Page 2 of 118 - GENERAL OUTLINE
The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 to make it more efficient and effective, to allow for the use of more strategic approaches and to provide greater certainty in decision-making.
In particular the Bill:
· Reduces processing time and costs for development interests;...
|
No. 59 - Peter Andren - Independent Federal Member for Calare NSW - 8 pages
The Environment & Heritage Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2006 represents over 400 pages of amendments that will have significant effects on any real protection of our fragile environment and heritage.
With this in mind I condemn the lack of community consultation in the formulation of this legislation, the inadequate four working days allowed for the House of Representatives to consider the effects of the Bill, and the insufficient time allowed for public consideration and comment to this inquiry.
...p5 Public input and Ministerial Accountability
...The Minister may use the commercial-inconfidence excuse to withhold information including the proponent's assessment documentation in the referral process, or if the "interests of relevant landholders could be impeded". This completely undermines the ability for independent input into the veracity or otherwise of assessments. ...
Nomination, assessment and listing of places to the National Heritage List
Under this bill the nomination, assessment and listing of places to the National Heritage List is replaced with a regime that: seriously compromises protection of those places that hold national and international heritage values; limits outside access to the process, and places absolute discretion in the hands of the Minister to determine what may and may not be added to the list, or even be assessed in any given year.
...p6 The council (AHC) does not need to check for extra information before rejecting the idea of even assessing a nomination and the Minister may change the list in any way, including omitting a place, or changing the Council's assessment completion time.
...Not only this, but a decision to deal with a request for emergency listing is dependent on the whim of the Minister, and any such listing lapses automatically within 12 months if it hasn't been dealt with.
...Under this bill, the Minister may delay any decision until the development has occurred and destruction is complete, or he may direct that such a place - facing such impacts for a private profit, does not fit into his chosen "theme" for the year.
...Given the timing of the bill and its rush through the House, the questions this bill raises about corporate influence over environmental policy need to be asked.
...Other changes in this bill already prevent newly listed environmental and heritage values and places from holding up any development already approved or in the pipeline.
...p8 However amendments in this bill open the door to a greatly diminished protection regime based on the wants and demands of industry and development, and subject to the politics of election cycles and short term economic goals, instead of the long term welfare of future generations.
|
|
No. 13 - Australia ICOMOS - 7 pages
...p3 The Bill amends the Australian Heritage Council Act 2003 to repeal the Register of the National Estate (RNE) and removes all reference to it, and removes the obligation in s.391A of the EPBC Act for the Minister to have regard to the RNE when making decisions. ...and potentially puts at jeopardy heritage places that have not as yet been formally entered into State or local government registers and lists.
...It is suspected the demise of the RNE is something that has not been negotiated with the States and local government, and so a planned and orderly approach to this issue does not yet exist. (see DEH on page 8)
...p5 There is no recognition of the resources required to prepare a sound nomination, and the Australian Government appears to provide no funding assistance for such work.
...p6 All of the heritage listing processes within the EPBC Act result in ministerial decisions of one form or another. Such heritage decisions need to be underpinned by trust, credibility and transparency. There is unfortunately a strong perception that these decisions may be subject to political and non-heritage considerations, and this has seriously eroded the credibility of the Australian Government's heritage systems.
|
|
No. 14 - Kath Crilly - the sole submission from SA (protected by Parliamentary privilege) 2p
Deficiencies of the National Heritage Listing process
The complete failure of COAG 1997 and SA legislators
The misrepresentation of the definition of dedicated Crown Land (CL's Management bill 2006)
|
|
No. 16 - Rolf W. Beck - 1p
...Don't make it easier still for "Nudge-Nudge, Wink-Wink" types of arrangements between untrained administrators and those who want to "develop at all cost to the community and minimum cost to themselves!"
|
|
No. 17 - The Australian Network of Environmental Defender's Offices Inc (ANEDO) 43p
...p5 The attempt to cater for 'development interests' must not be at the expense of accountability, public participation and full consideration of environmental impacts.
...p18-19 RNE - ANEDO supports retention - ...p19 WHL Guidelines should be added
...p25 problems with Bi-lateral agreements - ...p41 public consultation ... should not include holidays
|
|
No. 18 - Ms Margaret Blakers - 4p
3. Review of matters of national environmental significance ignored
...The absence of both report and action is part of a systematic pattern of non-compliance by the Minister with his obligations, ...
4. Third parties shut out (item 763)
The removal of the provision which protects third parties form having to give an undertaking for damages, when seeking an interim injunction, will massively curtail the potential for public interest litigation to protect the environment. That no doubt is its intention.
No reason is given for the change. The dismissive manner in which the impact is described in the Explanatory Memorandum is insulting to groups and individuals who have courageously taken up the expensive and difficult task of trying to enforce the law. The Minister's failure to enforce compliance should not be compounded by pricing the community out of the courts.
|
|
No. 22 - National Trust WA - (Tom Perrigo CEO) - 8p (7 pages blank)
...p1 It is most disappointing that the Department (DEH) did not initiate a process of community consultation. ...The unnecessary haste reflects poorly on the DEH and the Minister
...The lack of resources and capacity of the DEH to undertake its statutory function should not be the basis for determining legislation.
|
|
No. 24 - ASH Alliance to Save Hinchinbrook - 5p
...p4 There are already far too many opportunities for developers to buy desirable permissions on the putative grounds of business and "jobs jobs jobs". Documents received under FOI repeatedly show that "negotiation" is the preferred internal, non-public approval process.
...Public Access to Application Information - Publication for public review not be allowed during Easter and Christmas public holiday periods - ...The present situation is entirely unsatisfactory.
The Commonwealth has in effect been colluding with developers and government departments sympathetic to the proponent's wants, in dishonestly playing the game of copyright restriction to frighten the community out of attempting to respond during the very brief public review period.
...p5 The purpose of a public review period is to allow the public to review and comment on the proposal. To stifle proper access to public documents simply invites public direct action. Individuals feel it very strongly when the government and the public service collude with developers in this way. This is not democracy.
|
|
No. 31 - Urban Bushland Council WA Inc - 5p
Appeal provisions by third parties including community organisations must be readily accessible and workable. ...This may require an amendment to the Airports Act. - ...9. ...Amendments are needed to ensure that all documents required to be lodged are available over the web, ... Public exhibition periods need to expressly cease during Easter and Christmas holiday periods.
EPBC Act failed miserably in WA
|
|
No. 60 - The Australia Institute - 13p
...p1 Given the inadequacy of the timeline for this inquiry, it would appear that the Government has no intention of amending the Bill to account for any concerns raised by members of the public. This is unfortunate, as the structure and drafting of the EPBC Act is deficient in many respects as a result of poor consultation processes and the unwillingness of the Government to consider suggested amendments. It would appear the Government is prepared to repeat the mistakes it has made in the past.
...p2 25. National and Commonwealth Heritage Lists
...Again, the changes expose the process to even greater politicisation and undermine the integrity of the lists. There should be a heritage-based listing process that is overseen by an independent statutory authority rather than a compromised, politically-based process that is overseen by the Minister. - ...p13 The EPBC Act has many deficiencies and it has been administered poorly since it commenced in July 2000. Few of its environmental objectives are being achieved, despite the fact that it has cost taxpayers in the order of $150 million.
...The objects of the Bill appear to be to provide greater discretionary power to the Minister, reduce transparency and accountability, and further politicise the listing processes. The Bill should be rejected by the Senate.
|
|
No. 62 - The History Council of WA - 2 p
...it seems clear the amendments in this bill are designed to compensate for the lack of resources in the Dept. of Heritage, rather than to provide a comprehensive review of the Act
...the nomination and assessment processes for the NHL are undemocratic, in that they reduce the community's role in the process and increase ministerial power in decision-making
...the opportunity for public comment has been reduced - ... the opportunity for public scrutiny of the nomination, assessment and listing process has been substantially reduced - ...the mechanism for the Minister to deal with a request for emergency listing has been removed and the new arrangements are solely at the Minister's discretion - ...the provisions concerning transitional arrangements are unsatisfactory, as places currently in the pipeline will not be automatically renominated.
|
|
No. 1 Association of Mining & Exploration Companies (Inc) -
One of only four submissions in favour of the bill
|
|
No. 2 Dr. Geoff Mosley - 3p
Professional heritage consultant since 1986 - has nominated 17 items to the NHL
|
|
No. 3 Environment East Gippsland - 2p
370 members - cost to environment at expense of development
|
|
No. 4 Mudgee District Environment Group Inc - 2p (wont download)
|
|
No. 5 Coastwatchers Assoc In 1p - themes unsound
|
|
No. 6 The South East Region Conservation Alliance (SERCA) 1p
concerned threats to environment and ecology - Ministers should not have discretion or themes
|
|
No. 7 Ms Isabella Jeans 1p - don't agree themes - same as above
|
|
No. 8 Dr Maralyn J Bennett 2p -- totally unacceptable - shame on this government
|
|
No. 9 Ms Joan Dawson 1p - strongly protest
|
|
No. 10 Birds Australia 5p (can't read text)
|
|
No. 11 Mr Peter Smith 1p
|
|
No. 12 Manduka Cooperative 1p - need time for community involvement
|
|
No. 15 Dr Lee Godden & Ms Jacqueline Peel - 7p academic
|
|
No. 19 Dr Carol Booth - litigant - act poorly implemented
|
|
No. 20 Dept of Tourism, Arts and the Environment, Tasmania - 4p
seeking exemptions major projects
|
|
No. 21 Nature Conservation Council of NSW 1p - supports EDO sub. - Ministers veto unacceptable
|
|
No. 23 National Parks Assoc of NSW 1p - amendments weaken the act - see EDO sub.
|
|
No. 25 Lawyers for Forests Inc 9p (wont download)
|
|
No. 26 IFAW Asia Pacific - 3p
International Fund Animal Welfare - support ANEDO
|
|
No. 27 Australian Conservation Foundation 8p - inadequate time - support ANEDO - no vision
|
|
No. 28 The Colong Foundation for Wilderness Ltd 1p - (wont open)
|
|
No. 29 Australian Archaeological Assoc Ltd 3p - time too short - NHL politicised further
|
|
No. 30 Mr. Don Baxter 1p - koala decline
|
|
No. 32 Ms Diarne Wiercinski - 2p
outrageous size of bill - oppose restriction on community involvement
|
|
No. 33 Douglas Shire Sustainability Group 2p - repeats above
|
|
No. 34 M. Ellis 1p - disgusted - affront to democracy
|
|
No. 35 ACT Heritage Council 1p - RNE comment
|
|
No. 36 Dr Sarah Bekessy 2p
Senior lecturer RMIT - surveys not conducted
|
|
No. 37 Law Council of Australia 6p
welcomes proposals for development interests - supports themes - might be a problem with Minister's decisions - not enough time allowed for thorough assessment
|
|
No. 38 Government of Victoria 7p
no consultation (Hulls)
|
|
No. 39 Dr Brendan Wintle - 3p
Botany, Uni Melb - lack of access to information - uninformed decisions
|
|
No. 40 Australian Marine Conservation Society - 2p
should not remove right to challenge the Minister
|
|
No. 41 Mr David Matheson 1p - Minister too much power
|
|
No. 42 Mr Nathan Summers 1p
|
|
No. 43 Ms Heather Kenway 1p -arbitrary ministerial approval - environmental tourism
|
|
No. 44 Mr Luke Chamberlain 1p - exemption for logging should be removed
|
|
No. 45 Ms Janine Turner 1p - this nightmare |
|
No. 46 Ms Liz Riley 1p - do not make it easier for developers
|
|
No. 47 Australasian Native Orchid Society 1p - Minister already has too much discretion
|
|
No. 48 Mr Lewis Morley 1p - why the rush?
|
|
No. 49 Mr Donald & Mrs. Elizabeth Hutchison 1p - appalled at this new bill
|
|
No. 50 Mr James Tedder 1p - Minister given too much discretionary power
No. 51 Mr Bill Harvey 1p - protest rush
No. 52 C Hartley 1p - protest rush
No. 53 Ms Valerie Hutt 1p - protest rush
No. 54 Mr Ken Holland 1p - should not rush to benefit developers
No. 55 Mr Mark Purcell 1p - only about greed - extinction is forever
|
|
No.s 56 & 57 standard letters about 65 from individuals and associations - see website
|
|
No. 58 The Environment Association Inc - 2p
extinction is forever - don't support themes - lack of information to the public
|
|
No. 63 The Chamber of Minerals & Energy WA - (404x)
|
|
No. 64 National Farmers' Federation 2p - briefed by DEH
|
|
No. 65 The Minerals Council of Australia 3p
support majority of amendments with concerns for lessened public involvement
|
|
No. 66 WWF-Australia; Humane Society International & Tasmanian Conservation Trust - 28p
Numbered paragraphs (* Read this one)
|
HEARINGS - Friday 3rd November 2006 - 67 pages
http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/committee/S9850.pdf
|
Australia Institute (Andrew Kerr Macintosh, Deputy Director)
p8 - ...Firstly, the regulatory provisions have achieved almost nothing.
...The second thing is the information provisions have been perverted by politics. The lists are completely inadequate.
...The third important issue that comes out of this piece of legislation to date is that it has cost about $30 million a year to administer, and that is only the approval provisions. That is an enormous sum of money and it amounts to about $180 million. So we have spent $180 million dollars and we have barely achieved anything.
| |
Australia ICOMOS (Duncan Marshall, Adviser & Dr Michael Pearson, ACT rep)
p21 ... nomination by public - government approach unbalanced
The listing process has become simply a reactive mechanism to whatever comes in the door at any particular time... but the unbalanced part is that preparing a NHL nomination - a credible, well-researched and documented NHL nomination - to meet the standards of the dept, the AHC and the Minister is a resource-intensive activity. The Commonwealth is putting up all of these barriers to NHL nominations coming forward, but it is not actually providing any support or resources to help the community to actually do a good job, and that is where I think the imbalance lies.
...p24 It is more or less like the Yes, Minister hospital beds query, you have a wonderful bit of legislation but nobody can nominate anything with any likelihood of getting it up -
...p25 no guidelines for heritage consultants -
NHL - themes Catch 22 - ...p27-8 Emergency Listing ... AHC haven't got well-resourced, expert staff to support this process
| |
HEARINGS - Monday 6th November 2006 - 70 pages
Transcripts http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/committee/S9851.pdf
| |
NPAC Act Div - National Parks Australia Council
p16 ...We are concerned about the review of ministerial decisions. It is not defensible, we submit, in a democracy to claim that ministerial decisions are too important to allow citizens to challenge them. We are also concerned about the proposed repeal of section 478 of the act, which currently prevents the Federal Court from requiring an undertaking for damages. The existence of this provision in the existing act recognises the import role of voluntary organisations in bringing matters of environmental significance to public attention. Its repeal would establish a significant value for third parties to seek injunctions and would so restrict their capacity to ensure the laws are enforced. We are concerned about the removal of regular review of part 3 of the act. Repeal of this provision carries a danger of preserving the EPBC Act in aspic and ensuring it will become less and less relevant to the management of our national environmental issues. ...that fact that the ecosystems that are at most risk through this approach are the ones that we rely on for our water our food and our prosperity. ...
| |
Mrs. Barbara, Chair, Australian Environment & Law Planning Group, Law Council of Australia
p25... It is for the government to promulgate the law and for its ministers to apply it. It is not for the government to promulgate the law and then have its ministers as the sole arbitrator of how the law should be applied.
This bill intends to take away the right of the individual to a judicial review of the minister exercising his discretion in applying the provisions of the act ...It is not for the government to take away our democratic rights to an appeal to the third arm of government. If the minister has exercised his discretion appropriately, in accordance with the provisions of the bill, then the likelihood is that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) will uphold his or her decision. But what if the minister has not exercised his discretion appropriately? Is there to be no review? If the minister believes in the integrity of this bill and the integrity of his or her decision-making process, then he or she should not be concerned to allow a judicial review of how he or she came to a decision applying provisions of this bill.
...The argument put forward in the explanatory paper that these provisions leave the merits of these important decisions to be dealt with by the government do not allow for the position where the minister, in applying the law under this bill, may have applied the law incorrectly.
| |
Australian Council of National Trusts - Rev. Comben, Chair - pages 61-77
(*A MUST READ)
ecita pages
55-71 ...This legislation, if passed, will continue to change the very face of cultural heritage protection as we know it. Special parts of Australia's spirit might be lost as a result of this bill, firstly because there are no guarantees that states or territories could cope with the avalanche of responsibilities being unilaterally hoisted around their necks and secondly, because of the ministerial discretions which this bill delivers to the minister.
Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.
...It is a national responsibility, particularly when one looks at the results of the recent Productivity Commission report which showed that the three-tier system of national, state and local heritage really is not working. The burden falls in a great way on local government, which is not resourced in any way to protect, identify and conserve cultural heritage. The states do not seem to be doing a great deal to step into that gap and, by default, we as a national trust are concerned that our total cultural heritage is now put at risk. ...The sense that the government has no concept of this risk is further underlined by its decision to abolish the Register of the National Estate... We regard the reasons for abolishing the register as not having been explained.
(Ed- print out this entire transcript, because it says everything the public have been saying is wrong with Heritage protection in Australia for the last 25 years)
| |
DEH ACT (ROASTED by Senator Carr) - (* A MUST READ) - pages 78-97 (ecita pages 72-78)
Senator CARR--That is the point you see. How many people got to see an exposure draft of the bill?
Mr Early--Nobody
...CARR--Have you noticed, Mr Early, that a number of the organisations that have come before the committee have indicated that they felt that they had been dudded by the department, the government. The National Trust has just indicated that, the World Wildlife Fund indicated that last Friday and ICOMOS indicated that last Friday. Each of these organisations argued that the amendments are a backward step and will effectively reduce the level of environment and heritage protection. What is your answer to each one of those organisations? - Early--I think they are wrong. ...
RNE --Burnett (DEH)--The principal rationale for the amendments relating to the RNE is to complete the transition to a three-tiered arrangement for heritage within Australia--that is, the federal government looking after national matters; the states, matters of state significance; and local governments, matters of local significance. The RNE does not fit into that model because it covers places with heritage significance at all three levels.
Senator BARTLETT--When you say 'complete the transition', it makes it sound like this was always intended to happen with the register.
Burnett--That is right. It was agreed in 1997 by COAG. It was part of the original agreement, often referred to as heads of agreement...
(Ed--Quoting from the relevant section of COAG 1997 13 pages --"Part 1 3. Places of national significance
Commonwealth and State Heritage Ministers (and relevant Environment Ministers) have agreed to develop a co-operative national heritage places strategy. This strategy will: (i) set out the roles and responsibilities of the Commonwealth and the States; (ii) identify criteria, standards and guidelines for the protection of heritage by each level of government; and (iii) provide for the establishment of a list of places of national heritage significance. The Commonwealth's responsibility and interest will be defined thereafter."
Report booklet is a complete whitewash of the enquiry - Minority Reports by the Labor & Greens Senators p63
Additional Greens p85 - Democrats Minority Report 91 (we've heard it all before) but at least we might get a debate in 2007 when it's all too late.
This information is copyright (K. Crilly - 26-10-2006), and should be acknowledged to this website. Please email for permission to reproduce in any publication.
| |
