tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/environmental-defenders-office-4182/articlesEnvironmental Defenders Office – The Conversation2015-05-15T01:57:58Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/417702015-05-15T01:57:58Z2015-05-15T01:57:58ZThere are no green shoots for sustainability in this Budget<p><em>Budget: The Longer View. The dust has begun to settle on Tuesday’s federal budget – and some key issues and themes are emerging. What are they? This long-read essay is part of a special package intended to answer that question.</em></p>
<p>The 2015-16 Budget is very disappointing in the broad area of environmental protection. Last year’s cuts to important bodies like <a href="http://www.edo.org.au/">Environmental Defenders Offices</a> have not been reversed. Even the funding of a core Coalition initiative, the <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/land/green-army">Green Army</a>, has been cut by A$73 million over four years. </p>
<p>While it is not in the Budget, government members are running a <a href="https://theconversation.com/government-inquiry-takes-aim-at-green-charities-that-get-political-40166">parliamentary inquiry</a> which seems to be aimed at removing charitable status from environmental groups, sparked by claims from the <a href="http://www.minerals.org.au/">Minerals Council of Australia</a> that environmental objections are adding to the cost of new projects. </p>
<p>The argument being run by some Coalition politicians is that it is quite acceptable for community groups to plant trees or rehabilitate degraded landscapes, but unreasonable for them to campaign against logging old-growth forests or degrading the land with new open-cut mines. Presumably they hope that removing charitable status would make it less likely that the public would donate to environmental groups, reducing their capacity to embarrass the government or slow down new proposals with destructive impacts. </p>
<p>Like the withdrawal of funds from EDOs, it suggests that the government really believes its rhetoric about “green tape”, the claim that we have been over-zealous about protecting the environment and consequently have held back desirable investments. On the contrary, successive reports on the state of the environment and ABS reports on measures of progress all show that the most significant environmental indicators are all getting worse while the economy continues to grow. </p>
<p>While there is an extra A$100 million over four years for measures to protect the <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/great-barrier-reef">Great Barrier Reef</a>, the cuts to Landcare and the continued promotion of the export coal industry put the reef under increased pressure. There is no new money for the <a href="http://www.cleanenergyfinancecorp.com.au/">Clean Energy Finance Corporation</a>, which has been making a real difference. </p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/small-business-tax-should-be-cut-by-5-shorten-41831">Bill Shorten’s Budget in Reply</a> was no better on environmental issues. While there was a welcome commitment to funding science and science education, which contrasts with the apparent government hostility to the science which keeps providing inconvenient evidence about the environmental costs of current approaches, I did not hear any concrete plans to apply science to protect the integrity of our ecosystems.</p>
<h2>Still not serious about climate</h2>
<p>Critically, the government’s budget still shows no sign that it is taking seriously our responsibility to curb greenhouse gas emissions. The allocation for the <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/emissions-reduction-fund">Emissions Reduction Fund</a> will not meet <a href="https://theconversation.com/on-these-numbers-australias-emissions-auction-wont-get-the-job-done-40761">even the present inadequate target</a>, let alone the sort of goal Australia will be <a href="https://theconversation.com/an-objective-way-to-decide-on-a-fair-australian-emissions-pledge-41241">expected to take to the Paris talks later this year</a>. </p>
<p>There is no funding for urban public transport, but the government will spend billions on roads. This is possibly not surprising, given that the ministers who drew up and approved the Budget have probably not been on a train, bus or tram for decades, but it is gross negligence in the context of urban development. Not only is public transport critical for millions of city-dwellers today; it is the only credible way of coping with the increasing numbers in our cities that the government is proposing. </p>
<p>Transport also links directly to questions of energy use, urban air quality and our contribution to climate change. Unless there is a dramatic shift to electric cars or hydrogen vehicles, road traffic will continue to burn petroleum fuels, polluting the city atmosphere and driving climate change. </p>
<p>A political fight on transport policy is looming in Victoria, where the budget retains A$3 billion for the cancelled <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/east-west-link">East-West Link</a> road project. The Commonwealth government is reportedly <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-15/victoria-must-return-east-west-link-funds-hockey-says/6472172">demanding that Victoria return the A$1.5 billion</a> that was allocated before the state election. With Prime Minister Tony Abbott having said before that election that it would be a <a href="http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/vic-election-referendum-on-ew-link-pm/story-fni0xqi4-1227116976197">referendum on the road project</a>, the new Victorian government feels it has a mandate to use the funds for other transport projects. The Coalition’s polling in Victoria is looking dire, so it will be interesting to see if they try to take transport money from the state government.</p>
<p>Public transport not only uses energy much more efficiently, it can also be driven by cleaner forms of energy from the sun and wind. While ordinary Australians are still voting with their roofs in unprecedented numbers, installing more solar panels in the first quarter of this year than in the corresponding period last year, the government’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/planned-cut-to-renewable-energy-target-a-free-kick-for-fossil-fuels-33317">attack on the Renewable Energy Target</a> has predictably all but halted investment in large-scale wind and solar projects. </p>
<p>The Opposition has made very <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-will-the-reduced-renewable-energy-target-affect-investment-41505">significant, arguably borderline irresponsible, concessions</a> to try to end the impasse, but the Coalition’s proposed conditions of allowing forestry residues to count as renewable energy and requiring further reviews every two years has proved a bridge too far. </p>
<p>While the government is openly attacking investment in clean energy technologies, the budget made no attempt to wind back the massive subsidies of fossil fuel supply and use. In fact, a question in the Senate revealed a possible further subsidy that was not noticed in the initial discussions of the Budget. The promised <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/federal-budget/federal-budget-2015-northern-australia-to-receive-5-billion-in-infrastructure-loans-20150512-1mzhdq.html">multibillion-dollar fund for infrastructure in northern Australia</a> could be used to pump public funds into the struggling proposals for massive new coal mines in Queensland. </p>
<p>With financial institutions increasingly unwilling to support projects that look dubious investments in strictly financial terms, finance minister Mathias Cormann <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/federal-budget/federal-budget-2015-greens-blast-northern-australia-plan-20150514-gh1hpv.html">refused to rule out</a> the possibility that the infrastructure fund could be used to help kickstart coal mines. He repeated <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-13/coal-is-good-for-humanity-pm-tony-abbott-says/5810244">Abbott’s famous assertion</a> that “coal is good”, not just pointing to the export revenue the mines provide but also claiming that new coal mines will “lift millions out of poverty”. </p>
<h2>Still under the influence of denial</h2>
<p>Underlying the deafening silence about climate change in the budget and the continuing promotion of coal exports is the lingering suspicion that the government isn’t serious about the most urgent global environmental problem. The <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/the-un-is-using-climate-change-as-a-tool-not-an-issue/story-e6frg6zo-1227343839905">latest intervention by Abbott’s chief business adviser Maurice Newman</a> bordered on farce, not just denying the science but claiming that the world’s scientists are part of a gigantic conspiracy organised by the United Nations. That assertion makes ideas that the Moon landings were faked on a back lot in Hollywood, or the CIA organised the 2011 attacks on the World Trade Centre, seem comparatively rational. </p>
<p>More worrying than Newman’s bizarre public statement was a subsequent letter to the editor from a Coalition politician, Senator Cory Bernadi, praising Newman for his contribution to the debate. That reveals openly that sections of the Coalition party room are still in denial about the scientific evidence which has now been clear for decades.</p>
<p>In 1992, the <a href="https://www.coag.gov.au/">Council of Australian Governments</a> adopted the <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/about-us/esd/publications/national-esd-strategy">National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development (NSESD</a>. It committed the Commonwealth and all state and territory governments to a pattern of development that would not reduce opportunities for future generations. The current emphasis on minerals exports sits uncomfortably with this goal, as it is systematically reducing the capital stock available to future generations to provide money for this generation. </p>
<p>More fundamentally, the NSESD says explicitly that economic development should recognise the need to protect our unique Australian biodiversity and maintain the integrity of our ecological systems. We are <a href="https://theconversation.com/climate-change-could-empty-wildlife-from-australias-rainforests-41023">still losing biodiversity</a>, mainly because of the destruction of habitat, compounded by the impacts of introduced species and now increasingly by the changes to the climate. </p>
<p>The Budget and the Opposition’s response suggests that neither side recognises the imperatives of the NSESD. The government clearly thinks that the economy is supremely important and that the integrity of our environment is an optional extra. What is portrayed as a <a href="https://theconversation.com/path-to-budget-surplus-built-on-shifting-foundations-41350">path back to surplus</a> makes several heroic assumptions, most fundamentally ignoring the inevitable limits to growth and the impacts of proposed economic developments on our ecological systems. People often find economic forecasting a bit depressing. But what is most depressing is the diminishing prospect of a sustainable future.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/41770/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ian Lowe is a past president of the Australian Conservation Foundation.</span></em></p>Amid talk of paths to surplus and investing in infrastructure, both sides of politics seem to have forgotten Australia’s longstanding responsibility to govern sustainably, and not just for the economy.Ian Lowe, Emeritus Professor, School of Science, Griffith UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/362852015-01-15T19:32:54Z2015-01-15T19:32:54ZCourt challenge will test coal mining’s climate culpability<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/69107/original/image-20150115-5198-ktvp7e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=8%2C8%2C1780%2C1200&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Should coal projects be held responsible for the greenhouse emissions that flow from their product, even if it's burned on another continent?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">CSIRO/Wikimedia Commons</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>A new <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/14/federal-court-asked-to-overturn-adani-mine-approval-impact-great-barrier-reef">legal challenge</a> to the proposed Carmichael coal mine – <a href="https://theconversation.com/carmichael-mine-is-a-game-changer-for-australian-coal-29839">Australia’s largest</a> – will test in the federal court whether climate change caused by greenhouse gas emissions should be taken into account when assessing prospective coal licences in Australia. </p>
<p>The challenge, by the <a href="http://www.edonsw.org.au">New South Wales Environmental Defenders Office</a> on behalf of the <a href="http://www.mackayconservationgroup.org.au">Mackay Conservation Group</a>, will argue that federal environment minister Greg Hunt failed to take into account the climate impact of greenhouse gases emitted by the burning of coal from the Carmichael mine when assessing whether to grant its licence. </p>
<p>It cites the impact of global warming on the Great Barrier reef, an area of world and national heritage, as a relevant consideration which the minister should have been taken into account. </p>
<p>So could the challenge be successful? </p>
<h2>Australia’s largest coalmine</h2>
<p>The Carmichael coal mine, proposed by Indian company Adani, is set to operate for 60 years and is predicted to emit more than 200 million tonnes of greenhouse gas throughout its lifetime. It received federal approval in July 2014. </p>
<p>The project includes an open cut and underground coal mine and a 189 km rail link to transport the coal from the Galilee Basin to Abbot Point, near the Great Barrier Reef. </p>
<p>The future of coal mining in the Galilee Basin has become a point of significant policy difference ahead of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/queensland-election-2015">Queensland election</a> on January 31. The current Liberal National government has pledged “hundreds of millions of dollars” to partly fund new coal infrastructure in the Galilee Basin. The Labor opposition has now pledged to scrap that “unprecedented” taxpayer-funded offer to Adani if it wins the election.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hLlPwFUdR0w?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">An Adani ad currently screening on TV in Queensland, where a state election is being held on January 31.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Under the environmental assessment process, Hunt accounted for greenhouse gas emissions from extracting and transporting the coal, but not from burning it. Predictions suggest that this could produce an extra 130 million tonnes of greenhouse gases over the mine’s lifetime - a quarter of Australia’s annual emissions. </p>
<p>The court case will challenge the orthodox approach to the assessment of coal mine approvals. Emissions from burning coal have, to date, been largely considered too indirect and difficult to measure, and have therefore been left out of the assessment process.</p>
<h2>What does the law say?</h2>
<p>The court challenge particularly relates to a section of the <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc">Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act</a>, the national environmental legislation. </p>
<p>Section 136 of the act states that assessments must take into account international principles of ecological sustainability, meaning that for projects that impact areas of national environmental significance, consideration must be given to concepts such as the needs of future generations and the precautionary principle. </p>
<p>The NSW Environmental Defenders Office has argued that these principles necessarily require Hunt to consider the climate change impact of emissions from the burning of coal when deciding whether to approve a mine licence. </p>
<h2>What’s happened in other cases?</h2>
<p>Other cases have taken a mixed approach to the question of these so-called “downstream” greenhouse gas emissions. </p>
<p>In 2004 the Federal Court, in assessing the Nathan Dam project, <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2004/190.html">ruled</a> that an “impact” is not confined to direct physical effects of the action on the matter protected by the EPBC Act, but rather that it should also include closely related indirect effects. </p>
<p>In 2006, however, a <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2006/736.html">court ruling</a> relating to the development of a new coal mine near Moranbah, Queensland, held that greenhouse gas emissions from mining, transporting or burning coal in other parts of the world should not be taken into account when assessing a mining licence because their impact is too indirect to be specifically connected to the project. </p>
<p>But later in 2006, in a <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWLEC/2006/720.html">case</a> relating to an extension application for the Anvill Coal Mine in New South Wales, the Federal Court held that the impact of greenhouse gas emissions from burning coal does come within the scope of the EPBC Act and should be assessed, despite the fact that emissions are difficult to measure, that climate change is caused by a range of different contributors, and that greenhouse gas emissions were often the product of voluntary and independent human action. </p>
<p>The judge ruled that a failure to take account of climate change and global warming caused by increased greenhouse gas emissions amounted to a breach of the international principles of ecologically sustainable development. </p>
<h2>Crucial context</h2>
<p>These decisions provide a crucial backdrop for the Carmichael mine case. In light of the dire predictions in the latest report by the <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch">Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change</a> regarding the anticipated impacts of climate change and global warming, increased greenhouse gas emissions from burning coal clearly have the potential to devastate precious world and national heritage areas like the Great Barrier Reef. </p>
<p>It’s now up to the Federal Court to decide whether the national environmental legislation should be interpreted restrictively. A restrictive approach would ensure that the assessment of large coal mining projects such as the Carmichael mine includes considerations of how climate change and global warming, indirectly caused by the greenhouse gas emissions that flow from the project, will affect the long-term ecological future of areas of national environmental significance.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/36285/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Samantha Hepburn does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A new legal challenge to the proposed Carmichael coal mine – Australia’s largest – will test in the federal court whether climate change caused by greenhouse gas emissions should be taken into account…Samantha Hepburn, Professor, Faculty of Business and Law, Deakin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/109112012-11-29T23:19:09Z2012-11-29T23:19:09ZLegal profession rallies behind the Environmental Defenders Office<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/17956/original/272x6h98-1353640403.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The NSW government has cut funding to the EDO, which provides legal advice to the public on environmental matters.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">SplaTT/Flickr</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In Greek mythology the Hydra was a reptilian guardian, a multi-headed creature defending one of the entrances to the underworld. If a would-be killer removed one of its heads, two more would grow in its place. In threatening the public interest work of the Environmental Defenders Office (EDO) with funding cuts, the NSW government may have provoked its very own Hydra in the form of an environmental legal community.</p>
<p>Since its inception in 1984, the EDO has received significant support from Australia’s most eminent members of the judiciary, environmental law professors, and influential members of the legal profession. </p>
<p>In 2010, for example, when EDO NSW marked its 25th anniversary, the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, Robert French AC, gave the keynote speech, highlighting the respect that the EDO has generated in the legal fraternity in NSW and beyond. </p>
<p>The current EDO Chairman is the eminent retired Federal Court judge, Murray Wilcox AO QC, who as a barrister was instrumental in establishing the office. The EDO has always had a diverse and distinguished Board, and its longstanding patron, Hal Wootten AC QC, was the foundation Dean of the UNSW Law School.</p>
<p>As an example of how highly the EDO is thought of in legal circles, Mr Wootten writes glowingly about its high reputation in a forthcoming book on its history over the last three decades. He comments: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>“The fact that enthusiastic recruits of excellent quality are always available, that leading barristers can always be found to accept its briefs for modest fees or on a pro bono basis, that graduates from its ranks have been appointed to high office, and that it is treated with respect by its professional opponents and the judiciary is, in my view, a tribute not only to the reputation it has established but also to a widespread ethos amongst local lawyers that respects professional excellence and integrity, public service and social empathy. As one who had a role in the re-envisioning of legal education 40 years ago, this state of affairs gives me great satisfaction.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In this vein, over the past few weeks a number of opinion pieces by members of the legal profession supporting the EDO have proliferated in the print media and online, including in <a href="http://theconversation.com/environmental-defenders-under-attack-why-funding-must-be-restored-10484"><em>The Conversation</em></a>. </p>
<p>These comments have drawn attention to unprecedented and unwarranted attacks by industry, <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/anti-coal-pitch-spurs-calls-for-legal-review/story-e6frgczx-1226495728651">News Limited</a>, and some parliamentarians on the professionalism and integrity of the EDO. </p>
<p>As a result of these attacks, it appears that the NSW government has sought to “punish” the EDO through funding cuts proposed for the next quarter, with more to follow. The attacks and cuts are supposedly justified by the suggestion that the EDO is a front for “legal obstruction” by way of vexatious litigation.</p>
<p>The attacks have mobilised a latent, but impressive network of EDO supporters in law schools and universities across Australia. When word went out two weeks ago through social media and email about an open letter to Premier O’Farrell condemning the attacks on the EDO, the response was prompt and unequivocal. </p>
<p>Within an hour of the call for assistance, Associate Professor Anton had <a href="http://intlawroundtable.org/2012/11/13/defending-the-environmental-defenders-in-new-south-wales/">received more than 30</a> enthusiastic responses. By the end of that day, the numbers had swelled to almost 50 and by the end of the week, the number had increased to 59.</p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/17889/original/zn6pfkf2-1353546131.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/17889/original/zn6pfkf2-1353546131.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/17889/original/zn6pfkf2-1353546131.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/17889/original/zn6pfkf2-1353546131.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/17889/original/zn6pfkf2-1353546131.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/17889/original/zn6pfkf2-1353546131.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/17889/original/zn6pfkf2-1353546131.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The environmental legal community jumped to the defence of the EDO on hearing of the cuts to funding.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AFIK BERLIN/Flickr</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The swiftness with which the environmental law academic community rushed to the defence of the EDO is telling. Most of these academics have had first-hand experience of the crucial role that the EDO has played in the development of environmental law and policy in NSW. </p>
<p>Each of them also deplores the stance that the NSW government is taking. Perhaps most importantly, these academics have provided a swift and powerful rejoinder, drawing on evidence-based reasons to demonstrate why the NSW government needs to protect the EDO and maintain EDO funding.</p>
<p>The EDO’s work includes advising government and individuals, drafting detailed and comprehensive policy recommendations, and importantly conducting ground-breaking public purpose litigation. The suggestion that the EDO is a front for “legal obstruction” is specious.</p>
<p>If the NSW government had thought that by conducting a smear campaign and cutting off funding it would destroy the EDO, it needs to re-think its strategies. In reality it has sorely misjudged the depth of respect and passion that people feel towards the EDO. Unlike Hercules, who in mythology managed to slay the Hydra, the NSW government will find that its actions have spawned a torrent of support that will be impossible to contain, let alone destroy.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/10911/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sophie Riley is affiliated with the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN)</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ben Boer has received funding from the Australian Research Council. He is the Deputy Chair of the IUCN World Commission on Environmental Law .</span></em></p>In Greek mythology the Hydra was a reptilian guardian, a multi-headed creature defending one of the entrances to the underworld. If a would-be killer removed one of its heads, two more would grow in its…Sophie Riley, Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Technology SydneyBen Boer, Emeritus Professor in Environmental Law, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/104842012-11-02T02:53:15Z2012-11-02T02:53:15ZEnvironmental defenders under attack: why funding must be restored<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/17197/original/sxfjh22q-1351814637.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Sandon Point, where EDO NSW argued a landmark case for a resident concerned about a development that failed to consider climate change and increased flooding.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Powerhouse Museum</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>With <a href="http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/a-new-planning-system-for-nsw">a new planning system</a> about to be introduced in NSW, the need for an independent, specialist public interest environmental and planning law centre is greater than ever. </p>
<p>For nearly 30 years, the Environmental Defender’s Office (EDO) NSW has been the only provider of specialist public interest environmental law advice in NSW. Yet now, precisely when it is needed most, the future of the organisation is in doubt.</p>
<p>The NSW Energy Minister <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/legal-affairs/legal-centre-linked-to-social-activism/story-e6frg97x-1226503397077">Chris Hartcher has criticised</a> EDO NSW, accusing the organisation of socialism. Meanwhile, the Attorney-General <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-31/edos-funding-future-uncertain/4316264?&section=news">Greg Smith is reviewing</a> its funding under the Public Purpose Fund (PPF). After nearly 15 years of triennial PPF grants, and despite support from the Trustees, EDO NSW’s most recent grant was for just three months, and its dollar value cut by a quarter.</p>
<p>But if the new planning system is to live up to Planning Minister Brad Hazzard’s promises of “focusing on the public interest” and “placing people and their choices at the heart of planning decisions about their future”, it is imperative that secure funding for EDO NSW be restored.</p>
<p>Among the many contributions EDO NSW has made to planning and environmental law since 1985, two are particularly relevant.</p>
<p>Firstly, the government’s stated intention of increasing public participation in planning, and especially in strategic planning, are unlikely to succeed without an independent, public interest planning and environmental law centre. As the government has repeatedly acknowledged, it is notoriously difficult to get the public to engage early in the planning process.</p>
<p>It takes considerable time and expertise to understand planning documents and the implications of abstract planning proposals for particular sites, and considerable skills and commitment to participate meaningfully in their development.</p>
<p>The proposals in the planning green paper to provide more information in plain English and online are useful first steps, but will not be enough. EDO NSW plays a major role in the current system, with staff at the Planning Department and in local councils regularly referring members of the public to EDO NSW for assistance. </p>
<p>EDO NSW offers free legal advice over its telephone enquiry line (answering around 1500 calls in 2011). It also conducts workshops for community members (over 30 each year), produces plain English publications, briefing notes and submission guides, and each week sends an electronic bulletin including information on current planning proposals and ways community members can contribute to these. With a greater focus on public participation, the need for services such as these will increase under the new system.</p>
<p>Secondly, as the new legislation comes to be implemented, there will be a need not just for EDO NSW legal outreach and advice, but for its solicitors. Introduction of new laws consistently generates litigation as courts are asked to interpret their meaning, and specialist lawyers play a crucial role in this process.</p>
<p>Since 1985, EDO NSW lawyers have played a very significant role in the interpretation of the <a href="http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/inforcepdf/1979-203.pdf?id=bcf67089-22e3-e527-94e3-85b5d06e2ec2">Environmental Planning and Assessment Act</a> and the 150+ amendments made to it since its enactment in 1979. Well beyond their value for particular clients, specialist planning and environmental lawyers bring considerable benefits to the system as a whole.</p>
<p>The ability of all participants in the planning system – developers, businesses, farmers, households and public authorities – to understand and comply with their obligations on issues such as biodiversity conservation, coastal protection and heritage owes much to the work of solicitors from EDO NSW. Judges from the Land and Environment Court have regularly recognised the important role played by lawyers from EDO NSW in developing the law in NSW.</p>
<p>EDO NSW’s mission is “to promote the public interest and improve environmental outcomes through the informed use of the law”. Given the strong similarities between this and the oft-expressed objectives of current planning reforms, it is hard to understand why the government is now considering de-funding EDO NSW. </p>
<p>If the government is unhappy with aspects of EDO NSW’s work, a more appropriate response would be to include a definition of the public interest in the new legislation – a significant gap in the current Act filled in quite different ways by different judges. Instead of closing down an organisation that has made such a valuable contribution to planning and environmental law in NSW.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/10484/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Between 2008 and 2011, Amelia was a director at the Environmental Defenders Office.</span></em></p>With a new planning system about to be introduced in NSW, the need for an independent, specialist public interest environmental and planning law centre is greater than ever. For nearly 30 years, the Environmental…Amelia Thorpe, Lecturer, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.