19 June, 2013
Federal government takes an important step to protect water resources
The NSW conservation movement has welcomed the passage today of the federal EPBC Amendment Bill 2013, which empowers the commonwealth government to stop major projects likely to harm rivers, wetlands and groundwater aquifers.
“This is an important reform that will potentially give national water resources the level of protection the community clearly believes they deserve,” said Nature Conservation Council of NSW Campaigns Director Kate Smolski.
“This law is an important step forward, but it still contains large loopholes that undermine its objectives by giving the federal government a choice about which projects it will assess.
“We believe the commonwealth should always assess projects likely to have a significant impact on water resources – no ifs, buts or maybes.”
Ms Smolski commended the government for ensuring its approval powers under the water trigger could not be transferred to the states, but lamented it did not include similar provisions in relation to threatened species and iconic landscapes.
“If our water resources deserve guaranteed federal oversight, then why not our unique wildlife and extraordinary natural places too?” she said.
Ms Smolski said the federal Coalition had indicated it would hand its environmental approval powers to the states if it won office, effectively removing the commonwealth as a final safeguard against destructive development.
“The states have demonstrated they can’t be trusted to safeguard the interests of the environment and the community in the face of unrelenting pressure from industry lobbyists,” Ms Smolski said.
“The O’Farrell government has been winding back environmental protections ever since it came to power and is now overhauling state planning laws to help fast-track development.
“If the federal government is serious about protecting our iconic species and landscapes and our precious water resources, it should have removed from the act provisions that enable approval powers to be transferred to the states. Unfortunately it chose not to.”
Ms Smolski said the conservation movement was disappointed the government did not give national parks federal protection under the act, as had been proposed.
“This was an historic opportunity to protect national parks from state governments that are opening up them up for logging, hunting, grazing and other destructive practices for short-term political gain,” Ms Smolski said.
“Unfortunately the government has opted to not give native wildlife and the landscapes people love the protection they need in the face of serious threats from industry and careless state governments.”
Tags
Federal environmental laws
Let others know about this issue