Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 12 Hansard (20 November) . . Page.. 4553 ..
In relation to an item in The Canberra Times on 17 October 2003 which stated that 'a mass of filthy, highly polluted water surging down an otherwise clean-looking Molonglo River at Coppins Crossing':
(1) What was the source of this pollution;
(2) Why did it occur;
(3) What steps are being taken to prevent a repetition;
(4) Will prosecutions be launched and if not, why not;
(5) What is the penalty for such pollution and does the penalty apply to government departments and agencies.
Mr Stanhope
: The answer to the member's questions is as follows:(1) Environment Protection Officers have investigated this issue, including questioning adjacent lease holders but have been unable to identify any individual sources that may have contributed to the high turbidity levels. However as a result of the January bushfires much of the catchment surrounding Coppins Crossing is without significant vegetation and this results in increased sediment runoff following rainfall events.
(2) Much of the area surrounding Coppins Crossing has had the vegetative cover removed as a result of the January bushfires leaving areas of bare soil. These areas have an increased potential for erosion following rainfall events, such as those that occurred between 6 October and 7 October 2003. The National Capital Authority also confirmed water was being released from Lake Burley Griffin during this time, to manage the increased inflow, adding to the volume of water at Coppins Crossing.
(3) The catchment is rehabilitating naturally with vegetation regrowth occurring over wide areas. This vegetation stabilises the soil and reduced the potential for erosion and subsequent turbidity to occur. Where point sources were expected to be subject to high sediment loads, such as Weston Creek, erosion and sediment controls were put in place after the fires to minimise the impacts on downstream waters, including the Molonglo River.
(4) No. No individual or business was found to be responsible for the increased turbidity. It was not due to a single point source incident but due to diffuse, naturally occurring sources in the catchment.
(5) If a person or company is convicted of knowingly or recklessly polluting the environment causing environmental harm, the maximum penalty is 100 penalty units, imprisonment for 6 months or both. If the environmental harm is material or serious, as defined in the Environment Protection Act 1997, the maximum penalties are more severe. In the case of causing material environmental harm it is 1,000 penalty units, imprisonment for 2 years or both, and for serious environmental harm 2,000 penalty units, imprisonment for 5years or both. There are lesser penalties in cases where a person causes environmental harm but there is no intent to do so.
Government Departments cannot be prosecuted for these offences. However, Government instrumentalities, officers, employees and contractors may be prosecuted for knowingly or recklessly, or negligently causing serious, material or "plain"
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .