Northern Territory Second Reading Speeches Northern Territory Second Reading Speeches[Index] [Search] [Bill] [Help]
| Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this bill is to provide the Independent Protection Authority increase functions and amendments to recording requirements. This bill is rather simple and does nothing more than ensure that the Environmental Protection Authority evolves into an authority that I am positive it should be and most people expect it to be. This bill would amend functions and recommendations to major projects and how the EPA reports to the minister, parliament and, therefore, the people of the Northern Territory. Let us talk about that for one moment, how the EPA reports to this House. The EPA, if they were actually to choose to take on an investigation will report their findings to the minister. I have the word from the current minister that all recommendations from the EPA would be tabled in parliament. As I have said in this house before, I trust the minister and in fact he has provided me with no reason to doubt her word today. However, while I may have a level of trust for this minister, unfortunately, I do not share the same views with the Cabinet. That fact alone makes me very sceptical of the process and can see a day when the current minister is overruled by other Cabinet colleagues because a recommendation may be less than positive and reflect baldy on government. It should be noted this government has a capacity to reshuffle from time to time; to stack the deck so to speak. I worry that although that I am extremely confident in the current minister’s ability and that her heart is in the right place when it comes to protecting our environment, I cannot say the same for others, and perhaps the next minister or even the next minister. This bill sets out to diminish that threat, ensuring all recommendations from the EPA are made public. This does not suggest in any way that the EPA can overrule this House. No, government can still make a judgment that is at odds with an EPA recommendation. It is just that that decision will be made in an open and accountable manner. A little background. In 2005, the EPA Board was established and, in consultation with the community, developed the guidelines that established the framework. In 2006, the EPA Board had its workshops. In 2007, the Environment Protection Authority Act 2007 was passed by this parliament. In January 2008, the Environment Protection Authority Act 2007 commenced and, in October 2008, the Environment Protection Authority Act 2007 review was announced. It is interesting that during the workshops some of the recommendations included in the summary of the issues include that the EPA should have the capacity to receive referrals from the public and the EPA should have powers to investigate environmental wrong doing and enforce environmental laws. It should provide leadership on environmental issues and do proactive work to avoid environmental problems before they occur. Any minister who does not take EPA advice should be required to give reasons. Some other points include: processes for communication need to be established and transparent; the EPA should make recommendations to government or parliament but not final decisions; and it needs to be strongly independent and beyond political influence. The EPA should be advisory rather than a decision-maker. All the listed points support the amendments proposed by this bill which were ignored during the original legislation. The former member for Goyder, during debate on the EPA, stated:
Well, I do not quite agree with that. The former member for Goyder went on to say:
Again, I cannot agree. We note now that the EPA is tasked by the Minister for NRETA. It says here to investigate the environmental assessment and approval processes outlined in the environmental assessment act; for major development proposals; and recommend improvements for governments consideration. It says that the authority is not subject to the minister’s direction in relation to the exercise of its powers or the performance of its function – so, I am a little muddled. The reality, of course, is this act does not require the minister to inform the public of any decisions arising from advice or recommendation received from the authority. Again, I state I have the word from the current minister and I appreciate that. However, time moves on. In this House we have certainly seen different ministers over the years and the same cannot be said. We can protect this in legislation to ensure that - whether it is a Labor government or a future Country Liberal government - the recommendations remain open and accountable. One of the suggestions in this bill is to increase the independence of the authority. Currently, it talks about ‘in accordance with criteria and arrangements agreed with the minister’. I suggest it should say made by someone else and accepted by the authority. The bill also suggests that the authority report all major projects. So, the amendments will state that the authority must give advice or make recommendations on major projects. I recently drafted a letter to the current minister because of a couple of threats to our environment in the Northern Territory and, rightly or wrongly, I assumed that the EPA would have some advice. We all know there are other departments and other areas that deal with environmental threats to our environment. However, I sat and I waited and I hoped that the EPA would have some kind of involvement. The first one involved a chemical spill at the wharf. I appreciate that there was a Work Health safety report investigation on the matter, and I worried at the time, those people do a very good job, but their focus is perhaps not on the environment but more so on work practices. Of course, it goes without saying that improved work practices can improve and protect our environment because, if it is done right, we know that there is less impact on our environment. However, I was not so sure that their focus would be on the environment, and I was hoping that the EPA would perhaps look at the what ifs, and if one accident can happen, perhaps other accidents could happen. The wharf is an area that is used for any number of chemicals, fuels, and perhaps some chemicals are perhaps more dangerous than others. Perhaps that was an opportunity, as I see, that the EPA may be able to step in and perhaps do a review of practices at the wharf just to make sure that some of the chemicals, some of the processing that goes on there, loading on and off ships, some of those chemicals that may have an impact on our environment, to at least have a look at the current practices and perhaps offer some kind of recommendation on how it could be done better in future. The second incident involved diesel fuel in the gulf. I suspect that, if it happened in Darwin Harbour, or closer to a built-up area, that perhaps more action would have been taken. I am not saying at all that no action was taken. Of course, we know action was taken. Perhaps appropriate action was taken, but again, I felt that, if an EPA was truly independent, that they again might step in and have a look, maybe lead the way with the investigation. I suppose it was brought home to me after seeing how the EPA in Queensland truly took a leadership role and managed that tragic event that happened off the east coast of Australia that could have, and did, cause a great deal of harm to our environment. Within hours, a hotline was set up, all because of the EPA, that animals, when they were affected by oil and so forth, the hotline could be used for people to call in to get some action taken on those animals and other parts of our environment. There was a leadership role by the EPA which I think is, sadly, lacking here in the Northern Territory. In fact, the further I look into the current EPA the more I understand what it is there for, and I appreciate what it is there for, but I do not think that an EPA is perhaps the right name for it. Perhaps it is not really an EPA, because if you travel around the world and you have a look at some of the powers, some of the regulatory powers that EPAs have, you would be astounded. You had businesses that are closed down because EPA representatives have walked in and seen something and basically put a stop to that business. They had real regulatory powers. I am not suggesting today that we are quite ready for that in the Northern Territory, perhaps we are, perhaps we are not ready, but the fact is, we have an agency called the Environmental Protection Authority, and it is a bit like, I suppose, changing the names of a security officer to police - without all the training, without all the knowledge and experience that goes with it, but all of a sudden, overnight, we changed the names of all the security guards that work in the shopping centres, whether they are in banks and so forth, we are going to call them police from tomorrow – and they are not really police. They do not have the training, they do not have the expertise, they do not have the knowledge, and they perhaps do not have the law that backs them. In this case, we have an EPA that is just a glossed up version of what it really could be. As I said, I refer to EPAs, say in the United States for instance, that really do have a regularity power, that can go in and can make a difference because of either it has been reported or they have walked in off the street and they have seen some practices that are hurting the environment and they have the regulatory authority to shut it down. I do not see that we are at that stage. However what we do have is something that is dressed up and I do not really believe that the Environmental Protection Authority is the right name for this particular agency because I do not believe it is the same thing as other EPAs are around the world. It is fantastic for advice, for what it has been set up to do, but not a true EPA. I went on radio a couple of weeks back because of the incidents that happened in Queensland and it was put to me why do I not, given that the EPA can receive recommendations from someone in the public, why was I not going to stand up and send a letter to the EPA to say, why do you not investigate this matter or that matter. I must admit it did put me on the spot because I was really hoping that the EPA, if it is truly independent and truly had its focus on the environment, I would not need to have to put something into the EPA, they should be doing it on their own. But I did. I sent a letter to the minister and the minister was kind enough to respond. But one of the comments in there I thought was a little complicated, because it said like I wanted to have a slice of this cake and a slice of this pie because I was advocating for it being independent but on the other hand I am calling on the minister to direct the agency. And I understand that and it is a very good point. The reason that I drafted the letter was because it was clear the EPA was not going to act on either of these issues and so perhaps I did want a foot in both camps. But the reason I wanted a foot in both camps was because it was clear that the EPA was not going to act, therefore I felt I had a responsibility to request that the EPA act on the matter. As it turns out, it did not, and I understand that there are other agencies that are involved in that area. It brings me back to the point that perhaps the EPA is not really an EPA as we are led to believe EPAs are around the world. With that I say that the purpose of this bill is to provide the authority increased functions and amendments to reporting requirements. The last point is changing the way that these recommendations are brought to this House, not through the minister but brought to this House and tabled. After the recommendation is tabled in parliament, this House gets to decide whether it is the right thing to go forward with particular development. And as I said before, it does not preclude government from not taking advice or not accepting advice from the EPA and stop something that they recommend you stop, but at least that decision becomes accountable and can be debated in this House. At least then the public get to know that the EPA have made a decision and it may support a particular development and it may not support a particular development, but it is this House that then debates whether it should go ahead. In some cases the House will support what the EPA will say, perhaps in more cases than not. But there will be times, where for the sake of perhaps jobs or development opportunities, that this government decides that it will move forward on a development that the EPA suggests it does not, or perhaps requests that changes are made to a particular development which would appease the EPA in some way or find some level playing field. But the difference is the public knows what the decision is and why. I believe that if you are looking at a truly independent EPA, these small changes are not going to change the world but it will make a real difference to the perception of the current model that we have in the Northern Territory. Debate adjourned. |