Home

UPDATE: Government passes controversial planning law

Update: 23rd November.

The State Government last night passed controversial changes to the Planning Act, that have been fiercely opposed by environment groups... The NSW opposition joined the Greens and Democrats voting against the amendment Bill, which further expanded the already sweeping powers of the Planning Minister. However, they (the Opposition) did not support important amendments put forward by the Greens.

Update 17th November:

Planning Minister Frank Sartor made three amendments to his controversial Planning Act amendment Bill this week as it passed through the Lower House of parliament. Independant member for Bligh spoke admirably about the effect of the Bill, which will thwart the Anvil Hill Court challenge.

Though the Minister repeatedly denied that the Bill would affect Anvil Hill, the retrospective clause that makes it apply to projects for which approval is pending (like Anvil Hill) has not been removed.

Furthermore, the changes have not solved the problem that 450 people wrote to parliamentarians objecting to over the last fortnight. Currently, the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPAA) makes compliance with assessment requirements set down by the Government a prerequisite for approval of a project. The Minister's changes to his Bill this week still remove that prerequisite, requiring only that the Director-General of Planning include in his/her report on the project "a statement relating to compliance."

The EPAA amendment Bill is yet to pass through the Upper House, and the Government wants to scoot it through with minimum resistance. There is no doubt that this Bill will remove the need for thorough assessment of greenhouse gas emissions of Anvil Hill, and the impacts this will have on the environment of NSW.

If you sent an email last week urging that the Bill be rejected, you still have a chance to ensure that Upper House members are not fooled by the slick spin of the Planning Minister. An updated email lobby is now on the Anvil Hill website:

Click here to send another email to all members of NSW parliament demanding that they reject the Bill.

Background to the Planning Law amendments

from October, 2006:

These changes will mean that development proponents will no longer have to comply with Environmental Assessment Requirements under the controversial Part 3A of the EPAA.

Part 3A already gives the Planning Minister a disturbing degree of discretionary power, and removes many avenues for legal challenge of the Minister’s decisions.

These amendments will completely remove the requirement for proponents to even assess the development’s impacts.

The Government is facing a legal challenge regarding the Anvil Hill coal mine proposal.

The challenge seeks to ensure that the climate change impacts on the environment and community of NSW are fully assessed.

Frank Sartor introduced the amendments this week, claiming that they were “housekeeping measures” but they will nullify the court challenge by removing the requirement for the Minister to consider any environmental assessment.

What should we do about it?

Click here to send an email right now to all members of NSW parliament objecting to the Bill

Afterwards, write immediately to the Premier, and copy your letter to the press.

Tell Morris Iemma that:

  • I am disgusted that the Government is seeking to hide and evade true environmental impacts of coal mining and other destructive industries in NSW through the Environmental Planning Legislation Amendment Bill 2006
  • I call on you to sack your Planning Minister, Frank Sartor for misleading the parliament and the public by understating the intent and the substance of these amendments

Explanatory notes:

The amendment that will excuse companies from conducting adequate environmental assessment will change section 75J of the EP&A Act.

The Act currently says:

75J Giving of approval by Minister to carry out project

(1) If:

(a) the proponent has duly applied to the Minister for approval under this Part to carry out a project, and

(b) the environmental assessment requirements under this Division with respect to the project have been complied with,

the Minister may approve or disapprove of the carrying out of the project.

The amendments will change this section:

[6] Omit section 75J (1) (a) and (b).

Insert instead: (a) the proponent makes an application for the approval of the Minister under this Part to carry out a project, and

(b) the Director-General has given his or her report on the project to the Minister,

The Government has ensured through Savings and Transitional arrangements for the Bill, that the amendments will apply to all projects for which approval is pending.

This includes the Anvil Hill coal mine proposal, as well as the new Coal Exporting Terminal at Newcastle Harbour, the controversial Moolarben Coal Project and many others.

For further information, see the Bill athttp://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/NSWBills.nsf/0/5250B708FEE10903CA257211001D24E9

Second Reading Speech http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/PARLMENT/hansArt.nsf/V3Key/LA20061024048

AttachmentSize
Download a Fact Sheet45 KB

anvill hill will provide

anvill hill will provide jobs to working class australians and bring wealth to the country.

Persons who oppose mines such as anvill hill should come up with a viable alternative rather than just shut them down.

The theories surrounding global warming are just that, theories, history is full of such theories which have later been laughed at.

If the internet had been around in 1492, doubtless there would have been loud affirmation that the world is flat.

The earth has warmed at this, or greater rate on at least 4 occassions in its history, without the intervention of man.

This campaign is the latest in a list of things that keeps people's minds active. In my lifetime I have seen the exact opposite where there was significant scientific debate over the coming ice age. This has now been replaced by scinetific evidence of global warming.

The only common fact is that opponents of modern life scream the loudest and when people cease to listen they move on to another scare campaign.

Pin

jobs and science

Thanks for your comments king pin.

I guess that I would first like to say that although climate change is the greatest challenge facing our community, coal mining does a great deal of damage in its own right, and local people have been trying to draw attention to these effects for ages and have been ignored by Sydney decision makers. Maybe you live in the Hunter Valley yourself, and maybe you don't, but I hear alot of people who don't live next to open cut coal mines defending the coal industry, and it rings pretty hollow. The environment, social fabric and health of the communities of the Upper Hunter have been sacrificed for years so that the rest of the State can have cheap electricity and a balance of trade, and I, for one, am glad that they're finally getting heard.

I think it would be worth everyone's while to read up on the economics of climate change and the coal industry, because the assumption that moving away from the coal industry would be bad for jobs is not necessarily true. It has often been noted that while coal production in the Huter has been steadily increasing for years, employment in the industry has been declining, due to mechanisation.

I think the main point about the coal industry, the economy and climate change is that we will have to change sooner or later, and if we start to change now, we can do it in an orderly, planned sort of way, generating new jobs in new industries and adjusting our economy to suit. If we wait until climate change starts to seriously jeopardise world economies, human health and lots of things we take for granted like cheap food and electricity, we will have lost the opportunity to change in a way that doesn't hurt workers and people on low incomes (not to mention vulnerable ecosystems and other species).

thanks for contributing to the site... hope to hear from you again. George.