Foreword
The drastic cuts in environmental projects and staff in today’s federal budget are not the only “green” cuts that Australians should focus on. The Australian federal government is currently investigating simplified environmental regulations, “green tape” and one-stop shops, which appear to revolutionize the way Australian environmental regulations work.
In the end, it has the potential to create a series of confusing rules and lower environmental standards, and the main winners will be mining and real estate development lobby groups. Possible losers include local communities that focus on major new developments in the region; sharing environmental assets that all Australians benefit from, including clean air and water; unique animals, plants and habitats that once lost can no longer be recovered.
Hand over more power to the states
The federal government has begun to delegate the power of project evaluation and approval to the states to establish a “one-stop shop” for environmental management. It involves streamlining major project assessments in states and territories, and the federal government will delegate the final decision on projects evaluated under Australia’s major national environmental laws to state and territory governments. (Click here to find out more.) September is the deadline for completing this process. This “one-stop shop” approach ignores the fact that states have long proved themselves to be poor guardians of national environmentally important areas. You don’t need to look too far for examples.
Take Repulse Bay, a heritage site in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, 70 km northwest of Rockhampton, for example. Although parts of the region are often used for military exercises, it is still one of the largest undisturbed areas on the east coast of Australia, including wetlands on the international list and homes of rare and endangered species such as dugongs and sea turtles. In mid-2008, Waratah Coal seemed to have the support of the then labor state government and agreed to build a new coal port and a 500-kilometer railway line in the area. Although the species and habitat are expected to be affected, the Queensland Chief Coordinator (and therefore the environmental assessment of the project) has declared the proposal a major project and approved it. But in September 2008, then the then Minister of the Environment, Peter Garrett, intervened and adopted federal environmental law. Without this intervention, the project will continue. The intervention found that the project would “have a significantly unacceptable impact on the high wild value of Repulse Bay and the internationally recognized Repulse Bay and Corio Bay wetlands”.
The Murray-Darling River system is another outstanding example of the fact that unless the federal government plays an active and responsible role, the country’s own interests are likely to override the public interest or national interests. So why should we completely modify Australia’s environmental regulations?
Reason for change
The current federal “Green Belt” survey is based on the view that there is too much environmental regulation in Australia, which hinders development. This is of course the view of the mining and real estate development lobby group. Although a survey by the New South Wales government in 2012 found that the industry believes that regulation in these industries is “too loose”, the industry has been pushing for a reduction in regulation. A report submitted jointly by the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association (APPEA), the Australian Business Council (BCA) and the Australian Mining Council (MCA) concluded that there is a duplication of environmental regulations between the federal and state governments. However, in this case, it does not mention specific legislation. The documents submitted jointly by Apa, BCA and MCA also mention some unnamed companies that have suffered prolonged delays, have to submit thousands of pages of environmental impact reports, and have spent hundreds on environmental approvals. Ten thousand U.S. dollars. These views are not supported by independent environmental regulatory cost analysis. Have different views
The author has worked in the field of environmental law for 15 years, including working in the environmental protection department, and is still teaching law at the university. The New South Wales Environmental Protection Office is part of the Australian Environmental Protection Office Network (ANEDO). This is based on all legal experience, and my colleagues at ANEDO and I strongly believe that industry and government efforts to reduce national environmental regulations will prove to be harmful to local communities and our environment. In 2012, ANEDO’s audit of endangered species and planning laws found that “there is currently no state or regional biodiversity or planning law that meets the federal environmental standards needed to effectively and efficiently protect biodiversity.” In March last year, a survey by the Federal Senate found that there was no substantial evidence that existing regulatory arrangements brought unnecessary costs to businesses.
Conflict of interest
If you are still not sure about your position on the issue of federal power transfer to the states, then consider the conflict of interest. State governments may receive tens of millions or hundreds of millions of Australian dollars in royalties if they approve large mining or gas projects. In major infrastructure projects such as port expansion or highways, the state may be both a proponent and an approving agency.
Or, if a major project requires federal approval, there will be additional checks and balances to reduce the risk of such a conflict of interest.
https://theconversation.com/green-tape-cuts-industry-wins-locals-and-the-environment-lose-26443