Simon Molesworth AO QC LMEIANZ, FEIANZ is a founder and Life Member of the Environment Institute of Australia and New Zealand (EIANZ). In this interview, Simon reflects on the growth of the EIANZ, the Certified Environment Practitioner Scheme (CEnvP), and the current Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) reform.

Upon founding EIANZ in 1985, what was your vision for the Institute and what did you hope to achieve?

Having been a founder and first president of the National Environmental Law Association (NELA), I saw the immediate benefits of having a professional association of people who together were helping each other to improve their knowledge and professionalism. That experience convinced me that a similar path needed to be laid for the wider environmental profession.

With the then Environment Institute of Australia (EIA), I saw an emerging ‘new’ profession. We didn’t entirely fit the mould of the other professions, like engineers, planners or lawyers. Yet our needs were even greater as we were at that stage in the vanguard, laying the foundations for this new profession of people with like experiences and often shared ideals, yet few opportunities to develop their own networks, skills and competency. So my vision was to create a natural ‘home’ for this new profession so that we could together develop our skills, agree on ethical standards for professional practice, effectively our own moral compass, and thereby lift our combined capacity to influence decision-making to be better informed and more responsive to environmental sensitivities – thereby facilitating sustainable change and development whilst better protecting the environment.

You were obviously a man before your time – it must have been immensely frustrating to confront the environmental indifference by successive governments and the public, decade after decade.

I don’t actually agree that it was ‘immensely frustrating’ as I don’t think it was a case of environmental indifference by successive governments, decade after decade. In truth, there were huge advances over the course of my time leading organisations like NELA and the EIANZ. It may be true that we never achieved all that we set out to achieve at any particular moment of reform advocacy, but if one adopts a pragmatic stance that ‘every win, however small, is a stepping, you can then embrace the incremental reforms – advances in environmental practices – for what they were: true advances. The comparator should never be, in my view, achieving a 100% success rate when heading for the sky; rather the comparator is to view the starting point, the ground, from which one commenced. One would be perpetually frustrated and depressed in life, if we thought 100% success was our entitlement. Accordingly, the progressive advance of environmental laws and policies over the last 35 years of my involvement, through all my organisations, was welcomed, albeit I have become increasingly aware that time has been running out to achieve some necessary target reforms. This is especially so with respect laggardly responses to climate change.

How does EIANZ distinguish itself from other environmental institutes in Australia and New Zealand?

There are no other environmental institutes in Australia and New Zealand. Within other professional bodies there are subsets, focus committees or groups, which might have an environmental focus. So, for instance, within the Planning Institute, the Institution of Engineers, the Law Institutes/Societies, there are committees relevant to environmental practice however their focus, albeit important and essential, nevertheless is driven from the perspective of planners, engineers or lawyers. In contrast, the EIANZ set out to determinedly recognise, welcome and foster a multidisciplinary approach to environmental practice. In reality, this composite approach was and is a recognition of an evolving and distinct new profession.

What exciting growth of the Institute have you seen in your 30+ years’ involvement with the Institute?

There are many instances of exciting growth within the Institute. First, I believe the growing competency and professionalism of environmental practitioners within the Institute is the most laudable and, standing back with the perspective of years, the most exciting. There is a confidence to express collective views or positions on critical issues, knowing that those views are soundly based on empirical evidence and acquired knowledge. Whereas in the early years there was a degree of timidity, to avoid controversy lest it typecast the Institute, in recent years the maturity of the organisation has seen the development of position papers and the preparation of uncompromising submissions and statements, confirming the Institute’s confidence based on its collective knowledge and professional assessment.

Secondly, the development within the Institute over the last decade or so which I find particularly exciting, is the growth in the special interest sections, embracing the focus areas of climate change, heritage, contaminated lands, ecology and impact assessment. The potential of these special interest sections to strengthen the Institute is clear, confirming the breadth of the organisation, yet concurrently demonstrating the interconnectivity that exists across the profession.

Thirdly, the burgeoning, indeed flourishing, of seminars, workshops, field trips and presentations across all Australian Divisions and the New Zealand Chapter has been extraordinary. There are now so many opportunities for Institute members to grow together, learning from each other, being inspired by the interesting work and research of others, that there is no excuse for anyone, especially practitioners starting out on their careers, not to be excited by opportunities within environmental practice. I have been particularly impressed during these COVID-19 times with the magnificently diverse and numerous webinars which have been offered to EIANZ members and other interested viewers – the Institute has excelled itself during these hugely challenging times.

You oversaw the creation of the Certified Environment Practitioner (CEnvP) Scheme. How has it changed the profession for the better? What has been the value of the scheme for the profession and to environmental practitioners? 

The creation of the CEnvP Scheme was an outstanding initiative and in saying that, no one should ever forget the tireless effort of Nigel Murphy in being the main driver that brought it to fruition. Proven initial competency, adhering to a professional ethical framework, and ensuring each practitioner maintains standards and training to always be currently competent, is an outstanding benefit of the CEnvP Scheme. The whole environmental profession benefits from the CEnvP Scheme as it reinforces the reputation of the profession. Knowing that one rotten apple can spoil all the apples in the basket, the CEnvP Scheme is the profession’s best opportunity to ensure the highest standards are achieved and the any rotten apples are cast out.

Importantly, the CEnvP is not just about ensuring professional practitioners have confidence in their own professional competence, it is also an assurance for all stakeholders. Those other stakeholders include not only the practitioners’ clients, but critically, regulatory authorities and the wider community at large. The environment itself benefits as the more competent, the more ethical, the environmental practitioner, then the more likely it will be that properly informed and well-considered environmental management decisions will be made.

What do you think of EIANZ now and what developments do you hope to see in the future?  

I am immensely proud of the EIANZ – of what it has become and for what it represents. The range of opportunities now on offer to members to participate and thereby increase their skills, knowledge and competency is exceptional. I believe the Institute is well managed and is a truly inclusive organisation, ensuring that all Divisions and the New Zealand Chapter are fairly represented and well heard.

As for the future, I believe COVID-19 have proved the virtual webinars are not only possible and popular but are an extremely efficient means of ensuring the largest spread of members can easily and economically participate. They also can be conducted with a lower carbon footprint as participants and attendees do not have to travel across their cities or regions to attend. So I hope the Institute maintains a steady offering of such webinars post-COVID.

Finally, although the Institute has a healthy membership, I nevertheless believe it deserves to secure a significantly larger membership. Given the number of environmental practitioners in Australia, the Institute could be five times larger. I hope that every Institute member sees the EIANZ as their ‘professional home’ and continually promotes the benefits of membership to their professional colleagues. With a larger membership base, many more new initiatives will be viable and, importantly, our professional voice will be stronger and more influential.

The EPBC Amendment Bill was tabled in the Parliament on Thursday 27 August. Labor and the Greens have criticised the process as rushed, with the Greens calling for debate in the Senate to be delayed until Samuel hands down his final report. What are your thoughts?

In the circumstances where there is a formal statutory review of the EPBC Act underway, the Samuel Review, it is an extraordinarily precipitous action for the Federal Government to introduce the Amendment Bill at a mid-point in that Review. The whole point of the Review’s Interim Report is to invite consultation, it’s a consultation with the Australian people, yet to proceed to the Amendment Bill fundamentally undermines our democratic processes by sending a message that says: ‘irrespective of what you the Australian people submit and irrespective of the recommendations that may or may not comprise the Final Report, we the Australian Government have made up our minds and will be proceeding come what may. We’ve made up our mind’. It is disrespectful of proper process and it is disrespectful of the Australian people. It also shuts the door to the real prospect that sound and considered alternative approaches might have come forward in submissions during the consultation processes. It’s also quite likely that State and Territory governments may have had constructive recommendations, which deserved proper consideration.

Further, the introduction of the Amendment Bill is dangerously premature as it precedes any preparation and public examination of National Environmental Standards (NESs), which are a cornerstone recommendation of the Samuel Review. Given that the future administration of the EPBC Act is effectively being passed to the States and Territories, the NESs are fundamentally important – they should only by promulgated after a careful process involving consultation. The final form of any amendment bill must necessarily reflect the final form of, and reinforce the NESs, which are sight unseen. Is this a portent of minimal consultation to follow regarding the content and form of NESs themselves? Further, will the States and Territories be given the means to get their respective ‘acts together’ in readiness for this transfer of powers and duties under the EPBC Act? 

The Commonwealth Auditor-General’s June Report was scathing in its criticism of the Federal Department’s inability to perform its statutory functions under the EPBC Act, which many have observed – including the EIANZ – was at its heart at resourcing issue. In that context, what confidence are Australians to have in their States and Territories being ready to take on hitherto Commonwealth responsibilities, in circumstances where the Bill is introduced into Parliament without consultation processes on desirable reforms being completed and without, presumably, compensatory Commonwealth to State funding arrangements being negotiated or proposed. Is it too much to surmise that depending on the form that the NESs might finally take, the administration of compliance processes which are being assigned to the States and Territories may or may not be more or less onerous? Surely all these issues need to examined together, so that the reforms to the EPBC Act and its administration come forward in a comprehensive coordinated fashion and not in the selective piecemeal approach currently being pursued.

LISTEN TO SIMON'S RADIO PODCAST 

Simon Molesworth presents two radio interviews a week. His topics cover a diverse and broad range of topics involving sustainable land management. 

• ABC Radio Broken Hill - Wednesday 9.10am (ACST) or access past interviews here: https://www.abc.net.au/radio/brokenhill/live/
• Radio 2 Dry FM - Thursday 10:30am (ACST)
   

This article was originally published for our quarterly newsletter the EIANZ Echo.  The EIANZ Echo shares the work of the Institute and profiles the people that help us support environmental practitioners and promote environmental knowledge and awareness. Subscribe here to receive future editions.