Posted 22/5/10
Executive Officer,
Environment and Natural Resources Committee,
Parliament House,
Spring Street,
East Melbourne, Vic, 3002.
1 April, 2010
Dear Sir,
I write on behalf of the Association in response to receipt of a letter from the Hon John Pandazopoulos, MP (16 March, 2010), inviting submissions to this Inquiry.
We note that there was a review of the EES Act in 2002, with a subsequent independent Panel report which made numerous recommendations for improvements to the EES process including increased transparency and accountability, and more empathetic processes for public participation. We also note that the government did not implement those recommendations.
From the terms of reference included in Mr. Pandazopoulos’ letter, it seems the current ‘review’ is intended to further the Brumby government’s obvious development agenda. The Association has already noted this agenda at play in the government’s attempts to dismantle proper and orderly planning and remove ordinary people’s rights through changes to and introduction of legislation such as the Planning and Environment Act, the Development Assessment Committee legislation, the GAIC and urban growth areas expansion, and the Major Transport Projects Facilitation Act.
When not interfered with by vested interests, the current EES process works reasonably well if balanced economic, social and environmental outcomes are the objective. However, our recent experience is that the only element of sustainability the government seems to recognize and promote is economics, to the intense detriment of environmental and social values. The government, as a proponent, has itself made a mockery of EES processes with the desalination and bay dredging projects.
Consequently, we have no confidence that this inquiry is intended to genuinely investigate and strengthen the EES process in Victoria. It instead seems aimed at dismantling the existing process in favour of again furthering the government’s irrational agenda for development at any cost (always a poor quality outcome on all counts).
Like many other community groups, our Association has made numerous submissions at State level in the past. These take time and effort and consume volunteer resources but are usually made in a good faith attempt to present different values and perspectives, and to influence and balance policy. It is therefore devastating when we find these community-based submissions ignored in favour of pre-ordained outcomes – and our feeling is that there is a pre-ordained outcome for this inquiry.
While we thank you for your invitation to comment, our Association feels our resources could be put to better use than being expended in another cynical ‘consultation’ exercise by the government and making another submission that will be ignored.
Yours Faithfully,
cc
Ted Baillieu, Leader of the Opposition
Greg Barber, Greens