ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION (BOARD OF AUTHORITY) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 4 March 2008. Page 1991.)

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (16:19): I rise to indicate Liberal Party support for this bill. It is not a large bill of many clauses, but it is quite significant in terms of governance for the Environment Protection Authority. I am grateful to the officers of the EPA for their briefing and for enabling me to keep a drawing, which explains the rather complex arrangements in place for the EPA in this state.

I note that the Environment, Resources and Development Committee of the parliament looked into the issue of governance in particular models in 2000. It looked at a number of issues quite thoroughly, recommending a particular model because of the then anomaly of the authority and the agency being separate bodies, in a sense.

The bill essentially changes the current position that the chair of the board is also the CE of the organisation, which is highly unusual in modern governance practices, which is principally why we support this bill. My understanding is that the EPA has existed within other environmental departments or agencies and was split from a particular department in the interests of independence from government. This particular measure is in the interests of ensuring that the CE is also independent of government and will no longer have the conflict of that particular situation.

The bill will remove the CE as a board member and presiding member but the CE will, however, continue to sit at board meetings as an ex officio non-voting member to provide policy advice to the board. The board will continue to have its same membership, one of whom will be appointed as presiding member, and there will be some changes to round table conferences as well.

I have been requested to ask a particular question, which is in relation to a register of interests or declaration of conflict and so forth for board members. So I put on the record for the minister to address in her closing remarks whether that is contained within the Environment Protection Act or whether it comes under some other instrument within an act which oversees boards generally.

There has been some criticism of what has occurred with replacing the CE and chair, Dr Paul Vogel, who announced his intention to retire on 1 August last year. I understand that since his departure—which was effective on 2 November 2007 and now it is 1 April—

The PRESIDENT: Five months.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Five months, indeed, and he certainly gave plenty of notice, so I do not think the situation is very satisfactory. To have the CE of the Department for Environment and Heritage acting in that position, clearly that is too much work for any person and I think that leaves a leadership vacuum in those important environmental agencies.

I put those remarks on the record in relation to that and I also ask the minister whether she has some sort of time frame within which a new CE will be appointed. With those remarks, I indicate support for the bill.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Environment and Conservation, Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse, Minister Assisting the Minister for Health) (16:23): In making some concluding remarks, I would like to thank those honourable members who contributed to the second reading debate. It is a very simple and straightforward bill. It is administrative in nature and separates the role of the chief executive and the person who presides at meetings of the board of the Environment Protection Authority.

In terms of the question posed by the Hon. Michelle Lensink, I beg her indulgence that that question be answered in the committee stage. I look forward to dealing with this bill expeditiously through the committee stage and, again, I thank all honourable members who contributed.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I pick up some of the issues that were raised during the second reading debate. The Hon. Mark Parnell stated that under the leadership of Dr Paul Vogel there were no apparent instances of there being any conflict of interest or poor decision-making; however, the government acknowledges that the current arrangement is not the best governance arrangement and has introduced this bill, obviously, to strengthen the operation of the EPA as an independent body. So, I thank Mark for his support.

The Hon. Michelle Lensink asked whether the board members are required to fill in a register of interest or make a declaration of any sort. Under section 18 of the act, conflict of interest, the board members and members of any committee or subcommittee of the board are required to disclose any pecuniary or personal interest and may not take part in a decision or deliberation in which they hold an interest. A disclosure under this section must be recorded in the minutes of the board.

Currently, this is actioned through all new board members completing a register of members' interests form that outlines their professional, personal and financial interests and any other substantial interests, including those held by family members or other persons related to the board member, which might appear to raise a conflict of interest.

At the commencement of each board meeting members are required to complete a declaration of interest form if declaring an interest in any matter on the board's agenda for that meeting. This declaration is recorded in the minutes of the meeting and a copy sent to the minister. Once a declaration of interest is made by the member over a particular matter, they do not take part in any deliberation by the board on that matter. The penalty for a breach of this part of the act is a $4,000 fine or one year imprisonment.

So, I thank the Hon. Michelle Lensink for her support and her question. She also asked about the issue of timing. My understanding is that a round of advertising for the chief executive's position has been completed, and I believe that short-listing is about to commence. We look forward to hopefully making an announcement shortly.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 to 8 passed.

Clause 9.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Clause 9 is very straightforward. It basically deletes subsection (5) of section 19, which provides that in the conduct of the authority's annual round-table conference the chief executive of the authority, or his or her nominee, should preside. So, by removing that it opens up the scope for the new independent chair, or someone else, to preside.

My contribution on this clause is because I have attended just about every EPA round table; from memory, I think 1996 was the first. It was always a very useful occasion. The EPA has a fairly unfettered discretion in the conduct of these round tables. Pursuant to section 19 the authority can hold them when they want, they can invite who they want and they can follow their own procedures. They are instructed through legislation to make sure that a range of interests are represented, and that is good.

Some of these EPA round tables have been very big. In fact, during the early days, my recollection is that it was basically a soapbox, and every person who had a gripe about the way the EPA was conducting itself would get up on the soapbox. Whilst it was good fun, it was not necessarily the most constructive way to assist the authority in developing policy. Other EPA round tables have been quite small, and people—especially in the non-government conservation sector that I represent—were disappointed that they missed out.

I do not wish to upset the discretion of the authority in relation to who it can invite and how it conducts its meetings. I have not, in fact, moved any amendments to this clause, which is what I would have done had I wanted to fetter them some more. The reason I am giving this background is simply to put a suggestion to the minister. She can indicate whether or not she agrees with it but, even if she does not, if she can indicate that she might put the suggestion to the presiding member of the authority that the invitation to the round table be extended—I would have reasonably thought—to all members of parliament; but if it is thought that that might overwhelm the conference with MPs, then to at least invite members of the Environment, Resources and Development Committee of parliament, because those six members have a degree of oversight over the activities of the EPA.

Traditionally, the EPA has focused on licence holders, professional associations and members of conservation groups, but it seems to me that it is in the interests of the authority and in the interests of good governance for the environment in general if at least that section of parliamentary oversight that is comprised in the Environment, Resources and Development Committee was given an invitation to attend at the roundtable. So, my contribution is simply that: a suggestion to the minister that she might pass on to the chair or the CEO that members of the ERD Committee or, in fact, all members of parliament be invited to future round tables.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Yes; indeed. As the honourable member points out, the round tables have played quite a range of different parts in public discussion and debate on a wide range of issues, and the board itself has discretion to decide how and who is invited. As the honourable member knows, it is not appropriate for the minister to direct the board in these matters; it would be most inappropriate. However, I certainly acknowledge that some of the larger round tables have not been particularly constructive in the way that they have operated and the outcomes. Indeed, some of the smaller events have been incredibly valuable and should be encouraged. I think that the request of the member is indeed reasonable, and I am more than happy to pass on the Hon. Mark Parnell's suggestion—as a suggestion—to the new chief executive and presiding member of the board, and, of course, they will not be one and the same person.

Clause passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Bill read a third time and passed.