WARNING:
This Digest was prepared for debate. It reflects the legislation as
introduced and does not canvass subsequent amendments. This Digest
does not have any official legal status. Other sources should be
consulted to determine the subsequent official status of the
Bill.
CONTENTS
Passage History
Purpose
Background
Main Provisions
Concluding Comments
Endnotes
Contact Officer and Copyright Details
Environmental Reform (Consequential
Provisions) Bill 1998
Date Introduced: 10 December 1998
House: Senate
Portfolio: Environment and Heritage
Commencement: The Act will commence when the
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act
1998 commences except for certain provisions. The Schedule 4
amendments to the Koongarra Project Area Act 1981 do not
commence if section 3 of that Act commences before the Environment
Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. The Schedule 7
amendment to the Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Exports and
Imports) Amendment Act 1996, which corrects a drafting
omission, is taken to have commenced immediately after that Act
received the Royal Assent on 11 June 1996. The Schedule 7 amendment
to the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports)
Amendment Act 1995, which corrects a drafting error, is taken
to have commenced immediately after that Act received the Royal
Assent on 2 November 1995.
The purpose of this Bill is to repeal or amend a
range of legislation consequent to the enactment of the proposed
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1998,
including:
-
- repealing the Biological
Control Act 1984, the Endangered Species Protection Act
1992, the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act
1974, the Whale Protection Act 1980 and the World
Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983
-
- repealing the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act
1975, which includes abolishing the position of Director of
National Parks and Wildlife and transferring all interests and
assets of the Director (including the Director's status as lessee
in the lease arrangements for Booderee National Park, Kakadu
National Park and Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park) to
the Commonwealth
-
- providing savings and transitional arrangements in relation to
certain processes and permits issued under those Acts, including
retaining current exemptions under the Telecommunications Act
1997
-
- amending various Commonwealth Acts that are affected by the
repeal of these Acts and by other aspects of the Environment
Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998.
Environment Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation Bill 1998
The Environment Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation Bill 1998 (EP&BC Bill) represents the most far
reaching change to Commonwealth environmental law in twenty-five
years. The EP&BC Bill implements a national scheme of
environmental protection and biodiversity conservation and contains
provisions in relation to:
-
- Commonwealth involvement and responsibility through
identification of matters of national environmental
significance
-
- environmental assessment and approval processes relating to the
Commonwealth marine area, World Heritage properties, certain Ramsar
wetlands, actions on Commonwealth land, threatened species and
ecological communities, certain migratory species, environmentally
significant nuclear actions and certain actions by the Commonwealth
and its agencies
-
- accreditation of State and Territory environment assessment and
approval processes, and
-
- conservation and sustainable use of Australia's
biodiversity.
The Bill also replaces the Endangered
Species Protection Act 1992, Environment Protection (Impact of
Proposals) Act 1974, National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act
1975, Whale Protection Act 1980 and the World Heritage
Properties Conservation Act 1983.
For a detailed discussion and analysis of the
background and provisions of the EP&BC Bill, see Bills Digest
Number 135 of 1998-99 by Krysti Guest, Frances Michaelis and Bill
McCormick.
Senate Environment, Communications,
Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee
Inquiry
The EP&BC Bill was introduced into the
39th Parliament on 12 November 1998, although an
identical Bill had been introduced in the previous Parliament in
July that year. On 8 July 1998, the Minister for the Environment
had referred the original Bill to the Senate Environment,
Recreation, Communications and the Arts Legislation Committee for
inquiry and report on 7 October 1998. On 12 November 1998, the
Government moved that the current Bill be referred to substantially
the same Committee(1) with a reporting date of the first sitting
day of the second sitting week in March 1999. On 11 March 1999,
Senator Bolkus successfully moved a motion that, in order to
address the Bill's complexity and the concerns raised during the
Committee's hearings, the Committee's reporting date be extended to
27 April 1999.
On 24 March 1999 the Environmental Reform
(Consequential Provisions) Bill 1998 was also referred to the
Committee for report by 27 April 1999. During the course of its
1999 hearings on the EP&BC Bill the Committee took evidence on
this Bill and has included consideration of both Bills in its
report.
Schedule 1--Application of the new
Act
Schedule 1 provides for the
application of the proposed Environment Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Act 1998 (EP&BC Act) to certain
actions. It also provides savings provisions in relation to
processes and decisions under the Environment Protection
(Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 (EPIP Act) so that certain
actions assessed and permitted under that Act do not need to be
assessed under the EP&BC Act.
Item 1 defines several terms
for the purposes of Schedule 1, including 'action'
which has the meaning given by the proposed EP&BC Act. The
definition of 'finalised' is not, however, clear. 'Finalised' is
defined as having the meaning given by item 1AB.
No item 1AB exists. Environment Australia has subsequently advised
that this is a drafting error and should read 'item
2'. Presumably an amendment will be made concerning
this.
Items 3 and 4 provide that
actions which were assessed or are being assessed under the EPIP
Act do not need to be assessed under the EP&BC Act.
Item 5 provides that if the
Environment Minister and the designated proponent of an action have
agreed that the action will be assessed under the EPIP Act prior to
the EP&BC Act commencing, then the relevant assessment
requirements of the EP&BC Act will not apply. However,
sub-item 5(5) provides that assessment under the
EPIP Act must take place within two years of commencement of the
EP&BC Act.
Item 6 allows the Minister
administering Part 3 of the new Act to certify in writing that the
environmental impacts of an action have been, are being, or will
be, assessed under the Administrative Procedures under the EPIP
Act. Sub-item 6(1) refers to 'items 1B and
1C'. No items 1B or 1C exist. Environment Australia has
subsequently advised that this is a drafting error and should read
'items 4 and 5'. Presumably an amendment will be
made concerning this.
Item 7 provides that if
immediately before the commencement of the EP&BC Act, an
exemption under the Administrative Procedures was in force so that
certain types of environmental assessment were not required, this
exemption continues in relation to assessment procedures under the
EP&BC Act in certain circumstances.
Item 8 provides that Part 3 of
the EP&BC Act, which deals with requirements for environmental
approvals, does not apply in relation to the negotiation and making
of a regional forest agreement if this is an 'EPIP activity'. EPIP
activities are defined in Item 1 as activities
described in subsection 5(1) of the EPIP Act, namely proposals,
works and other projects, agreements and arrangements, decisions
and recommendations and incurring of expenditure by the Australian
Government and authorities of Australia, which were proposed before
the commencement of the EP&BC Act to be undertaken and for
which a proponent was designated under the Administrative
Procedures under the EPIP Act before the commencement of the new
Act. Therefore, all regional forest agreements initiated prior to
the commencement of the proposed EP&BC Act will operate under
the EPIP Act regime.
Item 3 of Part 2 of Schedule 3
makes savings arrangements to allow for the continued application
of the EPIP Act to items 3, 4, 5 and 8 of Schedule
1, as if the EPIP Act were administered by the Minister
administering Part 3 of the EP&BC Act.
Item 9 introduces an exemption
not provided for in the EP&BC Act. Item 9
exempts certain actions in relation to telecommunications from the
requirement for environmental approval provisions in Part 3 of the
EP&BC Act. The exempted actions are set out in clause 55 of
Schedule 3 to the Telecommunications Act 1997. Clause 55
of Schedule 3 to the Telecommunications Act provides that, in
certain circumstances, where facilities are proposed to be
installed before 1 January 2001 and the carrying out of the
installation may have certain adverse impacts on the environment,
the telecommunications carrier must give written notice of its
intention to the Environment Secretary, who must make a
recommendation to the Australian Communications Authority (ACA).
The ACA is not required to direct the carrier in the same terms as
the Environment Secretary's recommendation. This proposed exemption
generally reflects the current exemption for such activities.
Item 11 provides that the
provisions in the EP&BC Act on environmental approvals in
relation to species and threatened communities do not apply to acts
that are allowed by permit under the Endangered Species Protection
Act while the provisions of this Bill allow for the permit to
continue in force.
Item 12 provides that
provisions in the EP&BC Act on environmental approvals in
relation to species and threatened communities do not apply to acts
that are allowed by permit under the Whale Protection Act while the
provisions of this Bill allow for the permit to continue in
force.
Item 15 provides that
section 359 of the EP&BC Act does not apply in
relation to usage rights held by the Director of National Parks and
Wildlife immediately before the commencement of the new Act.
Section 359 provides that a usage right held in
relation to land, sea or seabed immediately prior to such areas
being included in a Commonwealth reserve, is not affected by such a
reservation under the EP&BC Act. As item 8 of Schedule
4 provides that the assets, interests and so on of the
Director are transferred to the Commonwealth with the commencement
of the EP&BC Act, the savings provisions for these usage rights
are not relevant.
Schedule 2-Endangered Species
Protection Act 1992
The Endangered Species Protection Act
1992 (Species Act) provides for the procedures to assist in
endangered species protection and site conservation.
Schedule 2 repeals the Species Act (Part
1) and provides saving and transitional provisions
(Part 2) and consequential amendments
(Part 3) in relation to species, ecological
communities and key threatening processes. Commentary on the effect
of repealing the Species Act can be found in the Bills Digest No.
135 of 1998-99 at p. 11 and pp. 40-41.
Part 2-Savings and transitional provisions
Items 2 to 10 provide savings
and transitional arrangements for listings under the Species Act,
and for the continuation of recovery plans, threat abatement plans,
conservation agreements and orders, permits and inventories under
that Act. (Item 11 of Schedule 1 provides that the
provisions in the EP&BC Act on environmental approvals and
species and threatened communities do not apply to acts which are
allowed by permit under the Species Act so long as the provisions
in Part 2 of Schedule 2 to this Bill allow for the
permit to continue in force).
Item 3 provides for the
continuation of the listing of species, ecological communities and
key threatening processes which were nominated under the Species
Act, and for advice given by the Endangered Species Scientific
Subcommittee to be taken as corresponding advice given by the
Threatened Species Scientific Committee. Sub-item
3(2) sets out a table that translates nominations under
the Species Act into nominations under the EP&BC Act.
Sub-item 3(5) sets out a table that translates
particular kinds of advice given by the Endangered Species
Scientific Subcommittee into corresponding advice taken to be given
by the Threatened Species Scientific Committee under the new Act.
Advice on adding listed ecological communities (item 7 of
sub-item 5) is converted to advice on adding endangered
ecological communities under clause 181(1)(b) of the EP&BC Act,
rather than 'critically endangered' or 'vulnerable' communities.
Similarly, advice on deleting a listed ecological community under
the Species Act is converted to advice on deleting an endangered
ecological community (item 8 of sub-item 5).
Item 4 provides for the
continuation of recovery and threat abatement plans approved or
adopted under the Species Act prior to the commencement of the
EP&BC Act. Item 5 allows the Minister to make
a recovery plan or threat abatement plan under the EP&BC Act
if, before the Act commenced, the Director of National Parks and
Wildlife had consulted on the draft plan in compliance with section
39 of the Species Act. The Minister is not required to wait for the
Scientific Committee's advice on the timing and order of the plan
before making it.
Item 7 preserves permanent and
interim conservation orders in force under the Species Act
immediately before the commencement of the EP&BC Act, as if
they were made under the EP&BC Act. Sub-item
7(5) provides for the continuation of impact assessment
conservation orders made under the Species Act in relation to an
action to which the requirements for environmental approvals under
Part 3 of the new Act do not apply because of items 4, 5 or
8 of Schedule 1 of this Bill. The latter items provide
that actions which were being assessed or were agreed to be
assessed under the EPIP Act do not need to be assessed under the
EP&BC Act, nor does the negotiation and making of a regional
forest agreement need to be assessed if this is an 'EPIP
activity'.
Item 8 provides that permits
issued under the Species Act that were in force immediately before
its repeal continue in force and that Act continues to operate in
relation to the permit and the action covered by the permit. If,
before the EP&BC Act commenced, a person had applied under the
Species Act for reconsideration of a decision relating to a permit,
and the Minister had not confirmed, varied or revoked the decision,
the Minister must not confirm, vary or revoke the order or
decision.
Item 9 clarifies the operation
of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal when reviewing a decision by
the Minister administering the Species Act to give advice pursuant
to Division 4 of Part 6 of the Species Act once the EP&BC Act
has commenced. (Among other things, Division 4 of Part 6 of the
Species Act provides that a Commonwealth agency must notify the
Minister in writing if it believes that action it proposes to take
may transgress a recovery or threat abatement plan or a
conservation order. The Minister then advises on the proposed
action. Section 106 of the Species Act already provides that the
AAT may review the Minister's decision to give the advice.)
Item 9 provides that the AAT may exercise the
powers and discretion of the Minister administering the EP&BC
Act when considering its review of the decision. This is presumably
done to ensure the regime of the EP&BC Act attaches to relevant
decisions as soon as possible.
Items 11 to 13 make
consequential amendments to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park
Act 1975. Item 13 clarifies that the
amendments to that Act do not affect the validity of a plan of
management, agreement or arrangement made under the plans of
management provisions in Part VB of that Act.
Item 22 provides for the refund
of fees for applications for permits where at the time the
EP&BC Act commences, the Director of National Parks and
Wildlife had not decided whether or not to issue the permit.
Schedule 3-Environment
Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974
The Environment Protection (Impact of
Proposals) Act 1974 (EPIP Act) generally provides for the
protection of the environment in relation to projects and decisions
of, or under the control of, the Australian Government.
Item 1 repeals this Act. Commentary on the effect
of repealing the EPIP Act can be found in the Bills Digest No. 135
1998-99 at pp. 10-12.
Part 2-Saving and transitional provisions
Item 3 ensures the continued
application of the EPIP Act to EPIP activities described in
items 3, 4, 5 and 8 of Schedule 1 (see above) of
this Bill. That is, actions that were assessed, are being assessed
or are agreed to be assessed under the EPIP Act, and the
negotiating and making of a regional forest agreement if this is an
'EPIP activity'. EPIP activities are defined in item
2 as activities described in subsection 5(1) of the EPIP
Act, namely proposals, works and other projects, agreements and
arrangements, decisions and recommendations and incurring of
expenditure by the Australian Government and authorities of
Australia, which were proposed before the commencement of the
EP&BC Act to be undertaken and for which a proponent was
designated under the Administrative Procedures under the EPIP Act
before the commencement of the new Act.
Part 3-Consequential amendment of other
Acts
Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act
1976
The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern
Territory) Act 1976 provides for the granting of traditional
Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory for the benefit of
Aboriginal peoples. Item 4 of this Bill repeals
subsection 11(2) of that Act, which relates to a Commission
appointed in 1975 to conduct and report on an inquiry in relation
to uranium mining in the Northern Territory. The Explanatory
Memorandum states that this Commission 'has reported, so the
operation of the provision is spent'. Environment Australia has
advised that this is a reference to the Ranger Uranium
Environmental Inquiry: First Report, by R. Fox.(2)
Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975
Items 5-18 amend the
Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975 (AHC Act) which
establishes the Australian Heritage Commission, the functions of
which are to identify, conserve, improve and present the national
estate.
The EP&BC Bill does not include 'heritage'
as a matter of national environmental significance, and although
the Government has indicated an intention to introduce a new
heritage protection Act, this has not occurred. The appropriateness
of making the following amendments without this new regime are
discussed in the Concluding Comments.
Item 11 repeals section 25 of
the AHC Act. Among other things, section 25 provides that, after
considering relevant environment reports, the Minister may direct
the Australian Heritage Commission to record, or not record, a
place on the Register of the National Estate.
Item 14 repeals section 28 of
the AHC Act, which allowed the Commission to give advice to the
Minister administering the EPIP Act in respect of a matter relating
to the national estate and to the operation of EPIP and required
the Commission to comply with a request for advice from the
Minister.
Item 15 repeals section 29 of
the AHC Act, which provides that where a matter to which the EPIP
Act is relevant affects a place that is on the Register, and the
procedures under that Act do not require the Commission to furnish
an environmental impact statement or other report, the Commission
may furnish a report to the Minister administering the EPIP Act.
The report will be deemed to be a recommendation under that
Act.
Item 18 repeals section 44 of
the AHC Act, which provides that for the purposes of an inquiry
under the EPIP Act, 'a matter relating to the national estate shall
be taken to be a matter in respect of which the Minister
administering that Act' may direct an inquiry be conducted.
Biological Control Act 1984
The Biological Control Act 1984
provides for the biological control of pests primarily in the
Australian Capital Territory. Items 19 to 37 make
consequential amendments to this Act, many of which are necessary
to remove references to the EPIP Act and inquiries under that
Act.
Items 19 to 21 amend section 19
of the Biological Control Act so that the Commonwealth Biological
Control Authority cannot arrange for the Minister administering the
EPIP Act to direct that an inquiry be conducted in respect of a
recommendation concerning the adverse affects on the environment of
control of specific organisms.
Item 24 amends section 28 of
the Biological Control Act so that the Commonwealth Biological
Control Authority cannot arrange for the Minister administering the
EPIP Act to direct that an inquiry be conducted in respect of a
recommendation concerning the adverse affects on the environment of
the release of specific organisms.
Item 28 repeals paragraph
33(1)(e) of the Biological Control Act which provides that the
Commonwealth Biological Control Authority may arrange for the
Minister administering the EPIP Act to direct that an inquiry be
conducted under that Act in respect of a declaration being
contemplated by the Authority that the environment will be
adversely affected by the release of specified organisms, if an
adequate investigation into the release has not been held.
Items 30 to 37 amend section 56
of the Biological Control Act, which provides for Administrative
Appeals Tribunal review of certain decisions of the Commonwealth
Biological Control Authority relating to the EPIP Act.
The Explanatory Memorandum states at page 12
that:
[t]he new Act sets up a comprehensive scheme for
the assessment of any action that is likely to have a significant
impact on a matter of NES, or the environment if the action is a
Commonwealth action or impacts on Commonwealth land. The links with
the Biological Control Act 1984 are therefore no longer
appropriate or necessary.
This may be contentious, as the proposed
EP&BC Act only narrowly covers the issue of invasive species.
See the Concluding Comments section on this matter.
Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981
The Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act
1981 generally provides a framework for controlling marine
pollution through sea dumping of waste and other damaging matter.
Items 38 to 40 amend this Act so that references
to procedures under the EPIP Act in relation to the granting of a
permit, including the Minister directing that an inquiry be held
under the EPIP Act, are removed and replaced with a scheme linked
to the proposed EP&BC Act.
Item 38 provides that the
Minister must either grant or refuse to grant a permit within 90
days after the application is made. If Subdivision A of Division 4
of Part 11 of the EP&BC Act applies (under which certain
persons must get advice from the Minister before authorising an
action) in relation to the granting of the permit, the Minister
must grant or refuse to grant the permit within either 30 days
after the day on which the Minister receives advice given under
section 163 of the EP&BC Act or 90 days after the application
is made, whichever period is longer. Sub-item
38(4) provides that Subdivision A of Division 4 of Part 11
of the EP&BC Act does not apply in relation to the granting of
a permit for dumping or loading where, in the opinion of the
Minister, there is an emergency posing an unacceptable risk to
human health in which there is no other feasible solution.
Item 39 replaces a reference to
an inquiry under the EPIP Act with an inquiry under Part 8 of the
EP&BC Act.
Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act
1989
The object of the Hazardous Waste
(Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1989 (Hazardous Waste
Act) is to regulate the export, import and transit of hazardous
waste to ensure that exported, imported or transited waste is
managed in an environmentally sound manner so that human beings and
the environment, both within and outside Australia, are protected
from the harmful effects of the waste. Items 41 to
45 make amendments to the Hazardous Waste Act, so that
references to the EPIP Act are replaced by references to the
EP&BC Act.
Item 41 repeals section 6 of
the Hazardous Waste Act which defines for the purposes of that Act
at what point action is begun under the EPIP Act.
Item 43 amends section 16 of
the Hazardous Waste Act, which sets out the time limits within
which the Minister must decide whether or not to grant export
permits. It provides that if the proposal to grant the permit is
referred under Subdivision A of Division 4 of Part 11 of the
EP&BC Act, the Minister must either grant or refuse to grant
the permit within 30 days after receiving advice on the proposed
grant. This time limit reflects current requirements.
Item 44 amends section 29 of
the Hazardous Waste Act so that where proposals to vary a permit
are referred under Subdivision A of Division 4 of Part 11 of the
EP&BC Act, the Minister must decide whether to make the
variation within 30 days after receiving advice on the proposed
variation. Again, this time limit reflects current
requirements.
Lands Acquisition Act 1989
The Lands Acquisition Act 1989 concerns
the acquisition of land by the Commonwealth and certain authorities
and the dealings with land so acquired. Items 46 and
47 make amendments to this Act in relation to its links to
the EPIP Act.
Item 46 repeals subsection
31(4) of the Land Acquisitions Act. Subsection 31(4) states that if
the Administrative Appeals Tribunal is considering a
pre-acquisition of land declaration, and a matter being considered
has been the subject of an inquiry under the EPIP Act, then the AAT
is required to accept the findings of an EPIP Act inquiry. No link
to inquiries under the EP&BC Act is provided.
Item 47 repeals section 42 of
the Lands Acquisition Act. Currently, this section provides that in
relation to the acquisition of land which is, or is in, a public
park, the Minister may not make a declaration that the interest in
the land is compulsorily acquired unless:
-
- the Government of the relevant State or Territory has
consented
-
- an inquiry has been conducted under the EPIP Act, unless both
Houses of Parliament have resolved that the acquisition may proceed
without holding an inquiry, and
-
- if the land is or is in a national estate area or a world
heritage area, an environmental impact statement under the EPIP Act
has been prepared in relation to the proposed acquisition.
The proposed amendment replaces this provision
with the much narrower requirement that the Minister may not make a
declaration regarding an interest in land that is, or is in, a
public park unless the Government of the State or Territory
consents.
See the Concluding Comments section for
commentary on this proposal.
Sea Installations Act 1987
The Sea Installations Act 1987, among
other things, aims to ensure that sea installations are operated in
a manner consistent with the protection of the environment.
Items 49 to 55 amend this Act.
Items 49-51 provide that if
Subdivision A of Division 4 of Part 11 of the EP&BC Act (which
provides that persons considering whether to authorise certain
action must obtain the Minister's advice) applies in relation to
the granting, renewal or variation of a permit to operate a sea
installation, the Minister must decide whether or not to grant,
renew or vary the permit within 30 days after the day on which the
Minister receives advice under that Subdivision on the proposal to
grant, renew or vary the permit. Item 53 provides
that in relation to the granting of an exemption certificate to
which the Subdivision applies, the Minister must grant or refuse to
grant the certificate within 28 days of receiving advice. (The
Explanatory Memorandum incorrectly states 30 days in relation to
this time period).
Item 52 repeals Division 5 of
Part III of the Sea Installations Act, which relates to the
application of the EPIP Act to permits under the Sea Installations
Act. Division 5 currently provides that if the Minister requires
that a person seeking a permit (or variation or renewal) produce an
environmental impact statement, the Minister is not required to
consider the application until that requirement is completed. As
environmental assessments will now be triggered independently
pursuant to the proposed EP&BC Act, the Explanatory Memorandum
states that there is no requirement that this Division be linked to
the new EP&BC Act.
Telecommunications Act 1997
Items 56 and 57 make amendments
to the Telecommunications Act 1997. Item
57 repeals subclause 28(1) of Schedule 3 to that Act,
which provides that the Australian Communications Authority (ACA),
in performing certain functions or exercising certain powers, is
exempt from the Administrative Procedures under the EPIP Act. It
replaces that provision with one which provides that the ACA is
exempt from Chapters 2 and 4 and Divisions 1 to 4 of Part 13 of the
EP&BC Act in relation to the performance of certain functions
and the exercise of certain powers, as well as in relation to an
action under the EP&BC Act authorised by a facility
installation permit. Although the Explanatory Memorandum states
that this effectively continues the same exemption for the same
activities, it is unclear why the new provision specifically refers
to 'an action ... authorised by a facility installation permit'
whereas the current provision does not. This may only be a
technical issue.
Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act
1982
Items 58 and 59 amend the
Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act
1982. Item 58 ensures that the Minister must
either grant or refuse to grant a permit under subsection 24(1) of
that Act within 90 days after an application is made, unless
Subdivision A of Division 4 of Part 11 of the EP&BC Act
applies, in which case the Minister must grant or refuse to grant
the permit within 30 days after the day on which the Minister
receives advice given under that Subdivision on the proposed grant.
This is consistent with current requirements.
Schedule 4-National Parks and
Wildlife Conservation Act 1975
The National Parks and Wildlife Conservation
Act 1975 (Parks Act) provides for the establishment of
national parks and other parks and reserves, the establishment of
the independent office of the Director of National Parks and
Wildlife and the protection and conservation of wildlife.
Item 1 repeals the Parks Act. Although the scope
covered by this Act is generally reproduced in the proposed
EP&BC Act, there are also significant and contentious changes.
These are discussed further in the Concluding Comments section.
Savings and transitional provisions
Item 3 provides for the
continuation of areas that were proclaimed as parks or reserves
under the Parks Act as if they were declared as Commonwealth
reserves under the EP&BC Act. Consistent with the powers in
section 13 of the Parks Act, sub-item 3(4) allows
a Proclamation under the Parks Act to be amended at any time.
Sub-item 3(5) relates to paragraphs 357(1)(a) and
(2)(a) of the EP&BC Act. Its effect is that the Secretary is
not permitted to exercise his or her powers in relation to a
Commonwealth reserve if that reserve has no International Union for
the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) status (which the EP&BC Act
requires all reserves be assigned) or no management plan in
operation. This consequently reinforces the potential regulatory
vacuum for such 'reserves' created by subsections 357(1)(a) and
(2)(a) of the EP&BC Act.
Continuation of plans of management and Boards of Management
Item 4 allows for the
continuation of plans of management for parks or reserves where
they were in force immediately before the EP&BC Act commenced,
even if the plan does not comply with section 367 of the EP&BC
Act. Plans may continue for up to seven years after the EP&BC
Act commences. Item 5 allows for the continuation
of management plans that were being prepared and exempts
requirements for public notice and consultation if they have
already been included in such preparation under the Parks Act.
Item 6 provides for the
continuation of Boards for the Booderee National Park, the
Australian National Botanic Garden in the Jervis Bay Territory,
Kakadu National Park and Uluru-Kata Tjuta National
Park established under the Parks Act.
Additional Board of Management member nominated by the Northern
Territory Government
Sub-item 6(2)(b) provides for
an additional board member nominated by the Northern Territory to
sit on the Boards of Kakadu National Park and Uluru-Kata
Tjuta National Park. Sub-item 6(3) provides
that the Minister must make this additional appointment within
three months of commencement of the EP&BC Act. Sub-item
6(5) provides for continuity of appointment for members of
the old Board when the EP&BC Act commences.
There are significant legal and political
concerns associated with the proposal to provide for an additional
board member nominated by the Northern Territory Government. These
are discussed in the Concluding Comments section.
Transfer of Director's assets etc. to the Commonwealth
Item 8 transfers the Director's
assets, estates, interests and liabilities to the Commonwealth,
including the benefit of a lease of Aboriginal Land held by the
Director. Sub-item 8(5) reinforces this provision
by stating that each instrument in force immediately before the
commencement of the EP&BC Act to which the Director was a party
continues to have effect as if the instrument referred to the
Commonwealth instead of the Director.
This proposal raises complex legal and political
issues, and is discussed in the Concluding Comments section.
Item 9 provides for the
continued appointment of wardens, rangers and wildlife inspectors
where their appointment was in force under the Parks Act
immediately before the EP&BC Act commences.
Part 3-Consequential amendment of other
Acts
Items 12 to 95 make
consequential amendments to Acts affected by the repeal of the
Parks Act.
Aboriginal Land Grant (Jervis Bay Territory) Act
1986
A key object of the Aboriginal Land Grant
(Jervis Bay Territory) Act 1986 (Jervis Bay Act) is to grant
land in the Jervis Bay Territory to the Wreck Bay Aboriginal
community. Items 12-26 amend this Act.
One aspect of the Bill's proposed amendments is
to change the terminology concerning the national park and botanic
gardens in the Jervis Bay area. However, this aspect of the Bill is
confusingly drafted and uses different terminology to that in the
EP&BC Bill. It would be of assistance if terminology in the
Bills was consistent and that definitions were provided in the
relevant Part for which they were operative, rather than being
spread throughout the Bill. For clarification, it appears that the
reference to 'Booderee National Park' does not include the
'Booderee Botanic Gardens'.
Item 12 amends the Jervis Bay
Act to provide that 'Booderee National Park' means the Commonwealth
reserve of that name within the Jervis Bay Territory under Part 15
of the EP&BC Act. This clarification is required because,
unlike the detailed definitions provided in the EP&BC Act for
Kakadu National Park (section 387(3)) and Uluru-Kata
Tjuta National Park (section 344(3)), the proposed EP&BC
Act does not define 'Commonwealth reserve within the Jervis Bay
Territory'. Notably, the definition in this Bill is not
significantly clearer, as it fails to provide an exact description
of the relevant area or the instrument under which the area is
defined.
Item 14 repeals the definition
of Jervis Bay National Park in the Jervis Bay Act. Item
15 amends section 9A of the Jervis Bay Act, which
currently allows the Minister to declare that land within the
Jervis Bay National Park and Jervis Bay Botanical Gardens is
Aboriginal land. This item substitutes the name 'Booderee National
Park' for 'Jervis Bay National Park' and 'Jervis Bay Botanic
Gardens'. Although this appears to suggest that the Booderee
National Park incorporates both the previous national park as well
as the botanic gardens, the Explanatory Memorandum indicates this
is not the case. All land in the Jervis Bay Botanic Gardens has
already been granted to the Wreck Bay Council as Aboriginal land.
Therefore a reference to the gardens in this section is no longer
relevant.
Item 18 amends section 35 of
the Jervis Bay Act which is concerned with prohibiting the Council
from granting a lease of Aboriginal land within the Jervis Bay
National Park or the Jervis Bay Botanic Gardens by substituting the
terms 'Booderee National Park or the Booderee Botanic Gardens'.
'Booderee Botanic Gardens' is not defined in this Part, but is
defined in item 1 of Schedule 7 of the Bill as the
part of the 'Australian National Botanic Gardens' in the Jervis Bay
Territory. Section 3 of the Jervis Bay Act provides that the
'Australian National Botanic Gardens' means a particular area
specified by Proclamation, and that the 'Jervis Bay Botanic Garden'
is the part of the Australian National Botanic Gardens that is in
the Jervis Bay territory. Therefore, in fact the Jervis Bay Botanic
Gardens is the same as the Booderee Botanic Gardens.
Items 16, 19 and 22 replace
references to the Director of National Parks and Wildlife in
relation to the lease of Aboriginal land from the Wreck Bay
Aboriginal Community Council with references to the Commonwealth.
This raises significant legal issues concerning the operation of
the lease and political issues of joint management, which are
discussed in the Concluding Comments section.
Item 21 and 23 provide that the
replacement of the Director as lessee with a reference to the
Commonwealth does not require the Council and the Commonwealth to
enter into an agreement if there was an agreement in force between
the Council and the Director prior to the commencement of the
EP&BC Act.
Item 24 repeals section 38C,
which currently relates to the granting of a lease of Aboriginal
land within the Jervis Bay National Park or the Jervis Bay Botanic
Gardens to the Director, and replaces it with a section referring
to the Booderee National Park and the Commonwealth. There is no
explanation in the Explanatory Memorandum as to why no reference to
Booderee Botanic Gardens is made.
Item 26 saves by-laws made
under the Jervis Bay Act before the EP&BC Act commences where
they apply a regulation made under the Parks Act.
Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act
1976
The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern
Territory) Act 1976 provides for the granting of traditional
Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory for the benefit of
Aboriginal peoples. Items 27 to 30 repeal a number
of terms used in this Act which will not be relevant when the
EP&BC Act comes into force.
Item 28 repeals the definition
of Director.
Items 31 and 32 repeal
provisions which deem, either directly or constructively, an
interest or estate to be held by the Crown in right of the
Commonwealth. These provisions are redundant as item
8 of this Schedule transfers all interests, estates and so
on of the Director to the Commonwealth.
Items 33 and 35 redraft
provisions relating to grants of land to land trusts to take
account of land that has already been granted under deed. The
obligations and conditions required by the granting of a deed
remain the same. Item 35 also replaces all
references to the Director and the Parks Act with references to the
Commonwealth and the EP&BC Act.
Item 40 amends section 12B
(which currently relates to possible arbitration in relation to a
disagreement between the Land Council and the Director) by
replacing references to the Director with the Minister
administering Division 4 of Part 15 of the EP&BC Act 1998, or
the Secretary to the Department administering that Division. Both
are named, as the arbitrator may request either to do a specific
thing.
Item 42 amends section 12C so
that the Minister may grant a lease to the Commonwealth (rather
than the Director) where the land trust has not.
Item 44 amends section 40
(which relates to grants of exploration licences) by repealing a
reference to 'Aboriginal land in a conservation zone'. It may be
that this is merely technical, given that the term 'conservation
zone' is not operative within the EP&BC Act.
Item 45 repeals certain
subsections of section 50 which deem certain alienated Crown land
to be unalienated, where all estates and interests not held by the
Crown are held by the Director.
Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975
Item 50 amends the
Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975, replacing a
reference to the Director of National Parks and Wildlife with a
reference to the Minister administering Division 4 of Part 15 of
the EP&BC Act 1998.
Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Act
1978
The Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers
Region) Act 1978 provides for the appointment of a Supervising
Scientist for the purpose of protecting the environment in the
Alligator Rivers region of the Northern Territory from the effects
of mining operations. Items 51 to 66 make
amendments to this Act.
Item 51 substitutes the
Environment Secretary for the Director of National Parks and
Wildlife, and item 53 defines the Environment
Secretary as the Secretary of the Department which administers
Division 4 of Part 15 of the EP&BC Act.
Items 57 and 64 repeal
subsections 5A(2) and 24A(2). These provisions state that if a
conservation zone is declared and an area is subsequently excised,
the Supervising Scientist, or the Alligators River Research
Institute, continue to have specific functions in relation to
mining in that conservation zone until the Minister directs
otherwise. The amendment in effect updates this by removing the
reference to the conservation zone and requiring the Supervising
Scientist or the Institute to be under the direction of the
Minister.
Items 58-63 replace references
to the Director with references to the Environment Secretary and,
in the case of items 59 and 63
which relate to the composition of advisory or technical
committees, the Environment Secretary or a person who is an officer
or employee of the Secretary's Department.
Environment Protection (Northern Territory Supreme Court)
Act 1978
Items 67-75 amend the
Environment Protection (Northern Territory Supreme Court) Act
1978, so that references to the Director of National Parks and
Wildlife are replaced with references to the Environment Secretary,
and so that references are made to the EP&BC Act.
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975
Items 75-80 consequentially
amend definitions in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act
1975. For example, item 79 repeals the
reference prohibiting the Governor-General from proclaiming an area
in the Great Barrier Reef Region as a reserve or park, replacing it
with a provision which has the same effect under the EP&BC
Act.
Koongarra Project Area Act 1981
The Koongarra Project Area Act 1981
varies the boundary of the Kakadu National Park for the purposes of
the Koongarra Project. The Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill
states that this Act has still not been proclaimed. Items
81-83 amend this Act, so that when proclaimed it will be
linked to the proposed EP&BC Act rather than the Parks Act.
Item 83 repeals subsection 3(4) which provides
that 'any interest, other than an interest in respect of any
minerals held by the Commonwealth shall be deemed to be held by the
Director'. As item 8 of this Schedule vests all
interests of the Director in the Commonwealth, this provision will
be redundant.
Lands Acquisition Act 1989
Items 84-88 amend section 124
of the Lands Acquisition Act 1989, which deals with mining
on certain land. The repealed definitions mark the boundaries of a
pastoral lease area in the Northern Territory (the aggregate of the
area comprising Gimbat and Goodparla), which has since been
absorbed into Kakadu stage 3, and therefore has no further
application.
Telecommunications Act 1997
Subclause 28(3) of Schedule 3 to the
Telecommunications Act 1997 currently provides that before
issuing a facility installation permit, the Australian
Communications Authority (ACA) must consult the Director of
National Parks and Wildlife if, in the ACA's opinion the issuing of
the permit:
-
- may be inconsistent with Australia's obligations under a listed
international agreement, or
-
- may have certain adverse impacts on the environment set out in
that subclause, such as having an adverse effect on threatened
species, flora or fauna.
Item 91 repeals this subclause,
although the ACA's obligation to consult with the Environment
Secretary (subclause 28(2)) remains. There are no specific criteria
for such consultation.
Item 92 amends subclause 55(11)
of Schedule 3 to the Telecommunications Act which provides that
prior to giving a direction requiring a carrier to do, or refrain
from, a specific act in relation to a facility (including its
installation), the ACA must consult with the Australian Heritage
Commission in certain circumstances and the Director of National
Parks and Wildlife in all circumstances. Item 93
repeals the reference to the consultation of the Director of
National Parks and Wildlife in all circumstances, leaving only the
requirement to consult the Australian Heritage Commission when the
matter concerns a heritage issue, including an indigenous heritage
issue. This significantly narrows the scope for environmental
scrutiny offered by this provision.
Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports Act)
1982
Items 93 and 94 have the effect
of transferring the role of the Director of National Parks and
Wildlife in administering the Wildlife Protection (Regulation
of Exports and Imports Act) 1982 to the
Environment Secretary.
Schedule 5-Whale Protection Act
1980
The Whale Protection Act 1980 provides
for the preservation, conservation and protection of whales and
other cetacea. Item 1 repeals this Act. Commentary
on the effect of repealing this Act can be found in Bills Digest
No. 135 1998-99 at pp. 42-43.
Items 3-4 ensure the continued
operation of permits issued under the Whale Protection Act, and the
continued appointment of inspectors appointed under that Act.
Item 6 allows for a refund of fees a person paid
when applying for a grant or transfer of permit under the Whale
Protection Act if the Minister had not made a decision whether to
grant the permit or transfer before the commencement of the
EP&BC Act.
Item 5 inserts the civil
penalty provisions of the proposed EP&BC Act concerning the
taking of unauthorised actions in relation to matters of national
environmental significance into the Antarctic Marine Living
Resources Conservation Act 1981. (This Act relates to the
conservation of marine living resources of the Antarctic and its
surrounding seas).
Schedule 6-World Heritage
Properties Conservation Act 1983
Item 1 repeals the World
Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 (World Heritage
Act).
Item 3 provides for the
continued application of the World Heritage Act and all instruments
made under it and in force immediately before its repeal, in
relation to properties and sites that were declared by
Proclamations under that Act as world heritage properties and
sites. Sub-item 3(2) allows for the revocation of
such Proclamations and for the variation or revocation of a consent
made under the World Heritage Act.
Item 10 of Schedule 1 of the
Bill makes it clear that Subdivision A of Division 1 of Part 3 of
the proposed EP&BC Act (which relates to world heritage) does
not apply to an act permitted by a consent given under the World
Heritage Act. Sub-item 3(4) provides that it is
possible to give a consent under sections 9, 10 or 11 of the World
Heritage Act as it continues to apply. Therefore, it is possible to
give a consent under the old regime, even when the EP&BC Act
has commenced.
Item 9 provides that the
Wet Tropics of Queensland World Heritage Area Conservation Act
1994 operates subject to the EP&BC Act or the World
Heritage Act as it continues to apply to the Wet Tropics of
Queensland World Heritage Area.
Schedule 7-Other Amendments
Items 1-32 make amendments to
various Commonwealth Acts to give effect to the schemes established
by the EP&BC Act.
Item 4 saves regulations in
force under subsection 53(2) of the Aboriginal Land Grant
(Jervis Bay Territory) Act 1986.
Items 7-10 amend the
Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Act 1978
so that the definitions of 'ecosystem' and 'environment' are the
same as those in the proposed EP&BC Act.
Item 11 amends the Great
Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 to require that before the
Governor-General makes a Proclamation causing an area in the Great
Barrier Reef Region to cease to be part of the Marine Park, the
Minister must be satisfied that the Proclamation would be in
accordance with a resolution passed by each House of Parliament on
a motion, and that the notice of the motion was given no less than
15 sitting days before the motion was moved.
Item 12 provides that
Proclamations under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act
1975 as to what areas form part of the Great Barrier Reef
Marine Park continue to have effect.
Items 19-20 amend the
Resource Assessment Commission Act 1989 so that it uses
the definitions of 'ecosystem' and 'environment' used in the
EP&BC Act.
Telecommunications Act 1997
Items 23-31 make amendments to
Schedule 3 to the Telecommunications Act
1997. Items 21-22 amend clause 2 of that
Schedule so that it uses the definitions of 'ecosystem' and
'environment' used in the EP&BC Act.
Item 23 amends the
Telecommunications Act with respect to the length of notice which a
carrier must give to a land owner under subclause 17(4) of Schedule
3 before engaging in certain activities related to inspecting land.
The Telecommunications Act currently requires a period of ten
business days notice before inspection of land, installation of
facilities or maintenance of facilities can occur. For inspection
of land and related activities, the notice period is reduced to two
days in certain circumstances. Item 23 changes the
circumstances in which the period will be reduced to two business
days notice. The period will be reduced where:
-
- the activity is not inconsistent with Australia's obligations
under a listed international agreement
-
- could not have certain effects on matters of environmental
significance
-
- will not have an adverse effect on a streetscape or landscape,
and
-
- could not have certain detrimental impacts on the
environment.
There is currently an exemption from this notice
period where the land is a public place if engaging in
inspection-related activities does not involve any material
disturbance to the land, and no part of the land is a 'sensitive
area', which is defined in existing subclause 17(8) to include,
amongst other things, world heritage property. Item
24 substitutes this exemption with an exemption that
applies where:
-
- the activity: is not inconsistent with Australia's obligations
under a listed international agreement
-
- could not have certain effects on the environment
-
- will not have an adverse effect on a streetscape or landscape,
and
-
- could not have certain detrimental impacts on matters of
national environmental significance.
These requirements are cumulative. The amendment
applies to activities which carriers intend to commence at least
ten business days after the EP&BC Act commences (Item
25).
Items 26 and 27 amend subclause
27(7) to insert additional criteria to which the Australian
Communications Authority must have regard when determining the
environmental impact of the installation, maintenance or operation
of facilities before issuing a facility installation permit. The
new criteria are whether the issuing of a permit could have an
adverse effect on a listed migratory species, or will have or is
likely to have a significant impact on the environment in a
Commonwealth marine area, or Commonwealth land (item
26) or a declared Ramsar wetland (item
27). The amendments made by items 26 and
27 apply to applications for facility installation permits
made after the EP&BC Act commences (item
28).
Items 29 and 30 insert the
additional criteria from items 26 and 27 into
subclause 55(2) of Schedule 3. This subclause applies to the
situation where a carrier proposes to commence installation of a
facility before 1 January 2001.
Schedule 8-Miscellaneous
Item 1 allows the
Governor-General to make regulations under the proposed
Environmental Reform (Consequential Provisions) Act 1998.
Item 2 provides that:
If, apart from this item, the operation of this
Act would result in an acquisition of property from a person that
would be invalid because of paragraph 51(xxxi) of the Constitution
... the Commonwealth must pay the person a reasonable amount of
compensation.
Paragraph 51(xxxi) of the Constitution grants
the Parliament:
powers to makes laws ...with respect to ... the
acquisition of property on just terms ... for any purpose for which
the Parliament has power to make laws.
It is unclear why this item specifies that the
Commonwealth will be required to pay the person a 'reasonable
amount of compensation'. The Constitution requires 'just terms' in
such circumstances, which may extend to procedural requirements.
The phrases 'reasonable amount of compensation' and 'just terms'
are not commensurable. If the intention is to reduce the amount of
compensation to a level lower than 'just', this will be invalid.
However, if the effect is that 'reasonable' is in excess of a
determination of 'just' this may be valid.
The reference to 'item' rather than 'section'
within the proposed section appears incorrectly drafted.
Objects of a consequential amendments
Bill
The Office of Parliamentary Counsel has advised
that although there is no formal limitation on the content or scope
of a 'consequential amendments' Bill, such a Bill would usually
contain provisions required to implement a new legislative scheme
and would not normally contain provisions (technical or otherwise)
that were unrelated to the scheme's establishment.
This Bill implements a range of necessary
amendments that are consequential to the implementation of the
EP&BC Bill. However the Bill also makes a range of other
amendments which can be interpreted as substantial new proposals
which supplement, rather than arise from, the EP&BC Bill. This
raises issues as to the adequacy of consultation and scrutiny of
these substantive measures by all relevant stakeholders. On that
point, it is notable that the current Bill was not included in the
Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the
Arts Legislation Committee's inquiry into the EP&BC Bill 1998
until 24 March 1999. The Committee reported on 27 April 1999.
Indigenous peoples' concerns
The most significant criticisms of the Bill have
arisen from indigenous stakeholders, particularly the Boards of
Management of Kakadu National Park(3) and Uluru-Kata
Tjuta National Park(4) and the Wreck Bay Aboriginal
Community Council.(5) It appears that although it was mentioned in
the Government's 1998 Consultation Paper that the Parks Act would
be repealed, it was not clearly indicated that central aspects of
that Act would not be replaced.
Further, this Bill makes other significant new
amendments related to indigenous interests that are not linked to
the repeal of that Act.
Joint Management
The overarching concerns of indigenous groups
relate to the Bill's disregard for the principles of joint
management. Joint management is central part of the contractual
arrangements that lease back to the Commonwealth the indigenous
owned land in Kakadu National Park, Uluru-Kata Tjuta
National Park and Wreck Bay. It has been indicated that such
contractual arrangements would not have been entered into without
the legal guarantee of the principles of joint management. The
Kakadu Board of Management has stated that the key aspect of joint
management is the process of negotiation and empowerment.
We believe joint management to be a developing
process, a process involving commitment from both parties to trust
each other, to talk to each other and to work side by side ...
Management of our land is closely linked to management of our
social, health and cultural needs. There are a lot of different
people who want to take something or make money from our land and
we have to make sure they do the right thing ... (6)
Dr David Lawrence, in a Department of the
Parliamentary Library Research Paper, has similarly described joint
management:
From the perspective of traditional Aboriginal
owners, joint management is a matter of process, not structure, and
an aspect of community development rather than a specific
conservation agreement. ... The process of joint management is the
on-going process of consultation and negotiation leading from the
foundations provided by structural guarantees towards the
publicly-stated and identifiable goals of conservation and
protection of the natural and cultural heritage in accordance with
the needs and aspirations of the traditional owners. ... Failure to
recognise this can result in distrust, disharmony and
dissatisfaction.(7)
Given the centrality of these contractual
principles, the Central Land Council has stated that the lack of
negotiation on key aspects of this Bill is 'coercive and
pre-emptive of the existing rights of traditional owners.'(8)
Abolition of the position of Director of National Parks
and Wildlife
The Director of National Parks and Wildlife is
responsible for the declaration and management of parks and
reserves on land owned or leased by the Commonwealth and in
Commonwealth waters. The Director is also the lessee of Booderee
National Park, Kakadu National Park and Uluru-Kata
Tjuta National Park from the traditional owners.
This Bill abolishes the position of Director of
National Parks and Wildlife, replacing it with the Secretary of the
Department of Environment and Heritage in right of the
Commonwealth. This reform was not clearly identified, nor consulted
upon, with traditional owners prior to the introduction of the
Bill. Traditional owners have identified three key concerns in
relation to this reform:
-
- the loss of the Director's independence
-
- the effect on day-to-day joint management, and
-
- the compulsory transfer of the Parks' leases from the Director
to the Commonwealth without the consent of traditional owners as
required under the leases.
Loss of the Director's independence and effect on joint
management
The Kakadu Board of Management has strongly
argued that removing an independent Director will strengthen the
political control over the Park, and will undermine the independent
operation of joint management and the excellence, experience and
scientific integrity of the institution of the Director. The
Central Land Council has further stated that:
[t]he Minister is already responsible to the
Parliament for the administration of the [Parks] Act. The Director
is also responsible - directly to the Parliament - for the
discharge of their functions under the Act. If the Minister were
concerned about accountability to Parliament for the management of
Commonwealth parks and reserves, he would be in favour of retaining
the present structure.(9)
The Uluru Board of Management also strongly
argued that current joint management arrangements established in
1986 under the terms of the lease governed by the Parks Act and the
Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 have
an extremely successful history, are recognised internationally and
are international best practice in the best interests of all
constituents.(10) This successful day to day management may be
jeopardised by the proposals in the Bill.
Compulsory transfer of the lease from the Director to
the Commonwealth
In relation to Uluru-Kata Tjuta,
Kakadu and Booderee National Parks, the Director is the lessee of
the Park from the relevant Aboriginal Land Trust. At least in
relation to the leases concerning Kakadu and Uluru-Kata
Tjuta, these leases provide for the transfer of the lessee's
interests only with the consent of the lessor. There has been no
consultation or negotiation with the relevant Aboriginal Land
Trusts and hence no consent for a change of the lessee. This lack
of consultation again raises political concerns in relation to the
operation of the joint management principles of the park.
The legal ramifications concerning this absence
of consent are equally serious. For example, it may give rise to
rights of the lessors for termination for a fundamental breach of
the contract. The Uluru-Kata Tjuta Board of
Management has stated that such action would:
constitute a fundamental change to the original
Joint Management arrangements, entered into in a spirit of mutual
trust and good faith, and in fact may jeopardise the Lease
entirely.(11)
Similarly, the Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community
Council which has entered into similar lease arrangements with the
Director has stated that the fact they have never been consulted
appeared:
quite contrary to the spirit of the lease and
joint management co-operation ... and this is just unacceptable to
us, if the lease and joint management are to continue.
As stated by the Central Land Council, the 'Bill
runs the unnecessary risk that the Land Trust will take action to
terminate the lease'.(12)
Addition of a Northern Territory Board Member on the
Kakadu and Uluru-Kata Tjuta Boards of Management
In relation to the proposal to place an
additional member on the Kakadu and Uluru-Kata Tjuta
Boards of Management, the Explanatory Memorandum states at p. 15
that:
The aim of adding a Northern Territory
representative to the Boards is to deepen the Northern Territory
Government's understanding of the Parks and the service and
infrastructure needs of the Aboriginal people within the Parks. A
Territory representative will also bring knowledge of values in
abutting Territory parks and improve coordination with the
management of these parks. There is no intention to diminish the
power of Aboriginal communities in joint management and the
Aboriginal majority on the Boards will be preserved. The proposed
changes do not represent any devolution of management
responsibility form [sic] the Australian Government to the Northern
Territory Government. On-ground joint management will not be
affected.
This proposal was subject to no negotiation with
traditional owners or the relevant Boards of Management, again
raising the criticism that such action is coercive and against the
spirit and practice of joint management. As stated by the Central
Land Council:
The employment of coercive mechanisms, where
consensual mechanisms are already available, is unnecessarily
heavy-handed. If traditional owners do not favour the amendment ...
amendments should not be forced on them. To do so is likely to harm
the spirit of joint management.(13)
The Kakadu Board of Management raised further
concerns about the suitability of such an arrangement given the
historical hostility of the Northern Territory Government to
indigenous interests, particularly in relation to management of
land.(14)
Traditional use of land and water by
Aboriginals
A further concern with the Bill was its failure
to replicate in the proposed EP&BC Act the traditional land
usage rights established in section 70 of the Parks Act. Section 70
provides that:
(1) Subject to subsection (2) and to the
operation of this Act in relation to parks, reserves and
conservation zones, nothing in this Act prevents Aboriginals from
continuing, in accordance with law, the traditional use of any area
of land or water for hunting or food--gathering (otherwise than for
purposes of sale) and for ceremonial and religious purposes.
(2) The operation of subsection (1) is subject
to regulations made for the purpose of conserving wildlife in any
area and expressly affecting the traditional use of the area by
Aboriginals.
The failure to replicate this particular
provision in the EP&BC Bill raises complex legal issues. This
repeal raises the question whether such traditional use is tied to
a legal right that comes within the broad definition of 'property'
for the purposes of section 51(xxxi) of the Constitution (which
relates to acquisition of property on just terms). For example,
such a right may arguably be a native title right. If it is
'property', repealing section 70 may amount to an acquisition of
property for which just terms compensation is required. Professor
Marcia Langton has raised a similar issue.(15) The result of this
legal complexity may be litigation, which is socially and
administratively costly, and which may result in the Commonwealth
paying significant financial compensation and other
requirements.
There is no evidence in any of the extrinsic
materials concerning the Bill that this possible outcome has been
considered. In order to avoid such an apparently unforeseen
consequence, it would appear appropriate to replicate the
equivalent of section 70 in the EP&BC Bill.
Amendments to the Australian
Heritage Commission Act 1975
The Council of Australian Governments' 1997
Heads of Agreement of Commonwealth/State Roles and
Responsibilities for the Environment, which provides the
policy basis for the EP&BC Act, states that the Commonwealth
and State Heritage Ministers would develop a co-operative national
heritage places strategy. The Government's environment reform 1998
consultation paper proposed the introduction of a new heritage
protection law at a date following debate of the EP&BC
Bill.
This anticipated new Heritage Bill proposal has
not been introduced into Parliament. Given this, it seems
inappropriate to remove the links between the Commonwealth
Environment Minister and the Australian Heritage Commission in
relation to actions that may impact on heritage areas. In order to
avoid the creation of a regulatory vacuum on these issues, it may
be advisable to continue the operation of the EPIP Act in relation
to heritage matters until a new heritage regime is introduced.
Notably, this 'savings' regime for the EPIP Act is already deemed
to continue in relation to certain items in Schedule 1.
It also seems an inappropriate use of a
consequential amendment Bill to reform an Act not affected by the
main EP&BC Bill.
Repeal of Biological Control Act
1984
The Explanatory Memorandum states at page 12
that:
[t]he new Act sets up a comprehensive scheme for
the assessment of any action that is likely to have a significant
impact on a matter of NES, or the environment if the action is a
Commonwealth action or impacts on Commonwealth land. The links with
the Biological Control Act 1984 are therefore no longer appropriate
or necessary.
This may be contentious. For example in relation
to invasive species, which include pests as defined under the
Biological Control Act, it is notable that Part 13 of the EP&BC
Bill (relating to species and communities) makes no mention of
invasive species other than those that pose a threat to endangered
species or listed ecological communities (see Part 13, Division 1).
Invasive species (which may be animal or plant, terrestrial,
aquatic or marine) pose a threat to Australia's biodiversity, but
not necessarily to threatened species or communities. Additionally,
as the EP&BC Bill restricts Commonwealth involvement in
environmental matters to only six nominated matters of national
environmental significance, it would be possible to have an
invasive pest which causes significant national environmental
damage but may not be caught by the provisions of the EP&BC
Bill.
Consideration could be given to retaining the
links between the Biological Control Act and Commonwealth
environmental laws in some form to ensure adequate national
scrutiny of such issues.
Amendments to the Land
Acquisition Act 1989
The amendments in relation to the Land
Acquisition Act do not replace the EPIP Act references with links
between that Act and the EP&BC Bill. It is unclear why such
continuity has not been provided. In relation to the deliberations
of the AAT, although the Explanatory Memorandum states that the
subsection 'is no longer relevant', it is not inconsistent with the
structure of the EP&BC Bill for the AAT to consider a relevant
inquiry under the EP&BC Bill in relation to compulsory
acquisitions.
It is also unclear why the proposals in relation
to the compulsory acquisition of public park land have removed the
specifically designated role for Parliamentary scrutiny of such
acquisitions and provide no environmental prerequisites for State
and Territory consent to such acquisition. It may be that the
previous rationale for such requirements related to the importance
of broad consideration for compulsory acquisitions of areas of
general public use. Notably, State and Territory Governments stand
to financially benefit from compulsory acquisitions in relation to
the constitutional requirements of 'just terms' compensation for
such acquisitions. It would also appear that such changes are
substantive rather than consequential to the EP&BC Bill.
-
- The Senate Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts
Legislation Committee was reformed as the Senate Environment,
Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation
Committee for the 39th Parliament.
- R. Fox, Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry, AGPS:
Canberra, 1976.
- Kakadu Board of Management, Submission No. 561a, Senate
Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts
Legislation Committee inquiry into the Environment Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Bill, Submissions, Vol. 10, p.
2272.
- Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park Board of
Management, Submission No. 616, Senate Environment, Communications,
Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee inquiry
into the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill,
Submissions, Vol. 10, p. 2290.
- Wreck Aboriginal Community Council, Submission No. 263, Senate
Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts
Legislation Committee inquiry into the Environment Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Bill, Submissions, Vol. 4, p.
822.
- Kakadu Board of Management Submission, op. cot., p 2279 and p.
2277.
- Dr David Lawrence, Managing Parks/Managing 'Country': Joint
Management of Aboriginal Owned Protected Areas in Australia,
Research Paper No. 2 1996-97, Department of the Parliamentary
Library, p. 2.
- Central Land Council, Supplementary Submission to the Senate
Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts
Legislation Committee inquiry into the Environment Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Bill (unprinted) p. 1.
- Central Land Council, Supplementary Submission, op. cit., p. 1.
- Uluru-Kata Tjuta Board of Management Submission,
op. cit., p. 2281.
- ibid., p. 2295.
- Central Land Council, Supplementary Submission, op. cit.
- ibid.
- Kakadu Board of Management Submission, op. cit., p. 2280.
- Centre for Indigenous Natural and Cultural Resource Management,
Submission No. 263, Senate Environment, Communications, Information
Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee inquiry into the
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill,
Submissions, Vol. 10, p.2305.
Krysti Guest and Fiona Walker
30 April 1999
Bills Digest Service
Information and Research Services
This paper has been prepared for general distribution to
Senators and Members of the Australian Parliament. While great care
is taken to ensure that the paper is accurate and balanced, the
paper is written using information publicly available at the time
of production. The views expressed are those of the author and
should not be attributed to the Information and Research Services
(IRS). Advice on legislation or legal policy issues contained in
this paper is provided for use in parliamentary debate and for
related parliamentary purposes. This paper is not professional
legal opinion. Readers are reminded that the paper is not an
official parliamentary or Australian government document.
IRS staff are available to discuss the paper's contents with
Senators and Members
and their staff but not with members of the public.
ISSN 1328-8091
© Commonwealth of Australia 1999
Except to the extent of the uses permitted under the
Copyright Act 1968, no part of this publication may be
reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, including
information storage and retrieval systems, without the prior
written consent of the Parliamentary Library, other than by Members
of the Australian Parliament in the course of their official
duties.
Published by the Department of the Parliamentary Library,
1999.
Back to top