Submission in response to discussion paper
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?
Please see the dot-points provided at the end of my submission pertaining to the oversight, implementation, and scope of the Act and the compliance with environmental conditions the Act imposes
How should community involvement in decision-making under the EPBC Act be improved? For example, should community representation in environmental advisory and decision making bodies be increased?
Yes, community representation in environmental advisory and decision making bodies should be increased and reforms made to guarantee community rights and participation in decision-making. In addition, appealing decisions by the EPBC requires judicial review. The cost and complexity of such proceedings favours proponents, thereby lacking procedural fairness.
What is the priority for reform to governance arrangements? The decision-making structures or the transparency of decisions? Should the decision makers under the EPBC Act be supported by different governance arrangements?
The decision makers under the EPBC Act should be independently oversighted to ensure the decisions they hand down properly reflect the scientific guidance
Is the EPBC Act delivering what was intended in an efficient and effective manner?
No. The extinction crisis is worsening indicating that the EPBC is failing.
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.