On Monday 21 October 2019, the RMPAT handed down the long-awaited decision on the proposed Lake Malbena development. During the appeal, The CHC, Wilderness Society Tasmania, and Tasmanian National Parks Association (TNPA) were represented by the Environment Defenders Office (EDO) and gained success on two jurisdictional points relating to the application of the Land Use and Planning Act on reserved land; to the application of state legislation to matters protected under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Protection Act 1999. However, it was ultimately found that RMPAT did not have the scope to assess the development against the existing management plan:

“The Tribunal has decided that it did not need to assess whether the proposal complied with the reserve management plan for the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area, as that assessment has already been completed by the Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service in the form of a Reserve Activity Assessment (RAA).”

Reserve Activity Assessment questionedThe legitimacy of the RAA process has been contentious since its introduction, as it is a non-statutory process that does not guarantee public consultation and does not offer any rights to appeal. Further, the RAA does not require independent assessment of impacts on wilderness or input from the State’s own advisory bodies. As it stands, this is currently considered our “gold standard” for assessment of developments, yet as mentioned above is found wanting.

Changes to the state-wide planning scheme are to be introduced next year and will effectively mean development on reserved lands bypass local council approval. This means that any future development on reserved land would only require approval through the RAA process, and therefore does not guarantee any public input. The proposed changes to the planning scheme highlight why it is essential that the RAA

process is changed to allow community consultation and a right to appeal, essential components of a democratic process.

Though it may seem as though the proposal has been given the green light, the appeal is still ongoing and the Central Highlands Council has 14 days to lodge draft conditions on the planning permit. After that time, each party has an additional 14 days to file a response or appeal the decision in the Supreme Court. The lawyers representing the CHC are still in consultation to determine the most appropriate course of action, and it is critical to maintain the conversations around this to keep the issue in the forefront of people’s minds and the media.

interested in maintaining the inherent values that pertain to these places, operating with environmental sensitivity while continuing to build healthy and sustainable tourism and wilderness industries”. On 30 October, the Tasmanian Greens introduced a motion to halt the EOI process until a new statutory process - allowing public consultation and appeal on matters pertaining to compliance with a management plan - is in place. The result of this saw State Labor side with the government, and ultimately the motion failed. Later that day, The Wilderness Society, along with the TNPA, held a meeting to discuss the findings of the tribunal and were joined by representatives from the Shooter, Fishers and Farmers Party, The Greens and renowned fly fishing author Greg French, who announced a community sit-in for the 7 and 8 December at Lake Malbena to coincide with a proposed “Occupy Halls Island” protest. Those willing to join the rally have a number of options regarding their level of participation; this ranges from being present at the initial event site, through to camping on the proposed helicopter landing site as well as packrafting around Halls Island. Additional information regarding this planned action can be found on the Facebook page of The Wilderness Society Tasmania and Fishers and Walkers Against Helicopter Access Tasmania.

Positive news from the Federal CourtThe long awaited ruling from the Federal Court was also handed down in November. The Federal Court challenge initiated by The Wilderness Society (TWS) was in response

to the Department of the Environment and Energy ruling that the development was not a “controlled action” and therefore did not require further assessment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC). TWS argued that the decision to not deem the proposal a controlled action was wrong; and were ultimately successful on two of three grounds. While the Federal Court did rule that the decision to not deem the proposal a “controlled action” should stand, they also outlined multiple failures in the decision making process, imposing strict conditions to be determined and agreed upon by both parties before the development can go ahead. “The Federal Court also found that the Federal Government cannot rely on the RAA to assess proposals in Tasmania’s Wilderness World Heritage Area” said Tom Allen, campaign manager for TWS. The outcome of the ruling will hopefully force the state government to alter the EOI process to be more in line with the expectations of the community and protect world heritage values.

More information