The ACT Government is assessing the health impacts of the proposed data centre and power station at Tuggeranong.
Last month the ACT Minister of Health announced a health impact assessment in response to community concerns about possible health impacts of the development. We were appointed to an independent steering group to oversee this assessment.
The other members of the steering group were Anne Cahill-Lambert, community advocate, and ACT Chief Health Officer Charles Guest. The steering group had expertise in health impact assessment, healthy cities, social determinants of health, health protection and community advocacy.
The HIA was just halfway through its work when, this month, the ACT Minister for Planning announced an environmental impact statement to handle concerns about the adequacy of the preliminary assessment submitted by the proponents along with the development application. What is the difference between an HIA and an EIS?
The HIA is a non-statutory process for the systematic assessment of health impacts of a plan, policy or program. HIAs are increasingly accepted around the world as the gold standard for assessment of health impacts. HIAs examine health impacts within the framework of the World Health Organisation's social determinants of health.
The social determinants of health are the economic, social and environmental conditions in which people live and work and that create pathways to health or to illness. They can potentially be altered or influenced to create better health.
An EIS is a statutory process for the systematic assessment of environmental impacts of a development, including some health impacts.
The fact that these processes are not combined into a single integrated impact assessment process is a problem for the assessment of health impacts in the ACT and other Australian jurisdictions. This needs to change.
The fact that these processes are not integrated has also led to disagreement about the best way to assess the health impacts of the proposed data centre and power station now that there is to be an EIS.
After the announcement of the EIS, the ACT Government decided to disband our steering group. The community is entitled to ask if this was a good decision.
There were two parts to the HIA. The ACT Government commissioned Golder Associates to undertake the assessment.
The steering group was commissioned to oversee the assessment, to ensure compliance with Australian guidelines for health impact assessment and to report to the Minister for Health.
Our understanding is that the consultants are continuing to do their work and will complete their report. But, now the steering group has been disbanded, there will no longer be an independent expert group to oversee the assessment and ensure compliance with Australian guidelines.
The steering group will not contribute to the final report to the Minister for Health.
From our community consultations, it is clear the ACT Government has lost the trust of the community in the planning process for this development.
The HIA was intended to field these concerns and ensure that a comprehensive assessment of health impacts would inform decisions about the proposed development.
It is understandable that the community has expressed outrage about the decision to disband our steering group. This decision will further erode confidence in the ACT planning system.
The ACT Government should complete what it started with the HIA and that includes having an independent group oversee the assessment. The HIA and EIS processes can be harmonised and the reporting dates aligned.
If this is not done, important health impacts are likely to be underestimated and overlooked, and the integrity of the processes will be compromised.
Helen Keleher is a professor with Monash University's School of Primary Health Care and a board member of the Public Health Association of Australia.
Anthony Capon is a professor with the Australian National University's National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health and a board member of the International Society for Urban Health.