National Fuel Quality Standards Regulation Impact Statement 1 ...

protection to all Australians wherever they live and to ensure that markets are not
distorted by environmental decisions.
The efficiency of the current NEPM development and implementation processes are
being reviewed and a major review of the NEPC Act, which is scheduled to commence in
late 2000, will consider the effectiveness of NEPMs as a national approach to achieving
environmental objectives.
It is important to note that NEPMs are a costly and time consuming process. A NEPM
may take approximately 2 years to develop and a further 2-3 years to implement, and the
development process is likely to cost in total, including jurisdictional costs, in the order
of $1 million or more. The resources required to develop and implement NEPMs has
been a particular issue of concern for States and Territories and presents a possible barrier
for their participation in the development process and particularly the implementation of
NEPMs, especially for the smaller jurisdictions like Tasmania and the Northern Territory.
The Council can develop and make a NEPM but implementation is outside the Council’s
jurisdiction under the Act and is achieved through State and Territory legislation. It is
apparent from those NEPMs that have already been developed that States can seek and
achieve exemptions based on regional environmental differences. A good example of this
is the exemption in the Queensland legislation of Mt Isa from the Ambient Air Quality
NEPM. There also tends to be a "lowest common denominator approach" to the
development of NEPMs and resulting "national" standards, in an attempt to try and gain
consensus from all jurisdictions.
4.4.1 Advantages and Disadvantages
While NEPMs have been effective in implementing other policies, a NEPM for national
fuel quality standards is not a viable option for several reasons.
In terms of NEPM development, a State or Territory may achieve exemptions based on
regional environmental differences, and may also cease to be a participating member of
the Council at any stage. Such actions would limit the ability to implement nationally
consistent standards, particularly as each jurisdiction not only varies considerably in its
capacity to meet tighter standards, but also in the levels of investment required by
industry to upgrade plants in order to produce cleaner fuels.
In terms of timeframes, the time line specified by Measures for a Better Environment
would not be achieved in light of the time required for the NEPM development process.
The development of a NEPM is considered a lengthy process and State processes for
obtaining whole-of-government positions and approvals have the potential to delay the
process further.
With respect to the actual standards set, if States and Territories have divergent views
then it would be difficult to form a consensus on national standards under a NEPM as
only a two-thirds majority vote is required to pass the Measure.