Page 6085 - Week 14 - Thursday, 9 December 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
At present, chapter 2 of the planning and development regulations covers the detail of what is required in the development of the strategic environmental assessment, but there are no provisions or requirements for public notification or input into this process. Our amendment will cover off on the public consultation process period into the strategic environmental assessment process.
We think this is particularly important, because the environmental assessment work undertaken through the strategic environmental process can be used by the minister to exempt environmental impact assessment in future urban areas. It is important that the strategic environmental assessment process has the same level of transparency and scrutiny as an EIS process, because it can lead to an exemption from an EIS process.
It is also worth noting that a number of proposals in this bill lower the triggers for an EIS because of relying on previous assessments. This is why we think that it is very important that the strategic environmental assessment is an open process that the public can have input into—because it sits before the rest.
The other issues include new definitions for whether something is likely to have a significant adverse environmental impact—proposed new sections 124A(1)(b), 124A(3) and 124B. These definitions have been the subject of many legal challenges, but of course they are key to the EIS legislation. Being Greens, we say that it is imperative to apply the precautionary principle wherever possible. Environmental values cannot be easily replaced or replicated once destroyed, so the Greens believe that development decisions should err on the side of caution and environmental protection.
Proposed new subsection 124A(1)(b) replaces the word “substantial” with “significant”, to give consistency throughout the act. Proposed new subsection 124A(3) refines the intensity of 124A(2). Proposed new subsection 124B(1) states that “likely to” is a “real or not remote chance or possibility”, and 124B(2) clarifies that the impact is relevant whether it is on the development site or elsewhere. In these days of climate change, this is recognising that the environment is not just the ground below us: off-site impacts can be very relevant.
Then there is the issue of the process for producing an environmental significance opinion. It seems reasonable that there should be occasions when the threshold for triggering an EIS is lowered, and we do appreciate this. The government bill introduces a new process for a relevant agency—the Conservator of Flora and Fauna or the Heritage Council—to produce an environmental significance opinion. The Greens agree that this could be a reasonable way forward to avoid unnecessary EIS processes. However, the decision-making process must be rigorous, transparent and renewable. A Greens amendment which I will be moving later adds the ability for a regulation which prescribes the criteria that a relevant agency must take into account in considering whether a proposal is not likely to have a significant adverse environmental impact.
I do not have a lot of time remaining to me. I should very quickly say that the areas that we are concerned about particularly involve the process for a minister exempting an EIS. We believe that the EIS exemption process should also be an accountable and
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video