ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION (SITE CONTAMINATION) AMENDMENT BILL

Final Stages

Consideration in committee of the House of Assembly’s amendment.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I move:

That the House of Assembly's amendment be agreed to.

This is an administrative amendment, and I understand it is uncontroversial. The amendment is not a departure from the meaning of the concept of site contamination; rather, it is to clarify an aspect that has resulted from an amendment in the Legislative Council that was consequential to the main amendment under new section 103C(1)(b) moved by the Hon. Mark Parnell. A major part of this bill is the concept that site contamination can exist at the site where the original activity took place and also elsewhere as a result of the migration of chemicals by, for example, groundwater.

The government had proposed an amendment to change a note in the previous bill to a subclause to this effect. This amendment was inadvertently dropped following amendments moved by the Hon. Mark Parnell. I think we all got very excited at the time, and it was a small oversight.

Advice received recently from parliamentary counsel was that there may be some legal uncertainty that this aspect of the bill remained under the original definition. Therefore, the amendment was made to avoid any possible legal questions as to the interpretation. The amendment is made to avoid the possible interpretation that for site contamination to exist, chemical substances must have been directly introduced by human activity to the particular site contaminated. By removing the words `introduced to the site' and by adding the subsection (1)(b), it will be clear that site contamination will exist regardless of whether the chemical substances had been directly introduced at the site or introduced at another site and migrated to the site in underground water or otherwise. This amendment is necessary as a result of the amendments to sections 103C and 103D which resulted in the removal of an explanatory note to the same effect.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The Liberal opposition supports this amendment. The issue of the definition of 'site contamination' did cause us all not quite sleepless nights but needed close examination to ensure that the act, as it will be, can be correctly interpreted as it was intended to be.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The Greens support the amendment.

Motion carried.