Protection of the Environment Legislation Amendment Bill 2014

I join in debate on the Protection of the Environment Legislation Amendment Bill 2014 whose theme is ensuring that the Environment Protection Authority [EPA] is given the powers it needs to be a strong and credible regulator, as announced by the Minister for the Environment yesterday. The background to this bill is that its amendments will strengthen and align environmental penalties and alternative sentencing options across legislation administered by the Environment Protection Authority. It will also ensure that both the EPA and the courts have access to a full range of options in managing environmental offences, including enforceable undertakings, the recovery of monetary gains accruing to an offender, and restorative justice actions.

These amendments will also ensure that maximum penalties are consistent for similar offences across legislation administered by the Environment Protection Authority. Miscellaneous amendments will enable timely and cost-effective enforcement by the EPA as well as identifying, clarifying or updating legislation. The bill proposes increasing selected maximum penalties in the Contaminated Land Management Act to align with penalties for similar offences in other environmental legislation. As well, it will provide for higher penalties under the Contaminated Land Management Act and the Radiation Control Act for repeat offenders. Those amendments are, of course, supported by those on this side of the Parliament.

Another of the key proposals that I want to speak about tonight relates to timely and cost-effective enforcement by the Environment Protection Authority. One of the key proposals is to remove the requirement for the EPA to issue a licensee with a notice of intent to revoke or suspend a licence and to provide that a revocation or suspension will have effect during any appeal proceedings against that action. A further key proposal is to include on the list of persons who may be issued with a clean-up notice the owner of the land on which a licensed activity is undertaken. Another will enable the EPA to require waste transporters to be fitted with and use an approved global positioning system device, as well as providing that material harm pollution incidents involving only odour are required to be notified to the EPA in the same manner as other environmental incidents.

Some of the miscellaneous amendments that I have mentioned will restore a legislative requirement for industry to prevent or minimise fugitive air emissions, especially dust from coalmines and quarries, and I presume brick pits as well; remove an obsolete process in regard to affixing labels to defective vehicles; provide for the liability of offenders for continuing offences; and enable the EPA to retain the funds of costs recovered in administering certain legislation. The bill will ensure that the EPA has the powers it needs to be a strong and credible regulator. Given a number of examples over the past 30 years or more, it is important that these amendments, proposed by the good Minister for the Environment, give the EPA the teeth it has needed. I commend the Minister for these key proposals.

At the end of the day, the real purpose of the bill is to make a series of amendments to the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997 and the Radiation Control Act 1990 to strengthen and align environmental penalties and alternative sentencing options, and to make miscellaneous amendments to the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and the Contaminated Land Act 1997, including amendments to support timely and cost-effective enforcement by the EPA, and to the Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991.

These amendments are supported by this side of the House because they will strengthen and align environmental penalties and alternative sentencing options across a whole host of Environment Protection Authority administered legislation, and will give the EPA the teeth and the bite that it desperately needs. They will also ensure that the EPA and the courts have access to a full range of options in managing environmental offences, including enforceable undertakings and the recovery of monetary gains accruing to an offender. These amendments ensure that maximum penalties are consistent for similar offences across legislation administered by the EPA.

I want to make a couple of points in the three minutes remaining to me. One, of course, is timely and cost-effective enforcement by the EPA. Members in this Chamber realise that the bill will remove the requirement for the EPA to issue a licensee with a notice of intent to revoke or suspend a licence and provide that a revocation or suspension will have effect during any appeal proceedings against that action. Of course, the bill includes the owner of the land on which a licensed activity is undertaken to be listed as a person who may be issued with a clean-up notice. These provisions are important, and they cover the entire State.

Over many years we have had numerous examples of pollution, not just in the Georges River. I acknowledge the member for Miranda, whose electorate is along the Georges River. The Cooks River also has had many examples of pollution that required the EPA to take much-needed action. Through my work as a councillor on Kogarah City Council and the Georges River Combined Councils Committee, I know that the authority does an outstanding job of cleaning up the river system. This legislation gives the EPA the administrative nuts and bolts that it needs. I support this common-sense legislation. I commend the Minister for introducing the whole host of amendments, many of which I have mentioned. I look forward to the Opposition also supporting this bill.