Unintended outcomes of reform: Just ask a farmer.

The federal election can now only be held in May. After much speculation from commentators and the government preparing to hand down a final budget, their predictions for a date can finally be narrowed.

The government has had what can only be described as an up-and-down term for achievements, whilst the last sitting days of parliament in December were marked by heightened activity addressing key legislative areas such as superannuation, cybersecurity measures, and scam prevention.

Notably, however, the overhaul of environmental laws has fallen silent after public backlash and concerns regarding the uncertainty of the proposed Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC) reforms. 

Key business leaders from the resource sector, including BHP's President Geraldine Slattery and Western Australia's Premier, Roger Cook, have all criticised the so-called "nature-positive" reforms.

The EPBC Act reforms, or the "Nature Positive Plan," are being sold as a solution to strengthen and streamline Australia's national environmental laws. The aim is to create better environmental protections and clearer, faster pathways for businesses to make decisions.

The reform includes the establishment of an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and an Environmental Information Australia (EIA) authority, along with proposed streamlined methods of assessment and self-assessment, the reform of environmental offsets, and improved conservation planning arrangements.

Farmers have raised many concerns about the unforeseen consequences for land use, food security, and trade due to the proposed EPBC changes. While the aim may be to create a more sustainable future, the implementation of these reforms could lead to real unintended and negative outcomes that will significantly impact farmers and industries that rely on the land.

Questions about land use conflict remain unanswered, especially regarding land traditionally zoned for agricultural and food production that could be repurposed for carbon offset projects. Such a shift would reduce productive land and could make it near impossible to return it to its original use.

This type of change would not only threaten the livelihood of farmers but also reduce the nation's ability to support jobs, feed its population, and keep rural communities prosperous.

The challenges don't end there. The EPBC reforms are complex, and too few people truly understand their impact. Farmers and voters will undoubtedly see this uncertainty as they head to the polls in the upcoming election.

Uncertainty can only lead to lower confidence when it comes to investment. With greater complexity, new laws will only hinder innovation and slow progress.

So, has the government done enough to communicate the need for these reforms to the broader public? The answer is no. Without a clear and compelling argument that explains why and how the changes will ultimately benefit the community, we are left with more confusion. 

If agricultural land is taken permanently for carbon sequestration, it will not only impact food production but could also drive up grocery costs and exacerbate supply chain issues. In the end, the government needs to approach the implementation of the EPBC reforms with a clearer, more transparent message and consult with those who will be most impacted, just ask a farmer.