Farmers are being asked to work under a new set of national environmental rules that the NFF says is too complex and uncertain to use with confidence, after the Federal Government made Australia’s first National Environmental Standards this week.
The Albanese Labor Government made the four standards, covering Matters of National Environmental Significance, Environmental Offsets, Community Engagement, and Data and Information, on Thursday, 20 August. The Government describes them as a central plank of its reform of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act, and says they were a key recommendation of the Samuel Review of the Act. They will apply from next week to new agreements between the Commonwealth and the states, but will not govern individual project approvals for farmers, developers, and miners until Tuesday, 1 December 2026.
“The National Environmental Standards are about protecting our precious environment while powering productivity,” said Murray Watt, Minister for the Environment and Water.
“It’s about turning around nature’s dire trajectory, while simplifying the process to approve the new homes, energy and minerals projects Australia needs.
“Ultimately, our reforms to national environment law are about restoring trust in the system.”
The standards follow the release of a guide on Monday, 10 August, from the newly created National Environmental Protection Agency, to help landholders understand how the reformed law applies to routine farm work such as fencing, firebreaks, and clearing regrowth timber.
“We’ve been out on site with farmers and consulted widely with agriculture peak bodies, industry stakeholders, state-based environmental agencies and environmental researchers to ensure the guide is a valuable resource to landholders across the country,” said John Bradley, National EPA chief executive.
“It’s important to note most routine farming activities can continue as they always have.
“We recognise Australian farmers are some of our country’s most committed environmental stewards. Maintaining and enhancing biodiversity on-farm supports sustainable production through pest control, soil conservation and improving water quality.”
In comments attributable to its Sustainable Development Committee Chair, Angus Atkinson, the National Farmers’ Federation said it was not reassured.
“The guide does not give farmers confidence to carry out routine agricultural practices, such as constructing fences or repairing essential earthworks,” the NFF said.
“The real impact is that many potentially affected farmers will read the guide and be more confused than ever about what they can and cannot do.”
At the heart of the dispute is a change to the “continuous use” exemption, which previously allowed farmers to keep managing land as they always had if it had been in continuous agricultural use. The reforms remove that exemption for vegetation more than 15 years old, a change the NFF opposed when it was gazetted in December 2025 and still opposes.
“The NFF does not support or endorse the guide,” the federation said.
“Significant questions remain regarding the interpretation and operation of the legislation, and we will continue pressing the Government for greater certainty, practicality and common sense in its implementation.”
The federation is urging farmers to use the Government’s planned three-month review period to push for a reworked version before they are expected to rely on it in the paddock.
The NFF raised similar concerns about the standards themselves, released ten days after the guide.
“These standards go to one of the biggest issues our members are raising with us: how farmers can continue to manage dynamic, productive landscapes with confidence under the reformed EPBC Act,” said Hamish McIntyre, NFF President.
“These rules are complex, uncertain and counterintuitive.”
“Our concern is that implementation focuses on major development proposals while agriculture, the sector most exposed to uncertainty from recent changes to continuous use provisions, is left behind,” Mr McIntyre said.
“The NFF remains of the view that changes to continuous use provisions were unnecessary and should be reconsidered. In the meantime, agriculture must be at the centre of implementation.”
Environment groups are no happier than the farm sector, though for the opposite reason.
“These disappointing standards do not set out clear and specific rules to strengthen nature protection,” said Brendan Sydes, National Biodiversity Policy Adviser at the Australian Conservation Foundation.
“Weak standards are a licence to continue habitat destruction.”
“This is not the big shift you would expect from a government that was committed to tackling Australia’s extinction crisis and the longstanding failures of the nature law.”
Greenpeace Australia Pacific welcomed improvements on earlier draft standards but flagged a heavy reliance on offsets and a failure to address the cumulative impact of repeated land clearing.
“The acid test will now be in the operation: will the standards succeed in stopping deforestation, or not,” said Glenn Walker, Head of Nature at Greenpeace Australia Pacific.
For now, none of the interested parties, not government, not conservation groups, and not the farmers whose land the rules will actually apply to, are calling the reform finished.
“Farmers manage more than half the Australian landscape,” Mr McIntyre said. “They need rules that are clear, practical and grounded in the realities of farming systems.”
Got something you want to say about this story? Have your say on our opinion and comment hub, New England Times Engage