Page 6082 - Week 14 - Thursday, 9 December 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The amendments to item 2, part 4.2 allow regulations to prescribe the thresholds for when an EIS is required for electricity generation facilities. This will give flexibility to encourage renewable generating technologies. Small scale generating plants below the prescribed thresholds will be able to be assessed in the merit track.
Similarly, item 5, part 4.2 provides for small scale waste water treatment plants and onsite residential waste water treatment plants to be assessed in the merit track rather than require an EIS. Also under item 5, part 4.3, stormwater management infrastructure such as retardation basins and ponds and waste water reuse schemes can generally be assessed in the merit track.
The government is mindful of community wishes to be notified about proposed developments, even at an early pre-application stage. In line with the government’s commitment to transparency in the environmental assessment process, the bill makes a range of changes to chapter 8. These enshrine within the act processes which, until now, have been dealt with by administrative practice. The bill will make the environmental assessment process even more transparent.
Environmental significance opinions, EIS scoping documents, EIS assessment reports and section 211 exemptions from an EIS on the basis of other studies will all be notifiable instruments. They will be valid for a defined period of 18 months. All of these documents will be publicly available.
The scrutiny of bills committee has commented on the bill in its report No 31 of 2010, and I have replied in detail to the committee’s comments. The committee asked whether the bill should provide an opportunity for public representations and merit review for environmental significance opinions and commented on related procedural matters.
In considering the processes in review rights that might attach to a decision to provide such an opinion, it is necessary to consider the context of the bill and also the Planning and Development Act as a whole. The giving of an opinion by the conservator or Heritage Council is itself a preliminary screening that leads to a larger development assessment process set out in the act. This is already subject to merit review by ACAT and the public consultation framework under the act.
Under the act, a merit assessment track development application must be publicly notified and is open to public comment. Merit track development applications are also subject to environmental impact assessment. Given the wider process and framework for review that already applies to the merit track development applications, specific provisions for merit review of environmental significance opinions are not necessary.
As I have already said, the bill makes key process decisions for environmental assessment notifiable instruments to help ensure the community is notified and kept informed. In these circumstances, it is the government’s view that an additional merit review would create the potential for significant added delay to the assessment process for limited, if any, additional benefit. Such added delay would be contrary to the aims of the bill for a simpler, faster and more effective environmental impact assessment process.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video