On 9 September 2021 the Minister for the Parks and Wildlife Service, Jacquie Petrusma, issued a media release regarding the ‘reform’ of ‘the Reserve Activity Assessment (RAA) system’. This came just prior to the 16 September 2021 announcement by the Minister for Primary Industries, Guy Barnett, of the state government’s intention to create a new ten-year salmon plan (see article ‘A New Ten Year Salmon Plan’).
The two announcements seem to have a shared purpose, to quell public alarm, at least in Liberal strongholds of northern Tasmania, over issues that were cutting thorough in groups outside of normal left-leaning Green-voting circles. With a Federal election approaching, the state Liberals wanted to protect their federal colleagues by removing potential campaign material for their opponents. Critical in their thinking was the need to retain Liberals in the House of Representatives seats of Braddon and Bass and to improve their chances of winning back Lyons. With the new salmon ten-year plan, the Liberals wanted to remove the pressure that was building over proposed new farms off King Island and promised a 12-month moratorium, among other policies.
With the RAA announcement the key was to reassure those who were worried about the impact of helicopters on traditional fishing and walking areas. These issues were hurting key constituent groups across northern Tasmania. The two processes share other things in common. No policy details were released at the time of the announcements and more than five months later there are still no further details available. Since the minister’s media release no further information has been published about the RAA reforms. More detail would make it easier for the community and political opponents to unpick the policy proposals.
For both processes the likely timeframes mean nothing will actually happen until after theelection. In regard to the salmon plan, the minister announced a timeframe that would mean that the first stage of consultation, involving the release of a discussion paper, would occur in the second quarter of 2022, meaning that it would probably not happen until after the latest date the federal election could be Surveyors Cove hut complex, Three Capes Track. The weaknesses of the Reserve Activity Assessment process were probably revealed for the first time during the assessment of this controversial project, finalised in 2014.
The timeframes for the RAA reform process have not been announced. But we have had unconfirmed reports that the state government intends to table a bill in parliament in September 2022 and may not have consultation before that. This puts the legislation safely out of the way of the federal election.
The other commonality is the use of over-the-top rhetoric to describe the government’s proposals, including repeated insincere reference to principles. In regard to the RAA reforms the minister hammers the government’s commitment to transparency, which is not reflected in its record over the last eight years and is not supported by her media statement. The minister says ‘the Government wants to ensure greater transparency’, ‘The Government is dedicated to continuing this journey of improvement through increased transparency’ and ‘These reforms will be robust and give the community full confidence in the decision making around reserved land once implemented’. For good measure, the minister makes an unsubstantiated reference to the RAA being ‘validated by the Auditor General’.
One thing that is clear is the government has focused on making people feel like the process will be transparent and more robust, which is yet to be determined and we have reason to doubt, but avoids any reference to what will be protected as a result of the new RAA system. The minister’s media release is all about process and does not make a single mention of protecting wilderness, fragile or threatened values or cultural heritage.
The minister goes to great pains to emphasise how strong the current non-statutory process is, stating that ‘The RAA process is underpinned by an extensive policy-based framework, has provided for the appropriate management of activities and their impacts on reserved land since its inception...’
This seems designed to make people feel better about projects that have already been approved. It might make some wonder why the changes are being proposed at all. The other similarity of the two announcements is that the ministers included apparently attractive commitments that got media attention without there being any tough questions asked about what they really meant. As I have outlined in the article about the ten-year salmon plan, promises of moratoriums and moving onto land are not meaningful when read carefully. With the RAA reform process the minister’s media release makes the following key promises:
‘As the Government wants to ensure greater transparency and continuous improvement across our programs and services, the Government will commence the process of drafting amendments to the RAA which will include the following amendments:
• Mandating elements of the RAA process for major uses and developments;
• Establishment of an independent assessment panel to assess and review significant proposals against the relevant Management Plan;
• Provision for third party appeals and cost recovery for RAA assessments; and
• Publication of leases and licences over Reserved land.
While the minister says that the government will be ‘Mandating elements of the RAA process’, there is no detail about what elements will be mandated and what effect mandating them will have. The minister commits to ‘Establishment of an independent assessment panel to assess and review significant proposals against the relevant
Management Plan’ but there is currently an expert assessment panel and we are unaware of any improvements that have resulted. Just making the panel a statutory body will not by itself change anything for the better. Critically, we are not told who will be on the panel, who selects them, how independent they will be, what criteria will guide or limit their decisions and how much authority do they have to refuse, approve and condition projects? How does the panel assess a development that is proposed in a reserve without a management plan?
The commitment in the media release to ‘Provision for third party appeals’ responds to the conservation movement’s biggest gripe about the current RAA process, but there is no detail about what type of development or aspects of a development will be subject to appeals by third parties or what the costs arrangements will be. The minister promises ‘Publication of leases and licences over reserved land’. Some people who read this promise probably expect there will be full disclosure of the contents of leases and licences, but this will not happen as these details are commercial-in-confidence. What will be published will be the name of the proponent, the location of the lease or licence and the nature of the development or use. So, basically there will be no change.
The minister said that ‘The aim of these reforms will be to deliver a dedicated statutory environmental impact and planning assessment process within the framework of the National Parks and Reserves Management Act and to remove duplication in LUPAA.’ Just how important are the last words ‘remove duplication in LUPAA’? Given that the project that has caused most headaches for the government and tourism industry is the lake Malbena proposal, which was refused by the local council, is the plan of the government to provide for an entirely segregated development assessment process for reserved land, where projects such as Malbena will not have to go to councils?
Another alarm bell rang for me when reading the end of the media release that states: ‘In the interim, the recruitment of six new assessment officers is underway – two in each region, to enable RAA applications to be assessed within reasonable timeframes. Five of these six positions have already been filled and will ensure that use and developments are undertaken sustainably and in consideration of mitigating impacts to natural and cultural values.’
This is clearly intended to comfort any tourism business who has started down the path of making a development application that the government will help them get their project through the process before any changes to legislation are made. Almost as an after-thought, the minister says that: ‘The PWS recently undertook a review of the RAA system, with the review recommendations being implemented and already making significant improvements to the RAA process.’
As any of us who were involved in this review know, this review actually concluded three years ago and was one of the shallowest, most informal and selective consultation processes ever experienced. My biggest worry is that the government will rely on consultation that occurred three years ago and table legislation into parliament without any further consultation. We have had an unconfirmed report that the state government intends to table a bill in parliament in September 2022 and they have not confirmed whether there will be any consultation before that.
While we have been informed by letters and emails from the PWS of a few of the changes to the RAA process, there was no report prepared that documents all of the recommendations that were adopted and those that were not. We can find no confirmation of what has changed. What we were told would change but cannot confirm is:
• A commitment that all proposals subject to the RAA process would be published on the DPIPWE website.
• A reduction in the number of assessment levels from 4 to 3, with a requirement for all 2- and 3-level developments to be subject to a public comment process.
• An assessment panel has been established but we can find no details about it.
If fact, one retrograde step is that since the PWS amended the RAA system there is no detailed information about it on any government website. The PWS website simply states that ‘To understand the EIA process and when they may be required, the Parks and Wildlife Service is preparing EIA guidelines, which will be available here when finalised’. Adding to the confusion is the reference to an EIA process which seems to be the new name for the RAA. Ironically, the old 2014 assessment guidelines are on the Department of Natural Resources and Environment website but no updated version can be found anywhere. The record of this government and its clear commitment to tourism developments in national parks and the world heritage area lead to reasonable suspicion that whatever the final shape of the RAA ‘reforms’, they will be intended to make the approval process more streamlined for proponents. As ever, the TCT will be keeping a close watch and will represent the concerns of conservationists for a process that protects conservation and wilderness values. Watch this space.
Peter McGlone