CHAPTER 4
4.1 One of the most consistent themes of the evidence presented to the
Committee during the course of the inquiry was the complex, multi-sectoral,
multi-jurisdictional nature of the administration of the coastal zone,
and of arrangements to deal with pollution of coastal waters. The term
'integrated management' was used again and again to describe the only
effective way of dealing with the issues involved.
4.2 According to SOMER, 'strategic, integrated planning and management
in the coastal zone is of paramount importance'.[1]
This chapter considers the present arrangements for management of the
coastal zone and specifically of marine and coastal pollution, and the
difficulties raised by their complexity.
4.3 The complexity of marine administration and the many issues involved
were noted by the founding Chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park
Authority, Professor Graeme Kelleher, in a submission to SOMER. He stated
that:
The environmental value of an area, the local, regional and global
importance of its biodiversity, and social and cultural values, and
commercially important uses such as fisheries, tourism and oil must
all be important considerations in marine environmental management decisions.[2]
4.4 Many government agencies are involved in coastal management, as well
as industries and community based bodies. Governments rely principally
on regulatory mechanisms, and to some extent economic and financial instruments.
According to the Resource Assessment Commission (RAC) the complexity of
the arrangements is a function of the need to respond to several difficult
matters - the intricate biophysical systems of the zone, the diversity
of resources in the zone, and the wide range of values held by users of
coastal zone resources - as well as the fact that coastal zone issues
invariably span the responsibilities of more than one sphere of government.[3]
4.5 The three spheres of government share responsibility for management
of the coastal zone, its resources and offshore waters. The Commonwealth
Government is primarily responsible for management of the seabed and waters
from the three nautical mile limit to the edge of the Exclusive Economic
Zone. Commonwealth legislation relating to coastal zone management is
mostly indirect, although it can pursue environmental objectives for managing
coastal and marine environments where Australia has obligations arising
under international conventions and agreements.
4.6 Although the Commonwealth has passed and administers numerous Acts
with implications for the management of the coastal zone, the legislative
power for management of the coastal zone and its resources lies primarily
with State governments, which are responsible for 72 per cent of national
expenditure on management of the coastal zone.
4.7 The States have enacted legislation on such matters as development
control, planning, beach protection, fisheries and forest management,
environment protection, the establishment and management of national parks
and reserves, mariculture development, port authorities, resource allocation
and the management of most public land in the coastal zone. Such legislation
often devolves to agencies high levels of independence to provide services
and undertake management of resources. Some States have supplemented planning
and environment protection legislation with statutes specifically aimed
at coastal protection.
4.8 State legislation, including Local Government Acts, confers on local
authorities powers to administer certain activities within their jurisdictions
and to make by-laws. Functions delegated to local government typically
relate to public health, waste disposal, swimming, foreshore management,
tree preservation and the management of land, many of which are directly
related to pollution issues. Local governments are not usually responsible
for the administration of legislation directed specifically at coastal
zone management, but they are involved in the administration of much related
legislation, such as planning legislation.
4.9 The legislative framework is constantly evolving and despite attempts
by State governments to consolidate and update legislation, there remain
a variety of Acts affecting coastal zone management. Commonwealth and
State legislation is discussed in more detail later in this chapter. In
all States important responsibilities for managing the coastal zone remain
dispersed among several government departments, agencies and bodies as
well as local government.[4]
4.10 Although responsibilities for coastal zone management are typically
spread across several agencies, some State governments, and the Commonwealth,
have made or are preparing policy statements containing broad objectives
for coastal zone management at all levels. These objectives tend to draw
heavily on the concept of ecologically sustainable development, including
balancing conservation and development, and understanding and protecting
natural systems and processes.
4.11 However, the Resource Assessment Commission Report found that these
policy approaches rarely sought to integrate social, economic and environmental
goals in a single framework. Most of the stated objectives are sectorally
based, concerned with either particular resources or particular areas,
such as fish resources or coastal reserves. In the absence of an integrated
approach these objectives sometimes conflict, both within and between
spheres of government.[5]
4.12 The RAC also referred to a perception among government, industry
and community representatives that unnecessary functional duplication
and overlap between agencies responsible for coastal zone management are
characteristic of existing coastal management.[6]
The problem is not confined to marine or coastal matters, although it
does have significant impact on them. In NSW, for example, there are 72
pieces of legislation, administered by 17 government departments, which
relate to the control of toxic and hazardous chemicals.[7]
4.13 Inquiries into coastal management have repeatedly identified two
problems that contribute significantly to the failure of coastal management
to secure effective, sustainable use of the coastal zone: fragmented management
arrangements based on issue or sectoral management, and the 'tyranny of
small decisions' whereby over time a number of small decisions, not significant
in themselves, accumulate and interact to result in a significant impact
on the coastal zone.
4.14 The RAC reported that this fragmentation of coastal zone management
responsibility was exacerbated by jurisdictional boundaries that do not
reflect physical, geographical and ecological features and do not take
account of natural processes that operate across boundaries. Political
boundaries and administrative jurisdictions do not allow for the integrated
management of ecological units.[8]
This too was a recurrent theme of evidence presented to the inquiry.
4.15 The Commonwealth Coastal Policy recognises the lack of integration
across sectoral interests within government as a cause for great concern
about the effectiveness of coastal management and that the number of agencies
with sectoral management responsibilities affecting the coast, and the
unclear boundaries of responsibility, contribute to this lack of integration.[9]
4.16 Many of those presenting evidence to the Committee supported this
view. The Centre for Maritime Policy stressed the importance of an integrated
approach to marine management based on the interests of all stakeholders
and said that policies should not be formulated and implemented on a sectoral
basis without inter-agency consultation and coordination. The Centre also
stated that a worrying aspect of current arrangements is the potential
for conflicting interests between the environmental authorities and the
departments responsible for the development of marine industries.[10]
4.17 The Resource Assessment Commission's Coastal Zone Inquiry recommended
the adoption by the Council of Australian Governments of a National Coastal
Action Program for management of the resources of Australia's coastal
zone, to be implemented by the three spheres of government in consultation
with the relevant community and industry groups.[11]
4.18 To facilitate the implementation of the National Coastal Action
Program, the RAC recommended the creation of a National Coastal Management
Agency, comprising part-time representatives of Commonwealth, State and
local Governments and of the indigenous community. The Agency would have
a small full-time secretariat.
4.19 To provide technical and other advice to the Agency, the Inquiry
recommended the creation of a National Coastal Consultative Council, a
part-time body comprising people chosen for their ability to contribute
to the treatment of technical and professional issues. It would draw its
membership from business, industry, tertiary and research institutions
and community groups.
4.20 Essentially, Governments' representatives on the National Coastal
Management Agency would be advised by experts, in the widest sense, on
the National Coastal Consultative Council. The Agency would be responsible
to, and report to, the Council of Australian Governments, which would
adopt objectives and principles for the management of the Coastal Zone.[12]
4.21 Similarly, the 1994 Ocean Outlook Congress, hosted by the CSIRO,
the Australian Institute of Marine Science and the Australian Geological
Survey Organisation expressed the need for a means of central coordination
to set policies and coordinate actions by Australian Governments in relation
to shipping, marine transport, maritime safety, pollution, health and
quarantine issues, access to coastal resources and marine scientific research
and development.[13] The Congress
reported that:
A streamlining of responsibilities is seen as a matter of some
urgency. A coordinated approach and a national focus, with a vastly
improved interface between the States and the Commonwealth, will achieve
sustainable resource exploitation and conservation objectives.[14]
4.22 The Congress concluded that the necessary coordination could be
achieved by various means such as establishing a coordinating office within
the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet or a national authority with
a Ministerial Council. Such an office or agency would assist all Australian
Governments to develop coherent policies for the management of ocean environments
and the development of marine industries.[15]
4.23 Professor Leon Zann suggested in his submission to the inquiry the
establishment of a statutory Commonwealth authority, a National Oceans
Management Authority, charged with effective management of Australia's
EEZ. He suggested that it might be modelled on the Great Barrier Reef
Marine Park Authority, with similarly strong legislation and a technical
capability in planning, management, education, research and monitoring.
It would be based in Canberra but would also have offices in each State
and Territory and would support financially and technically State and
territory agencies responsible for coastal management.[16]
4.24 Professor Graeme Kelleher, former Chairman of the Great Barrier
Reef Marine Park Authority, has also argued for a single authority to
manage the EEZ, modelled on GBRMPA, with legislated jurisdiction over
the whole ocean territory. Professor Kelleher says that such an approach
is the only way to ensure a coordinated approach to development and conservation:
It won't be easy ... To succeed it must be based on integrated,
nation-wide management, and it must achieve from the start the cooperation
of all. If it doesn't, then decisions will be determined by whoever
has the loudest voice in Parliament ... and an economically and environmentally
sustainable ocean resource will be lost.[17]
4.25 This idea of a central body coordinating marine affairs, including
the management of marine pollution, was canvassed frequently during the
course of the Committee's inquiry.[18]
The Commonwealth Government has specifically rejected such a notion but
has recognised the need for greater coordination of activities in the
coastal zone and policies for its management by different spheres of government.
These matters are discussed below at 4.87-91.
4.26 However, the Committee believes that the problems faced by the coastal
and marine environments are of such magnitude and such urgency that the
Government should consider the establishment of a central authority to
coordinate coastal and marine affairs. Such an authority would consult
with all spheres of government to facilitate the development of coherent
policies across different jurisdictions for the management of Australia's
coasts and oceans and of activities which affect the EEZ, including consideration
of land-based issues. It could be modelled on the Murray-Darling Basin
Commission and report regularly to Commonwealth and State Governments.
Recommendation 1: The Committee recommends that the Government consider
the establishment of a central authority to coordinate coastal and marine
affairs. Such an authority would consult with all spheres of government
to facilitate the development of coherent policies across different jurisdictions
for the management of Australia's coasts and oceans and of activities
which affect Australia's Exclusive Economic Zone, including consideration
of land-based issues.
Recommendation 2: The Committee recommends that marine affairs be
a standing item on the agenda of COAG meetings.
4.27 A particular area of lack of coordination is the point at which
land and sea administration meet, or fail to meet. Ms Caroline Williams
of the University of Tasmania argued that there is a need to improve the
communication and skills which bridge the land and the sea pollution control
regimes. She suggested that there appears to be very little interaction
between those charged with the responsibility for controlling maritime
matters and those charged with the responsibility for controlling pollution
from the land.[19]
4.28 Similarly, the National Research Centre for Environmental Toxicology
argued that since such a large proportion of marine pollution comes from
land based activities:
it is of utmost importance for authorities with responsibility
for decision making and protection of the sea that regulations are integrated
with those which regulate pollution at source.[20]
4.29 The Commonwealth Coastal Policy (4.85, below) acknowledges this
problem and notes that the need for integration is made more urgent by
the fact that the coastal zone spans land and marine areas that are interrelated
and because all spheres of government are involved in management. The
Australian Academy of Science presented a similar point of view, advocating
a holistic systems approach to the management of catchment and coastal
environments, involving all levels of government.[21]
4.30 Ms Williams said that there is no sufficient mechanism whereby those
skilled in the ways of the sea may regularly exchange information and
skills with those whose concern is with the land environment. This lack
of opportunity or of a means by which such communication can occur was
also a recurring theme of evidence to the Committee. The lack of research
and of long-term data on the marine environment, referred to above in
Chapter 3, is compounded by the lack of coordination of what research
does occur and what data is available in different locations.
4.31 Land management in Australia dominates coastal management, and management
of the coastal seas has been the loser in this situation. Land based marine
pollution cannot be tackled within the narrow coastal strip alone; the
source of the problem extends well inland and upstream. However, there
is no uniformity of approach in State legislation pertaining to land based
marine pollution; the objectives of the legislation and the criteria of
the legislation reflect the preferences of each jurisdiction.
4.32 The management of the EEZ, however, is primarily a Commonwealth
responsibility and should be relatively free from the jurisdictional issues
which plague coastline management, although it is acknowledged that management
of pollution in the EEZ will involve management of land-based pollutants,
and all the jurisdictional complications this entails.
4.33 A scoping exercise of initiatives in Australia that reduce the impact
of human activity on the marine environment is one of the most urgent
tasks that needs to be carried out. The findings of such an exercise would
be the basis for establishing a sound national framework to address land
based sources of marine pollution.
4.34 Mr Nelson Quinn argued for such a scoping exercise to identify the
existing relevant laws and arrangements, with analysis of how they relate
to UNCLOS and other relevant international arrangements. This would provide
pointers to issues where Australia would benefit from strategy development
or changes to existing arrangements.
4.35 Mr Quinn said that as UNCLOS is an international treaty entered
into by the Commonwealth, such a scoping exercise would need Commonwealth
leadership and commitment, inevitably involving funding. Without such
an exercise, attempts to develop effective oceans policies, new management
systems and research agendas would fail.[22]
4.36 Mr Quinn argued that a Commonwealth led coordinating body to facilitate
the development of an oceans and maritime strategy would be a natural
corollary to the scoping exercise he advocates. He said that with so many
different maritime interests and activities, the effectiveness of a single
body would depend on good communication arrangements and developing a
consensus and a productive agenda. He added that there would be no need
for such a body to take over existing functions in sectional areas.[23]
4.37 Professor Bruce Davis from the University of Tasmania spoke along
similar lines when he suggested that:
There does not appear to have been any attempt to scope the management
implications of this decision [to establish a 200 nautical mile EEZ]
with respect to marine conservation and development. This is not a condemnation
of existing sectoral agencies, which already face massive environmental
agendas, rather it reflects the absence of any identifiable body charged
with developing an Australian maritime strategy.[24]
4.38 Professor Davis said that a scoping study was needed so that existing
arrangements, needs and priorities could be determined. He said that there
should also be a comprehensive review of extant legislation and associated
programs.[25]
4.39 In his evidence to the Committee Professor Davis said that:
many of the decisions we make about marine pollution involve
some risk of uncertainty. I see that as inescapable. It is no good suggesting
that we are going to be able to sit around and wait until we have all
the scientific data we would like. That is why I think the scoping study
may well bring us down to some of the more direct problems and at least
enable us, initially, to focus on things that need to get done.[26]
4.40 The Committee welcomes the formation of the Australian Marine Industries
and Sciences Council in 1995, and its publication in January 1997 of a
Marine Industries Development Strategy. The Committee also welcomes the
release in May 1997 of a scoping paper for Australia's first National
Marine Science and Technology Plan. The Committee notes that the Government's
oceans policy consultation paper, Australia's Oceans: New Horizons
was designed to serve as a scoping paper for the development of the oceans
policy and that the policy development process will, in effect, involve
a scoping exercise.
4.41 Professor Davis noted that some of the relevant State and Commonwealth
legislation dated from the earlier 1980s or before and was now due for
review. He also suggested that supplementation had occurred as and when
particular needs had arisen and that the patchwork created should be re-analysed
with a view towards consolidation and integration. He also said that one
could not deal with domestic marine pollution, without simultaneously
being aware of relevant international obligations which impinge upon policy
determination.[27]
4.42 In terms of the adequacy of particular pieces of legislation, Professor
Leon Zann argued that legislation, regulations and guidelines to address
point-sourced discharges appeared to be adequate and relatively effective
as levels of pollutants had declined in many areas since their introduction.
4.43 He suggested, however, that legislation and guidelines to prevent
diffuse or non-point source pollutants, particularly of sediments and
nutrients, and to control their cumulative effects, was inadequate. Management
of these issues generally could not be undertaken through legislation
and must be approached on a broad, catchment level.[28]
4.44 However, the Australian Water and Wastewater Association argued
that proper implementation of existing state and federal legislation and
guidelines would suffice in controlling pollution to acceptable levels.
The Association stated in its submission that the rapid implementation
of remedial or control strategies based on cost effectiveness and appropriate
priorities should be achievable within existing legal frameworks.[29]
4.45 The Committee believes that education of relevant stakeholders and
a cooperative approach to the management of such diffuse sources of marine
pollution will be more effective than legislation which is difficult to
police.
4.46 Australia is party to a number of international conventions and
protocols governing the protection of the marine environment, some of
which are discussed below. A comprehensive discussion of Australia's international
obligations will be found in the submission by the Office of International
Law of the Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department, printed as Appendix
3 to this report.
4.47 In November 1994, the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law
of the Sea came into effect, and with it Australia's declaration of its
200 mile Exclusive Economic Zone. The EEZ covers more than 11 million
square kilometres, one of the largest in the world.
4.48 UNCLOS provides the rights to exploit the natural resources of the
EEZ but also obliges Australia, under Article 192, to protect and preserve
the marine environment of the EEZ. The Convention requires Australia to
prevent land based and ship sourced marine pollution and to work internationally
to prevent it. It requires Australia to advance knowledge of the EEZ by
undertaking marine scientific research and promotes the sustainable use
and conservation of the living resources of the high seas.[30]
4.49 The Maritime Legislation Amendment Act 1994 incorporates
into Australian law those parts of UNCLOS pertaining to the territorial
sea, continental shelf and exclusive economic zone. The relevant parts
of the Convention have been scheduled to the Seas and Submerged Lands
Act 1973, replacing references to treaties signed at UNCLOS I in 1958.
The Convention is legally binding and entered into force in November 1994.
4.50 Part XII of UNCLOS deals with the protection and preservation of
the marine environment. The declaration of Australia's EEZ under the Convention
entails a Commonwealth responsibility to ensure the protection of the
marine environment while sustainably managing the use of its resources.
Article 194 of the Convention contains a specific obligation for countries
to utilise all practical means to prevent, reduce and control marine pollution
from any source.[31]
4.51 Mr Nicholas Brunton argues that despite lacking specific obligations
in regard to land based marine pollution UNCLOS is significant because
it does establish a global duty to address pollution from land based sources.
Article 207(1) provides that:
States shall adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce and
control pollution of the marine environment from land based sources,
including rivers, estuaries, pipelines and outfall structures, taking
into account internationally agreed rules, standards and recommended
practices and procedures.[32]
4.52 The Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories argued
in its submission that the Commonwealth already meets its strict legal
obligations under the UNCLOS through a wide range of legislation and other
measures. (However, see 4.109-111, below.) The Department also stated
that the development of a national Oceans Policy would enhance the effectiveness
of programs for the sustainable management of Australia's EEZ.[33]
4.53 SPREP is the major regional treaty for the control of pollution
to which Australia is a party. Article 7 refers to land based marine pollution
and requires Parties to take:
all appropriate measures to prevent, reduce and control pollution
in the Convention Area caused by coastal disposal or by discharges emanating
from rivers, estuaries, coastal establishments, outfall structures,
or any other sources in their territory.[34]
4.54 Like UNCLOS, SPREP provides little detail as to how the various
obligations are to be implemented, leaving the manner in which they are
discharged very much to the discretion of each State Party. Both should
be regarded as a framework agreement within which states have a general
obligation to prevent pollution.[35]
4.55 At the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development
held in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992, Australia endorsed the Agenda 21
Action Plan, Chapter 17 of which deals with ocean and coastal issues.
Coastal nations committed themselves, among other things, to integrated
management and sustainable development of coastal areas and the marine
environment under their national jurisdiction; and prevention, reduction
and control of pollution of the marine environment, including degradation
from land based activities.
4.56 Chapter 17 notes that a precautionary and anticipatory approach
(4.76, below), rather than a reactive one, is necessary to prevent degradation
of the marine environment, and that any management framework must include
the integrated management and development of coastal areas.
4.57 The Global Program of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment
From Land Based Activities (GPA) was adopted at a conference convened
by the United Nations Environment Program in Washington in November 1995.
It is not legally binding. The Commonwealth Government, in consultation
with the States and Territories, was an active participant in the activities
which led to the adoption of the GPA. Implementation of the GPA within
Australia will take place through the framework of the Coasts and Clean
Seas Initiative.[36] (See 4.104,
below.)
4.58 Mr Nelson Quinn argued that there has been a failure to build on
international programs for local purposes, and stated that the GPA 'provides
an excellent basis for a national marine protection strategy. This opportunity
does not seem to have been taken up.' [37]
4.59 The goal of the Convention is to protect the marine environment
from pollution of the sea by the dumping of waste and other matter that
is liable to create hazards to human health, to harm living resources
and marine life, to damage amenities or to interfere with other legitimate
uses of the sea. The Commonwealth implementing legislation is the Environment
Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981.
4.60 The Act is administered by the Commonwealth Environment Protection
Authority and applies to all vessels, aircraft or platforms in Australian
waters and to all Australian vessels or aircraft in any part of the sea.
It regulates the deliberate loading, dumping or incineration of wastes
and other materials, not operational discharges. More than 200 permits
have been issued under the Act since 1984, most for the dumping of dredge
spoil.[38]
4.61 The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from
Ships 1973, as amended by the 1978 Protocol, known as MARPOL 73/78, is
the most ambitious international treaty covering maritime pollution ever
adopted, and has become the centre-piece of the International Maritime
Organisation's 'safe ships and clean seas' principle. The key objective
of MARPOL is the prevention of operational or accidental pollution from
ships, addressed by detailed regulations on the construction of ships
and their operating procedures, including the extent to which certain
substances can be released in different sea areas, if at all.
4.62 The Convention includes five technical Annexes, each dealing with
a different type of pollution:
- Annex I - oil
- Annex II - noxious liquid substances
- Annex III - harmful packaged substances
- Annex IV - sewage
- Annex V - garbage
The IMO is developing three further Annexes, dealing with air pollution,
ballast water, and solid bulk cargoes. 4.63 MARPOL is implemented in Australia
by the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act
1983. In 1994 the Act was amended following the entry into force of
the Maritime Legislation Amendment Act 1994, which updated Australia's
maritime zones in accordance with UNCLOS. For pollution prevention purposes
the most significant aspect of the 1994 Act was the declaration of a 200
nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).[39]
4.64 The Offshore Constitutional Settlement is the primary arrangement
governing the management of marine resources in Australia. It is a regulatory
and administrative approach to national cooperation. Under the Settlement,
which was agreed at the Premiers' Conference in June 1979 and took effect
in 1983, the Commonwealth granted title and legislative power to the States
for marine and seabed resources extending three nautical miles from the
low-water mark.
4.65 The agreement is supported by a package of Commonwealth legislation,
including the Coastal Waters (State Powers) Act 1980 and the Coastal
Waters (State Title) Act 1980, that provides for shared Commonwealth
and State jurisdiction over mineral, petroleum and fisheries resources.
Elements of the agreement are incorporated in relevant State legislation.[40]
4.66 The Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment (IGAE) is an
agreement, signed in May 1992, between the Commonwealth, State and Territory
Governments and the Australian Local Government Association. It is a mechanism
to facilitate a cooperative national approach to the environment, a reduction
in the number of disputes between the Commonwealth and States and Territories
on environment issues, greater certainty of government and business decision
making and better environmental protection.
4.67 The Agreement specifies the principles of environmental policy that
should guide the development of policy and programs by all spheres of
government. These principles include the effective integration of economic
and environmental considerations in decision making processes.[41]
The Minister for the Environment, Senator Robert Hill, has stated that:
'The Government is committed to fully use the potential of the Intergovernmental
Agreement on the Environment to achieve a better outcome for the environment.'
[42]
4.68 The IGAE provides for the establishment of the National Environmental
Protection Authority, now the National Environment Protection Council
(NEPC), a Ministerial council composed of a minister from the Commonwealth
and from each State and Territory (not necessarily the Environment Minister
in each case). The National Environment Protection Council Acts were proclaimed
in late 1995.
4.69 The NEPC may establish measures for the protection of the environment,
in the form of goals, guidelines, standards and/or protocols, including
uniform standards for ambient marine, estuarine and freshwater quality.
Draft measures must be approved for release by a two thirds majority of
the Ministerial Council and then circulated to the community with an opportunity
for comment, accompanied by an impact statement. Following consideration
of the impact statement and any public comment, each of the Ministers
seeks Cabinet approval of the proposed measure. A two thirds majority
of the Ministerial Council is required to adopt the measure. The responsibility
for the implementation of the national measures rests with individual
jurisdictions, which are required to report annually through the NEPC
to Commonwealth and State Parliaments.
4.70 However, according to Mr Nicholas Brunton, under present legislation
the NEPC measures can only be made to relate to ambient standards. Mr
Brunton argued that the States have been relying on ambient standards
for twenty years and such an approach has been proven to be insufficient
to protect the marine environment.
4.71 Mr Brunton suggested that the NEPC legislation could be extended
to allow the NEPC to make National Environment Protection Measures to
cover a broad array of categories, such as industrial emission standards
applying to the quantity and quality of effluent discharge. It could also
prescribe procedures to adopt, implement and design cleaner production
processes, or mandate pollution reduction targets and guidelines and could
enact codes of practice to cover the different activities which give rise
to diffuse sources.[43]
4.72 The Committee accepts the view that the present NEPC legislation
is insufficient to take effective measures to address significant sources
of marine pollution, and believes that the Commonwealth and States need
urgently to consider strengthening the powers of the NEPC.
4.73 Of fundamental importance to the Marine Protected Areas program
(4.95, below) is the National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development.
The Strategy was endorsed at a meeting of the Council of Australian Governments
in December 1992. A Commonwealth discussion paper proposed the following
definition:
Ecologically sustainable development means using, conserving
and enhancing the community's resources so that ecological processes,
on which life depends, are maintained, and the total quality of life,
now and in the future, can be increased.[44]
4.74 Among the Core Objectives of the Strategy are the protection of
biological diversity and the maintenance of essential ecological processes
and life support systems.[45]
4.75 The National Strategy calls for the adoption of the precautionary
approach in assessing development proposals. The concept of a precautionary
approach has developed as an approach to decision making in the face of
uncertainty about the environmental impacts of actions, particularly where
the impacts might be significant or irreversible.
4.76 The IGAE definition of the precautionary principle is:
Where there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental
damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason
for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation. In the
application of the principle, public and private decisions should be
guided by (i) careful evaluation to avoid, wherever practicable, serious
or irreversible damage to the environment; and (ii) an assessment of
risk weighted consequences of various options.[46]
4.77 The Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council
(ANZECC), in conjunction with the Agriculture and Resource Management
Council of Australia and New Zealand (ARMCANZ) has established the National
Water Quality Management Strategy (NWQMS). The NWQMS was initiated as
a result of growing community concern about the condition of the nation's
water bodies and increased understanding that sustainable management of
water resources requires recognition of environmental needs not just human
health.
4.78 The NWQMS facilitates a nationally consistent and sustainable approach
to water quality management through the development of high status national
guidelines, the Australian Water Quality Guidelines for Fresh and Marine
Waters, and accompanying policies and principles which can provide the
point of reference when issues are being determined on a case by case
basis. The Guidelines do not require any specific action to be taken and
constitute, in essence, best practice for industry and regulators.[47]
4.79 The Guidelines discuss levels for hydrocarbons, heavy metals and
organometals, organochlorines, nutrients, micro-organisms, and other parameters
which should generally not be exceeded in order to protect environmental
values.[48] Environment Australia,
on behalf of ANZECC, is currently reviewing the Guidelines.
4.80 The administrative arrangements for the NWQMS are focussed at the
State level using water quality planning and policy instruments while
taking account of national goals and obligations to other States and Territories.
A State uses its own water quality planning and environmental policy tools
to set water quality objectives and goals in line with the agreed national
Guidelines. Regional communities are encouraged to participate on a catchment
basis in the identification of local environmental values and the associated
water quality criteria and local management strategies are developed and
implemented.[49]
4.81 According to the Australian Water and Wastewater Association, the
NWQMS provides an excellent framework within which it is possible to establish
ambient water quality conditions; community goals for environmental values;
existing conditions and hence, appropriate discharge and other controls.[50]
4.82 However, Mr Brunton stated in his submission to the inquiry that
the national Guidelines are only ambient guidelines and do not impose
criteria on the quality of effluent discharged. He also stated that a
major flaw in the Guidelines and the NWQMS is the underlying acceptance
of the concept of the assimilative capacity of the marine environment,
which he argues has been largely discredited.[51]
(See also 5.160, below.)
4.83 Mr Brunton argued before the Committee that although the NWQMS is
an important initiative it is no more than a strategy, is non-binding
and is unlikely to make any difference in terms of practical effect on
the marine environment.[52]
4.84 The Committee believes that a far stronger regulation of discharges
to the marine environment is required and that a uniform national approach
is necessary to protect the quality of estuarine and coastal waters.
Recommendation 3: The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government
work with the relevant authorities to develop clear, enforceable guidelines,
based on appropriate research, for the quality of discharges into the
marine environment, through sewerage systems or direct to water, and to
develop the necessary legislation to make such guidelines legally binding.
4.85 The Commonwealth Coastal Policy, launched in May 1995, is the Commonwealth
Government's response to the Final Report of the Resource Assessment Commission's
Coastal Zone Inquiry, released in December 1993.
4.86 The policy contains initiatives to ensure that activities in the
coastal zone are ecologically sustainable and aims to build cooperation
between the many users and beneficiaries of the coast: Commonwealth, State
and local Governments, industry and the broader community, and to focus
efforts to promote an integrated approach to sustainable management of
the coast.
4.87 At the launch of the policy the then Minister for the Environment,
Senator John Faulkner, said that although during the development of the
Policy many groups had called for the introduction of Commonwealth legislation
to regulate coastal management, the Government had chosen not to take
that approach.
4.88 Senator Faulkner said that it would be unwise and ineffective to
try to centralise control over all the activities undertaken in the coastal
zone and that legislation would damage the trust required to make cooperative
management succeed. He said that the policy was not about the Commonwealth
taking over State and local government responsibilities but about helping
State and local governments implement the best standards of coastal management.[53]
4.89 In its submission to the inquiry, Environment Australia stated that:
Achieving the goal of integrated and sustainable management of
the coastal zone requires cooperation between all three spheres of government,
as well as industry and the community. It is beyond the capabilities
or jurisdictions of any one level of government acting on its own.[54]
4.90 The Commonwealth's view is that the best way to achieve integration
of Commonwealth programs affecting the coastal zone is for agencies and
authorities to retain existing responsibilities while increasing coordination
between them, ensuring that programs and policies share a common goal
and meet the Government's objectives for use of the coastal zone.
4.91 The Commonwealth takes the view that the establishment of a national
agency, such as that suggested by the Resource Assessment Commission (4.18,
above), to be responsible for all coastal management matters, is unrealistic
and unnecessary. The Coastal Policy states that the range of coastal management
activities and the need to recognise the roles of all jurisdictions means
that a central agency would be inappropriate.[55]
4.92 While acknowledging the sensitivities inherent in management arrangements
involving different spheres of government, the Committee believes that
a central agency coordinating coastal and marine affairs would offer significant
benefits and facilitate the development of coherent policies and management
approaches across different jurisdictions.
4.93 A number of models have been proposed, some of which are discussed
in this report. The Committee believes that such an agency should report
directly to the Council of Australian Governments and that marine affairs
should be a standing item on the agenda of COAG meetings. (See 4.25-26,
above.)
4.94 In order to assist in the coordination of Commonwealth activities
that affect the coastal zone, to provide advice on coastal issues and
to facilitate integration of the coastal activities of Commonwealth departments,
a Commonwealth Coastal Coordinating Committee has been established. Coordination
with the States and local governments is through the Intergovernmental
Coastal Reference Group (ICRG). Secretariat support for the Commonwealth
Coastal Coordinating Committee and ICRG is provided by Environment Australia.[56]
4.95 The underlying goal of the Coastal Policy is ecologically sustainable
use of the coastal zone. A major initiative, established in 1991, was
Ocean Rescue 2000, a ten year program aimed at the conservation and sustainable
use of the marine environment. The program was designed to facilitate
a national approach to the conservation, sustainable use and management
of Australia's marine environment and resources. It comprised:
- State of the Marine Environment Report;
- National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas;
- National Marine Education Program;
- Marine and Coastal Community Network;
- National Marine Information System; and
- Australian Marine Conservation Plan.[57]
Activities funded under the Ocean Rescue 2000 program are now funded
under the Marine Protected Areas program, administered by Environment
Australia. 4.96 Although the Ocean Rescue 2000 program was an important
initiative it did not attempt to tackle the major threat to the marine
environment from land based sources. A State of the Marine Environment
Report was considered an essential first step in identifying the extent
of marine degradation.
4.97 The need for a national oceans policy has been widely accepted.
In his 1995 submission to the inquiry, Professor Zann stated that Australia
lacked a coherent oceans management policy.[58]
4.98 The Centre for Maritime Policy stated that it was unfortunate that
Australia still lacked the necessary formal mechanisms for a coordinated
approach to the formulation and implementation of a national oceans management
policy.[59]
4.99 Professor Bruce Davis argued that the existing fragmentation of
Australian oceans policy reflected past Commonwealth-State tensions about
resource management and also the lack of integration and coordination
within particular jurisdictions. In this sense the problem of marine pollution
was more a matter of mindsets, institutional and economic factors rather
than science.
4.100 Professor Davis said that while the advent of the Australian Marine
Industries and Sciences Council was to be welcomed it was unlikely to
provide the strategic overview and formal integration required if a truly
national oceans policy was to be developed. He argued that there should
be a lead agency in marine affairs at Commonwealth level and a high powered
National Oceans Advisory Council operating under the aegis of the Prime
Minister's Department and that marine affairs should be on the agenda
of COAG meetings.[60] (See also,
4.18, 23, 24, above.)
4.101 Dr John Hunter of the CSIRO told the Committee that an oceans management
policy is not just management of the ocean, it is management of everything
that affects the ocean:
we are talking about forms of catchment management, management
by local authorities, actually changing the way in which the bulk of
the population of Australia, in fact, go about their business. We are
not just talking about managing what people do in the water, we are
talking about what people do over the whole of Australia.[61]
4.102 In December 1995, the then Prime Minister, the Hon Paul Keating,
MP, announced plans for the development of an Oceans Policy. Following
the change of government in March 1996, the Prime Minister, the Hon John
Howard, MP, announced on 3 March 1997 the development of the Commonwealth
Government's Oceans Policy. He said that the Government would work with
State and local governments to develop an integrated oceans policy ranging
across all jurisdictions, which would balance the needs of the environment
with the needs of resource security and jobs.[62]
4.103 The Prime Minister noted that the greatest threat to the marine
environment was from the land, which was the source of 80 per cent of
marine pollution, and foreshadowed a $6.4 million Coastal and Marine Planning
Program to fund integrated planning and management of coastal and marine
environments. State and local governments would be invited to submit proposals
to reduce pollution and minimise the impacts of uncoordinated coastal
development.[63]
4.104 The Program will form part of the new Coasts and Clean Seas Initiative,
for which the Government has allocated $106 million to 2001-02 from the
Natural Heritage Trust. The Initiative will also:
- address coastal pollution hot spots and significant threats to Australia's
coastal water quality and marine biodiversity;
- provide State and local governments funds for capital works, improved
technologies and management techniques to reduce the impact of sewage
and stormwater;
- address the introduction of exotic marine pests; and
- fund community projects to protect and restore fish habitats.[64]
4.105 The National Rivercare Initiative, also funded from the Natural
Heritage Trust, with $97 million to 2001-02,[65]
will provide assistance for:
- catchment management planning and implementation;
- pilot stormwater management projects;
- nutrient control plans;
- low cost water reuse pilot projects in regional areas;
- community based river action plans; and
- community education programs in the area of river health.[66]
4.106 Mr Nicholas Brunton expressed a degree of scepticism about the
Oceans Policy announcement, commenting that:
If we are to examine the current approach of the Commonwealth
in relation to the Law of the Sea, the legislation that has so far been
enacted has been focused on the potential to extract resources from
the Exclusive Economic Zone rather than administer our obligations to
protect the marine environment. The Committee has to really focus on
that issue and ensure that the Government is concerned about its obligations
under international law to protect the environment and not be dominated
by its interests in exploiting and utilising the EEZ.[67]
4.107 The Committee welcomes the Prime Minister's announcement of an
Australian Oceans Policy which will balance the needs of the environment
with development objectives. The Committee believes that the Government's
desire to pursue economic benefits from exploitation of the EEZ must not
compromise the development of strategies to protect the marine environment
and to maintain habitats and biodiversity.
4.108 In his submission to the inquiry, Mr Nicholas Brunton reviewed
the Commonwealth's powers under the Constitution and concluded that under
various heads, but particularly under Section 51 (xxix), the External
Affairs power, the Commonwealth has extensive powers to regulate land
based marine pollution as well as ship sourced pollution.[68]
4.109 Mr Brunton noted, however, that despite its obligations under international
agreements to take steps, including the adoption of laws and regulations,
to prevent, reduce and control land based marine pollution, there is no
legislation enacted by the Commonwealth applying directly to land based
marine pollution.[69] He noted
the potential for National Environment Protection Measures (NEPMs) under
the National Environment Protection Council legislation (see 4.69, above)
but suggested that any NEPM based on current ANZECC water quality guidelines
will make little practical difference to the administration and enforcement
of law across Australia.[70]
4.110 He concluded that:
Australia is under a direct legal obligation under international
law to enact legislation and regulations for the prevention, reduction
and control of LBMP ... Australia currently does not comply with this
obligation.[71]
and further stated that:
Unless the Commonwealth re-examines the potential opportunities
for cooperative federalist models of environmental protection legislation
for the marine environment, it will remain vulnerable to the accusation
that it does not treat its legal obligations on the marine environment
seriously.[72]
4.111 Ms Caroline Williams noted that Commonwealth legislation generally
applies to ship sourced pollution and that land based marine pollution
is not addressed by the Commonwealth and only on a piecemeal basis by
State legislation, and concluded that it is 'quite clear ... that Australia
has failed to protect and preserve the marine environment, as instructed
in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea'.[73]
4.112 Given the urgency of the problems arising from land based sources
of marine pollution, detailed in this report, and given the unequivocal
nature of the Commonwealth's obligations under international law to address
them, the Committee believes that the NEPC should be given powers to make
a wider range of National Environment Protection Measures to address land
based marine pollution. Negotiations with the States should be undertaken
as soon as possible in order to pass the necessary legislation in each
jurisdiction.
Recommendation 4: The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government
work with State Governments to amend the National Environment Protection
Council legislation in order to give the Council wider powers to make
National Environment Protection Measures, and to pass the necessary legislation
in each jurisdiction.
4.113 As the Victorian Government's submission to the inquiry pointed
out, legislation for protection of state waters and controlling land based
sources of marine pollution is central to Australia meeting its international
obligations in marine waters.[74]
4.114 For a comprehensive analysis of State and Territory legislation
dealing with marine pollution the reader is referred to the submission
of the Office of International Law of the Commonwealth Attorney-General's
Department, included as Appendix 3 to this report. The following summary
is taken from that submission:
There is no State or Territory legislation dealing specifically
with land-sourced marine pollution. Pollution of the territorial seas
from sources on land, however, is covered in most States with varying
degrees of generality by environmental legislation. None of this legislation
is expressed to give effect to Australia's obligations arising under
international conventions. However, some are expressed in terms of broad
environmental protection principles found at an international level,
such as ecologically sustainable development and intergenerational equity
(eg. New South Wales, South Australia). A number of different approaches
are taken to the issue of pollution of waters. Some States have legislation
dealing directly with water pollution (New South Wales, Northern Territory),
while the remainder use general environmental legislation, in which
the marine environment is part of a broadly defined `environment' for
the purposes of statutory protection against pollution. Tasmania has
a highly integrated approach to its environment and planning legislation.
New South Wales has a less integrated approach, but recent legislation
brings together, at least at an administrative level, various disparate
acts relating to pollution and protection of the environment. The Northern
Territory deals only briefly with marine pollution, while South Australia
and Victoria are have comprehensive legislative frameworks. Queensland's
environment legislation is extremely generalised in its definitions
and operation. Victoria has both an Act dealing specifically with marine
pollution, and a general environment Act which encompasses protection
of the marine environment from land sourced pollution.
4.115 Mr Nicholas Brunton referred to the 'myriad of legal and administrative
frameworks which relate directly and indirectly to LBMP', including legislation
relating to environmental protection, pollution control, land use and
planning, coastal zone management, legislation for ports, harbours, health,
local government and catchment management. He suggests that some measure
of consistency will be achieved with the adoption of NEPMs through the
NEPC but notes that:
The reluctance of the Commonwealth to enter the field of pollution
control or environmental protection legislation means that the State
frameworks will continue to be the primary tools by which LBMP is prevented
and controlled.[75]
4.116 According to Mr Brunton, in most states land based marine pollution
is addressed by environment protection statutes. These typically impose
a broad prohibition on the pollution of waters and then establish a system
for the granting of licenses to allow discharge to waters. These licenses
generally cover point sources of pollution. Diffuse sources of pollution
are difficult to control although there is the potential for codes of
practice to be developed with stakeholders, with the possibility of civil
proceedings against those who fail to comply.[76]
4.117 Mr Brunton told the Committee that legislation remains focused
on a continuing 'control of pollution' paradigm, that it is based on the
concept of the assimilative capacity of the environment, which assumes
that the environment has an enduring capacity to tolerate the pollutants
that are discharged into it. It fails to institutionalise pollution prevention
and it does not say anything about cleaner production.
4.118 Mr Brunton argued the need for a new approach by the States and
Territories. He told the Committee that:
We really need to avoid a sole reliance on the ambient emission
standard approach. Overseas research has well documented that those
tools alone will not guarantee us the results on a sustainable basis.[77]
4.119 Although local governments have greatest responsibility for management
of the coastal zone and are responsible for significant expenditure on
infrastructure, spending well over $1.5 billion annually on water supply,
sewerage and urban stormwater drainage,[78]
many local government authorities have no specific coastal policies or
objectives relating to their areas of jurisdiction. However, many local
authorities do have sectoral objectives that indirectly affect coastal
zone management.[79]
4.120 Local government administration usually relates only to matters
within each authority's jurisdiction and pays limited attention to matters
affecting other areas. This has contributed to the 'tyranny of small decisions'
whereby the cumulative impact of a number of small developments, which
may individually cause minimal environmental effects, generates significant
and sometimes detrimental effects on the resources of the coastal zone.[80]
4.121 Dr Brian Robinson, Chairman of the Environment Protection Authority
of Victoria, told the Committee that:
The tyranny of small decisions is something that we are now becoming
aware of in their significance for overall environmental quality. Having
brought under control the major, isolated significant impacts on the
environment, it is now the added impacts of everything else that we
have to be concerned with ... The state environmental protection policies,
for example, provide the baseline minimum that local government and
all other players have to meet.[81]
4.122 According to Mr Brunton, there is a trend across the States to
devolve to local government responsibilities for the environment. Disadvantages
of such a trend include the political element in the local government
sector, which means that councils may be captured by a particular constituency
and the level of regulation can be quite poor.[82]
4.123 Dr Harris of the Academy of Science also referred to this devolution
of responsibility for environmental management to local councils. He said
that:
Often some of the local communities and some of the local governments
are left trying to deal with what is in fact a regional problem or even
a bigger problem than that ... The problems are demanding a regional
response in terms of management, science and policy.[83]
and: There has to be some way of embedding the management plans for
the individual councils into a regional management plan so that it all
works as one region. The environment is working regionally, whether
we administratively do it regionally or not.[84]
4.124 Mr Brunton argues that there is, in general, no framework which
councils can use to guide their decision making and no mechanism to allow
local government to develop the time, expertise and staff to administer
its responsibilities adequately. He also suggests that there is often
an unwillingness on the part of councils to enforce regulations which
may drive industry from their area.[85]
4.125 Australia's 1996 Report to the United Nations Commission on Sustainable
Development stated that any general curtailment of development in the
coastal zone is not an option that can be reasonably pursued as it would
have serious implications for the Australian economy and the welfare of
all Australians.[86] However,
the obligation on local authorities is to ensure that development is sustainable
and environmentally responsible.
4.126 Mr Chris Davis, Executive Director of the Australian Water and
Wastewater Association, said that:
We have got local government addressing local concerns, generally
quite dollar driven in terms of outcomes for the local community and,
in seeking to attract industry and to attract developments, not necessarily
wanting to force them to be at an appropriate distance from a waterway
or in an appropriate site.[87]
4.127 CSIRO and AIMS stated that the majority of land based marine pollution
is controlled at the local government and State level through planning
regulations and discharge permits and that the expert advice for these
management activities is primarily provided by local and State agencies.
Commonwealth research agencies only provide advice in an indirect way
and there does not appear to be any formal process whereby the expertise
and data holdings of Commonwealth research bodies can be incorporated
into the local and State EIA process.[88]
4.128 The Committee acknowledges that local government authorities face
many difficult issues in managing the coastal zone, some of which demand
a regional response, and that in many cases local authorities are being
presented with increasing responsibility for the environment without adequate
funding or the necessary staff and expertise. The Committee also acknowledges
the need to balance environment protection with development and employment
opportunities.
4.129 However, the Committee believes that local government authorities
are the 'front line' of coastal and marine protection and should develop
integrated management strategies to protect the environment. Councils
should ensure that development proposals are subject to full environmental
impact assessment and that adequate monitoring of development occurs when
it has been approved. The Commonwealth Government should work with State
and local authorities to develop a management model and appropriate set
of standards for local authorities in order to ensure that inappropriate
developments and continuing disturbance of the on-shore environment do
not occur.
Recommendation 5: The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government
work with State and local authorities to develop coherent and effective
policies and management practices at local level which protect the marine
environment, including clear guidelines and enforceable environmental
standards for residential, commercial and industrial developments.
Footnotes:
[1] Our Sea, Our Future: Major
Findings of the State of the Marine Environment Report for Australia,
p. 96.
[2] The State of the Marine
Environment Report for Australia: Technical Summary, pp 217-218.
[3] Resource Assessment Commission,
Coastal Zone Inquiry, Final Report, p. 53.
[4] Resource Assessment Commission,
Coastal Zone Inquiry, Final Report, pp 54-56.
[5] Resource Assessment Commission,
Coastal Zone Inquiry, Final Report, p. 68.
[6] Resource Assessment Commission,
Coastal Zone Inquiry, Final Report, p. 69.
[7] The State of the Marine
Environment Report for Australia: Technical Summary, p. 256.
[8] Resource Assessment Commission,
Coastal Zone Inquiry, Final Report, p. 81.
[9] Department of the Environment,
Sport and Territories, Living on the Coast, Commonwealth Coastal
Policy, p. 15.
[10] Centre for Maritime Policy,
Submission No 58, p. 7.
[11] Resource Assessment Commission,
Coastal Zone Inquiry, Final Report, p. 363.
[12] Resource Assessment Commission,
Coastal Zone Inquiry, Final Report Overview, p. 38.
[13] CSIRO Division of Oceanography
et al, Ocean Outlook, A Blueprint for the Oceans, p. 14.
[14] CSIRO Division of Oceanography
et al, Ocean Outlook, A Blueprint for the Oceans, p. 5.
[15] CSIRO Division of Oceanography
et al, Ocean Outlook, A Blueprint for the Oceans, p. 14.
[16] Professor Leon Zann, Submission
No 12, p. 2.
[17] Canberra Times, 18
January 1997, p. 10.
[18] See also Professor Bruce
Davis, 4.100, below.
[19] Ms Caroline Williams, Submission
No 32, p. 11.
[20] National Research Centre
for Environmental Toxicology, Submission No 1, p. 3.
[21] Australian Academy of Science,
Submission No 109, p. 1.
[22] Mr Nelson Quinn, Submission
No 14, p. 2.
[23] Mr Nelson Quinn, supplementary
material, 20 March 1997, p. 2.
[24] Professor Bruce Davis, Submission
No 66, p. 1.
[25] Professor Bruce Davis, Submission
No 66, p. 3.
[26] Official Hansard Report,
Melbourne, 7 March 1997, p. 309.
[27] Professor Bruce Davis, Submission
No 66, pp 1-2.
[28] Professor Leon Zann, Submission
No 12, p. 1.
[29] Australian Water and Wastewater
Association, Submission No 28, p. 2.
[30] Our Sea, Our Future:
Major Findings of the State of the Marine Environment Report for Australia,
p. 101.
[31] Department of the Environment,
Sport and Territories, Submission No 111, p. 5.
[32] Mr Nicholas Brunton, Submission
No 8, p. 98.
[33] Department of the Environment,
Sport and Territories, Submission No 111, p. 5.
[34] Office of International
Law, Attorney-General's Department, Submission No 59, p. 3.
[35] Office of International
Law, Attorney-General's Department, Submission No 59, p. 3.
[36] Department of the Environment,
Sport and Territories, Submission No 111, p. 4.
[37] Mr Nelson Quinn, supplementary
material, 20 March 1997, p. 5.
[38] Department of the Environment,
Sport and Territories, Australia's Report to the UNCSD on the Implementation
of Agenda 21 1996, p. 44.
[39] Australian Maritime Safety
Authority, Submission No 13, pp 4-5.
[40] Resource Assessment Commission,
Coastal Zone Inquiry, Final Report, p. 81; The State of the
Marine Environment Report for Australia: Technical Summary, p. 345.
[41] Resource Assessment Commission,
Coastal Zone Inquiry, Final Report, p. 82.
[42] Investing in our Natural
Heritage, The Commonwealth's Environment Expenditure 1997-98, Statement
by Senator the Hon Robert Hill, Minister for the Environment, 13 May 1997,
p. vii.
[43] Official Hansard Report,
Canberra, 25 March 1997, p. 398.
[44] Commonwealth of Australia,
Ecologically Sustainable Development, A Commonwealth Discussion Paper
June 1990, Canberra, 1990, preface.
[45] The State of the Marine
Environment Report for Australia: Technical Summary, p. 360.
[46] The State of the Marine
Environment Report for Australia: Technical Summary, p. 360.
[47] Ms Caroline Williams, Submission
No 32, p. 24.
[48] The State of the Marine
Environment Report for Australia: Technical Summary, p. 253.
[49] Ms Caroline Williams, Submission
No 32, p. 26.
[50] Australian Water and Wastewater
Association, Submission No 28, p. 2.
[51] Mr Nicholas Brunton, Submission
No 8, pp 48-49.
[52] Official Hansard Report,
Canberra, 25 March 1997, p. 397.
[53] Senator the Hon John Faulkner,
Minister for the Environment, Launch of the Commonwealth Coastal Policy,
Kiama NSW, 28 May 1995.
[54] Department of the Environment,
Sport and Territories, Submission No 111, p. 18.
[55] Department of the Environment,
Sport and Territories, Living on the Coast, Commonwealth Coastal
Policy, p. 15.
[56] Department of the Environment,
Sport and Territories, Submission No 111, p. 12.
[57] Our Sea, Our Future:
Major Findings of the State of the Marine Environment Report for Australia,
p. 102.
[58] Professor Leon Zann, Submission
No 12, p. 1.
[59] Centre for Maritime Policy,
Submission No 58, p. 7.
[60] Professor Bruce Davis, Submission
No 8, pp 1-3.
[61] Official Hansard Report,
Townsville, 3 November 1995, p. 49.
[62] House of Representatives
Hansard, 3 March 1997, p. 1698.
[63] House of Representatives
Hansard, 3 March 1997, p. 1701.
[64] Investing in our Natural
Heritage, The Commonwealth's Environment Expenditure 1997-98, p. xvi.
[65] Investing in our Natural
Heritage, The Commonwealth's Environment Expenditure 1997-98, p. xviii.
[66] Department of the Environment,
Sport and Territories, Submission No 111, p. 3.
[67] Official Hansard Report,
Canberra, 25 March 1997, p. 273.
[68] Mr Nicholas Brunton, Submission
No 8, pp 33-40.
[69] Mr Nicholas Brunton, Submission
No 8, p. 52. Also, Office of International Law, Attorney-General's Department,
Submission No 59, p. 3.
[70] Official Hansard Report,
Canberra, 25 March 1997, p. 396.
[71] Mr Nicholas Brunton, Submission
No 8, Executive Summary, p. 2.
[72] Mr Nicholas Brunton, Submission
No 8, p. 100.
[73] Ms Caroline Williams, Submission
No 32, pp 8-10.
[74] Government of Victoria,
Submission No 110, p. 2.
[75] Mr Nicholas Brunton, Submission
No 8, p. 56.
[76] Mr Nicholas Brunton, Submission
No 8, pp 66-68.
[77] Official Hansard Report,
Canberra, 25 March 1997, p. 398.
[78] Ms Caroline Williams, Submission
No 32, p. 32.
[79] Resource Assessment Commission,
Coastal Zone Inquiry, Final Report, p. 68.
[80] Resource Assessment Commission,
Coastal Zone Inquiry, Final Report, p. 63.
[81] Official Hansard Report,
Melbourne, 7 March 1997, p. 328.
[82] Official Hansard Report,
Canberra, 25 March 1997, p. 400.
[83] Official Hansard Report,
Melbourne, 7 March 1997, p. 286.
[84] Official Hansard Report,
Melbourne, 7 March 1997, pp 294-295.
[85] Official Hansard Report,
Canberra, 25 March 1997, p. 400.
[86] Department of the Environment,
Sport and Territories, Australia's Report to the UNCSD on the Implementation
of Agenda 21 1996, p. 30.
[87] Official Hansard Report,
Canberra, 25 March 1997, p. 378.
[88] CSIRO and Australian Institute
of Marine Science, Submission No 45, p. 5.