12 September 2011

Response to the review of the EPBC Act – Regulation Impact Statement – Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities

On 24 August the Australian Government announced its response to the 10 year review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. The Government’s response included a large number of changes; the two major components are to:

  • increase the use of environmental approvals to classes of actions, rather than project-by-project approvals. The Government will do this by encouraging ‘strategic’ approaches to assessment, including the use of regional environment plans, strategic assessments and the recognition of ecosystems of national significance; and
  • amend assessment/approval processes to require early engagement between project proponents and the regulator, in order to reduce project delay and improve certainty around approval timeframes.

The Regulation Impact Statement was prepared by the Department of Sustainability, the Environment, Water, Population and Communities, and was assessed as adequate by the Office of Best Practice Regulation.

The analysis in the RIS was supported by two pieces of cost-benefit analysis research:

1 comment to Response to the review of the EPBC Act – Regulation Impact Statement – Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities

  • Edward Fensom

    The Web Inc P.O. Box 479 Morningside 4170 Qld

    Director DEHWAC
    Dear Director,
    The Web Inc is an NGO promoting Regional Conservation and Sustainability in Greater Brisbane and in SEQld. We have read the Ministers speech, and are still astounded at the degree of existing and future Bilateral Agreements with Qld,(which has a suite of near third world state environmental legislation (which is not Australian or World’s best Practice) , and failure and unrepresentativeness of its SE Regional Planning level of Government)
    Bilateral shifting of further Federal Responsibilities to Qld has ramifications at the Local Government Level because of the stripping back of the EIS process(IPA and SPA)since 1997, the loss of Strategic Planning Processes,and roll back of Community Participation (See the Harbinger Report 2011). The Harbinger report has mainly Brisbane City Council residents responses which misses the huge impacts of Infrastructure and Satellite Cities in the Outer Areas, Periurban and Rural(which have not been mapped for koalas)

    The only partial addressing of the 71 HAWKE REPORT recommendations is unacceptable

    Our case studies of offsets in Qld are that they are unsustainable and do not work and as a result of suites of exemptions for urban exemptions for clearing and Community Infrastructure resumptions and other CODE(invisible)Approvals and result in terminal and unsustainable severance of green core areas and corridors. There is no third party or legal recourse for the vast majority of these issues and actions which is why there should be federal courts and federal tribunals. Federal Offsets do not appear to have outcomes featuring equity and should not be implemented.

    National Jurisdiction should be there for Mining , CSG, RFAs, Climate Change , Water for these as National Matters of Concern

    The paradigm of Ecosystem Servvices should implemented.
    We wish to make further submissions

    Coordinator The Web Inc (BREC)

Leave a Reply




You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>