THE National Farmers’ Federation has called on the Federal Government to remove some of the vague principles in the framework for its new environmental laws – including references to “social license” and Indigenous heritage.

Reforestation by planting young deciduous trees in the mixed forest. Image: Shutterstock

One of the main frameworks underpinning the new Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC) is the “Matters of National Environmental Significance” – which development activities are not allowed to impact.

The Government has recently taken submissions on forming those new standards, including a written submission from the NFF calling for the rules to be more explicit and not left to subjective judgements.

According to one of the principles, the laws are supposed to be supported by evidence and social license – with half that principle opposed by the NFF.

“NFF supports the intent of Principle 4 that actions are supported by scientifically sound, legally defensible, transparent, and adaptive data and information.

“However, the inclusion of the reference within the Policy Paper to securing a proponent’s ‘social licence to operate’ as part of the description of what it means for actions to be supported by evidence raises concerns.

“This introduces a subjective consideration into what is intended to be a simple and clear-cut evidence-based decision-making framework and creates a risk that opposition from single-issue stakeholder groups could be treated as a deficiency in evidence, rather than a reflection of differing values or preferences.”

Indigenous heritage values

As part of the laws there is a requirement for “Indigenous Heritage values of a National Heritage place be treated in a manner respectful of Indigenous traditions and beliefs”.

The NFF said it would like this requirement to be taken out of the framework.

“This language introduces a subjective requirement and is arguably out-of-place as it departs from the measurable and outcome-based objectives applied to other protected matters (which are framed around ‘environmental protection’, ‘conservation’, ‘restoration’, ‘rehabilitation’, and ‘sustainable management’). Separately, we also note that National Heritage Places contain multiple values beyond Indigenous Heritage, including but not limited to natural and historical value.

“The Objective relating to Indigenous Heritage values in Section 5 introduces a level of specificity that is inconsistent with this structure and risks creating uncertainty through duplication.

“It is on this basis that we seek removal of its reference. Consideration of Indigenous Heritage engagement would be more appropriately addressed through the forthcoming First Nations Standard which is being developed to address and define such expectations.”

• To read the full NFF submission click here