I used to think Queensland was different to the rest of Australia. I was studying law in the times when heritage buildings would disappear overnight, the Minister would call in and approve controversial developments and resorts got their own Acts.2 I often wondered what it was like in the rest of Australia. Now thanks to Mills, Mines and Other Controversies (MMOC), I can see that over time, governments of all political persuasions in all States have done exactly the same thing.
MMOC was written by a collection of academics, lawyers and persons affiliated with the various Environmental Defenders’ Offices around the country. The editors have put together a highly readable work which sets out the narrative of major environmental issues in each State and Territory and in the Commonwealth sphere.
Each chapter of MMOC is written by a local expert. The chapter follows the history of a particular project to illustrate the issues raising particular concern about the operation of the processes and laws in that jurisdiction. The use of concrete case studies in this way leads to accessible writing and compelling reading. The intricacies and deficiencies of each jurisdiction’s environmental assessment laws are presented in a logical and practical way. The chapters are well researched and written although, for those looking for it, no attempt is made to present a pro-development perspective.
MMOC repeatedly paints a convincing picture of governments creating elaborate “smoke and mirrors systems” to provide the illusion that the government is doing one thing (taking the environment into consideration) when it is actually doing the opposite (approving major projects with little regard for the environmental consequences).
The Queensland case study is the Traveston Dam, one of the few projects which has not proceeded to completion. The chapter is written by senator elect, Larissa Waters, who wrote the chapter when working at the EDO Qld in Brisbane. She details the history of the EIS process in Queensland as it appears in various Acts; how rarely the process is triggered in practice; how the process does not apply to a number of development approvals under the IPA3; and the operations of the State Development and Works Public Act 1971 (“the State Development Act”). Ms Waters also explains how much of the assessment role of local governments is bestowed by the State Development Act upon the Coordinator General in the case of declared significant projects.
In setting out the approvals process of the dam, Ms. Waters describes how Premier Beattie announced the dam in April 2006 and how, by July 2006, the Mary River Water Resource Plan was altered from the 2005 consultation draft to allow for the dam to take water from the Mary River. The Regulations for this were gazetted in August. The Executive, the proponent for the dam, had already effectively ‘approved’ the dam.
The next step in the process involved the need for an approval of an EIS by the Coordinator General. The office of Coordinator General is appointed by the Governor-in-Council and is therefore, in practice, a Cabinet appointment. The Coordinator General declared the dam proposal to be a significant project under the State Development Act. By October 2007, a centre to study the threatened species that might be affected by the dam had been announced by QWI, the entity created to build the dams in the interest of separating that function from the government itself.
The Commonwealth, under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Commonwealth), only exercises environmental power in relation to threatened species and areas such as World Heritage sites. The dam required an EIS to meet the federal requirements because of endangered species that the dam was likely to affect (Mary River Cod, Lungfish, Mary River Tortoise) and potential effects on World Heritage and RAMSAR sites. Once the Coordinator General accepted a widely criticised EIS, the only further approval required was that of the Federal Environment Minister, Peter Garrett. Many people were surprised when Mr. Garrett refused to grant that approval.
The book commends itself to a wide audience. For politicians, it provides a DIY guide to spin doctoring, tinkering with the separation of powers and ensuring their approvals processes only involve as much transparency as you cannot otherwise avoid. For journalists, it demonstrates the somewhat surprising option of asking the hard questions as opposed to merely accepting at face value media releases and the reports of experts engaged in the EIS process. For those interested in how to improve the development approvals process — for its own sake or to better achieve the stated aims of any legislation — it’s a guide on what’s wrong and how to fix it.
The book is more than just a detailed critique of the EIS or the issues in each project. Nonetheless, MMOC uses examples to illustrate why an EIS is only as good as those assessing it. Overall, the authors comment on process and how it fails to be administered in the spirit of sustainability, transparency and public participation. This comes as a surprise when every jurisdiction purports to support those ideals. Some projects are just too important to stop and, when push comes to shove, the goal posts are often moved, sometimes by specific Acts4.
The events covered in the Queensland chapter in MMOC have some interesting sequels. The head of QWI, at the time that the Traveston Dam EIS was submitted, has gone on to be appointed Coordinator General with responsibility (as game keeper) for all such projects in Queensland.
And, as mentioned above, Larissa Waters is now the Green’s Senator Elect for Queensland.
Andrew Sinclair
Chambers
5 September 2010
Footnotes
- The publisher’s web page for the book may be found here.
- For example the Sanctuary Cove Resort Act 1985
- The Integrated Planning Act 1997 has now been replaced by the Sustainable Planning Act 2009
-
See for example: Pulp Mill Assessment Act 2007 (Tas); Kooragang Coal Terminal (Special Provisions) Act 1997 NSW; Gungahlin Drive Extension Authorisation Act 2004 (ACT)
