Page 863 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 9 April 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
With the improvements to the act that I have outlined I believe that the government has the appropriate regulatory framework and policies in place to address both the management of existing activities and the remediation of these legacy sites. The government has been proactive in implementing and reviewing its policies and the legal framework to ensure that our laws remain contemporary and are cognisant of community expectations.
This is evident by the strengthening of the legislation which the government commenced the process of last year. Remediation of legacy sites such as the Koppers site is complex and it can take time. But these issues must be properly addressed by suitably qualified professionals through a nationally recognised robust regulatory and policy framework.
I have circulated and moved some amendments to Ms Lawder’s motion today. I think they make clear the context in which this particular contaminated site has been managed and the factual history behind it. I note also that there is a review underway of the EPA act and proposed legislative amendments, which I have referred to, and that there has been further independent assessment of the remaining offsite groundwater bore that confirmed that there has been no further contamination—indeed, no contamination—of the groundwater.
In addition, the government is proposing that it will commission a further independent analysis of all the testing and results to date to provide an independent assessment of that pollution—that is, the assessment undertaken by the EPA—to confirm that that analysis is correct and that we will table these results in the Assembly in June.
I think this is important to provide further reassurance to the community that the small amount of pollution in the perched aquifer below the old Koppers site is not in the groundwater, does not present a risk of harm to either human health or to the environment and that that is the advice that has consistently been provided to me by the EPA.
But given the level of interest in this issue, I think it is worthy of a further assessment and the government is committing to that process. I commend the amendment to the Assembly.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (4.00): I would like to thank Ms Lawder for bringing this motion to the Assembly today. I think the issues that she has raised are serious ones. I support her in her view that they require further investigation and that the public would like further information and assurance that there is not a significant environmental issue arising from these matters.
The Koppers wood treatment plant commenced operations in the 1980s at its Hume facility, a facility that was always going to use the toxic chemicals of arsenic, copper and chromium. As one would imagine, over the life of the facility’s operation there were a number of environmental agreements put in place with the regulator about how the facility would operate and what reporting was required. These authorisations came from both the commonwealth and then the ACT government.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video