Northern Territory Second Reading Speeches Northern Territory Second Reading Speeches[Index] [Search] [Bill] [Help]
| Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time. Madam Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Environment Protection Authority Act to provide the Environment Protection Authority, or EPA as it is known, with new functions and strengthened powers. The passage of the Environment Protection Authority Act in 2007 marked a very important moment, where the Territory’s environment protection framework came of age and we joined the rest of Australia in having a strong independent environment watchdog. The Environment Protection Authority Act established a new body specifically concerned with getting ahead of the curve. This new EPA was created to look at the big picture environment protection issues confronting the Territory. As set out in section 5 of the act, the EPA is tasked to give advice and make recommendations to Territory businesses and the community about ecologically sustainable development. The section goes on to provide some examples upon which the EPA can provide advice and make recommendations, notably including achieving best practice environmental policy and management; setting objectives, targets and standards for the public and private sectors; issues affecting the Territory’s capacity to achieve ecologically sustainable development; and, emerging environmental issues. Section 5 of the Environment Protection Authority Act is a particularly instructive section. The EPA is not a regulatory arm of government, it advises government, industry and the community, and is to apply the triple bottom line to its work, environment, economic and social perspectives. Section 7 of the Environment Protection Authority Act goes further, in requiring that the EPA consult with agencies, businesses and the community in going about its work, and that its advice does have regard to some very important principles and objectives, including those of ecologically sustainable development, sound science, best practice, consideration of regional variation, the desirability of a strong growing and diversified economy and a well informed and engaged private sector, the need to adopt cost effective and flexible policy instruments, the need to be transparent in information availability and decision making, and importantly, Madam Speaker, government economic policy priorities for the Territory. Of course, the quality of the advice and recommendations delivered by an EPA is not only determined by the matters I have already outlined, but also the manner in which the EPA can go about its business, and in this respect, the Environment Protection Authority Act is absolutely clear. The EPA is absolutely independent from government in terms of the advice and recommendations it provides. I will, for the record, quote directly from the act because there are some who would seek to portray the EPA as otherwise. Section 8(i) of the act says:
Section 8(ii) goes on to provide that:
These are the defining features of the EPA, created by this government. The EPA is absolutely independent in the advice and recommendations it provides. It is focused on strategic or system-wide issues where it can make a difference and is accountable to a set of strong principles grounded in ecologically sustainable development. Upon the passage of the EPA in 2007 the Environmental Protection Authority was created, and it is well and truly up and running with a board of four very eminent people; Chair, Dr Andrew Tupper and board members, Professor Gordon Duff, Professor Donna Craig and Mrs Judith King. The EPA has a budget in 2009-10 of $750 000. The EPA is currently undertaking three investigations in to ESB principles of the Territory, review of the Environmental Assessment Act, and a review of the regulatory framework to support sustainable development of Darwin Harbour. All are very important bodies of work which are nearing completion, and I look forward to seeing EPA advice and recommendations as they come to hand. Today I introduce amendments to the EPA functions which substantially strengthen its role. These amendments do not fundamentally change the nature of the EPA as originally created. The EPA will remain focused on the system-wide environmental issues facing the Northern Territory. What these amendments will do however is bring the EPA functions into a sharper focus as the watchdog of the Northern Territory’s environment protection framework. This incremental but important shift is made with two objectives. The first is to bring the EPA work into closer contact with the needs of Territorians and second, to provide necessary oversight for the overall environment protection framework at a time when the Northern Territory is on the cusp of major industrial expansion. Consistent with these objectives, the amendments provide for the EPA to have three very important capacities, namely review the uptake and ongoing effectiveness of recommendations made in respect of projects which have undergone environmental assessment; evaluation of the effectiveness of the agency’s response to environmental incidents; and third, the monitoring and public reporting of the cumulative environmental impacts of development. These new capacities are ongoing by nature, and will be able to be exercised by the EPA for specific reference from government or the community. They are, in other words, issues the EPA is tasked to continuously to keep an eye on. In addition to these capacities, the EPA will retain its current capacity to provide advice in respect of one-off investigations referred to the EPA by government or the community, or determined necessary as a result of the EPA’s own initiatives. Importantly, the independence of the EPA has been furthered strengthened by removing the existing requirement for such investigations to conform to criteria and arrangements agreed between the minister and the EPA. Under these amendments the EPA will, for example, be able to provide advice on environmental impact statements for a major development, unfettered by the criteria and arrangements established under the existing EPA. To be clear, this may relate to some aspects of the EIS which the EPA sees fit to investigate, but it does not extend to administering the environmental assessment process itself. That will remain with the department of Natural Resources, Environment, the Arts and Sport. The bill also makes it clear such advice in respect to an active environment assessment can only come forward where the assessment has been directed after the commencement of these amendments. For major developments already subject to an EIS, for example, government is very clear business certainty demands rules are not changed during the course of an environmental assessment. I now turn particularly to the new ongoing capacities of the EPA established under these amendments. First, the bill provides for the EPA to be tasked with reviewing the uptake and ongoing effectiveness of recommendations made after formal environmental assessment of a project has been completed. This function fills a critical gap in our current environment protection framework. For environmental assessments of major development proposals, a proponent is required to investigate the full range of environmental risks; identify feasibility alternatives to their proposal; and put forward safeguards for mitigating foreseeable environment impacts. Government reviews the public environment report or the Environmental Impact Statement. There is public comment and, on the advice of my department, I will then make recommendations to the minister responsible for approving the development. These recommendations will potentially deal with matters to be addressed and approval on licences. Appropriate monitoring arrangements and further environmental work will be undertaken. These approvals and licences are many and varied and administered under a variety of portfolios. Ultimately, the success of the environment assessment depends on how well the recommendations flow through the various approving statutes. Critically, evaluating the link between the environmental assessment and the final approvals and ongoing regulation of a project can slip through the cracks. Madam Speaker, without regular review of the uptake and ongoing effectiveness of the recommendations made through the environmental assessment, there is potential for the assessment process to become disconnected from regulatory needs, for the community trust in environmental assessment to be eroded, and for the system to deliver poorer environmental outcomes. By tasking the EPA with this function we are creating a stronger environment protection framework for the future. Second, the EPA will be able to investigate and review the adequacy of agency responses to environmental incidents and report on improvements. This does not create a frontline pollution response function for the EPA, which will continue to reside with the respective agencies. However, if there is evidence of regulatory failure or community complaint, the EPA will be able to investigate whether the relevant processes, procedures and laws exist in relation to the incident and if they do whether they have been appropriately applied. If such laws do not exist, the EPA will be able to make appropriate recommendations for the reform. This is the EPA acting as a watchdog on the environment protection system. Madam Speaker, of course in some cases there are established existing processes for the review of incidents response such as occurs after major spills in the marine environment through the national plan to combat pollution of the sea by oil and other noxious and hazardous substances. In such circumstances the EPA, as a matter of course, would make itself aware of those arrangements and seek sensible arrangements to ensure that any duplication is avoided, and that the outcomes of established processes are taken into account in the exercise of the EPA’s functions. Third, under the bill, the EPA will be able to monitor and evaluate the cumulative impacts of development. While we have a good process for dealing with the impacts of individual development projects, it is easy to forget that developments do not exist in isolation and it all adds up. At the end of the day, it is the overall condition of our environment that counts. As the watchdog of the system the EPA will be tasked to strategically monitor overall environmental conditions and how we are tracking. The bill makes it clear that this does not extend to monitoring undertaken for regulatory purposes. To undertake these new functions the EPA will be given stronger powers to obtain relevant information. The bill creates new offences for failing to supply information when requested by the EPA, or supplying false or misleading information to the EPA. These offences are appropriate and commensurate with the importance of the role of the EPA. Finally, the bill provides for the EPA to carry out its functions under improved arrangements of public transparency and accountability. Under current arrangements, EPA findings are to be reported publicly. The bill enhances this also by requiring agencies to respond to EPA findings and for both the response and the findings to be tabled in the legislative assembly. The requirements are similar to those of the Auditor-General. In conclusion, this bill represents the next step in the evolution of a strong EPA which will provide leadership on environmental sustainability as we enter into a new age of industrial development across the Northern Territory. It does so not by disturbing the existing regulatory framework delivered by various agencies, but by ensuring there is a strong watchdog on the whole system. This bill will create an EPA that is stronger, more independent, and more relevant and accountable to community needs. This bill creates an EPA for the 21st century. Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to honourable members, and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill. Debate adjourned. |