Page 5648 - Week 13 - Thursday, 18 November 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Until now, this has been a problem for some items in schedule 4 where a proposal falls under schedule 4, even though the clear impact is likely to be minor, but the act has lacked discretion to deal with such a situation. Therefore, new section 138AA provides a mechanism for the proponent to seek an environmental significance opinion from the conservator or the Heritage Council that a proposal is not likely to have a significant environmental impact.
Such an opinion would allow the proposal to be lodged in the merit track. An opinion must only be provided if the conservator considers that the proposal is not likely to have a significant adverse environmental impact, otherwise the application must be rejected.
I stress that the default position is that development proposals of a type listed in schedule 4 remain in the impact track unless an environmental significance opinion is given by the conservator. In considering an application, the onus is on the proponent to provide a reasonable argument, backed by appropriate scientific evidence, as to why the proposal would not have a significant adverse environmental impact.
It is important to emphasise that this mechanism is a pre-development application screening process which will assist the proponent in determining with certainty whether a development application must be lodged and assessed in the impact track and therefore require the preparation of an EIS.
I envisage that this mechanism will be utilised where it can be readily demonstrated that the environmental impact of a proposal is unlikely to be significantly adverse. Where some further investigations or environmental studies are needed, section 138AB of the bill provides for the relevant agency to require these to be undertaken.
I am conscious of the need to ensure that any additional resources necessary for the conservator to assess applications under this part of the act should be available. Section 138AC of the bill therefore allows for the direct and indirect costs incurred by the conservator to be borne by the proponent. Costs could include obtaining expert advice, commissioning further studies or staff time used in arriving at a decision on an application.
It is worth noting that where extensive or major further studies would be needed, the normal EIS process should apply. In these circumstances, the conservator will be able to refuse the application and rely on the fact that a proposal of a type listed in schedule 4 is, on the face of it, assessable in the impact track.
As I have indicated, the bill will have the effect of removing a number of development proposals from the impact track. Where this happens, either by deletion of the item altogether from the schedule or as a result of an opinion by the conservator, the effect will be to shift the development assessment process for that development from the impact track to the merit track. The key difference for a proposal assessed in the merit track is that there is no need to complete an EIS, which, depending on the complexity of the proposal, can add 12 months to the process.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video