Page 6149 - Week 14 - Thursday, 9 December 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
requires the conservator’s opinion as to whether an EIS is necessary for such a proposal.
Clauses 4 and 12 of the amendments allow for the Heritage Council to produce an opinion as to whether an EIS is required for proposals which involve places or objects nominated for provisional heritage registration in item 6.
Clause 13 allows the Environment Protection Authority to produce an environmental significance opinion regarding proposals involving potentially contaminated land.
Clause 14, regarding item 8, provides that an EIS is required for proposals on land designated as future urban areas where significant scientific research is being conducted, equally to non-future urban areas.
Our amendments seek to ensure that the environmental significance opinion of the conservator is included in the DA paperwork, as well as a reviewable decision. It seems reasonable that there should be occasions where the threshold for triggering an EIS is lowered. The government’s 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 reviewable.
The Greens’ amendment adds the ability for a regulation which prescribes criteria that a relevant agency must take into account in considering whether a proposal is not likely to have a significant adverse environmental impact.
New section 410A allows for the decision to make an environmental significance opinion to be reviewed along with the development application paperwork, in the same time frame. Proposed new clause 26A inserts a new item 1A into schedule 1 of the act, allowing an entity who made a representation about the development proposal, or who had a reasonable excuse not to, or an entity with objects or purposes which relate to a matter raised in the decision, to be eligible to apply for a review of the decision in ACAT.
Our amendments also put a more accountable and transparent process around the minister’s exemption of an EIS. Obviously there will be far fewer exemptions under the revised legislation, given that the triggers for an EIS are being lowered. This is why there needs to be more scrutiny of the conservator’s decision and the process around that. These amendments include requirements for:
a regulation which must prescribe the criteria that the minister must take into account in deciding whether the environmental impact of a development proposal has been sufficiently addressed by another study;
a statement of reasons for exemption;
a copy of any previous study to be incorporated in the DA paperwork; and
an exemption to be a notifiable instrument.
New section 4l0B allows for a decision of the minister to exempt a development application from an EIS to be reviewed along with the development application
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video