The Law Handbook 2024

1040 Section 11: Rights, activism and fair treatment at work council workers. In both matters, a court convened a restorative conference that included all those involved (both council or company executives, the people involved directly in the carrying out of cultural heritage destruction and members of the Traditional Owner groups) all attended a long, carefully prepared interactive facilitated conference. The restorative justice process was a watershed for participants in both cases. Traditional Owners received a deep and genuine apology by those involved in the destruction of cultural heritage, including the requirement of initiatives to help heal affected Country and prevent a future occurrence. It also enabled the perpetrators to gain new insights into the impact of their actions. The final court orders, in both instances, included requirements to undertake organisational cultural heritage training and system improvements to prevent a recurrence in the future, along with other penalties. Other important new restorative measures help ensure a court is able to understand the full impacts of a contravention or offence. The option for a court to receive and hear an impact statement about the ways, extent and effects of an offence or contravention is a significant new avenue for restorative outcomes. The impact statement can be provided directly by those impacted, or by a representative organisation. The court is able to take account of the ‘impacts’ when determining its orders and adjudication of the contravention. This creates the opportunity for orders to be made around preventative actions (education, training, system changes) and also restoration. The option of a restorative project order can (and has formerly been the case under the EP Act 1970) enable the monetary penalty to be paid to a restorative project (or to the Restorative Account managed by the EPA). Past examples of such orders include payment of funds to Traditional Owners, community and environmental organisations for the restoration of impacted environments. Information about the process for accessing funds from a court- ordered restorative justice project is available from the EPA (see www.epa.vic.gov.au) . Enforcement by other agencies Some parts of the EP Act may be enforced jointly with other agencies, while others are enforced exclusively by those other agencies. The EPA may delegate its powers to councils, including the power to appoint Authorised Officers and issue remedial notices. So far, the EPA has identified a role for councils to assess compliance against the GED and issue improvement and prohibition notices in relation to onsite waste- water treatment systems and noise issues arising from residential construction activities. Councils also remain responsible for approving (reg 32 EP Regulations 2021) the construction, installation or alteration of an onsite wastewater management systems (a.k.a. septic system) and now have a range of powers to administer this scheme, including issuing fines for non-compliance (regs 159–163). Councils continue to have power under the EP Act to issue fines and prosecute acts of littering (s 115 EP Act). The new EP Act expands these powers to enable councils to tackle illegal dumping with greatly increased fines and penalties for dumping of larger volumes of waste. Councils also retain powers to issue directions and abatement notices to address waste and powers to seeing information about dumped waste (pt 6.3). Councils continue to be responsible for residential noise complaints (jointly with Victoria Police) and to issue unreasonable noise directions (s 175). Councils also retain power to issue residential noise improvement notices (s 172). Victoria Police remains exclusively responsible for responding to unreasonable noise from entertainment venues (s 169). Councils and Victoria Police can seek injunctions relating to residential noise (s 174). If planning permit conditions require compliance with EP Act permissions, it is possible to seek an enforcement order in VCAT if the condition is breached (see ‘Enforcement’, under ‘Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal’, above). Where a nuisance such as noise, dust or odour is, or is liable to be, offensive or dangerous to health, the local council can be asked to apply for an abatement notice in the Magistrates’ Court under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 (Vic). Enforcement and resolution by individuals The EP Act creates pathways that enable members of the community to hold others to account for the obligations under the EP Act. Consistent with the old Act, any person who claims to be directly affected by unreasonable noise from residential premises (s 167 EP Act) can take criminal proceedings against an alleged offender (s 170(2)). More significantly, the EP Act creates a civil remedy pathway to enable a person to obtain an