*Please note that the links to the content in this Part will direct you to Westlaw AU.<\/p>\n
To purchase an article, please email: LTA.Service@thomsonreuters.com<\/a> or contact us on 1300 304 195 (Australian customers) or +61 2 8587 7980 (international customers) during business hours (Mon-Fri, 8am-6pm AST).<\/p>\n The latest issue of the\u00c2\u00a0Local Government Law Journal <\/em>(Volume 23 Part 2) contains the following material:<\/p>\n Victoria\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s New General Environmental Duty: A Comparison with Its OHS Forefather<\/strong><\/em><\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Leigh Howard<\/p>\n The management of health, safety and the environment in Victoria is set to become even more intertwined with the advent of the \u00e2\u20ac\u0153general environmental duty\u00e2\u20ac\u009d to commence on 1 July 2020. As readers may be aware, Victoria\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s new environmental duty was inspired by, and closely mirrors, the risk-based duty imposed on an employer within the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 <\/em>(Vic). Accordingly, environmental lawyers now need to turn to their OHS colleagues to understand how the general environmental duty will operate in practice. This article attempts to address this need by outlining the similarities and differences between the two regimes. As will be seen, there are considerable similarities, but also a potential for the environmental duty to be interpreted in a different, and potentially more diverse, way.<\/p>\n Rolling Back the Legalese: A Plea for a Return to an Objective Based Clause 4.6<\/strong><\/em><\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Willem van Wyk<\/em><\/p>\n The New South Wales Land and Environment Court\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s recent interpretations of the Standard Instrument cl 4.6 have resulted in a mechanism which no longer aligns with the original intent, as expressed in the objectives of cl 4.6 itself. The Court has ruled that the objectives of the Standard Instrument cl 4.6 have no substantive effect, thereby effectively condoning an assessment approach that prioritises process over outcome. This essay argues for the objectives of cl 4.6 to reassume a central position in the assessment of development standard variations. This would ensure the necessary \u00e2\u20ac\u0153legal teeth\u00e2\u20ac\u009d is given to consent authorities, while promoting outcome based planning.<\/p>\n LOCAL GOVERNMENT PLANNING & LAW GUIDE CASES<\/a><\/p>\n DIGEST OF CASES<\/a><\/p>\n For the PDF\u00c2\u00a0version of the table of contents, click here: LGLJ Vol 23 No 2 Contents<\/a>.<\/p>\nArticles<\/h3>\n
\n