That would be giving free legal advice, I think, but that is one of the problems. You've identified one of the problems with the legislation. It is unclear whether there is any availability to rely on vested rights to protect your interests. So in the case you gave, because significant environmental harm is defined as being something that's irreversible, if that effect is in fact irreversible, there might be a successful claim under clause 16 here, which would give rise to remedies under clause19. That's all very fact-dependent, but is it possible? Yes. Could a creative lawyer make that argument? Absolutely.
On November 15th, 2010. See this statement in context.