Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move Greens amendments (19), (20) and (21) on sheet 5361:

(19)

Clause 140, page 142 (lines 5 to 9), omit subclause (1), substitute:

(1)

If a person has engaged, is engaging or is proposing to engage in conduct consisting of an act or omission that constituted, constitutes or would constitute a contravention to which this Part applies, an application to a Court for an injunction may be sought by:

(a)

the appropriate enforcement agency; or

(b)

an interested person (other than an unincorporated organisation); or

(c)

a person acting on behalf of an unincorporated organisation that is an interested person.

(20)

Clause 140, page 143 (after line 18), at the end of the clause, add:

(7)

For the purposes of an application for an injunction relating to conduct or proposed conduct, an individual is an interested person if the individual is an Australian citizen or ordinarily resident in Australia or an external Territory, and:

(a)

the individual’s interests have been, are or would be affected by the conduct or proposed conduct; or

(b)

the individual engaged in a series of activities for protection or conservation of, or research into, water resources or dependent ecosystems, at any time in the 2 years immediately before:

(i)

the conduct; or

(ii)

in the case of proposed conduct—making the application for the injunction.

(8)

For the purposes of an application for an injunction relating to conduct or proposed conduct, an organisation (whether incorporated or not) is an interested person if it is incorporated (or was otherwise established) in Australia or an external Territory and one or more of the following conditions are met:

(a)

the organisation’s interests have been, are or would be affected by the conduct or proposed conduct;

(b)

if the application relates to conduct—at any time during the 2 years immediately before the conduct:

(i)

the organisation’s objects or purposes include the protection or conservation of, or research into, water resources or dependent ecosystems; and

(ii)

the organisation has been engaged in a series of activities related to the protection or conservation of, or research into, water resources or dependent ecosystems; and

(c)

if the application relates to proposed conduct—at any time during the 2 years immediately before the making of the application:

(i)

the organisation’s objects or purposes include the protection or conservation of, or research into, water resources or dependent ecosystems; and

(ii)

the organisation has been engaged in a series of activities related to the protection or conservation of, or research into, water resources or dependent ecosystems.

(21)

Page 163 (after line 12), at the end of Part 8, add: Division 10—Review of administrative decisions170A Extended standing for judicial review

This is about public standing provisions and seeking to incorporate into the act such provisions. I think the environment movement has, and in fact other non-government organisations have, put the longstanding arguments for public standing provisions in many bits of legislation. Of course, there are such provisions in the EPBC Act. I will move these amendments, but I have a question for the government: why were such provisions not included in the act?