Chapter Ten
Conservation of Biodiversity
Part 2 – PROTECTED AREAS
The story that belongs to Uluru-Kata Tjuta is the carpet snake. This
carpet snake came in from the East with the eggs around her neck. She
travelled and lives now at Uluru. From the West a little came the snake
and he lives at Uluru too. From the West, from near Docker River near
the Western Australian border, Kurrpan, the devil dingo, came to Ayers
Rock and he chased the Malla people, the rufus hair wallaby people, away
from Ayers Rock. But the Malla people were living at Ayers Rock. They
belong to that country.
All these are the sacred beings of Uluru and their spiritual bodies are
represented in natural formations at Uluru in rock or trees or rivers.
The stories are that these sacred beings handed down laws which told people
of today, who followed them, to follow the laws that explained how they
lived and were to look after the country and live on a day-to-day basis
and how to perform ceremonies and songs and dances. So these beings are
sacred beings who gave Aboriginal people what they have today. These people
here live the life and stories – they live that today. [1]
Protected Areas (Part 15)
10.1 Part 15 of the Bill provides for the management of protected areas,
that is, World Heritage properties, wetlands of international importance,
biosphere reserves and Commonwealth reserves. The Boards for Commonwealth
reserves on indigenous peoples' lands and special rules for some Commonwealth
reserves in the Northern Territory and Jervis Bay Territory are also covered
by Part 15.
Administration of National Parks
Proposed Changes
10.2 The repeal of the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act
1975 ends the statutory office of the Director of National Parks and
Wildlife, originally established under section 15 of the Act. The Environmental
Reform (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1998 provides for the transfer
of assets and liabilities from the Director to the Commonwealth, and the
substitution of the Commonwealth in place of the Director in any documents,
including the lease of Aboriginal-owned national parks to the Director,
or legal proceedings to which the Director is party. [2]
10.3 The Explanatory Memorandum states that the changes to the statutory
status of the Director will not affect on-ground joint management arrangements
in Kakadu and Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Parks. [3]
The Department of the Environment and Heritage has also indicated that
under the new legislation the Director will continue as an officer of
Environment Australia. [4]
10.4 The Bill requires the Minister to establish a Board for a Commonwealth
reserve that is wholly or partly on indigenous people's land, if the Land
Council for that land (or the traditional owners) and the Minister agree
that there should be a Board. [5] The Environmental
Reform (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1998 provides for the continuation
of the existing management boards for Kakadu, Uluru-Kata Tjuta and Booderee
National Parks. [6] A modification is made so
that existing Boards for Kakadu and Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Parks will
include an additional Board member nominated by the Northern Territory
Government, in accordance with the Bill. [7]
Removal of Director of National Parks and Wildlife
10.5 Indigenous groups were uneasy with the proposed legislative changes,
largely because they considered that there had not been adequate consultation
before the changes came about:
We are landowners that have agreed with the people of Australia to share
our country with all Australians. This is why we feel offended that this
Government has tried to change the management structure on our land without
talking to us and without us saying yes or no to these changes. It is
disrespectful and rude. It does not happen to other private landowners.
Our ancestors have lived on our land for 60,000 years. We should have
been respected as landowners and consulted about any changes. [8]
10.6 Key conservation groups were also concerned about the loss of an
independent source of advice on biodiversity conservation. [9]
They feared that the Commonwealth `will undertake less management of protected
areas in the future, and will rely on management of these areas by States
and the private sector' as a result of the proposed legislative changes.
[10]
10.7 The Department of the Environment and Heritage outlined a number
of reasons for the change in the Director's status:
The Director is, under existing legislation, subject to direction from
the Minister. Therefore the incorporation of the Director into the Department
is not a significant change.
The new arrangements confer more direct responsibility and accountability
on the Minister for the management of Commonwealth reserves. The closer
integration of the Director's functions with the Environment Department
also allows greater consistency and coordination between reserve management
activities and broader Government policies and programs for biodiversity
conservation.
The new arrangements reflect the reality that final responsibility for
the management of Commonwealth reserves lies with elected representatives.
[11]
10.8 During the Canberra hearing Mr Beale emphasised that the change
from a statutory Director to a position within the Department of the Environment
and Heritage would not change the power of the Boards of Management, but
would reflect `the Government's concern that Ministers should be responsible
to the Parliament for the performance of their portfolios rather than
have a series of statutory, as it were, cut-outs'. [12]
10.9 Mr Mick Alderson, Chairperson of the Kakadu Board of Management,
proposed a new structure for the management of Kakadu National Park to
develop the partnership between the Commonwealth and traditional owners.
Under the proposed structure, the traditional owners would lease the National
Park to a Board of Management with a range of statutory powers. The Board
would have statutory responsibility for administration of the Park budget
and development of the plan of management for the Park. It would receive
and expend all of the Park share of income from entry charges and other
commercial income from the Park. The plan of management would be tabled
in both Houses of Parliament for comment, approval or rejection. The Board
would also provide annual reporting to Parliament and be answerable to
Parliament for budgetary appropriations to Kakadu. [13]
Mr Alderson indicated that the Board of Management for the Nitmiluk National
Park in the Northern Territory holds some of the statutory powers being
sought. [14]
10.10 The Committee notes concern expressed in relation to the removal
of the Director of National Parks and Wildlife as an independent statutory
authority, the transfer of the leases for Aboriginal-owned parks to the
Commonwealth, and the proposal to include a Northern Territory representative
on the Kakadu and Uluru Boards of Management.
10.11 The Committee acknowledges the Government's arguments about the
need to coordinate and integrate park management with the Government's
broader policies and programs for biodiversity conservation. The Committee
also accepts the Government's aim to confer more direct responsibility
and accountability on the Minister for the management of Commonwealth
reserves. This approach reflects the reality that responsibility for the
management of Commonwealth reserves lies with elected representatives.
The Committee notes the Government's intention that the interests of indigenous
peoples will not be adversely affected by this change.
10.12 The Committee considers that there are sound public policy reasons
for the proposed changes. The Committee believes that the Minister should
continue to consult with the relevant indigenous groups in relation to
the implementation of these changes.
Recommendation 23
The Committee recommends that the Minister continue to consult with
relevant indigenous groups in relation to the implementation of the provisions
of the Bill dealing with jointly managed National Parks.
Implications for the Leases
10.13 Indigenous groups, including relevant land councils, considered
that the transfer of the leases from the Director to the Commonwealth
would constitute a significant breach of the Kakadu and Uluru-Kata Tjuta
National Park leases which provide grounds for termination of the lease.
[15] The Central Land Council submitted:
The Uluru-Kata Tjuta Aboriginal Land Trust has leased the land to the
Director. Under sub-clause 8(2) of the lease, the Director has covenanted
–
not to transfer, assign, sublet, part with the possession of, or otherwise
dispose of the Park or any part thereof without the consent in writing
of the Lessor and then only in accordance with the Plan of Management.
Schedule 4, Part 2, item 8 says it deals with the `Transfer of Director's
assets and liabilities to Commonwealth'. sub-item 8(1) would vest in the
Commonwealth the Director's assets, estates and interests (including the
benefit of a lease of Aboriginal land).
The Consequential Provisions Bill would therefore override the lessor's
right to consent (or withhold consent) to transfer of the lease. The Minister
has told the traditional owners and the Central Land Council that his
legal advice is that this transfer is valid. The Central Land Council
reserves traditional owners' rights on that point. But as a matter of
policy, the Minister has not acted properly. The spirit of joint management,
and the letter and intent of the lease, requires that traditional owners'
consent to the change should have been sought. [16]
10.14 The Central Land Council added that `the enactment of the Consequential
Provisions Bill in its present form runs the unnecessary risk that the
Land Trust will take action to terminate the lease.' [17]
10.15 The Committee notes the concerns of indigenous groups regarding
the transfer to the Commonwealth of the leases over national parks with
Boards. The Committee notes that the Commonwealth has received legal advice
confirming that the proposed changes will not constitute a breach of the
leases. The Committee believes that the issue of the leases should be
addressed in the consultations which the Committee recommends take place.
Composition of Boards
10.16 Several of the submissions received from indigenous groups objected
to the inclusion of a Northern Territory representative on the Board of
Management. [18]
10.17 The Committee notes that the rationale for the inclusion of a Northern
Territory representative on the Boards is to improve cooperation between
the Boards and the Northern Territory Government:
The aim of adding a Northern Territory Government representative to the
Boards is to deepen the Northern Territory Government's understanding
of the Parks and the service and infrastructure needs of the Aboriginal
people within the Parks. A Territory representative will also bring knowledge
of values in abutting Territory parks and improve coordination with the
management of these parks. There is no intention to diminish the power
of Aboriginal communities in joint management and the Aboriginal majority
on the Boards will be preserved. The proposed changes do not represent
any devolution of management responsibility from the Australian Government
to the Northern Territory Government. On-ground joint management will
not be affected. [19]
10.18 Dr William Freeland, Chief Executive Officer of the Parks and Wildlife
Commission of the Northern Territory, supported the provision and told
the Committee he would like to see the `unfortunate history of non-cooperation
and failure of dialogue between the Boards, Parks Australia, my agency
and the Northern Territory Government' corrected. [20]
10.19 However, some witnesses were concerned about any moves by the Northern
Territory to further its aim of gaining management control of the Kakadu
and Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Parks. [21] Dr
Freeland confirmed that his Government wished to have the Parks managed
under the auspices of the Parks and Wildlife Commission of the Northern
Territory in collaboration with the Boards, but that would not mean that
the Northern Territory would own the Parks or manage the Parks under Northern
Territory legislation. [22]
10.20 Mr Beale told the Committee that there is no intention to diminish
the power of Aboriginal communities in joint management. He added that
the Minister was quite prepared to consider the addition of further traditional
owner members in order to preserve the balance on the Boards. [23]
Members of the Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park Board of Management indicated
that the Minister for the Environment had already held discussions with
the traditional owners on the future composition of the Board. [24]
10.21 Mr Paul Josif of the Mutitjulu Community told the Committee that:
the principle of having a Northern Territory government person is not
the problem. It is more the way in which it has been done… [25]
10.22 Mr Alderson indicated that `if the Commonwealth government were
to support us and give us a Kakadu Board of Management and statutory powers,
we would be serious about having a Northern Territory Government representative
on the Board'. [26]
10.23 The Committee notes the concern expressed by indigenous groups
regarding the inclusion of a Northern Territory representative on the
Boards of Management for Kakadu and Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Parks. The
Committee also notes the willingness of members of the Boards to further
discuss this matter with the Minister. The Committee considers that there
are sound public policy reasons for the inclusion of a Northern Territory
representative on the Boards. The Committee suggests that Northern Territory
representation on the Boards could be discussed along with other matters
in the consultations which the Committee recommends take place prior to
the passage of the Bill. The Committee also believes that any attempts
to improve communication and strengthen relations between the Boards of
Management and the Northern Territory Government would be desirable.
Procedures of Boards
10.24 A number of indigenous groups expressed concern about the possible
implications of the Bill for the current procedures and operation of the
Boards. [27] The Minister has, in discussions
with traditional owners, indicated that the Government will amend the
Bill to ensure no unintended consequences arise as a result of the transfer
of some provisions from the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act
to the new scheme.
Management Plans
Proposed provisions
10.25 The Bill provides for the creation of plans of management for World
Heritage properties, Ramsar wetlands, Biosphere Reserves, which are completely
within Commonwealth areas, and all Commonwealth reserves. [28]
The management plans must not be inconsistent with Australia's obligations
under relevant international agreements – the World Heritage and
Ramsar Conventions, and any other agreements relevant to a Commonwealth
reserve. [29] Plans must also not be inconsistent
with any Australian World Heritage, Ramsar, Biosphere reserve, or IUCN
reserve management principles prescribed in regulations. [30]
Plans for World Heritage properties and Ramsar wetlands must be reviewed
at least every five years, while plans for Commonwealth reserves expire
after seven years. [31]
10.26 The Bill also provides that for any World Heritage property or
Ramsar wetland that lies wholly or partially within an area under State
or Territory jurisdiction, the Commonwealth must use its best endeavours
to ensure that management plans are prepared and implemented in cooperation
with the State or Territory. [32] In relation
to Biosphere reserves the Bill makes provision for the Commonwealth to
cooperate with a State or Territory to prepare and implement a plan for
managing the reserve. [33]
Environmental Standards
10.27 Key conservation organisations submitted that `the Bill contains
almost no detail about any guaranteed environmental standards to be incorporated
into these management plans'. [34] They recommended
that the Bill be amended to require the preparation of management plans
for Biosphere reserves within or partly within Commonwealth areas, and
to require the development of management principles for the various categories
of protected areas and their adoption within one year of the Bill coming
into force. [35]
10.28 The argument that the Bill contains almost no environmental standards
does not withstand scrutiny. The Committee notes that the Bill applies
a basic standard by requiring plans of management to be consistent with
relevant international agreements. There is also considerable detail in
the Bill regarding the conduct of activities in protected areas, for example:
- a person must not carry on an excavation, erect a building or other
structure, carry out works, or fell or take timber, except in accordance
with a management plan (clause 354(1));
- a person must not carry on mining operations in a Commonwealth reserve
unless the Governor-General has approved the operations and the person
carries them on in accordance with a management plan in operation for
the reserve (clause 355(1));
- regulations may be made to regulate or prohibit a range of activities
covered in clause 356, which is similar to section 71 of the National
Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975; and
- wilderness areas must be maintained in their natural state; a person
may use such areas only for authorised scientific research, or a purpose
specified in the provisions of the management plan for the reserve (mining
is prohibited); and a number of activities are prohibited, such as excavation,
erecting a building, establishing a track, using a vehicle, inundating
land, or extracting water, (clauses 360(2) - (4)).
10.29 The Committee notes that management principles which may be prescribed
for World Heritage properties and Ramsar wetlands must be consistent with
Australia's obligations under the relevant international agreements. These
are not vague requirements, as the Parties to those Conventions have developed
a series of technical guidelines and norms for the application of the
Conventions. For example, the parties to the Ramsar Convention have adopted
Guidelines on Management Planning for Ramsar Sites and Other Wetlands
and a Strategic Plan 1997-2002. Regulations prescribing Australian Biosphere
reserve management principles must be consistent with the Statutory Framework
of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves established under the Man and
the Biosphere program of UNESCO. The second reading speech also indicates
the Government's intention to apply the IUCN Protected Areas Management
Guidelines to Commonwealth reserves. [36]
10.30 In the Committee's view, amendment of the Bill to make the development
of regulations prescribing management principles mandatory is unnecessary
and contrary to normal practice in the drafting of Commonwealth legislation.
The Committee notes that regulations must be made by the Governor-General
and are disallowable by either House of Parliament. It would therefore
be quite improper for the Act to require the making of regulations prescribing
the management principles within one year of commencement.
Development of Plans Before Listing of Areas
10.31 The National Farmers' Federation (NFF) was strongly of the view
that management plans for World Heritage properties and Ramsar wetlands
areas should be developed before they are listed. [37]
10.32 The Committee notes that clauses 314 and 326 provide that, before
nominating a property or designating a wetland for inclusion in the World
Heritage List or the List of Wetlands of International Importance, the
Minister must be satisfied that the Commonwealth has used its best endeavours
to reach agreement on the nomination and management arrangements with
owners or occupiers of the property or wetland and with the relevant State
or Territory.
10.33 The Committee believes that these provisions go a long way to addressing
the concerns of the NFF. The Bill does not preclude the development of
draft management plans before the listing of a property or wetland. The
Committee considers that in many cases the process of consulting with
property owners and occupiers would result in a general framework for
the development of a management plan.
Commonwealth Reserves
Duplication of Effort
10.34 The Government of the Northern Territory submitted that the provisions
for declaring Commonwealth reserves would result in duplication between
Commonwealth and State national park services. [38]
10.35 The Committee notes that Commonwealth reserves are to be proclaimed
only on Commonwealth land or sea, or a marine area or areas outside Australia
for which the Commonwealth has international obligations to ensure protection.
The Bill imposes constraints on the acquisition of land for the establishment
of a reserve. If land over which a reserve is to be declared is in a State
or a Territory, or in the Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park or Alligator
Rivers region, and is already dedicated or reserved for nature conservation,
heritage protection or indigenous purposes under State or Territory law,
the Commonwealth cannot acquire the land for the purposes of declaring
a Commonwealth reserve without first obtaining the consent of the State
or Territory in question. [39] Given the above
constraints, the Committee sees no justification for further curtailing
the Commonwealth's ability to proclaim future reserves.
10.36 The Committee further notes that clauses 393 and 398 provide for
the Minister to enter into an arrangement with the appropriate Minister
of a State or Territory for officers and employees of the State or Territory
to perform or exercise the functions or powers of wardens, rangers and
inspectors under the Bill. These provisions would make it possible to
reduce any unnecessary duplication between park services, where this is
appropriate.
Norfolk Island National Park
10.37 The Government of Norfolk Island submitted a concern that the Bill
would result in Commonwealth regulations applying to the Norfolk Island
National Park.
Currently this is not the case and there is no obvious mechanism in the
Bill for excluding the operation of those regulations in respect of the
Park. The Bill would need to be amended to ensure that Commonwealth regulations
did not apply to the National Park and Norfolk Island Botanic Garden.
[40]
10.38 The Committee notes that the current management arrangement of
the Norfolk Island National Park occurs cooperatively between the Government
of Norfolk Island and the Commonwealth. [41]
The Committee notes that relevant provisions under the National Parks
and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975 have been disapplied pursuant to
regulation 3(4) of the National Parks and Wildlife Regulations. The Committee
notes further that the Norfolk Island has its own legislation relating
to the Park, the Norfolk Island National Park and Norfolk Island Botanic
Garden Act 1984.
10.39 The Committee considers that any disapplication of regulations
relevant to reserves can be accommodated under the regulation making power
in clause 520 of the Bill.
Activities in Commonwealth Reserves
10.40 Key conservation groups agreed that the Bill `evidences a clear
commitment to “multiple use” principles in Commonwealth reserves
(that is, a commitment to the principle that the reserves should be available
for purposes other than conservation or environmental protection)'. [42]
They cited the inclusion of clause 355 (limits on mining operations in
Commonwealth reserves), which defines mining operations to include activities
such as prospecting, exploration, and milling, and associated activities,
such as the construction and use of towns, camps, and dams. Conservation
groups recommended that the Bill be amended to provide that environmentally
destructive or disruptive activities, such as mining, are prohibited in
strict nature reserves, wilderness areas, national parks, and habitat/species
management areas. [43]
10.41 The Committee notes that clause 355 is essentially the same as
current provisions of the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation
Act 1975. [44] The Committee considers
that the concerns described above are addressed by the standards and requirements
already included in the Bill and the Government's commitment to apply
the IUCN Protected Areas Management Guidelines, as discussed above.
Existing uses
10.42 Key industry groups expressed concern that the declaration of a
World Heritage property, Ramsar wetland or Commonwealth reserve may extinguish
or diminish rights, such as mineral leases, without compensation. [45]
10.43 The Bill affords protection for both property and use rights in
a number of ways. Clause 359 deals specifically with prior usage rights
in Commonwealth reserves. [46] This clause
provides that provisions of the Bill, regulations and management plan
for the reserve do not affect a usage right that was held in relation
to an area at the time it was included in a reserve. The usage right may
be renewed or extended only with the Minister's consent and subject to
any conditions determined by the Minister. This allows an existing use
right to be modified as necessary to bring it into the framework of the
management plan for the reserve. The provision is particularly important
where prior usage rights are exercised in a way that is not consistent
with the protection and management of the reserve.
10.44 A lawful continuation of a use of an area that was occurring at
the commencement of the Act is not an `action' (subclause 523(2)) and
is therefore not subject to a Part 9 approval. For example, mining operations
which were occurring at the time of commencement in accordance with a
mining lease would not require environmental assessment and approval under
the Bill.
10.45 As discussed above, the Bill also requires that before nominating
or designating a World Heritage property or Ramsar wetland, the Minister
must be satisfied that best endeavours have been made to reach agreement
on the nomination and management arrangements with the owner or occupier
of an area inside the property or wetland (subclauses 314(1) and 326(1)).
The term `occupier' would include the holder of a mining lease. It should
be noted that the declaration of a World Heritage property or Ramsar wetland
will not necessarily mean that existing uses of the area will be curtailed.
The range of activities that are undertaken in such an area, and the way
in which those activities are undertaken, will depend largely on the particular
values for which the area is being declared. The Bill enables agreement
to be reached on how existing uses of an area can continue while protecting
the values of the area.
10.46 Where the operation of the Bill would result in an acquisition
of property from a person that would be invalid under paragraph 51(xxxi)
of the Constitution the Commonwealth must pay the person a reasonable
amount of compensation (clause 519).
10.47 Industry groups supported the preservation of use rights when a
reserve is proclaimed, but argued that compensation should be payable
if the Minister refuses to renew a prior usage right or places conditions
on its renewal or extension. A key industry submission considered this
a major deficiency and a source of major potential sovereign risk, particularly
in the light of the High Court decision in February 1998 regarding compensation
for extinguishment of a petroleum permit in the Timor Sea. [47]
10.48 While the Committee appreciates the need to ensure that industry
has continuing access to resources, it believes that it is important that
such rights should remain subject to review and, if necessary, conditions
to protect the public interest in those resources. A provision requiring
compensation for the failure to renew a usage right which is inconsistent
with the protection of a Commonwealth reserve, would place undesirable
pressure on the Minister to renew the usage right. It would also encourage
calls for compensation for the refusal to renew any permit or licence,
even though these are granted for a fixed period and renewal is not guaranteed.
10.49 The Committee concludes that the Bill provides adequate safeguards
for the interests of persons with existing property and usage rights.
Footnotes
[1] Mr Malya Teamay, Uluru-Kata Tjuta National
Park Board of Management, through Ms Lizzie Ellis, interpreter, Proof
Committee Hansard, Adelaide, 12 March 1999, p 206.
[2] See item 8, Schedule 4 of the Environmental
Reform (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1998.
[3] Explanatory Memorandum, Environmental Reform
(Consequential Provisions) Bill 1998, p 16.
[4] Department of the Environment and Heritage,
supplementary information, 1 April 1999, Attachment D, p 9.
[5] Clause 377(1).
[6] Schedule 4, Part 2, item 6.
[7] Under clause 377(5), if a Commonwealth reserve
with a Board is in a State or self-governing Territory, at least one member
of the Board must be a person nominated by the State or Territory.
[8] Mr Mick Alderson, Kakadu Board of Management,
Proof Committee Hansard, Darwin, 17 March 1999, p 251. Also, Central
Land Council, Submission 595A, p 1; Mr Tony Tjamiwa, Uluru-Kata Tjuta
National Park Board of Management, Proof Committee Hansard, Adelaide,
12 March 1999, p 206-207.
[9] Mr Michael Kennedy, Humane Society International,
Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 4 February 1999, p 92; Environmental
Defender's Office, Submission 15, p 38.
[10] Environmental Defender's Office, Submission
15, p 42.
[11] Department of the Environment and Heritage,
supplementary information, 1 April 1999, Attachment D, p 9.
[12] Mr Roger Beale, Department of the Environment
and Heritage, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 4 March 1999,
p 176.
[13] Kakadu Board of Management, Submission
561C, p 1.
[14] Proof Committee Hansard, Darwin,
17 March 1999, p 251.
[15] Mr Keith Taylor, Northern Land Council,
Proof Committee Hansard, Darwin, 17 March 1999, p 254; Mr Leigh
Tilmouth and Mr Antony Keyes, Central Land Council, Proof Committee
Hansard, Adelaide, 12 March 1999, p 215.
[16] Central Land Council, Submission 595A,
p 3.
[17] Central Land Council, Submission 595A,
p 4.
[18] Northern Land Council, Submission 614,
p 28. Also, Central Land Council, Submission 595, p 12; Kakadu Board of
Management, Submission 561A, p 7; Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park Board
of Managament, Submission 616, p 3.
[19] Explanatory Memorandum, Environmental
Reform (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1998, p 15.
[20] Proof Committee Hansard, Darwin,
17 March 1999, pp 245, 246. Also, Government of the Northern Territory,
Submission 613, p 12.
[21] Mr Antony Keyes, Central Land Council,
Proof Committee Hansard, Adelaide, 12 March 1999, p 214.
[22] Dr William Freeland, Parks and Wildlife
Commission of the Northern Territory, Proof Committee Hansard,
Darwin, 17 March 1999, p 246.
[23] Mr Roger Beale, Department of the Environment
and Heritage, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 4 March 1999,
p 176.
[24] Mr Tony Tjamiwa and Mr Malya Teamay, Uluru-Kata
Tjuta National Park Board of Management, Proof Committee Hansard,
Adelaide, 12 March 1999, p 207.
[25] Proof Committee Hansard, Adelaide,
12 March 1999, p 214.
[26] Proof Committee Hansard, Darwin,
17 March 1999, p 252.
[27] For example, Mr Rod Cunich, Wreck Bay
Aboriginal Community Council, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney,
4 February 1999, p 109.
[28] Clauses 316, 328, 338, 366.
[29] Clauses 316(3)(a), 328(3)(a), 367(1)(i).
[30] Clauses 316(3)(b), 328(3)(b), 340(1),
367(3).
[31] Clauses 319, 331, and 373.
[32] Clauses 321 and 333.
[33] Clause 338.
[34] Environmental Defender's Office, Submission
15, p 43.
[35] Environmental Defender's Office, Submission
15, p 43.
[36] Senator the Hon Robert Hill, Minister
for the Environment, Senate Hansard, 2 July 1998, p 4797.
[37] National Farmers' Federation, Submission
530, p 5.
[38] Government of the Northern Territory,
Submission 613, p 12.
[39] Clause 344(2).
[40] Government of Norfolk Island, Submission
474, p 16.
[41] Mr Peter Davidson, Government of Norfolk
Island, Proof Committee Hansard, Sydney, 4 February 1999, p 115.
[42] Environmental Defender's Office, Submission
15, p 44.
[43] Environmental Defender's Office, Submission
15, p 41.
[44] Section 10 states: `No operations for
the recovery of minerals shall be carried on in a park or reserve (not
being Kakadu National Park) other than operations that are carried on,
with the approval of the Governor-General, in accordance with the plan
of management relating to that park or reserve.' Section 3A defines `operations
for the recovery of minerals' to include prospecting and exploration for
minerals, the milling, refining, treatment and processing of minerals
and the handling, transportation, storage and disposal of minerals and
of material produced from minerals; and the construction and use of towns,
camps, dams, pipelines, power lines or other structures, and the performance
of any other work, for the purposes of any such operations or activities.
[45] Minerals Council of Australia, Submission
335, p 26.
[46] A `usage right' is defined in subclause
350(7), as `an estate or a legal or equitable charge, power, privilege,
authority, licence or permit'.
[47] The High Court decision, Commonwealth
of Australia v WMC Resources Ltd, may not be relevant, as it involved
the extinguishment by the Commonwealth of an existing petroleum exploration
permit, rather than the refusal to renew a permit upon its expiry.
Top
|