Still with the ‘wind in his sails’ from the vilification of whalers, Environment Minister Ian Campbell now intends to champion coastal development – or rather coastal protection. I am not really sure which.
In the various associated media reports Campbell claims the need for a solid 30 years plan (I think the Australian coast is dying a death of a thousand cuts because state governments and local government are basically planning in two, three, five-year cycles and what we need if we’re going to save the coast is a 30-year plan…)
and then in the next breath he suggests that it is OK to use the next endangered species to get his own way (i.e. invoke environment laws protecting migratory birds, endangered species… perhaps even platypuses).
I think the Minister is shaping up to be a disaster – but probably a very popular disaster.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
I cannot comment because I know the Minister personally.
I would be damned if I did, and damned if I didn’t.
Hence no comment except that I might invoke the Humphrey Appleby factor – the minister mouths only what his advisors feed him.
Work it out.
If the Minister for the Environment and Heritage shouldn’t “invoke environment laws protecting migratory birds, endangered species… ” then exactly what are the laws for and what should the Minister be doing? Rubber-stamping development applications?
Australia is the only signatory State to have passed domestic legislation to give effect to the World Heritage Convention. The World Heritage Listed Properties Conservation Act 1983, gave the Commonwealth constitutional authority to supersede the power of the States on questions of land management.
From July 2000, Australia’s World Heritage Properties were protected under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, which replaces and significantly extends upon the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983. It is upheld constitutionally by virtue of Section 51xxix – external affairs and not as a law with respect to the stated purpose.
I agree with Dianne. Frankly, I wish he’d use the existing powers he has under the EPBC Act a hell of a lot more. I’m not as knowledgable about other states, but in Queensland, coastal development is as big a problem in most respects as it was back in the Bjelke-Petersen days.
Campbell himself has just approved a major development at False Cape across the inlet from Cairns which open up a whole new area that sits between the GBR World Heritage Area and the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area (which as Neil notes means the Minister has ample authority already to act protect those WH values).
The same applies with cassowaries in the Mission Beach area, which are at serious risk from habitat clearance for property speculation and/or continual urban expansion.
I think the Minister just engaging in a bit of State Government baiting with no real intention to do anythihng. His decision to allow endangered elephants to be imported for the commercial and PR benefit of Australian zoos shows what side he’ll come down on in those cases where there is direct conflict between commercial pressures and the environment (let alone animal welfare)
If Campbell was sincere about strategic development (versus ad hoc project-by-project assessments) he would have agreed to the breakwater walls and Stage 11 of the Port Hinchinbrook development at Cardwell being assessed as one project. He didn’t.
Campbells’ approval for all but 2 referred developments under the EPBC confirms that environmental protection really means putting on a few conditions and having faith in developers and contractors, who do not hold environmental values in high regard, (otherwise they would not consider a development which has likely significant impacts) to “mitigate” environmental harm.
Popular? – not on his past track record.
Keep a watching brief on Port Hinchinbrook and Ella Bay to see if he is sincere about reducing coastal pressures.
Andrew,
Apparently, a ratified treaty creates an expectation that bureaucrats will exercise discretionary powers consistently with the terms of the treaty, whether or not a law has been passed by the Parliament of Australia.
The provisions of the EPBC Act are triggered by actions and yet under Section 524, “A decision by a government body to grant a governmental authorisation (however described) for another person to take an action is not an action”.
According to a senior DEH bureaucrat, this trivialisation of legislative intent, which is clearly inconsistent with the achievement of Australia’s international obligations under the World Heritage Convention, was a Senatorial stipulation of the Democrats, contingent upon support for Tax reform legislation.
On this basis, Dr. Gallop should only be concerned for private-sector proposals without state or local government authorisation and I must confess that I fail to see why the False Cape proposal needed to comply with the EPBC if it already had Cairns City Council approval.
Andrew Bartlett is being political – All Australian Zoos are State owned enterprises. His arguments therefore fall.
Laws exist principally to limit actions of humans based on preconceptions of what the law designers believed individuals ought be presecribed.