries line on 1800 920 528 (noting staff may not be able to provide detailed agricultural answers), and/or
• consider undertaking an EPBC Act Project Assessment, and/or
• waiting until updated Commonwealth guidance becomes available before proceeding.
AgForce cannot presently guarantee that clearing undertaken in this interim period would be viewed as exempt if it later meets the definitions of significant or unacceptable impact.
For those seeking more detail, the provision that fines are "commensurate with the economic gain" appears within the amended offence and civil penalty framework in the Bill (Environment Protection Orders and relevant penalty provisions). Once the final Act is available after Royal Assent, we will provide direct section references.
Understanding "Significant Impact" and "Unacceptable Impact"
The Bill strengthens the meaning of these terms.
Significant Impact
A significant impact occurs when an action may result in a notable adverse effect on an MNES. This includes actions that change habitat quality, modify hydrology, or reduce ecological function. The revised Act narrows subjective language, making it harder to argue that impacts are speculative or uncertain.
Unacceptable Impact
The Bill also elevates the test for unacceptable impacts, moving from whether impacts are "likely" to occur to whether they will occur. These refer to impacts that cause:
• serious or irreversible damage
• loss of critical habitat
• harm to water resources (including the updated water trigger definition)
• degradation of protected matters that cannot be reasonably mitigated
Under these strengthened definitions, it may provide a greater level of protection to prevent any Coal Seam Gass projects into the Great Artesian Basin as such an activity would be considered an 'Unacceptable impact'(theoretically).
What AgForce Queensland and the National Farmers' Federation (NFF) Have Requested
AgForce Queensland, alongside the National Farmers' Federation, has formally sought:
• confirmation that Property Maps of Assessable Vegetation (PMAVs)-particularly Category X-will be recognised and retained under federal MNES-based frameworks
• confirmation that Queensland's Vegetation Management Act 1999 and Environmental Offsets Act 2014 will be integrated into any future bilateral agreement
