ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION (ACCESS TO INFORMATION) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 23 March 2011.)

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (22:19): The government is sensitive to the concerns the Hon. Mr Parnell is addressing in this bill and is keen to work with him further on these matters, as I am advised we have already done so. But for reasons I am about to outline, the government does not support the amendment bill at this time, chiefly because there are a number of actions already in progress to address the issues which are the focus of the bill. First, I am informed that the Environment Protection Authority has already identified a number of opportunities for improvement in the way it provides access to the public register and is actively embracing a plan for delivering these improvements.

A desktop comparison of interstate public registers has highlighted that South Australia has one of the most comprehensive and extensive list of requirements it must fulfil. In identifying how to improve access to information, priority has been given to the level of public interest as well as to how reasonable it is to achieve. As I understand it, members of the EPA board have met with the honourable member to discuss the public register, and the Minister for Environment and Conservation is informed that there was agreement that both he and the EPA were moving in the same direction with regard to the improvements already identified.

I am advised that specific actions have already been undertaken to progress the improvements to the public register. These include:

scanning all current EPA licences (2,200 records) for ease of public access;

beginning the development of a web-based functionality for an online register; a searchable index of notifications of contamination to groundwater was released on 14 April, and further functionality is being developed to provide information regarding environmental authorisations (licences), environment protection orders and new applications for environmental authorisations;

finalising the scanning of all historical, inactive EPA licences and certain Waste Management Commission records;

identifying enhancements to its internal electronic operating systems to ensure information can be adequately recorded;

undertaking user requirements for a new IT system, which will include requirements relating to the public register; and

discussing the organisation's approach with the Ombudsman, who has endorsed it as reasonable in the circumstances.

Secondly, a broad review of the Environment Protection Act 1993 is in progress, and an assessment of opportunities for improvements to provisions relating to access to information is within the scope of the review. The government aims to release a discussion paper early in 2012 to inform a more comprehensive bill.

Thirdly, it is this government's policy to improve public access to information based on a whole-of-government approach, such as Ask Just Once, which aims to improve business processes to manage information more efficiently and to obtain a higher return for each dollar invested in information communication technology. In the case of the proposed inclusion of planning advice in the public register, it is questionable whether this is the most effective way of meeting the community's need for information, and this information may best be provided along with all other considerations used in planning decisions by the planning authorities.

However, there are some aspects of the bill that the government cannot support because they are not administratively workable. For example, it is not feasible to put all records on the web immediately. Many records are paper-based, going back to the early days of the EPA and its predecessors in title, such as the Waste Management Commission. It would be a large task to scan these records and upload them to the EPA's website, and it is not clear that the demand for electronic access to these records is large enough to justify diverting significant staff resources to this task. The EPA's plan is to expand the online public register over time as resources permit.

Another issue of concern is the proposal to require records to be uploaded within seven days of receipt. Some of the notifications the EPA receives contain details which need to be clarified before they are made publicly available. For example, a person may notify the EPA that they have 'become aware' of site contamination at a site affecting or threatening groundwater, as required under section 83A of the Environment Protection Act 1993.

Officers of the EPA may then contact the person and find that there has been a misunderstanding about whether contamination exists or whether it does, in fact, threaten groundwater. It makes sense to retain the current allowance of a maximum of three months to allow such matters to be further explored before a record is made public, when there is no reasonable basis for fearing the existence of site contamination affecting groundwater.

The government is also concerned about the proposal in the bill to remove the provision allowing the Governor to make regulations for the removal of information recorded in the register. While a full site history is important, it is also important to ensure that information provided is relevant and does not contribute to confusion about the site. One issue that the EPA has identified in its recent review of the public register is the need to make some regulations under this provision.

For example, at present it places draft site contamination reports on the register. When a final report is later received it would be sensible to remove the draft report, which otherwise risks giving rise to confusion. There are other examples of out of date or superseded information which should be removed from the register in order to contain it within a manageable size and ensure that people have access to the most accurate information at all times. The current provision regarding the capacity of the Governor to make regulations excluding certain classes of information from the public register is, of course, subject to scrutiny by the house and oversight as exists with all subordinate legislation.

For these reasons the government will not be supporting the bill, but I reiterate the government and the Hon. Mr Parnell seem to be in robust general agreement on the direction to be taken. We just seem to differ on some of the mechanics. Nonetheless, the government encourages the Hon. Mark Parnell to continue his furious agreement with the government.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (22:25): I rise to make some remarks in relation to this bill, which I have considerable sympathy for. I understand where the honourable member is coming from in terms of trying to hasten the EPA to do what it said it would do. I am grateful for the assistance he has provided me in understanding the various aspects of the bill. It retrieves some matters which are already required to be recorded in a public register from section 109 of the act as well as items from the regulations, plus a few he has added himself, and requires that these items should be provided electronically by the EPA on a website, they must be provided for free, and they must be published within seven days rather than the current period, which is three months.

I note the EPA has been criticised for many years for failing to publicly disclose knowledge, particularly in relation to contamination, and failing to do so in a timely fashion. In order to access that information, people are required to attend the EPA in person, use its computers to access the information at $100 an hour, and then pay, in some instances, a small fortune to photocopy those reports. We are all very familiar with the instances at Edwardstown, Clovelly Park and Port Pirie.

The issue of the EPA's contamination notification protocols and related matters is an active term of reference before the Statutory Authorities Review Committee. I am advised that, while the EPA has appeared before SARC, the additional matters which are raised in this bill have not been fully canvassed. Following the contribution from the government by the Hon. Ian Hunter, who no doubt has a speech which was provided to him by the minister's office outlining all the things that the EPA intends to do, I do believe the EPA has been slower than it should have been and is dragging its feet.

The environment minister wrote to all MPs, I think—he certainly wrote to me—in April this year to advise that an index of groundwater notifications would be available from 14 April 2011, to be updated on a monthly basis, 'with more information relating to site contamination and EPA licences later in the year'. On examination of this site, it currently contains: environmental authorisations, that is, licences; you can do a search by suburb, and those are available for download as a PDF; development authorisation referrals, which are not available electronically; enforcement actions, and there is a summary as a schedule; and site contamination, which is a search by suburb which provides the street address and the type of potentially contaminating activity.

Of the full list that is in the honourable member's bill there is a very slim number of items which have been actioned and are available electronically. However, I am concerned about the aspect that reduces the timing within which this information has to be published from three months to seven days, and I also would be interested to know what the cost implications are for implementing publication of such a large number of reports.

Given that the SARC inquiry is still ongoing, the Liberal Party will not be supporting this bill at this stage, but we do have great sympathy for it, particularly in relation to what the honourable member has referred to in the Newport Quays Dock One development. We look forward to further developments on this matter and other initiatives that may come before parliament.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (22:29): I rise to indicate my support for the Hon. Mark Parnell's Environment Protection (Access to Information) Amendment Bill, which seeks to significantly expand the types of authorisations, exemptions and notifications of contamination, amongst other matters, that must be recorded in the Environment Protection Authority's public register, and to require that register to be published on the internet and be available for public inspection free of charge.

Currently, those seeking to access the limited information on the register must pay the prescribed fee of $17.30 per 10-minute access to records in non-electronic form. This makes it a very expensive exercise for the average Joe out there who may want to get access to information on certain properties or whatever that he may be considering purchasing or moving next to. There is a whole range of reasons, especially these days, for people wanting to know if the land or groundwater that they are going to access or be living next door to or whatever is a contaminated site. Right now that information, as I understand it, is not freely available.

I note that if the records sought are in electronic form they are provided free of charge, and if you have a direct interest in the property about which you are inquiring the fee may be waived. The bill also requires that the register be updated within seven days instead of the current three months.

I note that there is also an inquiry by the Statutory Authorities Review Committee, which I sit on, into the EPA at the minute, and I know the EPA has admitted themselves that their recording of information on the register is inadequate and they recognise the need for improvement. As usual with these sorts of statutory authorities or these information-providing services, they say it is a matter of resourcing. I am not sure if it is that they do not have enough money to resource it or if they do not want to spend the money that they have. I am not quite sure how that works, but I am sure that will become clearer as the inquiry moves forward.

I have to say, with the most recent information about groundwater contamination, how slow it has been for the public to be advised on that. It became clearer to me during that meeting that we had with the EPA, knowing now the process that is involved in detecting groundwater contamination. It probably explains why the release of that information could be slow. Nonetheless, if the information is there, if it is solid and it is known, then the public should be notified as quickly as possible and it should be up on that register for the public to be able to access.

As members would be aware, this is a major concern to many people now. We have now identified that there are literally hundreds of sites around South Australia that could well be contaminated but do not fall under the EPA's need to investigate just yet. This information is becoming more and more important to people who are concerned about not only the environment but also where they are housing their families, where they are building their houses to raise their families and what kind of risk their children will be at in the future.

I do support the bill. I know this has been a 15-year battle, as the Hon. Mark Parnell told me, for him and I admire his persistence and commitment on this. If this bill is reintroduced after the proroguing of parliament, we will also have that report from the Statutory Authorities Review Committee to draw more information on to support the need for this bill.

The Hon. M. PARNELL (22:34): I will begin by thanking the Hon. Ann Bressington for her contribution and her support, and also the Hon. Ian Hunter and the Hon. Michelle Lensink for their contributions. By way of summary, I think it is important for all members to realise that we are in fact making inroads in this area, as the Hon. Ian Hunter referred to. He talked about us being in furious agreement. Well, there may be a great deal of agreement about what needs to be done, but the point is that for a decade and a half it has not been done and it is only in the last several months that we have seen genuine improvements in the EPA's provision of information to the public via the public register.

We all know that the squeaky hinge gets the oil and we also know that part of the role of this parliament is not just to legislate but also to give more direction, if you like, or to apply pressure so that agencies, especially quasi-independent agencies like the EPA, are in no doubt as to the expectations of elected members.

Where I think members would not get this issue accurate is if they believe that what we now see on the public website somehow got there by magic and not by pressure. If you go to the EPA's website, you will find—as members have referred to—that the contaminated land information is there and the index of notifications of actual or potential groundwater contamination sites is there, but you will also find that, just within the last few weeks, pollution licences and extensions are now up on the web.

These are documents that I have been asking for for 15 years, and finally we have got them up on the web. It could have happened 10 years ago; in fact, it could have happened 15 years ago, but I am not going to be churlish about it. It is great that they are now up on the web; that is terrific. However, it is a small step and there is a great deal more that needs to be done.

Where I am encouraged is that when you go to the EPA's website and look at its frequently asked questions section, if you go to the section headed 'How much does it cost to view or obtain information on the public register?' it makes the following statement:

The EPA is progressively moving to transfer archived records and manual documents into electronic form. As this project is progressed, copies of documents held electronically on the EPA's public register can be provided by email or on disk rather than on paper. In these cases, requests for copies of documents listed on the website index will be met at no charge.

That is great. The point is that they do not have to do that because the legislated requirement is still that they charge $100 an hour for access and vast sums for photocopies of paper documents. So, I am encouraged that the EPA is heading in the right direction.

I can see the numbers in this chamber. Whilst it will not be tonight that we legislate to require it, I think we do need to keep a watching brief and, once the EPA is disclosing documents properly and electronically and for free, it will simply seem to be a routine measure to legislate for what they are already doing. So, I will not be dividing on this one tonight, but I am pleased to hear the contribution of the opposition that they get it and they understand the need for these reforms.

I think the Hon. Michelle Lensink's contribution would be noted by the EPA, that if she becomes the minister for the environment in some years to come, she will be on to this as well. So, whilst this bill will not be going on to the statute books at this time, I have every expectation that ultimately many of the matters raised in this bill will become law, and I hope that they become part of the practice of the EPA well before they become law.

Bill read a second time.