29 October 2025

OPINION: By Dr Chris Parker, Cattle Australia Senior Policy Advisor

Australian beef producers manage approximately 50% of Australia’s land mass and play a key role in sustainably managing our environment.

So, it is incredibly concerning that in the Federal Government’s proposed reforms of the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conversation (EPBC) Act and the associated trial regional plans there is little consideration of agricultural stakeholder views.

The EPBC reforms must include a focus on agricultural planning to ensure Australia’s farming sector can be economically, socially, and environmentally viable, and can continue to underpin the economic health and food security of regional communities and the nation, as well as contribute to the food security and geopolitical stability of our region.

In August, Environment Minister Murray Watt announced the Federal Government’s plan to overhaul Australia’s existing environmental laws and incorporate the findings from the 2019 Samuel Review. Rather than implement the reforms in stages as recommended by the review, Senator Watt is seeking to fast-track the process and legislate changes in one package with the support of the Opposition.

As the negotiations between the two major parties are ongoing, it is unclear what the exact proposed reforms to the EPBC Act actually are or are not. Little has been clearly defined and what has been defined lacks detail. For example, whilst establishing a legislative framework for National Environmental Standards the actual standards are not included, and it is probable they will be regulations that will be subsequently consulted on.

This is obviously greatly concerning for Australia’s 52,000 cattle producers, and consequently the hundreds of thousands of people employed in the beef supply chain. It’s especially concerning given that a key objective in the current EPBC Act is to increase community wellbeing by following a path of economic development that safeguards the welfare of future generations.

Australian cattle producers are stewards of Australia’s vast landscapes and have been producing high-quality, safe and sustainable beef for generations. They feel a deep personal responsibility for protecting the environment and deserve to have a say in how the generations to come will be able to care for Australia’s land and water.

In particular, the cattle industry is very worried about the Federal Government’s commitment to the 30×30 target, as outlined in its Nature Positive Plan. The 30×30 target aims to conserve 30% of Australia’s land mass, and 30% of Australia’s seas by 2030.

While this will assist Australia meet its international biodiversity objectives under the Biodiversity Convention, it was not recommended – or even mentioned – by the Samuel review. And for good reason: this target will have serious implications for the beef industry, as well as other primary industries.

The second point of concern is the lack of detail about the Federal Government’s disclosure that it is seeking to re-establish one of the previously shelved ‘Stage 2’ reforms, that of establishing a Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Sen. Watt has stated the proposed EPA’s exact authority and responsibilities are uncertain, and consultation is ongoing in this matter. The lack of certainty and the lack of clarity around consultation mechanisms is concerning to say the least.

EPBC Act reforms must include consultation with peak agricultural industry bodies to ensure Minister Watt’s definition of agricultural land use and land clearing is in the Australian context, and that beef-producing land managers are not disproportionately impacted through these new national standards.

A further concern for the beef industry is what affect the changes to the EPBC Act will have on Australia’s 136 vegetation laws that are embedded in State, Territory and Federal Legislation. The sheer volume of vegetation management legislation demonstrates the trend of overregulation in the environment sector – in fact, there has been a 122-fold increase in the volume of Australian federal environmental legislation since 1971.

In reforming the EPBC, there must be a laser focus on best-practice land management, and how it can enable sustainable use of Australian landscapes rather than imposing further regulatory burdens or ill-conceived, one-size-fits-all land use restrictions.

Unfortunately, our experience with the farcical process involved with the suspension of the Beef Herd Method for crediting emissions, is that the Federal Environment Department has a very poor record of consulting with agriculture organisations. The Department really must do better if it is fair dinkum about ensuring that the people at the coalface of land management are not adversely affected by unintended consequences of these legislative reforms.

A starting point for Sen. Watt and his Department in understanding the perspective of the people responsible for managing Australia’s land mass, is Cattle Australia’s Land Management Commitment (LMC). It provides a scientifically rigorous framework to ensure Australia meets its international obligations and incorporates both the ‘The Australian Land Use and Management Classification’ (ALUM) and the EPBC Act for land use definitions and lawful continuations of use of land.

CA’s LMC Strategy must be a bedrock in this changing space of policy and reform, particularly as it relates to vegetation management – if not, the 50% of Australia’s land and water, and the families who care for it, will be guinea pigs in a radical environmental policy experiment.

ENDS

MEDIA ENQUIRIES:

Michael Thomson
michael.thomson@bluehillagency.com.au
0408 819 666

Stacey Wordsworth
stacey.wordsworth@bluehillagency.com.au
0438 394 371