MERGING LEGISLATION VLPA Submission

Supporting the CMPA’s submission, the VLPA provided the following submission to the DPI in relation to their consultation paper released on August 14. Merging the quarrying and mining legislation presents a number of issues, as reported by PETER McCLUSKY from the VLPA

THE Victorian Lime Producers Association (VLPA) wishes to advise that it supports the content of the CMPA submission of 29 August 2008 to DPI on the above subject.

In particular VLPA wishes to emphasise the following points:

VLPA supports the Victorian government’s commitment to cut red tape and review compliance burden as applicable to our industry.

Having stated such a commitment, any legislative changes that come out of this process should not increase the compliance burden. The proposals for ongoing community consultation have the potential to be open ended, not reflect the level of risk, and costly to the extent of making operations non viable which have hitherto been accepted locally. Hence such a policy provision would be contrary to the government’s policy stated above.

The sudden haste to progress the proposed legislation is unacceptable and should be held back until at least the spring session of Parliament 2009 for several reasons.

Firstly, to amalgamate the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Act and the Extractive Industries Development Act when the Planning and Environment Act (P&E Act), which is critical to the approvals process in our industry, is due for review is premature and especially so when it is intended that the combined Act then be reviewed.

This would be a prime example of contravening stated government policy of reducing red tape. Earth resources legislation and the P&E Act should be reviewed concurrently to ensure consistency and complementary where they affect our industry. For example, the P&E Act requires community consultation and a review of that Act could well provide for a community consultation format that takes care of the aspirations currently being proposed.

Secondly, it is unreasonable to expect, in the space of a few weeks, a diverse and widely dispersed membership to comprehend, analyse, synthesise and collectively convey its reaction to specific legislation proposals when government interest in the matter has waxed and waned since 2005. Tight legislation timeline is not a reason to now hurry the matter when it is not in the public interest.

Department of Premier and Cabinet should be told that this legislation should be held back until the P&E Act is reviewed. Such a decision, when shown to be in the public interest, should not affect the standing of DPI nor officers involved.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login