4.8 The Committee does not consider that it does not have sufficient information to recommend that the Convention on Biological Diversity be used to create a comprehensive Commonwealth legal framework for environmental protection. However, the Committee considers that further investigations are warranted. It is important to distinguish between the Commonwealth`s role in strategic planning and its role in evaluating certain development proposals. The Environmental Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 attaches, on an ad hoc basis, certain development proposals which happen to have a link with the Commonwealth. Although the National Domain Registry is the product of strategic planning, registration has no impact on day-to-day management. It does not restrict the activities of States or individuals unless they require the consent of the Commonwealth for their activities. It simply imposes responsibility for environmental assessment on Commonwealth instruments with respect to proposed potentially hazardous activities. The Conservation of World Heritage Properties Act of 1983 (WHPCA) is intended as a last resort when threats to World Heritage sites cannot be addressed through government mechanisms. Again, identifying a property as Part of World Heritage after an elaborate strategic assessment in terms of management means nothing.

[42] 4.59 The ACF argued for the need to preserve fully protected areas of high conservation value, noting that the proportion of land fully protected for conservation purposes in Australia is at best only 4.2% and that these areas already make a valuable contribution to the overall well-being of the environment. 4.23 The difficult question was not whether state or local governments had a role to play, but rather in coordinating environmental laws, policies and approaches in all state jurisdictions to the satisfaction of community groups engaged in environmentally sustainable development. 4.46 As discussed in more detail below, the Committee also strongly recognizes the importance of public participation in environmental decision-making. The Committee considers that the right to public appointment would be consistent with Australia`s commitment to Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development [36] and Chapter 32 of the National Strategy for EnvironmentalLy Sustainable Development. 4.67 A witness from Tasmania, Mr. Sims, argued that in cases where the World Heritage Expert Group, as was the case with the Tasmanian Rainforest Assessment, considers that further assessment is needed, it becomes even more important to apply the precautionary principle to ensure that all possible environmental damage is avoided: 4.5 The Committee notes that: that countries are increasingly interdependent and must work together to successfully address international environmental problems: 4.5 The Committee notes that countries are increasingly interdependent and must work together to successfully address international environmental policies. Trouble. The Committee believes that the Commonwealth should play an active role in finding solutions to these problems. The Commonwealth plays a fundamental and necessary role in the protection of environmental and cultural heritage properties of national and international significance. It is essential that they have the power to override inappropriate decisions that threaten to destroy these areas so that they can be adequately protected. Some governments have repeatedly demonstrated their failure to protect these sites. Areas declared national parks, areas of national domain or areas covered by international treaties and conventions should be governed by coherent Commonwealth powers throughout Australia to ensure that they enjoy a uniform level of protection commensurate with their level of importance.

This level of protection must be increased so that there are no loopholes to circumvent these powers (e.B. in the national interest). [26] 4.84 For example, Westernport and Peninsula Protection Council Inc. referred to proposals by Shell and Mobil in 1992 to develop an oil import facility at Crib Point in Westernport Bay, Victoria. According to the Westernport and Peninsula Protection Council, Commonwealth and state governments have refused to conduct an environmental impact assessment of the proposal, even though the area is a Ramsar-listed protected wetland. [61] 4.83 Although it refers to the Ramsar Convention, the wetlands policy does not comply with all the requirements of this Convention. Many statements expressed concern that the government has not acceded to the Ramsar Convention and has allowed development in areas designated as internationally recognized Ramsar wetlands. Senator Hill`s agreement to remove part of the Ramsar area is only the second decision of its kind by an international signatory to the Convention and therefore does not improve Australia`s declining international reputation for environmental management. [64] 4.31 The Committee considers that the existing Commonwealth legal framework for the protection and conservation of World Heritage is inadequate. Given Australia`s international obligations under the World Heritage Convention, it is the Responsibility of the Commonwealth to ensure compliance.

The Committee considers that the Commonwealth has extensive constitutional powers to enact comprehensive national legislation to ensure security and uniformity in the protection, conservation and management of World Heritage throughout Australia. The Committee believes that the Commonwealth should undertake a reform of its existing legislation in order to strengthen and complement it. 4.82 In February 1997, the Minister of the Environment, Senator Hill, launched the Commonwealth of Australia Wetland Policy. This policy, developed on a large scale as part of the National Strategy for Environmental Sustainable Development, aims to ”advance the protection of wetlands as an integral part of the efficient and environmentally sound delivery of Commonwealth services”. [60] 4.49 Other views argued that state governments tended to prioritize economic or commercial interests, taking into account environmental considerations when approving development in World Heritage sites. [38] 4.16 A number of views expressed a general concern that the rights of States should take precedence over Commonwealth government in order to prevent adequate environmental protection of World Heritage sites. As Mr H.M Haenke of New South Wales said: under the World Heritage Convention, the Commonwealth must submit an indicative list of potential World Heritage sites to the World Heritage Committee, so far nothing more than a list of proposed sites has been submitted to the World Heritage Committee, there is no doubt about the Commonwealth`s powers to submit the list, which clearly represents a lack of political will and the ability to: Provide advice. [29] 4.3 The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) argued that the Commonwealth must use foreign policy and other relevant powers to effectively implement its international obligations. The ACF stressed that since the Commonwealth is the level of government responsible for negotiating and signing international agreements, it must also be responsible for ensuring that states and other sectors of the Australian community meet Australia`s commitments. .