Mike Elliott: Environment Protection Bill

Extract from Hansard

Legislative Council
25 July 2001

Mike Elliott
Leader Australian Democrats
Member of the Legislative Council

Parliament Index
2001 Autumn Sitting Index
Browse by Subject
Search all Democrats material
About the SA Parliament
Hansard on line

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Environment Protection Act 1993; and to make consequential amendments to the Development Act 1993, the Protection of Marine Waters (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1987 and the Public and Environmental Health Act 1987. Read a first time.

The Environment, Resources and Development Committee undertook quite an exhaustive study of the Environment Protection Agency and the Environment Protection Authority of the EPA Act as a consequence of what was very significant concern in the public about the performance of both the Environment Protection Authority and the Environment Protection Agency. After that exhaustive study we introduced a report into this place on 30 May last year. So that is well over a year ago. In fact, it is getting very close to a year and two months.

The committee made a significant number of recommendations, in fact a total of 40 recommendations of changes it would like to see in relation to the workings of the Environment Protection Authority and of the agency. It should be noted that that was a unanimous report, a report of a committee made up of two government members, two Labor members, a National Party member and a Democrat, namely myself. That, however, in itself is not unusual because I think every report that we have done, that I can recall in the history of the committee, has been unanimous and the committee prides itself in trying to work its way through issues. I do not think there are too many committees that have achieved that as often as this committee has.

What has been heartening for this committee on so many occasions when it does make recommendations is that for the most part ministers take great notice of it. I have congratulated the Minister for Transport and Urban Planning in this place on a number of occasions for the fact that she does treat the work of this committee seriously and has responded-I am not sure I can say in all cases, but all cases that come to mind-positively to the sorts of recommendations that our committee has made.

It is with great disappointment that, in relation to the 40 recommendations made by our committee, there really has not been any substantial move. A number of the recommendations needed legislative change and there has been no legislative change at all; in fact, no hint of it. It is worth noting that at the same time as the ERD Committee was undertaking its inquiry the government said that it also was undertaking an internal inquiry of the EPA. I am not sure whatever came of that, but most people assumed that it would have led to some change. However, unfortunately, there has been none obvious, and there was a need for it.

I think it is also worth noting that not only was the report itself endorsed by all members of the committee but I personally, as well as a number of other members of the committee I have spoken to, have had discussion with a wide range of people in the community from a wide range of interests, all of whom I think were very positive about the recommendations made in the report. I had an opportunity to discuss this because within about two days of the report coming out I was at a function where, I think, all but one member of the Environment Protection Authority were present. I think there were only two of the recommendations that they had concerns with and, as I recollect, both of those were really just matters of misunderstanding as to what the recommendation said, and as much as anything I think that was really a drafting problem in terms of the language used, as distinct from the intent of the committee.

What I have done, in the absence of any action from the government, is I approached Parliamentary Counsel and I gave Parliamentary Counsel a copy of the report of the committee, including the recommendations, and I indicated to Parliamentary Counsel those recommendations which I believed would be expected to be implemented by way of legislative change, that required legislative change, and my instruction to Parliamentary Counsel was to draft up a bill which picked up those recommendations, so that they may be implemented through legislation.

Having received the draft bill I have in fact not gone back to Parliamentary Counsel and asked for further change. Realising that this session is going to finish within two days, what I was seeking to do was to put this bill on the table so that during the break members of other parties, and members of the public, will have a chance to examine the bill and respond and if I need amend that bill I will do so during the break, and when parliament resumes I will come back with an amended bill, if amendments are indeed necessary, and obviously other members will have an opportunity to produce amendments in anticipation of me reintroducing the bill.

I do not think it is necessary for me to go through all that is contained within this bill on this occasion because in fact the ERD Committee's report is a report of this parliament, and copies are available to all members. In fact, the three members of the ERD Committee in this place all spoke to the report when the report was tabled at the end of May this year, so I would be guilty of just repeating what has already been said in this place, and with the pressure that we have in these last days of getting through a large amount of business I do not think that can be justified.

I just repeat that it is due to a lack of action on this unanimous report of the ERD Committee that I have now brought this bill forward. The essence of the amendments and of the recommendations was to produce an EPA which was truly independent. There was a great deal of confusion. People hear the term EPA and I think most members of the public do not know that there is both an Environment Protection Authority and an Environment Protection Agency. I think they do not also understand that the agency staff are not staff of the authority. They are in fact staff of the minister. I am not sure whether the authority might perhaps have a secretary, a personal assistant, but that is about it. In fact, the chief executive officer of the agency is answerable to both the minister and the authority, which must create enormous difficulties for anybody in that sort of position. Having two bosses is just not an ideal situation.

So, if we are to have and independent authority I think it is important that they do have their own staff and that the CEO of the agency is directly answerable to the authority itself. So questions of independence of the authority are fundamental to this bill and to the recommendations of the committee. If it is felt that the EPA is not performing correctly then the job for this parliament is to amend the legislation and the regulations to give clearer direction. However, I think that when you are playing a role like that of the EPA, where you have to balance the interests of protecting the environment and making sure that you are not doing harm to business, etc., I think it is important that you do have a body that is not subject to political interference, that it has a very clear set of guidelines, which are provided through both the legislation and the regulations, and not trying to serve two masters and being pulled all over the place.

I think it is also important that this authority, being independent, is fairly transparent in its operations. Members might recall that some time ago I asked questions in this place about the availability of information from the Environment Protection Authority. I went to examine the public register to look at a particular issue that interested me at the time-as I recall, it was in relation to an oil spill. When I asked to see the register, they could not show it to me. Although the act had been in place at that stage for three years, they had not created the register. Eventually, they offered to find what documents I wanted if I told them what they were, but they then treated it as an FOI request and gave me an enormous bill. I told them that, because they did not have a register, I would not pay that bill. They were clearly in breach of their own act.

The lack of information from the EPA damages its own credibility, and people do not trust those who withhold information. In this case, I think it is withholding information because it has not got around to getting organised, but that is another story. I think its relationship with the public generally and the way that it works with the public needed significant revamping, and members will see that quite a few of the recommendations of the committee surrounded this question as to how the Environment Protection Authority interacts with the public.

With those words, I urge all members to give this bill serious consideration. I am not looking for a second reading vote on the bill in this session: I simply put this bill on the table so that when we resume after the break I can reintroduce the bill, possibly in an amended form, depending upon submissions that I receive from the public.