Question Time AU

General Debate

Environment

House of Representatives · Tuesday 2 June 2026

Official Hansard for this day (APH) · Read this debate on OpenAustralia

At a glance

Barnaby Joyce raised a grievance concerning the impact of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act on private landholders. He argued that federal regulations diminish asset values without compensation and impose criminal penalties for activities previously permitted under state laws. Joyce claimed that these measures represent an encroachment of state authority over private property rather than genuine environmental protection. He highlighted perceived inconsistencies in how regulations apply to landholders compared to renewable energy projects. The debate concluded with the grievance being noted in the chamber.

Outcome

The grievance was noted in the chamber.

Summary in reported speech - not a transcript. AI-generated, so check the official record before quoting.

How the debate unfolded

Opened the debate

Joyce argued that the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act imposes excessive regulations that reduce the value of private land assets without providing compensation to owners. Joyce contended that these rules effectively transfer authority from landholders to the state, characterising this as a form of socialism rather than environmental management. Joyce cited personal experience with colour-coded zoning maps that restricted his ability to manage his own property without permission. Joyce asserted that landholders face severe penalties, including imprisonment, for actions that were previously standard practice, such as clearing fence lines. Joyce claimed that farmers have historically managed the land responsibly and that current regulations ignore their contributions and understanding of local ecosystems.