Submission in response to discussion paper
Some have argued that past changes to the EPBC Act to add new matters of national environmental significance did not go far enough. Others have argued it has extended the regulatory reach of the Commonwealth too far. What do you think?
I think the Commonwealth needs to have greater authority to stop rogue states from granting permission for development and industrial growth when it clearly damages wildlife, ecosystems and local communities.
How could the principle of Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) be better reflected in the EPBC Act? For example, could the consideration of environmental, social and economic factors, which are core components of ESD, be achieved through greater inclusion of cost benefit analysis in decision making?
Not everything can be assessed on a cost benefit basis. A healthy environment and biodiversity are priceless and are much more important in the long term than financial gain.
What high level concerns should the review focus on? For example, should there be greater focus on better guidance on the EPBC Act, including clear environmental standards? How effective has the EPBC Act been in achieving its statutory objectives to protect the environment and promote ecologically sustainable development and biodiversity conservation? What have been the economic costs associated with the operation and administration of the EPBC Act?
The EPBC has failed dismally to protect the environment eg the Queensland government allowing Adani to go ahead with it's disastrous mine and infrastructure; loggers in Victoria decimating habitat for our endangered koala. We are fast approaching the point where there is no such thing as sustainable development.
Additional information has been provided as an attachment for this submission. The attachment can be downloaded using the links on the right hand side of this page.