Page 866 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 9 April 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I think we need to figure out whether the issues will be addressed by the legislative changes that the minister has forecast. In the amendment that I have circulated, and which I will move shortly, I have attempted to begin this process by adding paragraph (3) to the motion, where the Assembly calls on the EPA to provide information about their response to the Koppers situation. There have been various reports. If you look closely at what has come out through the freedom of information process that the Canberra Times has undertaken, there are various pieces of information.
There are many questions, and I think it is for the EPA now to provide a detailed account of their understanding of their analysis of the situation—the time lines and the steps that took place and where they think the pitfalls were. These things can be perhaps easier in hindsight, but I think the EPA should spell out their analysis of what happened and provide the Assembly and the community with that information so that we can make a further assessment of what happened and consider what can be done to ensure that it will not happen again.
The third thing is that the public needs to have confidence in the EPA and the function of the Environment Protection Act. I look forward to the public consultation around the changes to the legislation that the minister has forecast. I know there has been a consultation process to get to this point where the legislative changes are being prepared. Once those are made public it will be important to look closely at them and take into account the views of people like the Environmental Defender’s Office, academic experts and the like, who look at these things closely, in terms of whether the issues that have been raised by this matter have been addressed. I look forward to seeing whether those amendments do the job as is needed.
Ms Lawder in her motion has suggested that the Auditor-General conduct the investigation. Having really thought about this, I am not convinced that the Auditor-General is the right mechanism—firstly because of the reasons I have just talked to and the options that are available. The other observation I would make is that there is, of course, no obligation on the Auditor-General to conduct the inquiry. Members know that we cannot direct the Auditor-General to do something specific. Obviously, the Auditor-General, if the Assembly made such a request, takes that request very seriously. It is not that we cannot ask, but there is no guarantee.
Given the importance of the issues here, I think the mechanisms that have now been identified will actually take place and in a relatively short time frame. The Auditor-General already has a program of work, so it is unclear exactly when they would be able to undertake this. I acknowledge that the Auditor-General may well prioritise this. I am keen to make sure that these specific things happen.
Going to the resources and the program of the Auditor-General that is already in place, and given that there are legislative changes coming for the Environment Protection Act, I think it is important that we get these things done in a fairly timely manner. I am concerned that the Auditor-General may not be able to undertake the inquiry easily given the time that has passed, as the end of this saga was more or less seven years ago.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video