EHP's Performance Assessment

EHP’s Performance Assessment

The June 2013 Public Performance Report is available and provides an overall overview of Department of Environment and Heritage Protection’s self assessment of performance.

Information on the department’s assessment of its current and trending levels of performance in assessing and approving resource and development projects will be regularly published on the EHP website.

Last month, the Qld Government released the 2013–14 State Budget.

The Department of Environment and Heritage Protection’s $171.1m operating budget allocation and $30.1m capital budget includes a number of funding commitments including:

·       $11.7m to continue to increase koala habitat,

·       $10.7m for the protected land acquisitions program.

·       $4m for funding to community groups,

·       $3.7m for the regulation of the coal seam gas industry.

·       $2.5m, as part of a two year $4m commitment, to the Gladstone Healthy Harbour Partnership.

·       $2m as part of a four year $8m commitment, for the SEQ Healthy Waterways program.

The stated objectives for EHP in 2013–14 include:

·       continued measures to cut red tape,

·       implementation of practical programs that uphold environmental standards,

·       funding for grassroots environmental projects across the state.

Further to reforms to the current planning and development, the Qld State Government believes it has made further significant cuts to red tape. The Newman Government’s Resources Cabinet Committee has made it even easier to gain approvals for resources projects.

The Changes aim to streamline the environmental impact statement (EIS) process, which all large resource projects need to complete.

As part of the changes, the Coordinator-General and Department of Environment and Heritage Protection formulated new risk-based, generic terms of reference for EIS processes conducted under the State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971.

In practice, the EIS process should identify the same environmental values and propose the same environmental protection commitments that would be found in the Environmental Management plan, but an EIS typically goes into greater detail. The EIS is used by the proponent to develop an EM plan.

At an early stage, terms of reference are developed that provide the minimum expectations for the scope of the EIS. EHP publishes generic terms of reference to assist the development of project-specific draft terms of reference. The draft terms of reference are made available for a minimum period of 30 business days so that stakeholders and any member of the public can review the document and comment on what values, impacts and commitments should be considered in the EIS.

When the proponent has produced the EIS, it too is made available for a minimum period of 30 business days for stakeholders and the public to review the document, and to submit comments on the quality of the proponent’s assessment and commitments.

The aim of the process is to identify all significant impacts and propose all reasonable and practicable measures to protect the environment, before EHP develops the draft environmental authority.  A framework titled Managing the Impacts of Major Projects in Resource Communities, outlines a package of initiatives to assist local government, communities and industry work together to manage the impacts of resource development on regional communities.

A new suite of guidance and support material for applicants developed by EHP aims to help clients complete their application and avoid further information requests from the department. Fully completed applications allow EHP to complete the assessment process more quickly.

The reforms also include a government case management role with industry, state and local government and Local Area Infrastructure Programs (LAIPs) to prioritise community infrastructure investment.

EHP is still involved with the assessment and approval of resource and development projects under the Environmental Protection Act 1994.

During 2012–13 EHP completed environmental impact assessments on projects that, if they progress, will contribute $5 billion in capital expenditure.

In addition, EHP is also conducting assessments for more than 30 major resource project proposals, which will contribute up to $18 billion in capital expenditure.

Enhancements to EHP’s environmental assessment system in 2013 have also resulted in a significant reduction in assessment and approval times for environmental authorities.

In 2012–13 the average assessment timeframe for petroleum, geothermal and greenhouse gas activities was 28 business days, down from 56 business days in the previous financial year.

Waste Management Review

The Environmental Protection (Waste Management) Regulation 2000 expires on 1 September 2013. A review of the regulation has been undertaken and a discussion paper outlining several options is now available for comment.

Submissions close on 22 July 2013. You can email submissions to: Epact.Policy@ehp.qld.gov.au

Vested interests - Economic Development in Qld

Changes to Queensland’s development system under the Economic Development Bill 2012

Before the last Qld State election, the LNP promised to review the Urban Land Development Authority and return planning powers to local governments. 

Since being elected in March 2012, the Qld Government has not had a great record on acting in the 'public interest'.  However, the LNP also promised to "fast track" economic development of the State.  At the same time, the LNP Government is cutting red tape and green tape.

The Deputy Premier and Minister for State Development, Infrastructure and Planning, Jeff Seeney, on the 30 October 2012, has said:

“The essential reforms to existing planning and development legislation contained in this Bill will put the government in a position to facilitate economic development and development for community purposes and to deliver our election commitments, particularly where there are identified and persistent market gaps. Our government has committed to building a four-pillar economy for Queensland. Enacting the Economic Development Bill will equip us with the legislative tools necessary to identify and drive development projects that contribute to a strong and sustainable State economy by combining the powers of the former ULDA and the former Minister for Industrial Development.”

The repeal of the Urban Land Development Authority Act 2007

The Economic Development Bill 2012:

• repeals the Urban Land Development Authority Act 2007;

• creates a new Minister for Economic Development Queensland (MEDQ);

• provides for the optional establishment of local representative committees;

• allows the functions of the MEDQ to be delegated to other entities; and 

• introduces changes to the State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971.

The Economic Development (ED) Bill essentially replicates all of the provisions of the ULDA Act, but the powers and functions of the Authority will reside within the machinery of the State government rather than in an independent statutory corporation. As a result, the ED Bill maintains Queensland’s bifurcated planning system, allowing for impact assessment through the Integrated Development Assessment System (IDAS) to be by-passed where it is considered that there are particular economic and community benefits to be gained from development in the area, and there would be unacceptable impacts on delivery of the development were the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (SPA) to apply.

The ED Bill provides for local government engagement in the process for making development schemes. The consultation and submission provisions relating to proposed development schemes are similar to those in effect under the ULDA Act. The most significant difference can be seen by comparing section 97(3) of the ULDA Act with section 13(3) of the ED Bill. While the ULDA is free to act alone in performing its functions, the MEDQ “…in planning for, or developing land in, priority development areas… must consult with each relevant local government”. This consultation is mandatory.

The ED Bill amends a number of Acts including the State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971 (State Development Act). ‘Significant projects’ become ‘coordinated projects’ under the amendments. This is said to ensure that there is no implication that such projects have some form of State support. The criteria for determining an application for a declaration of a project as a coordinated project have been broadened and made more discretionary.

The ED Bill seeks to achieve similar outcomes as the ULDA Act, while engaging with local governments in the plan making processes for PDAs, and potentially bringing them within the decision-making framework relating to development in PDAs. The legal mechanism to achieve this involves the appointment of local government members or officers to local representative committees and delegation to those committees, their members, or to local governments

of the MEDQ’s powers and functions. The concept is obviously worthwhile, but its implementation may prove difficult unless there is a clear demarcation of lines of responsibility and separation of the laws, powers and duties under which the delegate is acting.

The amendments to the State Development Act will improve the State’s capacity to fast track projects that are economically important. However, the ability of the Coordinator-General to cancel a declaration of a coordinated project on ‘public interest’ grounds is concerning, because it is only through what are essentially public interest grounds that a project is declared in the first place.