However, after that experience many will tell you that they did not feel they were heard and that they did not receive meaningful feedback from the authorities. In essence they felt ‘fobbed off’.

Concern about the process was well summarised by the then ICAC Commissioner The Hon David Ipp  AO QC in his report entitled ‘Reducing the Opportunities and Incentives for Corruption in the State’s Management of Coal Resources’ (October 2013) in which he stated that ‘an efficient and effective policy and regulatory environment was one where opaqueness, uncertainty and discretion were eliminated from the decision making framework’.

The current assessment and determination process clearly needs major reform. The system as it stands is best summarised as one in which:

• big business and state governments work together to run the system;

• the assessment process is structured by these two entities and is focused on the short term dollar. It is all about profits for business and royalties for government;

• to make profits the companies need staff, so jobs are created;

• the community’s opportunity to contribute to and influence the assessment decisions is essentially incidental to the main game; 

• the consultation process creates the impression that the community can influence outcomes, that it will be listened to and so many people work hard and prepare submissions and attend public hearings; 

• but the engagement process is basically misleading and deceptive and the community input is usually treated in a token manner. Concerns raised in Submissions are summarily dismissed in Proponent’s ‘Response to Submissions’ reports that appear months later and these reports are  hard to locate; and

• the final decisions are made by the powerful duo mentioned above behind closed doors and these decisions default to the short term dollars.

So the community is left with an imbalance of short term economics dictating the terms over proper management of natural, cultural and human resources, usually to the detriment of true, long term sustainability. 

It is time to change the system to one that is founded on the principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development. That means a sophisticated, integrated approach that gives priority to maintaining healthy ecosystems, social wellbeing and long term economic benefits. 

A blueprint for moving forward is outlined below:

1. First, prepare regional or catchment wide strategic plans that are underpinned by the values and aspirations that communities want to see shared. These values will be articulated in the core principles of the plans. The plans will be based on the Ecologically Sustainable Development model and will provide a vision for future development and land use management in that region.

2. Strategic plans will be founded on community participation that is characterised by meaningful dialogue, transparency and accountability and where community input is seen as an integral driver, not an added burdensome extra. 

3. To overcome the ‘advocacy’ nature of environmental impact statements which result in projects being painted in the best possible light, developers will no longer be allowed to hire their own consultants. Proponents will pay a fee into a fund and consultants will be allocated by an independent arbiter. 

4. Assessment of projects will be founded on objective, evidence based information that adopts the Precautionary Principle and begins with reaffirming the correlation between the regional strategic plan and the proposal.

5. A Development Assessment Commission (DAC) chaired by a Judge will determine major projects. Parties can be self-represented and the legal rules of evidence and cross examination will not apply. Unlike the Planning Assessment Commission, members of the DAC will be appointed independently of the Government, to ensure impartiality and demonstrate transparency of process.   

6. A third party merit review process will enable parties to challenge the factual basis of any development decisions in the Land & Environment Court. This option will reduce the scope for dodgy deals between proponents and government and catch poor decisions. 

7. Strategic planning (the policy settings) and regulatory development assessment functions within Government will be separated. 

8. The regulatory monitoring and compliance function of Government will be strengthened to reinforce implementation of consent conditions.

9. Internal and external measures to protect against regulatory capture will be introduced to relevant government departments.

The evidence is in and it is time to improve the process. It needs to be more values based, objective, transparent and inclusive. We need a process that people can trust. The world is changing fast and it is time to bring our planning and assessment laws into the century.