CHAPTER 5
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Introduction
5.1 The need for governments to develop adequate legislative mechanisms
to protect the environment is often highlighted in the face of development
proposals that threaten the ecology of an area. The Commonwealth government's
initial response to concerns of this kind took the form of the Environment
Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 (the `EPIP Act'). There
are equivalent environmental impact laws in state and territory jurisdictions,
although there is considerable variation across jurisdictions. [1]
5.2 The Commonwealth's role in environmental impact assessment was the
subject of comments in a large number of submissions to this inquiry.
Problems arise not only because of the age of the Commonwealth and State
legislation but also because of the lack of uniform standards across the
country.
5.3 There have been several reviews of the EPIP Act and of equivalent
State legislation, and attempts to develop uniform standards, guidelines
and approaches to environmental impact assessment over the years. On 18
October 1979 the then House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment
and Conservation produced the first of two reports of its Inquiry into
Legislative and Administrative Arrangements Relating to Environmental
Protection and Resource Management. That report focussed on the Environment
Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 and the Australian Heritage
Commission Act 1975.
5.4 In 1994 the then Commonwealth Environment Protection Agency (CEPA)
started a comprehensive review of the Commonwealth environment impact
assessment process. CEPA released several discussion papers and undertook
public consultations. Its suggestions foreshadowed some of the principles
of the present Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation
Bill 1998 - in particular, the concept that the Commonwealth's role
in environmental impact assessment should focus on matters of national
significance. [2] This review was overtaken
by the change of government in March 1996.
Objectives of the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974
5.5 The stated objective of the EPIP Act is to `ensure, to the greatest
extent that is practicable, that matters affecting the environment to
a significant extent are fully examined and taken into account …
by, or on behalf of, the Australian Government and authorities of Australia'
(section 5).
5.6 Its scheme is, in brief: A Commonwealth minister of authority proposing
an action or decision which, in his/its opinion, might affect the environment
`to a significant extent', must `designate' the proposal, thus bringing
it within the scope of the Act. The Minister for the Environment may then
direct the designated proponent to prepare a Public Environment Report
(PER) or, in more significant cases, a more comprehensive Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS). The Minister for the Environment may then make
comments or recommendations, which the action minister/authority must
take into account. However the decision on the proposed action remains
with the action minister/ authority - the Minister for the Environment
has no power of veto.
5.7 Submissions argued that the Act had failed to fulfil its stated objectives.
The NSW Environmental Defender's Office stated the EPIP Act gave undue
emphasis to process, at the expense of outcomes that achieve effective
environmental protection:
The EPIP Act's emphasis on process rather than on environmentally effective
outcomes is inappropriate. The true measures of the worth of any environmental
regulation must be the tangible improvement in the quality of the environment
it promotes. Environmental law that is little more than procedural window
dressing with no substantive content is only nominally better than empty
rhetoric. Of course, effective administration of substantive environmental
law is also necessary. [3]
5.8 Submissions also claimed that the Act's objectives had become outdated.
In particular, there was concern that the legislation failed to employ
the concept of ecologically sustainable development (ESD) in decision-making
process. The legislation would be more effective in environmental protection,
claimed the EDO, if it was underpinned by the application of the principles
of ESD, as advocated by the 1994 review of EIA by the former Commonwealth
Environment Protection Agency. [4]
5.9 The Committee notes that the concept of ESD was not developed when
the EPIP Act was passed. The Committee notes further that the Commonwealth
has committed itself to the principles of ESD in the National Strategy
for Ecologically Sustainable Development and IGAE. The Committee observes,
however, that the principles of ESD have undergone further development
since the National Strategy and the IGAE were produced. In particular,
New South Wales has furthered the principles of ESD in section 6(2) of
its Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991.
5.10 The Committee believes that application of ESD principles, as set
forth in section 6(2) of the New South Wales Protection of the Environment
Administration Act 1991, would enhance the effectiveness of the EPIP
Act.
Recommendation 18
The Government should amend the EPIP Act to require that all decisions
made under the legislation are consistent with the principles of ESD as
defined in section 6(2) of the New South Wales Protection of
the Environment Administration Act 1991.
The legislation should contain a positive duty on decision-makers and
other participants in EIA processes, to carry out functions provided under
the legislation to meet the objective of ecologically sustainable development.
National environmental impact assessment requirements and standards
5.11 There was some concern about the lack of national standards in environmental
impact assessment, in part, a consequence of having different EIA laws
and processes across all jurisdictions. Dr Alexander Webster, the Chief
Executive of the Institution of Engineers, suggested to the Committee
that there should be clear understanding between jurisdictions over environmental
matters and that national standards for environmental management should
be compatible internationally:
At the very least we would like to see a high level of mutual understanding
between the jurisdictions in Australia and some agreement as to what is
likely to be expected of a development in any of the jurisdictions. [5]
5.12 A number of submissions commented on the existence of different
environmental assessment and planning laws in all jurisdictions, and argued
that there is inadequate coordination between these laws. This containment
of environmental laws within discrete state and territory boundaries brings
to the fore again the observation that environmental issues are themselves
not limited to state and territory boundaries:
It is a rather cliched notion, but the impacts from a particular development
are not restricted by arbitrarily drawn state boundaries. A good example
of this is development along the Murray-Darling river system. This system
flows through four states, and, as mentioned above, each of these states
has its own planning and assessment process. A development close to the
river in Queensland may satisfy the requirements of that state's planning
and assessment act (State Development & Public Works Organisation
Act (1971)), but the environmental impact of the development may be largely
felt in NSW. The NSW legislation may prohibit such a development, but
because it is allowable under Queensland legislation, it will proceed,
to the detriment of the country as a whole. In practice, the Murray-Darling
Basin Commission may veto such a development, but this example shows the
sorts of problems that may occur in the absence of a unified, national
assessment process. [6]
5.13 One witness, Mr David Sheehan thought it advisable to have either
a single environmental planning and assessment act for the whole of the
country, or greater equivalence between the different laws:
It is therefore imperative that either one, uniform planning and assessment
act be developed to cover the whole of Australia, or, if this is unacceptable
to particular state governments, then all the relevant state planning
and assessment acts should at least be equivalent in their content and
the way in which they are administered. In this way, a more consistent
and focused planning process could be implemented across the whole of
the country. [7]
5.14 The Committee notes that the Australian and New Zealand Environment
and Conservation Council released a report on a National Approach to Environmental
Impact Assessment in Australia. The report provided the basis for Schedule
3 of the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment. The Schedule
attempts to define principles for EIA and the roles of the Commonwealth
and the States in environmental assessment. Point 4 of the Schedule provides
that:
A general framework agreement between the Commonwealth and the States
on the administration of the environmental impact assessment process will
be negotiated to avoid duplication and to ensure that proposals affecting
more than one of them are assessed in accordance with agreed arrangements.
5.15 Current Commonwealth jurisdiction under the EPIP Act is based on
a Commonwealth action or approval. The Committee believes the current
definition of the jurisdiction does not give the Commonwealth a role in
assessing important matters which it otherwise has constitutional power
to assess.
5.16 For example, Article 14(a) of the 1992 Convention on Biological
Diversity empowers the Commonwealth to introduce procedures requiring
environmental impact assessment of all proposed projects in its territory
that are likely to have significant adverse effects on biological diversity.
[8] Biological diversity is defined in Article
2 to mean the variability among living organisms from all sources including
terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems, together with all the
ecological complexes of which they are a part.
5.17 The Committee notes that the Convention on Biological Diversity's
definition of biological diversity comprehends all genetic material, every
species and each individual ecosystem within Australia. As a result, the
Committee believes that the Convention on Biological Diversity empowers
the Commonwealth (under the external affairs power) to require an assessment
of any proposed project in Australia likely to have significant adverse
effects on any genetic material, any species (whether threatened or not)
and any ecosystem is virtually unlimited.
5.18 In other words, the confluence of the Convention on Biological Diversity
and the external affairs power enables the Commonwealth to unilaterally
promulgate national requirements for the environmental impact assessment
of all proposed projects, regardless of jurisdiction, likely to have a
significant impact on the biological diversity anywhere in Australia.
The Committee considers that this would cover almost all, if not all,
major project proposals in Australia.
5.19 As a consequence, the Committee believes it is within the power
of the Commonwealth to establish nearly universal national environmental
impact assessment standards. The Committee is of the view that this would
serve a number of beneficial purposes, including uniformity and consistency.
Moreover, since the Commonwealth can structure adequate transparency and
participation provisions its assessment processes, national standards
would insure adequate community involvement in assessment decision-making.
Recommendation 19
The Commonwealth should use its powers to adopt national standards
for environmental impact assessment of a project proposal likely to have
a significant impact on biological diversity in Australia.
National approvals -- requirements and standards
5.20 In keeping with Recommendation 1 of this report, the Committee also
believes that the Commonwealth may have the authority under the external
affairs power to mandate national standards for the approval of proposed
projects requiring environmental impact assessment under national standards.
5.21 The Committee notes that Article 8(c) of the Convention on Biological
Diversity empowers the Commonwealth to "[r]egulate or manage biological
resources important for the conservation of biological diversity whether
within or outside protected areas, with a view to ensuring their conservation
and sustainable use".
5.22 The Committee notes further that Article 8(l) of the Convention
on Biological Diversity, in relation to Australia's obligation to identify
process and categories of activities likely to have a significant adverse
impacts on the conservation of biological diversity under Article 7, empowers
the Commonwealth to "regulate or manage the relevant processes and
categories of activities" likely to have a significant adverse effect
on the conservation of biological diversity.
5.23 The Committee notes that "biological resources", as used
in Article 8(c) of the Convention, is defined more narrowly and anthropocentrically
than the definition of biological diversity. Biological resources includes
any biotic component of an ecosystem with actual or potential use of value
for humanity. Nevertheless, Article 8(c) of the Convention still encompasses
a vast array of situations in which the Commonwealth is empowered to regulate.
That array is increased by the focus of Article 8(l) on the regulation
of processes and categories of activities likely to have a significant
adverse effect on biological diversity.
5.24 The Committee believes that the term "regulate" used in
Article 8(c) of the Convention includes the power the regulate the approval
of proposed projects that may adversely impact on biological resources
important for the conservation of biological diversity. The Committee
further believes that the term "regulate" used in Article 8(l)
of the Convention includes the power to regulate the approval of processes
and categories of activities identified as likely to have a significant
adverse effect on biological diversity.
5.25 The Committee is of the view that national standards would serve
a number of beneficial purposes, including uniformity and consistency.
Moreover, since the Commonwealth can structure adequate transparency and
participation provisions in its approval regulation, national standards
would insure adequate community involvement in environmental decision-making.
Recommendation 20
The Commonwealth should establish, under Article 8 of the Convention
of Biological Diversity, in conjunction with the external affairs power,
national regulation for approvals requirements and standards in connection
with proposed projects that may adversely impact on biological resources
important for the conservation of biological diversity and for processes
and categories of activities identified as likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the conservation of biological diversity.
Ministerial involvement and decision-making
5.26 Under the current Commonwealth EPIP Act the discretion as
to whether a proposal is assessed under the Act is the responsibility
of the `action Minister'. In the view of a large number of submissions,
the responsibility should reside instead with the Commonwealth Environment
Minister.
5.27 The Committee notes that this was also the recommendation of the
1994 CEPA Review. The rationale to this is that, at least in principle,
it is thought that an Environment Minister may tend to give a greater
priority to environmental protection than would a Minister with responsibility
for development or industry. The Committee notes that this recommendation
has been incorporated into the Environment Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation Bill 1998.
`Trigger' mechanisms and the EIA process
5.28 The environmental impact assessment process may be triggered by
a development proposal if it falls within what section 5 of the Environment
Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 describes as `matters affecting
the environment to a significant extent'. Although some guidance is provided
under the Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council
(ANZECC) Guidelines and Criteria for Determining the Need for and Level
of Environmental Impact Assessment in Australia (June 1996), defining
and clarifying what might constitute `matters affecting the environment
to a significant extent' is a subject that has invited considerable debate.
5.29 Submissions to the Committee suggested that the existing situation
relating to `triggers' for environmental impact assessment was a matter
of concern. The Queensland Division of the Royal Australian Planning Institute
for example thought that environmental impact assessments should be carried
out for developments proposed in areas of `national interest' and that
`matters of national interest should be clearly defined and embodied in
the Inter-governmental Agreement on the Environment'. [9]
5.30 Other submissions suggested that environment impact assessment process
would be improved if the EIA process were adopted in the `planning phase'
of development, thus allowing greater opportunities for public participation
in the planning, as well as in the assessment phase of a development.
[10]
5.31 Another concern was that the mere fact of having a place, site or
area listed under the World Heritage Convention (or the Ramsar Convention)
was not in itself sufficient to warrant this being a trigger for environmental
impact assessment.
5.32 The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment,
Recreation and the Arts had recommended in its 1996 report Managing
Australia's World Heritage that the Environment Protection (Impact
of Proposals) Act 1974 be amended to provide that:
- an environmental assessment be required when there is the possibility
that a proposed action will damage the world heritage values of a listed
world heritage area; and
- the duties imposed by the World Heritage Convention be required to
be addressed in any environmental impact statement relating to a proposed
development likely to affect a world heritage area. (Recommendation
7). [11]
5.33 Given the uncertainties about what constituted a trigger and when
a trigger could be activated, the Intergovernmental Committee on Ecologically
Sustainable Development (ICESD) set to work to delineate more precisely
the nature and timing of triggers. It proposed that triggers should be
based on a predetermined set of matters of `national environmental significance'
that would include matters `involving clear international obligations'.
[12]
5.34 The COAG Heads of Agreement on Commonwealth/State Roles and Responsibilities
for the Environment, endorsed by all governments in November 1997,
provides a list of items that constitute `matters of national environmental
significance', and which should trigger environmental impact legislation.
These are:
• World Heritage properties
• Ramsar listed wetlands
• Heritage places of national significance
• Nationally endangered or vulnerable species and communities
• Migratory species and cetaceans
• Nuclear activities
• Management and protection of the marine and coastal environment.
5.35 All the matters listed above, except `Heritage places of national
significance' trigger Commonwealth involvement in the Environment Protection
and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998. The heritage matter will
be dealt with in separate legislation currently being considered.
5.36 A further 23 matters are listed in Heads of Agreement on Commonwealth/State
Roles and Responsibilities for the Environment as matters which are
acknowledged to be of national environmental significance, but which should
not be triggers of Commonwealth environmental impact assessment.
The Heads of Agreement provides for a greater reliance on State
and Territory assessment as the `preferred means of assessing proposals',
and seeks to limit Commonwealth environment impact assessments to the
first seven matters. [13]
5.37 The Committee considers that the proposed list of triggers is too
limited. A great number of matters of both national and international
significance, including activities with likely significant adverse impacts
on climate change, biological diversity as broadly defined under the Convention
on Biological Diversity, vegetation clearance, and land degradation, should
also serve as triggers.
5.38 The Committee recalls the 1987 Constitutional Commission's opposition
to the use of concepts such as 'of national significance' or 'affecting
the national economy' as limits on the Commonwealth's constitutional power
to regulate the environment. That Commission believed that these concepts
would be too 'vague and subjective' to serve as useful legal limitations.
[14]
5.39 Witnesses such as the Environmental Defender's Office (EDO) were
concerned by the government's moves to limit the triggering of Commonwealth
environmental impact assessment to the six matters of `national environmental
significance'. The EDO believes that events or developments that have
a local or State origin, far from these having little or no national significance
for the environment, they often have cumulative and long term implications
for the environment - a fact that the EDO considers should warrant a Commonwealth
interest:
We recognise that what the Commonwealth now seeks to do in its COAG review
is to draw a distinction between effects on the environment which it considers
to be major and therefore of “national or international” significance
and effects which it considers of “local or regional” significance,
presumably for the purpose of shirking its environmental responsibilities.
We emphasise, however, that this approach is fallacious. Local and regional
impacts may lead to cumulative impacts resulting in national impacts or
international impacts. This is especially true in the case of local or
regional activities effecting biological diversity, air quality and water
quality. [15]
5.40 It is the view of the Committee that all actions that are likely
to affect the environment to a significant extent should be subject to
environmental assessment before being allowed to proceed. The Committee
believes that the Commonwealth has a responsibility for assessment, and
should employ all available Constitutional power, whenever it engages
in environmental decision-making, including: (i) engaging or participating
in activities touching the environment, conservation or ecologically sustainable
development, (ii) adopting policies, programs or plans touching the environment,
conservation or ecologically sustainable development, (iii) giving an
approval or permission required by law, (iv) funding to any extent or
facilitating an activity, including through cost or revenue sharing, or
(v) establishing legal regimes that include incentives or disincentives
relevant to the environment, conservation or ecologically sustainable
development.
Recommendation 21
The Commonwealth should be responsible for environmental impact assessment
process whenever it is involved in making a decision about an activity
or matter (its own or a that of a third party) that may have a significant
effect on the environment.
5.41 The Consultation Paper on reform of Commonwealth environmental legislation,
released by the Minister for the Environment in March 1998, claimed one
of the deficiencies in triggering under present legislative arrangements
is that matters under the jurisdiction of State or local government can
trigger Commonwealth involvement in development proposals. The Consultation
Paper claimed that `this creates unnecessary duplication of Commonwealth
and State processes'. [16]
5.42 The Committee considers its recommendations for national environmental
impact assessment and approvals requirements and standards in relation
to biological diversity and biological resources involve matters not only
of national significance, but international significance. This is true
even though most of these matters will be under the jurisdiction of State
or local government. The Committee notes that its recommendations for
national standards will eliminate not only unnecessary duplication, but
also inconsistency.
State and local government involvement
5.43 Although a strong leadership role was advocated for the Commonwealth
government, the Committee also heard from those who argued that environmental
conservation is best achieved at a local level.
5.44 Dr Alexander Webster, the Chief Executive of the Institution of
Engineers, suggested to the Committee that, subject to national standards,
there should be greater environmental responsibility at the local level.
As he put it, `people in the end have to be responsible for the environment
they live in'. Dr Webster suggested a national system of accreditation
for those carrying out environmental impact assessment, and also for those
evaluating impact assessments. [17]
5.45 The Coast and Wetlands Society acknowledged that effective environmental
protection is a role not only for the Commonwealth Government, but is
the responsibility of all levels of government and of a range of agencies.
The Society recognised that no single government, department or agency
can have sole authority in environmental protection:
We need to recognise that our knowledge and understanding of the environment
is limited and it would be hubris of a high order to assume that any single
agency was the source of all wisdom in regard to park management. Accordingly,
while consistency of management objectives is essential, a diversity of
management regimes may be desirable, provided that these management regimes
contain monitoring provisions, exchange of information between agencies
and feedback to permit adaptive management. [18]
5.46 Other submissions supported these views and many urged greater community
participation in the decision making process. Mr Dean Davidson for example
stated:
Ultimately the actions are best carried out to achieve the goals by State
and local Government, and most often with the invaluable input of community
based groups.
What is required is for the Commonwealth to provide direction and policy
that actively encourages planning and environmental agencies at the State
level to continue to seek to work more closely together to be able to
better carry out the policies of the Commonwealth. … The agencies
should be combined, working together, with the same decision-making and
power base. This would have a flow on effect to Local Government planning
which would be following policies from the State level that have both
environmental and planning needs built in, with the Local Government planners
then being able to work with community groups to carry the plans out as
best suits their local area needs. [19]
5.47 The Committee believes that all levels of government have a part
to play, not only in environmental impact assessment, but also in environmental
protection at its broadest level. The Committee is of the view, however,
that strong national leadership, with uniform national environmental standards
for environmental regulation are the most effective and efficient way
to approach environmental regulation. The Committee believes that once
minimum national standards are set by the Commonwealth, the accreditation
of state and local environmental programs and processes that either meet
or beat these standards has a vital role to play in environmental protection
in Australia. These views are expanded on in Chapter 6, where the Committee
makes its recommendations on these issues.
Consultation and Community Participation
5.48 The Committee was told that while opportunities existed for public
participation in environment impact assessment, that process should be
improved. The timing of public input into the assessment process was raised
as a major problem. For example James Johnson, Director of the Environmental
Defender's Office (EDO), stated:
There should be much earlier involvement at the scoping stage so that
you are not carrying out environmental assessments of things that are
not of concern to people and you are dealing with matters which are of
concern. So at that very initial stage there needs to be involvement of
the community so that you are efficiently using your resources. That participation
needs to be ongoing. At the moment, participation comes far too late in
the process. It comes after an environmental impact assessment document
has been prepared. [20]
5.49 In order to involve the public in the assessment process at a much
earlier point, the EDO, in its submission, picked up on a recommendation
by the former Commonwealth Environment Protection Authority for the "scoping"
of a proposal before the assessment is carried out. This would take the
form of a publicly advertised "Notice of Intention" by the proponent
calling for public submissions so that an informed decision can be made
as to the significance of the environmental impact of the proposal.
5.50 The Committee considers that the current arrangements for public
input into the assessment process are deficient. The Committee believes
not only that the public should be allowed to make submissions on the
issue of significance, but also that any person should be allowed to refer
a proposal for determination as to whether it is likely to have a significant
effect on the environment. The Committee believes that this expansion
of participation would help ensure that significant effects are assessed
and that there is public ownership and trust in the assessment system.
Recommendation 22
The Commonwealth should ensure that the national requirements and
standards it sets for environmental impact assessment include public involvement
in the determination of the environmental significance of proposals.
Recommendation 23
The Commonwealth should ensure that the national requirements and
standards it sets for environmental impact assessment include the right
of any person to refer a proposal to the relevant authority for determination
as to whether a proposal is likely to have a significant effect on the
environment.
5.51 The difficulties encountered by individuals in accessing the legal
system to challenge development decisions were also raised in the inquiry.
For example, the Committee was told that the threat of legal action was
used to deter members of the community from actions protesting against
proposed developments:
…We all know that the law is a very expensive tool to use. The ordinary
citizen, generally, is unable to use the law in that way because of the
costs that are involved…. The phenomena of SLAPP writs (Strategic
Litigation Against Public Participation) is well recognised and certainly
occurs in Queensland. [21]
5.52 In the context of access to the legal system to challenge environmental
laws and decisions, the issue of adequate government funding for Environmental
Defender's Offices (EDOs) and other conservation groups was repeatedly
raised. [22] It was argued that EDOs fulfilled
an essential community need and "watchdog" role and that public
challenge of legislative proposals assists in improving the effectiveness
of environmental protection. [23]
We strongly emphasise the importance of resourcing to ensure adequate
and prompt submissions from community groups... The recent restrictions
placed on Environmental Defenders Office's use of Commonwealth funding,
restricting their ability to help the public take action under environmental
laws (with even planning appeals and freedom of legislation deemed `litigation'
and unfundable) will work to make state and federal environmental laws
even less effective. [24]
5.53 The issue of open standing was also raised as a problem, not only
in the context of environmental impact assessment, but in connection with
the enforcement of environmental law more generally.
5.54 The Committee believes that citizen involvement in environmental
decision-making is vital to effective environmental protection. In our
democracy the community has a legitimate interest in the environmental
results flowing from the exercise of governmental power. It is an interest
that governments should recognise and respect. The Committee considers
that governments have primary responsibility for enforcing environmental
laws. However, the public should also have the right to restrain breaches
of the law.
Recommendation 24
The Commonwealth should ensure that the national requirements and
standards it sets for environmental impact assessment include open standing
provisions to allow public access to the courts in order to test the validity
of governmental decision and restrain breaches of the law.
Recommendation 25
The Commonwealth should increase funding for the Environmental Defender's
Offices and peak conservation groups. Funding for the Environmental Defender's
Offices should not be restricted in its use to non-litigation activities.
Footnotes
[1] G. M. Bates, Environmental Law in Australia,
4th Edition, Sydney, Butterworths, 1995, p. 154
[2] Munchenberg S., `The Review of the Commonwealth
EIA Process', Australian Environmental Law News, No. 3 1995, p.50ff
[3] Submission No. 257 (Environmental Defender's
Office), p. 1105
[4] Id, at 1104. See Environment Protection
Agency, Public Review of the Commonwealth Environment Impact Assessment
Process: Main Discussion Paper (Nov. 1994), p 6.
[5] Transcript of Evidence (Mr A. Webster, Institution
of Engineers), 30 September 1997, p. 28
[6] Submission No. 18 (Mr David Sheehan), pp.
144-145
[7] Submission No. 18 (Mr David Sheehan), p.
145
[8] See also Article 7(c) of the Convention
on Biological Diversity and Australia's obligations under Article 206
of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
[9] Submission No. 29A (Royal Australian Planning
Institute, Queensland), p. 219
[10] Submission No. 18 (Mr David Sheehan),
p.146
[11] House of Representatives Standing Committee
on Environment, Recreation and the Arts, Managing Australia's World
Heritage, October 1996, p. 41
[12] ICESD Working Group on the Review of Commonwealth-State
Roles and Responsibilities for the Environment, Consultation Paper, December
1996, p. 2
[13] ICESD Working Group on the Review of Commonwealth-State
Roles and Responsibilities for the Environment, Consultation Paper, December
1996, p. 3
[14] Final Report of the Constitutional
Commission, 1988, p 757ff.
[15] Submission No. 257 (Environmental Defender's
Office Ltd), p. 1118
[16] Reform of Commonwealth Environment
Legislation, Consultation Paper, February 1998, pp. 8-9
[17] Transcript of Evidence (Dr Alexander Webster,
Institution of Engineers), 30 September 1997, p. 29
[18] Submission No. 228 (Coast and Wetlands
Society Incorporated, Sydney South), p. 922
[19] Submission Number 42 (Mr Dean Davidson),
p. 256
[20] Transcript of Evidence (Mr J. Johnson,
Environmental Defender's Office), 18 December 1997, p. 60
[21] Transcript of Evidence, (Mr Rowan Silva,
Environmental Defender's Office of Northern Queensland Inc.), 24 April
1998, p. 235
[22] For example, Submissions No. 24 (Ken Rendell),
No. 28 (Tony Howard), No. 69 (J Acheson), No. 71 (J Asche) No. 73 (C Liebscher),
No. 74 (E Walker), No. 76 (H Johnson), No. 157 (Queensland Conservation
Council), No. 171 (Community for Coastal and Cassowary Conservation Inc),
No 189 (Gwyneth R Ingham), No. 194 (Jim Gray), No. 251 (Wildlife Preservation
Society of Queensland), No. 261 (The Wilderness Society (Tasmania) Inc),
No. 281 (Blue Mountains Conservation Society Inc), No. 293 (Cairns and
Far North Environment Centre Inc), No. 328 (Australian Council of National
Trusts), No. 312, (Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland), No. 329
(Lane Cove and Busland Conservation Society Inc), No. 338, (Willoughby
Environmental Protection Association) No. 351 (The Wilderness Society).
[23] Submission No.243 (Fleurieu Regional Environment
Alliance), p.2
[24] Submission No. 303 (Victorian National
Parks Association Inc.), p1426
Top
|