Page 867 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 9 April 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The government has a process underway to review the Environment Protection Act. Public submissions were called for in the second half of 2012 and, as I have discussed, the minister has flagged amendments. Again, the timing with the Auditor-General is unclear. I will now move the amendments circulated in my name which amend Mr Corbell’s amendment. I seek leave to move the two amendments circulated in my name together.
Leave granted.
MR RATTENBURY: I move:
(1) Omit paragraphs (1)(d) and (e), substitute:
“(d) an independent audit of the site between 2005-2007 found hexavalent chromium recorded up to 2430 times the safe national limit in the perched aquifer, which is a pocket of groundwater separated from the main water table by an impervious layer and not connected to it;
(e) all tests during operation of the plant and the subsequent independent audit indicated that the site posed no risk to the environment or human health and testing on neighbouring properties in 2008 and 2011 indicated the levels of heavy metals were within acceptable criteria;”.
(2) Add:
“(3) calls on the Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development to table a statement from the Environment Protection Authority in the first sitting week in May 2014 outlining the actions of the Authority:
(a) in regard to their management of the environmental authorisations for the Koppers facility;
(b) in response to the 2007 independent audit that highlighted the high levels of contamination and the poor compliance with testing at the site; and
(c) in response to community concerns about contaminated run-off from the Koppers Wood Products timber treatment plant.”.
As I have touched on, I have made a number of suggested amendments, and I seek members’ support for those. In relation to part (1) of the motion, it is important that we acknowledge what was found by the independent audit in terms of the pollution itself—that there was significant pollution found on the site, even if it does not necessarily imply environmental harm or risk to human health in itself. We also need to be cautious about assuming that one test result delivers a guarantee of safety. That goes to some of the issues I have proposed to amend in part (1). This picks up the spirit of both what Ms Lawder was proposing in her original text and some of the comments from the minister for the environment.
In proposed new part (3) I have talked about the EPA having the opportunity to offer to the Assembly an explanation of what happened from their perspective and what
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video