PASSED: Environmental Protection (Chain of Responsibility) Amendment Bill 2016

Energy, Environment & Agriculture Partner, Melanie Findlay has been closely following the proposed changes to the Environmental Protection (Chain of Responsibility) Amendment Bill 2016.

From identifying concerns with regards to the wording of "related persons" in the draft bill to speaking at the Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources Committee's examination of the Mineral and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016, Melanie has been supporting landowner's rights.

On 21 April 2016, the State Government passed the Environmental Protection (Chain of Responsibility) Amendment Bill 2016 which protects landowners rights.

Queensland Law Society President Bill Potts has been quoted as saying

"It would have been an injustice for these people [landowners] to have been potentially responsible for the environmental clean-up of projects on their land, especially if it wasn't of their choosing."

"QLS is also pleased that a statutory guideline is to be developed to constrain the use of these powers and best direct them to ensuring polluters clean up their own mess." 

Read the full media release "QLS says environmental clean-up reform amendments a win for Queensland".

Environmental Protection (Chain of Responsibility) Amendment Bill 2016 - Update

On 1 April 2016, Energy, Environment & Agriculture Partner, Melanie Findlay wrote of concerns with the wording of “related persons” in the draft Environmental Protection (Chain of Responsibility) Amendment Bill 2016. "What do the proposed Environmental Protection Bill changes mean to landowners?"

Melanie recently spoke at the Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources Committee's examination of the Mineral and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016. The transcript of proceedings has since been released.

The Environmental Protection (Chain of Responsibility) Amendment Bill 2016 Report  from the Parliamentary Committee concerning examination of the Bill was tabled on the 15 April 2016.

From this report it is clear the committee has noticed that there are severe drafting problems in regard to the width of the definition of “related persons”. They acknowledge that it is undesirable to have an owner of land covered by the new legislation and have recommended to the House that subsection 363AB(1)(b) in clause 7 be omitted from the Bill.

We will advise if the House follows this recommendation as soon as word comes to hand.