wa-government-moves-to-approve-25-contentious-resource-projects

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/11/wa-government-moves-to-approve-25-contentious-resource-projects

WA government moves to approve 25 contentious resource projects

Conservationists say retrospectively validating the projects reveals the flaw in ‘one-stop’ state environmental decisions

theguardian.com, Thursday 11 September 2014 14.09 AEST

The WA government plans to retrospectively validate 25 contentious resource project approvals, a move the Australian Conservation Foundation says shows the proposal for “one-stop-shop” state environmental decisions is “deeply inadequate”.

The WA government is introducing legislation to provide reassurance to 25 huge resource projects which were approved by the state’s Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) between 2002 and 2012. EPA board members were subsequently found to have a conflict of interest, and in 2012 a supreme court ruling found that the environmental approval of a $40bn gas hub at James Price Point in the Kimberley was illegal.

Chief justice Wayne Martin found that three board members had a series of conflicts of interest and should never have been involved in the decision.

That case cast the validity of 25 projects into uncertainty, and operators have sought reassurance that they are not under any threat of legal challenge, prompting the state government to introduce the legislation.

“We are deeply concerned this bill is simply a way for the state government to make sure the EPA’s previous environmental approvals stand immune from challenge – even though there is a strong case to say some should be re-examined,” said Wade Freeman, Kimberley project officer for the Australian Conservation Foundation.

“This whole episode shows again why we need federal involvement in important environmental decision making – and why the proposal for state-based so-called one-stop-shops for environmental decision making is deeply inadequate.”

Freeman said state governments were often at risk of conflicts of interest in resources projects because of the potential royalty income.

“The so-called one-stop-shop plan removes an important layer of protection for special places, including James Price Point on the Kimberley coast, where the WA government still fantasises about building a massive industrial gas processing plant.”

The proposed legislation will not revalidate the James Price point project, which is being reassessed by an independent panel.

The chairman of the EPA, Paul Vogel, who gave final approval to the James Price Point project but was not found to have a conflict of interest, has rejected calls for his resignation. He said the flawed approval process did not discount the science behind the decisions.

“My judgment at the time was based on Section 13. That was found to be flawed – I accept that,” he told News Corp. “I genuinely believed at the time I was managing those conflicts appropriately.”

The WA opposition leader, Mark McGowan, said a full inquiry should be held but Labor would support the legislation to validate the approvals.

Some of the projects were approved while Labor was in office but McGowan did not accept that his party needed to take responsibility for the problem.

He said the environment minister had admitted to causing the “stuff up” after the Liberals changed the rules in 2008 to allow EPA board members with a conflict to make decisions.

Labor had legislated in 2003 to prevent that happening, McGowan said.

“The buck stops with the government,” he said. “It is a mess of their making.”

Greens MP Lynn MacLaren said if the projects stretched back 10 years, both Labor and Liberal governments were “complicit” in allowing the EPA to operate this way, and described the mistakes as a travesty.

“How this was allowed to continue for so long brings to question the practices we have in place to monitor processes that ensure state authorities are not corrupt,” she said.

MacLaren told Guardian Australia the Greens were concerned about “any kind of blanket retrospective approval of projects that were approved by conflicted EPA boards”.

EPA bungles show need for Canberra oversight

Since winning office, the Abbott
Government has been pushing
the argument that the Federal
Government should hand over
its environmental approval
powers to the States.
If ever there was a case to
demonstrate the need for Federal
involvement in important
environmental decision-making, the
current fall from grace of WA’s
Environmental Protection Authority is
such a case.
In 2012 Justice Wayne Martin ruled
that EPA chairman Paul Vogel acted
wrongly and overstepped the authority
of his office by attempting to
single-handedly approve the
development of a gas project at James
Price Point.
That case arose because EPA board
members were found to have conflicts
of interests — in some cases having
shares in projects they were
evaluating — and the Supreme Court
subsequently found the environmental
approval was unlawful.
Through the period in question, Dr
Vogel allowed board members to
participate in EPA meetings about the
project despite them holding shares in
Woodside Petroleum and another who
worked for Browse joint-venture
partner BHP Billiton.
Yet last week Environment Minister
Albert Jacob introduced to the State
Parliament legislation designed to
safeguard 25 other projects that were
approved by the agency between
2002 and 2012 — projects approved
by the same compromised board of
the EPA.
That means conflicts of interests on
EPA decisions made during that time
frame won’t even be tested under
retrospective legislation.
There is a strong case to say some of
these rulings should be re-examined.
For example, in the case of the Roe
Highway stage 8 extension, the EPA
ignored some of its own advice when it
gave approval for the highway to be
built through one of Perth’s most
important wetland ecosystems, the
Beeliar Wetlands.
It beggars belief and raises serious
questions about the integrity of the
EPA that a conflicted EPA board was
allowed to rule over such major
infrastructure and environmental
projects for so long and would have
continued had not the Supreme Court
intervened.
We expect better of our public
offices, particularly when it comes to
protecting our State’s natural assets.
This is an argument for objective,
science-based rigour in assessing all
potential developments that are likely
to affect our environment.
These assessments must, as a
starting point, always be carried out
free from personal and commercial
interests.
That’s why we need to retain the
Federal layer of protection and
oversight.
The way for the WA Government to
start to win back public trust is not to
rush through Parliament legislation
designed to resuscitate a wounded
EPA, but to embrace a transparent,
Federally administered regime of
environmental approvals.
Most West Australians would agree
we need to strike a balance between
economic development and protecting
the unique natural and cultural values
of our State.
The fact is that State governments
often have conflicts of interests when
it comes to resources extraction
projects because they are dependent
on the royalty income from projects
that are approved. This is not unique
to WA.
Many people in WA today will be
asking whether EPA stands for the
Environmental Protection Authority
or the Environmental Plundering
Agency.
The whole episode shows clear as
day precisely why good management of
nationally significant environment
matters require national rules and
enforcement to be truly effective.
Wade Freeman is the Broome-based
Kimberley project officer for the Australian
Conservation Foundation
There is a strong case
to say some of these
rulings should be
re-examined.

West Australian, Perth
15 Sep 2014, by Wade Freeman