STATUTORY AUTHORITIES REVIEW COMMITTEE: ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AUTHORITY

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO (16:22): I move:

That the report of the committee, on an inquiry into the Environment Protection Authority, be noted.

The Environment Protection Authority (or the EPA as it is generally referred to) is South Australia's primary environmental regulator. The EPA's main functions are administering and enforcing the Environment Protection Act 1993 (or the act as it is known) which includes regulating activities through an authorisation system for controlling and minimising pollution and waste, conducting investigations for compliance assessment, environmental monitoring and evaluation, and enforcement.

The EPA advises the minister in relation to administration and enforcement of the act and in relation to other legislation that may affect the environment. It prepares draft environment protection policies, contributes to national environment protection measures, regularly reviews the effectiveness of policies, regulations, measures and practices, and facilitates the pursuit of the objects of the act by government, the private sector and the public.

The Statutory Authorities Review Committee was tasked with inquiring into and reporting on the operations of the EPA, particularly regarding public notification protocols of contamination and, thus, the inquiry centred on the EPA's responsibility for notifying the public of site contamination once it has become aware of its existence. As the EPA indicated during the inquiry, it takes full responsibility for managing overseeing the public notification of actual or potential contamination.

The act requires the EPA to keep a public register, which records a broad range of information, but most importantly in relation to this inquiry, details of site contamination notified to the EPA under section 83A of the act (the section of the act which requires owners or occupiers of a site or site contamination auditors or consultants to notify the EPA once it becomes aware of the existence of site contamination on site or in the vicinity that affects or threatens groundwater). Access to this public register by the public was considered by the committee, together with a process taken by the EPA for publicly communicating these notifications.

The committee supports the EPA's initiatives since the commencement of the inquiry. The committee has noted in its report that, during the course of its inquiry, the EPA has markedly improved its transparency and accessibility of information in relation to site contamination. Information available on the EPA website has increased and includes a web-based index of all section 83A notifications of groundwater contamination received by the EPA.

The EPA informed the committee that its intention was to make all public register information accessible electronically to the public, whether via the EPA website or via a publicly accessible portal. The EPA's public communication statement on site contamination, which is published on its website, is a marked improvement on its old communication strategy. As the EPA stated in evidence before the committee, it believes that its system of communicating information about contamination or potential contamination is now more pro-active.

If any evidence exists that points to possible impacts on public health or the environment, the EPA will first advise those who are potentially directly affected and then ensure that residents living in neighbouring areas are directly advised. Others are notified through the media. Residents directly affected can expect urgent information to be communicated by the EPA face to face, and with follow-up letters.

On 28 November 2011 the Hon. Paul Caica, the then minister for sustainability, environment and conservation, announced changes to the EPA's public register. The major change is that the EPA will no longer charge people to access public register documents, as long as requests seek documents that are accessible via the EPA's website; available as electronic documents; requested by someone with a direct personal interest in the matter described in the documents, and where that person would face financial hardship in paying the full fee; and, provided to a landowner or tenant of a residential property where that document directly relates to the residential land they own or occupy. As the EPA explained, fees have been waived for the vast majority of public register documents.

On behalf of the committee I take this opportunity to acknowledge and thank the EPA and the organisations and individuals that submitted evidence during this inquiry. The committee heard evidence from a variety of sources and received both written submissions and oral evidence. The committee received a number of submissions in this inquiry that contained concerns regarding the EPA's approach in the provision of information to the public, particularly in relation to contamination notification.

The EPA presented the committee with thorough information relating to the site contamination at Edwardstown and South Plympton at and surrounding the former Hills Industries' site. The report contains a detailed timeline of events relating to this. Due to the circumstances surrounding the site contamination at Edwardstown and South Plympton, and the expectation of the community that they be informed of a potential source of site contamination, there has been a shift on the part of the EPA to make a better effort to provide that information to the community, leading to a big change in its communications. The committee was very forensic in the information it required from the EPA and we welcome these changes.

Another important issue highlighted by this inquiry is that of the relationship between the EPA and local councils, in particular, and their roles and responsibilities relating to the management of minor environmental nuisance complaints—at least on the surface. To some they may be minor but, clearly, not always to those who are complaining.

Although there have been a number of initiatives, including the establishment of working groups, undertaken to clarify each body's roles, the absence of a clear definition of their roles and responsibilities has raised the concern of the committee, which believes that this is negatively impacting on those members of the public who seek resolution to their minor environmental nuisance complaints and instead face confusion and frustration when dealing with the various authorities.

In relation to recommendations, the committee's formal recommendations in this inquiry arise out of the evidence received by the committee. As stated previously, the committee supports the EPA's initiatives since the commencement of the inquiry, which include a marked increase in information available on the EPA website, including a web-based index of all section 83A notifications of groundwater contamination received by the EPA.

The committee recommends that the EPA website be expanded to include all information currently contained in the public register and that new information recorded in the public register be uploaded onto the EPA website as soon as reasonably practicable. The committee heard evidence that indicated that there might be a considerable number of unregistered bores in metropolitan Adelaide. The committee is of the view that in instances where there is actual or potential site contamination, it would be most useful for the EPA and other bodies to know where all groundwater bores exist in the potential affected area.

This would enable bore testing to be undertaken in order to determine the extent of the contamination in the area and would enable earlier notification by the EPA to all those residents with bores in the potential affected area. The committee thus recommends that the Minister for Water and the River Murray should establish and keep a groundwater bore register and consider options for identifying, encouraging and ensuring the registration of current unregistered bores for health and safety reasons.

The committee heard evidence relating to community engagement by the EPA. Currently, the EPA holds an annual roundtable conference where stakeholders are invited to debate topics of interest. Although the committee is aware that this annual roundtable meeting is one part of a wider community engagement program developed by the EPA, the committee recommends that the EPA explore the possibility of meeting on a quarterly basis with community stakeholders, where concerns can be raised and where the EPA can have an opportunity to provide advice.

As stated previously, concerns were expressed to the committee regarding the lack of clear definition between the roles and responsibilities of local councils, in particular, and the EPA in relation to the management of those minor local environmental nuisance complaints. The committee thus recommended that the minister should consider the possibility of legislative reform in order to statutorily define the roles and responsibilities of the EPA and, in particular, local councils, relating to this issue.

The act currently includes an object for the promotion of the disclosure of and public access to information about significant environmental incidents and hazards. Given that, since the 2009 amendments to the act, the EPA is now in receipt of notifications relating to pollution and site contamination and that it takes full responsibility for managing/overseeing the public notification of actual or potential contamination, the committee believes that this object section would sit more appropriately within the functions of the EPA section of the EPA Act and thus recommends that this object be included as a formal function of the EPA. The committee further recommends that the EPA attend before the committee and report on the matters raised in this report in one year's time.

The committee is pleased that, through this inquiry, it has provided extra focus on the manner in which the EPA advises the public regarding potential site contamination and again notes that, during the course of the inquiry, the EPA did markedly improve its transparency and accessibility of information in relation to site contamination.

I would like to take the opportunity to thank the committee staff. The committee secretary, Mr Gareth Hickery, has decided to take long service leave, and I wish him a happy and restful leave. I take the opportunity to welcome Ms Linda Eckert as the acting secretary. She has already slotted into the role with a minimum of fuss and is obviously a very competent lady. Last, but not least, Eva Nikitas, our research officer, is leaving us towards the end of this month to go on maternity leave. Special best wishes to Eva for the happy occasion and heartfelt thanks for her high-level work and all the assistance provided to the committee. I commend the report to the chamber.

Debate adjourned on motion of the Hon. T.J. Stephens.