Territory Stories

Report of the Third Review of the National Environment Protection Council Acts (Commonwealth State and Territory) December 2012 National Environment Protection Council Response to the Report of the Third Review of the National Protection Council Acts

Details:

Title

Report of the Third Review of the National Environment Protection Council Acts (Commonwealth State and Territory) December 2012 National Environment Protection Council Response to the Report of the Third Review of the National Protection Council Acts

Other title

Tabled paper 599

Collection

Tabled papers for 12th Assembly 2012 - 2016; Tabled papers; ParliamentNT

Date

2013-10-17

Description

Deemed

Notes

Made available by the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory under Standing Order 240. Where copyright subsists with a third party it remains with the original owner and permission may be required to reuse the material.

Language

English

Subject

Tabled papers

File type

application/pdf

Use

Copyright

Copyright owner

See publication

License

https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2019C01116

Parent handle

https://hdl.handle.net/10070/275013

Citation address

https://hdl.handle.net/10070/424650

Page content

54 National Environment Protection Council NEPC Acts Third Review 2012 A different approach in which each jurisdiction and the National Environment Protection Council provides a single report on implementation and effectiveness of National Environment Protection Measures (that is one report per jurisdiction and one report from the National Environment Protection Council, or ten reports) would be consistent with the requirements of the National Environment Protection Council Act. However, any approach should address specific reporting requirements as set out in each of the National Environment Protection Measures. As a principle, reporting processes should be streamlined, provide adequate information on each measure and be readily available to parliaments, the public and the business community as necessary. 6.2 REVIEWS OF THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION COUNCIL ACT The requirement for five-yearly reviews of the operation of the National Environment Protection Council Act, including reporting on the implementation and effectiveness of the Act and the relevance of approaches to developing and implementing National Environment Protection Measures, is costly and inefficient. A period of five years is insufficient to properly review changes in the needs of and operation of specific provisions of the Act. This requirement could be removed and replaced with a period of not greater than ten years. This provision would enable the National Environment Protection Council to undertake a review at a smaller interval if it felt that there was a need to do so. 6.3 REPORTING ON INDIVIDUAL NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION MEASURES The Ramsay Review recommended changes to the annual reporting format and called on the National Environment Protection Council to include measurable performance indicators for each National Environment Protection Measure. The National Environment Protection Council in its response fully supported this recommendation and noted that community support for National Environment Protection Measures would be enhanced if their effectiveness and environmental outcomes were more transparent. In addition to the annual reporting requirements set out in the National Environment Protection Council Act, most of the National Environment Protection Measures include a requirement for jurisdictions to provide annual reports to the National Environment Protection Council. The reporting requirements are not consistent between National Environment Protection Measures but generally require each jurisdiction to evaluate its performance in relation to the National Environment Protection Measure.


Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are advised that this website may contain the names, voices and images of people who have died, as well as other culturally sensitive content. Please be aware that some collection items may use outdated phrases or words which reflect the attitude of the creator at the time, and are now considered offensive.

We use temporary cookies on this site to provide functionality.
By continuing to use this site without changing your settings, you consent to our use of cookies.