The Agriculture, Resources and Environment Committee recommended passing the Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2014, but could not resist a parting comment.

“The committee did consider that different interpretations of the provisions of the bill gave rise to some of the issues identified by stakeholders, as did limited detail on matters to be included in other instruments and documents. On this matter, the committee believes there may have been fewer stakeholder issues raised during the committee’s consideration of the bill had a greater depth of background and more precise detail regarding the nature of the amendments been included in the explanatory notes to the bill,” it said.

The bill progresses a second tranche of greentape reduction reforms by proposing to amend six distinct objectives and seven acts, including around environmental offsets, auditing of contaminated land and waste recovery. (See Related Stories)

For example, the committee called for more clarity on when a resource ceases to be a waste and becomes a resource, suggesting new wording to differentiate between an “end of waste user” and “resource user”. It also invited the minister to advise parliament when regulations and end of waste guidelines will be finalised and made available for industry stakeholders.

It also recommended the environment minister consider an amendment to allow enforceable undertakings as an enforcement tool to be introduced by proclamation “when the minister and department are fully confident that the guidelines and related business processes and systems are in place”

The committee accepted feedback on the importance of monitoring and audit of enforceable undertakings to ensure they are not seen as a soft option but rather delivers resolutions to regulatory compliance problems and benefits beyond compliance.

“This may include consideration of the two-tiered approach adopted by the Office of Fair and Safe Work Queensland, but may also include consideration of other options based on the skills and resources available within the department and industry,” it said.

It also pointed to “a fundamental difference in expectations between the property and development industry and the government in relation to the intent of the Environmental Offsets Act 2014 as it relates to environmental impact assessment across jurisdictions… [T]he committee does not believe that the intent of the legislation is to limit of ability for state and local governments to assess and condition environmental impacts for matters where they have clear jurisdiction to do so. Further, the committee does not support the suggestion that, where a higher level of government has decided not to impose an offset condition for a prescribed activity or matter, this decision excludes lower levels of government from undertaking assessments in relation to other prescribed matters and values”

Finally, it recommended removal of sections 173Q(3) and 173Q(4) to “preserve the general principal that the legal onus or burden of proof lies with the party which brings an action, and the approved holder is ‘innocent until proven guilty’.”