By Cam Walker
The federal Coalition has already clocked up an atrocious track record on the environment. Consequently, any announcement, even of something as routine as a review of environmental legislation, is yet another reason to get nervous.
There is certainly a need for a review of the existing legislation: much of it was introduced in a piecemeal way over more than a decade, and the social, economic and political climate has changed considerably since the "first generation" laws were made in the early 1970s. A strategic and holistic reworking of the legislation that takes full account of the changes is necessary to bring the legislation into the late 1990s.
However, judging by the paper released by the federal environment minister, Senator Robert Hill, in November, outlining the government's proposals, the environment is unlikely to benefit from the proposed changes.
Many people are aware that the commonwealth has the ability to intervene in environmental issues where there are matters of "national interest".
The most famous example has probably been the Franklin River, which the new ALP government stepped in to ensure was not dammed for an unnecessary hydro-electric scheme.
Under the proposed changes, many of the mechanisms by which the commonwealth can intervene will be removed; there will be a significant shift away from commonwealth involvement in environmental protection.
For instance, there is no clear definition of "national environmental significance", the circumstances or means of intervention.
The "consultation paper" proposes three pieces of new legislation:
- the Environment Protection Act (which will replace the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974);
- the Biodiversity Conservation Act (which will result in an "integrated framework for the conservation and sustainable use of Australia's biodiversity") will replace five existing acts — the Endangered Species Protection Act 1992, the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975, the Whale Protection Act 1980, the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982 and the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983); and
- a new, vaguely defined heritage law.
The environment movement has a number of specific concerns about the proposals.
Key issues, for example climate change and vegetation clearance, are not considered as being of national importance.
Much of the environmental impact assessment to determine the level of impact of particular projects will be through "accreditation" of the relevant state authorities. However, many of the states simply cannot be trusted to act in the best interests of the environment.
Much of the accreditation for management and impact assessment will be through bilateral agreements and memorandums of understanding between state and commonwealth governments. It is not clear how the public will be involved (if at all) in creating these agreements.
This marks a move towards privatisation of environmental decision-making, the private sector picking up more environmental assessment, conservation agreements and management plan processes. The details on public participation are vague, and the basic concept of public involvement in decision making is absent from the proposed legislation.
Much of the terminology is also disturbing — for instance, the concept of "multiple use" (meaning inappropriate developments in protected areas).
Regional forest agreements (RFAs) fall entirely outside the proposed changes.
The RFAs, agreements between specific state governments and the commonwealth, were originally envisaged as being the solution to the forest "problem", but those signed to date have simply entrenched the unsustainable"business as usual" approach to forestry. This will mean that native forests are exempt from commonwealth laws except where explicitly mentioned in the relevant RFA.
It is also possible that the government would abolish the Register of the National Estate; it is certainly unclear how National Estate-listed areas will be protected under the new regime.
Some positive aspects exist — for instance, the new Environment Protection Act will require that decisions be made on ecologically sustainable development principles (however, it is fairly vague even on this one). But the overall prognosis is very disturbing.
The Senate has just completed a round of public hearings relating to this review. Given the very short times allowed by the government in the first round of submissions and the level of distrust felt by much of the environment movement, it is difficult to be hopeful about the final outcomes of this process.
It is likely the draft legislation will be taken to parliament as early as May or June. However, there have also been recent developments from an entirely different field.
Much of the implementation of the proposed changes will be dependent on the "Heads of Agreement on Commonwealth/ State Roles and Responsibilities for the Environment", which defines the rights of each government and the matters of national significance that would trigger commonwealth intervention. However, it appears that the state premiers are being kept in the dark about the legislation, and hence a number of the states are refusing to sign the agreement.
Hill's office added fuel to the fire by saying that there had been no commitment to show draft versions of legislation to any state government or conservation group. therefore slowing the process down on justifiable grounds.
It is still useful if we can inundate Hill with letters, asking him not to enact or support any legislation which would weaken the commonwealths role in environmental protection (fax (02) 6277 6101, or write Senator Robert Hill, Parliament House, Canberra 2600).
Friends of the Earth (ph (03) 9419 8700, e-mail: foefitzroy@peg.apc.org) has additional information on the proposed changes, and the ACF's web site is a valuable source of background information <http://www.peg.apc.org/~acfenv>.