I will get started then. You might need to take some of these on notice. I am asking
about Commonwealth assessment of the canal estate down at Point Peron, which was assessed
by you guys and by the minister on a couple of grounds. But one of the grounds it was
not assessed on was the little penguin, or fairy penguin, colony that is quite close
by. Can you just confirm for us that that is a federally listed marine species under
your act? The little penguin is not a listed species.
It is not at all? It is on no Commonwealth list? Do you need to go back and check that
for us? The advice I have is that where it may have
been relevant is if we are assessing this project in relation to Commonwealth marine,
as a provision. And it did not occur to you that dumping of
dredge spoil, dredging and harbour works might affect the marine environment?
There was a controlled action decision that was taken on 27 October 2010. The controlling
provisions of the approval were wetlands of international importance, threatened species
and ecological communities and migratory species. I am aware of what you did consider controlled
actions. I am very curious to know why you did not consider that species to be assessable
as well. The three controlling provisions that I just
referred to were the controlling provisions where there was considered to be a potential
for significant impact. Why was there not considered to be potential
for impact on the marine environment that might have then impacted on that species?
That is what I am trying to get us to. Given that the decision that you are referring
to would predate Dr Banks's time in this role, I think it is probably best that we take that
on notice and come back to you with a more complete answer.
Thank you. I think you are well aware of what I am after. On what basis of evidence of any
kind did you determine that that penguin would not be included in the assessment? That would
be greatly appreciated. How do you evaluate social impacts of a proposal?
Are you aware that it is dead-set unpopular down there? You are required to evaluate social
impacts under the act. How is that done? The consideration of both social and economic
impacts comes at the end of the assessment process; the minister making a determination
at the end of an assessment, after having taken a look at the full avoidance, mitigation
and offsetting provisions proposed in a decision, whether the residual impacts that are left
are considered acceptable. In making that determination, the minister can take into
account social and economic considerations. He must take those into account, though. That
is in the act. So when you have a project that is really deathly unpopular with the
local community, how does that factor in to your assessment?
Senator Birmingham: Are you suggesting the federal government run environmental approvals
by popularity? What is meant by social impacts? If the community
down there loathe it and want it to not happen, how does that factor in? If it does not, it
does not, but how would you— As a regular course of business we always
provide a summary of the public comments provided on any proposal, indicating the number of
individuals for—or submissions in favour of a proposal—and those against.
In this case there were vastly larger numbers of submissions against it. You did not raise
the economic impacts, as well. There is an unsubstantiated claim of $1.3 billion in economic
benefits. There is no business case. The proponent is a two-dollar shelf company, which I think
poses the same kind of economic liability as the developers of the development down
at Busselton where the taxpayers have just had to pick up $30 million costs of rehabilitation.
How do you evaluate economic impacts as being positive?
Again, that is not core to our regulatory responsibilities. That being said, to the
extent that economic information is provided by a proponent, which is quite common, in
their environmental impact assessment, we include that to the minister so that that
is there for his consideration. Senator Ludlam this will be your last question.
We will come back after dinner. You can negotiate with Senator Urquhart.
Do you simply pass on whatever the proponent has given you or do you subject it to some
kind of critical analysis or thought? Again, as environmental regulators our primary
focus is not on validating economic information provided to us by individual proponents. Nonetheless,
any information that we have, that we consider is relevant, will be included.
Senator Birmingham: The matters that you are raising are overwhelmingly matters for the
judgement of state or local government approval bodies and planning bodies in making their
determinations of the merits. As Mr Knudson has outlined, the hierarchy of needs assessed
under the EPBC Act is very clearly that environment and heritage considerations of matters of
national environmental importance are the primary consideration.
The only reason I am— Senator Ludlam—
We will come back after dinner, perhaps. I just have one question which I raised in
the first session to the department. It was in relation to the current levels of staffing
in the environmental assessments and approvals areas. You asked me to come back at this time.
Senator Birmingham: I saw that Mr Knudson had it at the table before.
was 233. But when you actually take a look at the paid ASL, we were 210.
I have no idea what you just told me then. Let's just come to the Roe Highway one. You
completing an assessment, that is taken into account appropriately. As Dr Banks talked