Page 2900 - Week 09 - Thursday, 18 September 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
This ensures that those undertaking activities that have the potential to cause harm to our environment are subject to the same tenets of environmental law that exist in the other jurisdictions, which promotes consistency and a shared understanding of the value placed on the environment by our community.
The bill intends to broaden the enforcement options and tools available to the EPA by the introduction of enforceable undertakings. Enforceable undertakings allow an alleged offender to voluntarily enter into, with the EPA, a binding agreement to undertake tasks to settle an alleged contravention of the law and, by restitution, remedy the harm caused to the environment.
Enforceable undertakings are an important enhancement to the enforcement capability of the EPA as they have the ability to provide significant and ongoing commitments to compliance that aim to improve environmental practices. As a regulatory tool, enforceable undertakings will be an important intermediate compliance tool that provides a reasonable and practical option to redress environmental damage at the instigation of the alleged offender without the EPA resorting to a criminal prosecution.
Enforceable undertakings have a deterrent effect that is similar to a successful prosecution due to the ability of the EPA to include terms and conditions to the undertaking but without the criminal record imposed by the courts. Enforceable undertakings are an effective regulatory tool that will complement the already established enforcement approach.
The bill also seeks to make some offences strict liability offences. A strict liability offence under the Criminal Code 2002 means that the mens rea, or the fault element, does not form part of what is necessary to prove the offence. This means that conduct alone is sufficient to make the defendant culpable.
In the context of protecting the environment, a person’s alleged actions resulting in environmental harm may limit the ability of the community to enjoy the environment and impose costs to rectify the harm. Regardless of a person’s intent, if they perform an act that results in environmental harm they should be held to account or ordered to remedy the harm. The use of strict liability offences as a deterrent and educative tool is justifiable and reasonable in this context.
The activity specific reforms in this bill are amendments which have been identified from operational experiences in administering the act where regulatory gaps have been identified. The bill proposes that waste transfer stations be included in the list of prescribed activities under the act requiring an environmental authorisation.
Waste transfer stations are facilities where unwanted materials are unloaded from collection vehicles for subsequent transport to recycling operations or to landfill. Operational experience, as well as EPA practices in other jurisdictions, indicate that these activities have the potential to cause significant harm to the environment.
There are a number of environmental issues associated with the day-to-day operation of waste transfer stations, including contamination of stormwater, odour, noise, dust
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video