Home   >   Features   >   Working Towards A Better Future – WORK PLAN REVIEW

Working Towards A Better Future – WORK PLAN REVIEW

By on August 20, 2011

BRUCE MCCLURE, CMPA General Manager reports on issues of current Work Plan arrangements.

THE CMPA members have expressed over many years their frustrations with the current Work Plan arrangements. The costs to comply with current regulations and the enormous costs involved in applications and variations are having major impacts on our industry. There is clear evidence that the industry is not taking up the challenge alone and this is reflected in the shortage of new Work Authorities over the last ten years, and supply shortages throughout Victoria.

The Department of Primary Industries (DPI) has set up a small working group comprising CMPA, Cement Concrete & Aggregates Association (CCAA) and DPI members to examine the issue of work plans.

The working group has been convened as a joint DPI/Industry project to further improve and simplify the work plans required for extractive industry applications. The group will focus on short and long term improvements that may require administrative or legislative improvements. It was recognised that to implement any legislative changes would need close cooperation with the legislation and Reform section of the Earth Resources Development Branch through the MRSDA review process.

The CMPA considers the Work Authority approvals process must be simplified and more targeted. This can be achieved without eroding regulatory objectives. The following recommendations for change have been part of the CMPA “must change” list for many years. The proposed changes are as follows.

REFINE THE WORK AUTHORITY/WORK PLAN APPROVAL PROCESS

The process should be refined and include the following component parts:

  • A Code of Practice that is applicable to all quarries (A Code of Practice has been issued for small quarries);
  • Simplified or no Work Plans;
  • A Work Authority containing generic conditions, simplified rehabilitation bond system reflective of the risks, a code of practice and work plan provided to council with planning permit application;
  • Planning Permit applications automatically submitted to council when the DPI holds its required consultative meeting (i.e. when it assigns a Work Authority number);
  • Planning Permit conditions refer to only offsite impacts, that is, outside of the Work Authority boundary.

CENTRALLY MANAGE THE PROCESS

The Work Authority/Work Plan approval process should be centrally managed by the DPI. There is an MOU between DPI and Department of Planning and Community Development, but it is not recognised in legislation and is not supported by publicly available guidelines as to the services provided and in what circumstances.

This is in contrast with some other states where the role of the lead agency is more clearly identified and defined. For example, Western Australia has a Lead Agency Framework which sets out the lead agencies for various industry sectors and the level of services those agencies will provide for different classes of project.

The DPI should be empowered to manage planning referral obligations to referral agencies to achieve an endorsed Work Plan, eliminating duplication of referrals. Council approval processes should focus on off site impacts with these aspects subsequently incorporated into the Work Plan.

LOWER THE COSTS OF REGULATORY ADMINISTRATION

The administration of the MR(SD) Act should aim at achieving performance-based outcomes that lower the costs and reduce the time or approvals for proponents.

The figure above demonstrates that at a time of increasing demand when new extractive operations would be expected to be developed, applications for a Work Authority had in fact dramatically declined and very few significant operations were in fact approved.

IMPROVE THE VCAT SYSTEM

The VCAT system should be streamlined and modernised. For example, objectors in the VCAT process should provide substantiation of their claims and VCAT’s decisions should be based on relevant public information. VCAT should provide a low cost mechanism for all parties and should take account of all the material already provided by proponents and relevant pre-existing studies rather than requiring consultants to present at the hearing. An appeal mechanism for proponents should be introduced in the EES process.

The Association recognises the work currently being undertaken by DPI in considering how the Work Authority process can be improved. The setting up of this Work Plan group is very important and should result in a win-win situation for all stakeholders. Only time will tell if this is the case.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Sponsored Ads