Overview
Freehold land ownership is one of the foundational principles of Australian property law. When you own freehold land, you own it — not the government, not a leaseholder, not a regulatory body. You have the right to use it, develop it, farm it, and manage it, subject to existing planning and environmental laws.
That principle has been significantly eroded by legislation passed by the Labor government in the period before the Bondi tragedy dominated the national news cycle. The changes — which restrict what landowners can do on their own freehold property without government approval — received almost no mainstream media coverage. They were passed during a period of intense public focus on other matters, and many of the landowners most affected are only now becoming aware of what changed.
When a government passes legislation that fundamentally alters property rights during a period of national distraction, and does not explain what it has done or why, that is not governance. That is opportunism.
What changed
The legislative changes extend the reach of federal environmental approval requirements to activities on freehold land that were previously regulated — if at all — only at the state level. Under the amended framework, landowners who wish to clear vegetation, alter drainage, construct farm infrastructure, or undertake certain agricultural activities on their own freehold land may now be required to seek federal approval before proceeding.
The approval process is not simple. It involves referral to the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water; assessment against biodiversity and environmental impact criteria; and in some cases, the preparation of environmental impact statements that can cost tens of thousands of dollars and take months or years to complete.
For a farmer who wants to clear a paddock, install a water tank, or build a shed on land they have owned for generations, this is not a minor administrative inconvenience. It is a fundamental change to the terms on which they hold their property.
Who is affected
The primary impact falls on farmers and rural landowners — particularly those in Queensland, New South Wales, and Western Australia, where large freehold landholdings are common and agricultural activity is the primary land use. These are the Australians who feed the country, who manage the land, and who have the most direct stake in what happens to property rights.
But the impact extends beyond farming. Small developers, rural residential landowners, and anyone who holds freehold land in areas designated as having environmental significance may find that activities they previously undertook without restriction now require federal approval. The definition of what triggers the approval requirement is broad, and the guidance on how to determine whether a particular activity is caught by the new rules is inadequate.
The people most affected by these changes are the people least equipped to navigate a federal environmental approval process — farmers and rural landowners who have managed their land responsibly for decades and are now being told they need Canberra's permission to do it.
Buried by Bondi
The timing of these legislative changes is not incidental. The period in which they were passed coincided with the Bondi tragedy and its aftermath — a period of intense national grief and media focus that left little room for scrutiny of parliamentary business. Whether the timing was deliberate or coincidental, the effect was the same: significant changes to property rights passed with minimal public debate and almost no mainstream media coverage.
This is a pattern that deserves attention. Legislation that would attract significant opposition if introduced during a period of normal public scrutiny is more likely to pass quietly when the public's attention is elsewhere. A government that is confident its policies can withstand scrutiny does not need to rely on that dynamic. A government that is not confident tends to use it.
The freehold land legislation deserves the scrutiny it did not receive at the time. It represents a significant expansion of federal regulatory reach into private property rights, with real costs for real Australians — and it was passed without the public debate that a change of this magnitude warrants.
What we need
The government should be required to explain, clearly and publicly, what the new approval requirements cover, who is affected, and what the process for seeking approval involves. It should provide genuine guidance — not bureaucratic boilerplate — to the farmers and landowners who are trying to understand whether their planned activities require federal approval.
More fundamentally, the government should acknowledge that changes of this magnitude to property rights require proper public consultation and parliamentary debate — not passage during a period of national distraction. The principle that Australians have the right to use their own land without seeking government permission for ordinary activities is not a minor policy detail. It is a foundational element of the relationship between citizens and the state.
If the government believes these restrictions are justified, it should be willing to defend them in public. The fact that it has not done so speaks for itself.