Page 3860 - Week 12 - Thursday, 30 October 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The bill also makes a few changes to the schedules in regard to class A and class B activities—namely, the operation of a waste transfer station and the operation of a commercial facility for the treatment of the hazardous components of e-waste are added to the list of class A activities, and the operation of a facility for the storage and dismantling of e-waste is added as a class B activity.
The intent of the proposed amendment related to transfer stations is to improve the EPA’s capacity to manage the range of potentially environmentally hazardous activities being conducted at transfer stations, including storage and handling of chemicals and e-waste.
In relation to the aspects of e-waste management, treatment of the hazardous components of electronic waste will be regulated as a class A activity and require the waste recycler to procure an environmental authorisation from the EPA. The storage and dismantling of electronic waste will be regulated as a class B activity and be subject to an environmental agreement under the Environment Protection Act. This will cover e-waste collection at the Mitchell and Mugga Lane transfer stations.
There are other amendments, some of which I am especially pleased to see, which relate to erosion and sediment control measures for development sites. There are new definitions for “erosion” and “sediment control measures” and new offences outlined for sites differentiating between those above and below 0.3 hectares. We know erosion caused by developments can have a significant impact on our local waterways, and I am pleased to see these changes.
It is also interesting to note the definition of “development” in this bill is different to the definition used in a bill we will be debating soon—the Nature Conservation Bill, which uses the Planning and Development Act definition. The Environment Protection Act definition is a little broader to encompass a range of works that could impact on soil or water, such as earthworks or work that would affect the landscape.
In summary, this bill is a step in the right direction for the EPA. It delivers a broader set of provisions that I hope they will utilise effectively in ensuring compliance with environmental regulations under the act. The enforceable undertakings combined with the extensions to the definitions of environmental harm to include “likely” or “potential harm” should enable a stronger response from the EPA in managing breaches of authorisations and to achieve the best outcomes for the environment.
It is important to note that even with additional provisions it is very important that we continue to resource the EPA to ensure that they can effectively carry out the work they are being tasked to do. We are a small jurisdiction and we do not have the heavy industry that other jurisdictions have, but there is no doubt that, over the years, the capacity of the EPA to respond effectively and in a timely manner has been questioned due to what appears to be limited resources.
I also believe the EPA must ensure the development of a culture that takes on those who engage in environmentally damaging behaviour and uses the full extent of its powers when it needs to. There have been limited prosecutions under the Environment
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video