Environmental Legislation Amendment (Enforcement) Bill

Debate resumed from 30 October.

Mr NAGLE (Auburn) [10.51]: This important bill, which closes certain loopholes, has been a long time coming. It provides for the imposition of heavy penalties on those who pollute the environment. Parramatta River and Duck River are both located in my electorate. Over the years both of those rivers have been heavily polluted. I well remember the old PAACAL site, which has now become Wilson Park. During the 30 years the company occupied that site it dumped huge quantities of pollutants into the Parramatta River. The company then swapped land with Auburn Council; it took three former soccer fields in exchange for the old PAACAL site. Everyone in the electorate of Auburn thought that obtaining a large tract of riverside land was a great bargain. Funding was then obtained from the State and Federal governments to establishing Wilson Park, which has barbecue facilities, bicycle tracks, walkways and appropriate soccer fields. About 5½ years ago council officers informed the council that they had a burning feeling in their hands when they were working in the garden area of the park. PAACAL had concealed huge quantities of dangerous toxic materials on the site of the park. Unfortunately, the PAACAL company is no longer in existence.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the Minister for the Environment and the member for Wakehurst want to conduct a discussion, they can do so outside the Chamber but not while debate on the bill is proceeding.

Page 5861

[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have just asked the member for Wakehurst to do something and he has disobeyed the Chair. He will resume his seat.

Mr NAGLE: It is estimated that it will cost $50 million to clean up Wilson Park. That park belonged to the people of my electorate and to the people of Sydney. During the years the company polluted the site it should have been prosecuted, but it was not. The bill will close loopholes such as those that allowed PAACAL to avoid its responsibility to maintain the environment of the Sydney basin. The legislation will enable the Environment Protection Authority to prosecute companies and individuals for environmental offences under new legislation currently before Parliament. The Minister for the Environment has proposed changes to State pollution control laws which will extend the existing limitation periods within which the Environment Protection Authority can bring criminal proceedings for environmental offences. It is about time this legislation was introduced. For seven years the previous Government did little to protect the environment. It has taken the Minister for the Environment in a Labor government to introduce strong penalties for those who destroy the beautiful environment of Sydney.

The Environmental Offences and Penalties Act sets out limits within which criminal proceedings can be started for offences against pollution control legislation. For most environmental offences the time limit is 12 months from the date on which the alleged offence occurred, while a three-year limit applies to certain serious offences, such as the wilful and unlawful dumping of waste which causes environmental harm. The time at which an act of pollution - for example, the dumping of toxic waste into Duck River or Parramatta River - was committed may not be able to be identified. However, ultimately the time of the offence may be traced. A local company which borders on the river may have dumped excess waste. I will not name the companies that have done so in my electorate because organisations such as Shell and other factories in the area have done a great deal to solve the problem of the pollution of Parramatta River and Duck River. That is to their eternal credit.

The problem is that the exact time of the unlawful dumping is not known. The Environment Protection Authority may take some time to become aware of the high level of contaminants in rivers or creeks. The legislation provides for a three-year period in which to initiate proceedings for serious offences. For minor matters the time limit will be 12 months from the date on which the alleged offence occurred. It is often difficult to determine exactly when pollution occurs, and the bill extends the time limits in which proceedings may be initiated. The honourable member for The Hills loves Sydney, the environment and the rivers, and he does not want those who dump all their rubbish into our rivers and our atmosphere to get away with it.

The bill provides that the time limit will not commence until an offence is detected by the authorised officer. That is another step forward, because it means that the three-year limitation period will commence at the time of detection. The bill also clarifies the powers of authorised officers to enter premises to collect evidence of past pollution incidents. These changes will help to ensure that polluters are made to pay for the damage they cause. There is a medical waste incinerator in my electorate, and for a long while there were a great many problems with it. It took a great deal of hard work over a long period by the Federal member for Reid, Mr Laurie Ferguson, myself and the local council to finally convince those responsible for the incinerator that they needed to take their environmental obligations more seriously. Ultimately they did that by putting on extra scrubbers. Those responsible for the incinerator would have been prosecuted under the bill for any type of pollution that they caused in the electorate.

In electorates such as mine, which is zoned one-third residential, one-third commercial-industrial and one-third for recreational and passive use, these types of problems do arise. But through the good offices of the Minister for the Environment, the environment will now be better protected and those who pollute the beautiful city of Sydney will be prosecuted. They should not believe they will get away with it because they will not. The message will go out to all the big Sydney firms that are involved in chemical, hospital and other waste that they will no longer get away with dumping their pollutants into the rivers of Sydney or releasing toxic gases into the atmosphere.

The Government is committed to overhauling the State's existing pollution control legislation, some of which is more than 35 years old. A new bill to be called the Protection of the Environment Operations Bill is being finalised. The Government expects to release an exposure draft of this bill and a green paper explaining it for at least three months public consultation later this year. Clearly, that bill is another major project in relation to the protection of the environment. Clause 3 of the bill amends section 12 of the Environmental Offences and Penalties Act to change the period in which criminal proceedings need to be started. The objects of the bill have been set out in the objects of the bill as follows:

(a) to extend the limitation period within which proceedings for offences against the environmental legislation must be instituted -

I have already spoken about that -

(b) to make it clear that authorised officers may enter premises under the environmental legislation if the officer suspects that pollution has been caused in or from the premises (at present the power of entry applies in some cases only if the officer suspects that pollution is being or is likely to be caused), and

(c) to make it clear that authorised officers may require an occupier of premises under the environmental legislation to produce records if the officer suspects that pollution has

Page 5862
been caused in or from the premises (at present the power to require the production of records applies only if the officer suspects that pollution is being or is usually caused).

The Act specifically gives wide-ranging powers. Honourable members will know later whether the Opposition will support the bill but it is hoped that it will. I assume that good reasons for opposing this legislation would have been taken into account when negotiations were being made through the shadow minister for the environment, the honourable member for Wakehurst, Mr Hazzard. It would be a shame if this good legislation is not passed unanimously for the betterment of the people of New South Wales. This bill will not in any way inhibit industry, but it will make industry understand its responsibilities to the Australian community, the people of New South Wales and particularly the people of the Sydney Basin. The Opposition needs to take that responsibility on board.

It is important that the Government review all parts of the State's pollution laws in such a way that they will affect the operation of industry but at the same time protect the environment. The ability to nominate the day on which evidence of an environmental offence came to the attention of a relevant authorised officer is crucial point in any prosecution. This would apply equally to breaches of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act or the Crimes Act, because the statute of limitations applies. For very serious crimes such as murder and rape there is no statute of limitations but there are limitations on other crimes from the date on which the offence took place. Under this legislation the relevant date will be when the offence was recognised by the department, and that is a great step forward.

It is always open for the defendant to show that a matter came to the attention of the relevant authorised officer at an earlier date and that as a result proceedings have not been brought within time. However, it is not appropriate that polluters escape liability merely because an offence has gone undetected for a number of months or even years. As I said about the PAACAL site at Silverwater, if these laws had been in place in the 1950s, 1960s and early 1970s we might have been saved the disgrace of having to spend $50 million to clean up the mess caused by a tar-producing company in polluting Parramatta River, and having to build enormous concrete walls to protect the river from the seepage from Wilson Park. I tried very hard to persuade the former Minister for the Environment, the honourable member for Gosford, that something had to be done about Wilson Park, but the best he ever did was to allocate $200,000.

This Minister has taken the matter quite seriously and knows that Wilson Park is a real risk to the community, and something will be done about it in the next couple of years. Under the existing pollution control legislation, authorised officers have the power to enter premises and seize documents, and that is a great step forward because documents can be shredded, destroyed or altered. I recall going to one place in my electorate with the Federal member for Reid after serious complaints had been received. I was taken upstairs and shown documents that showed the time at which trucks entered and left the premises. Those documents showed that at the time when this problem occurred there were no trucks on the premises.

The documents showed that between noon and 6 p.m. there is never a truck on the premises. However, whilst we were present a truck arrived and unloaded rubbish into the incinerator. Both the Federal member for Reid and I thought that was quite strange, considering that we had already been shown a book that said there are no trucks on the premises between noon and 6 p.m. When we raised that matter the representatives of the company very quickly said, "We deliberately got that truck in there so we could show you the material being burned." But we had gone there to discuss something else, not to watch them burning material.

Be that as it may, that company has fixed up its act. It has put scrubbers on its chimneys and as a consequence there have been no complaints from my residents, the local council or the Environment Protection Authority about violations. I must say that if the Shell Company of Australia Limited and this other company have a problem the first thing they do is inform me that they have, say, a breakdown and are rectifying it. Those companies take their responsibilities quite seriously. I am disappointed that we do not know whether the Opposition will support this great legislation, but no doubt the honourable member for Wakehurst will soon tell us. He may say that it is good legislation and support it. I support the bill, and I commend it to the House.

Mr HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [11.05]: I lead for the Opposition in speaking to the Environmental Legislation Amendment (Enforcement) Bill. The Opposition shares the concerns of the community that every reasonable step should be taken to stop the pollution of our environment, which can come from many sources. This legislation primarily addresses industry sources, although interestingly it covers the Clean Air Act, the Clean Waters Act and the Noise Control Act. There might well be a range of sources that are contributing to pollution. In her second reading speech the Minister said that some pollution control legislation in New South Wales is more than 35 years old. Certainly the coalition supports the concept of revisiting environment legislation to ensure that steps are taken to recognise today's environmental legislation needs. I am a little disappointed that the Government has been so slow off the mark to address some of the promises it made to the community prior to March 1995.

The Opposition has some difficulties with this legislation. The Opposition would dearly like to encourage industry and business to join with the Government and conservation groups to improve our environmental quality, whether it be water, air, land or noise. The problem with this legislation is that
Page 5863
rather than encourage a partnership between business, industry and the other relevant parties, it attacks industry. This legislation is likely to cause industry to go into its shell and not encourage it to be a full partner in taking steps to minimise and eradicate pollution. The Opposition was quite concerned to ensure that there was consultation with all relevant groups. It spoke to environmental groups including the Environmental Defenders Office, the Total Environment Centre and others. It took the additional step of talking to business because it believes, as I said earlier, that there has to be a partnership and goodwill between the various participants to try to eradicate pollution as far as is practicable.

The Opposition was therefore somewhat surprised to find that this Government that has spoken so readily about wanting to be consultative had, in fact, consulted absolutely nobody in industry. In other words, the Government is quite prepared to recognise that industry may be a major contributor to pollution, but it has not made the effort to discuss with industry reasonable measures to reduce pollution and ways in which various industry groups can be brought together under the umbrella of a joint attack on pollution. Indeed, the various industry groups that the Opposition consulted were angry that the Government had failed to consult them. I would encourage the Minister for the Environment, when considering future environmental legislation, to take a broader view, not to take an ideological, singular view and rule a line on those it consults.

The Opposition believes that all players should be consulted so that a balanced view can be gained on environmental issues. In fairness, I acknowledge that the environment groups that the Opposition spoke to did not oppose this legislation; indeed, they were supportive of it. But if the coalition had been in government, following initial discussions with various environment groups and industry it would have brought both groups together to establish common ground and the dedication of a partnership in an endeavour to address the pollution problem. Last week staff from the Minister's office were helpful - indeed cooperative - in organising for me a briefing with an officer from the Environment Protection Authority. But that was just the start. Perhaps communication was not good and the Minister believed I had been fully briefed. The upshot is that the Opposition has not had ample time to consider this legislation, to consult, and to come up with meaningful amendments to it. That was exemplified this morning when one of the Minister's senior staff offered to have EPA officers go through a number of other issues with me when the matter was called on in the House.

I appreciate that there is pressure in this place. It is a difficult environment, with a number of players operating at all levels. Undoubtedly the Leader of the House wants legislation to be passed before the end of the year, and the Minister would like this legislation to be passed. To that extent I acknowledge that problems exist. However, something as fundamentally important as how the Government is going to address pollution in our environment does not deserve to be rushed through like a steam train heading towards some inevitable destination, when there is a way to slow that train down and make sure it arrives safely at the station and achieve better results.

I suspect that given the time and the opportunity to cut through the ideology, the Minister for the Environment may well have said that some issues could be revisited. But because of the practicalities of this rather insane place, we have to deal with this legislation without the benefit of those consultative processes and full discussions - to the detriment of the people of New South Wales. In any case, I thank the Minister's staff, who attempted consultation. I thank Senior Police Adviser Dick Sheppard, Salina O'Connor, and Chris McElwain, an officer of the EPA, for their assistance in trying to enumerate the various aspects of this legislation, at least from the Government's viewpoint.

Ms Allan: They had an uphill battle.

Mr HAZZARD: They certainly did. I came to this legislation with a degree of acceptance; when I went through the details of it I had some concerns, but when I spoke to industry and other groups about it I became quite concerned. The minimisation of pollution can only be assured by a partnership between those people and industries that are likely to pollute. Big sticks should be used to deal with offenders, in particular those who offend more than once or twice and do not make reasonable efforts to clean up their act. No society, particularly New South Wales, is prepared to accept that pollution is an everyday part of our life. We do not want it, and there must be a spirit of goodwill and partnership to proceed to that end.

The current legislation provides that in the case of summary pollution incidents that might otherwise attract summary penalties, an authorised officer, usually an EPA officer, must bring proceedings within 12 months of the date of the incident. It also provides that in the case of more serious pollution incidents the authorised officer, again usually an EPA officer but sometimes a local council officer, must bring proceedings against the polluter within three years of the incident. Apparently, for some time the EPA has taken the view that it would like to extend that time and give itself more leeway to institute proceedings.

The Opposition does not oppose that concept. It could live with the EPA being given more time; it could live with it if the time was definite; it could live with it if those times were discussed with industry and conservation groups, so that a result was achieved that everyone thought was reasonable. But the Government proposes in this rushed legislation that for pollution incidents that attract summary penalties - cases in which action must be taken within 12 months - action can be taken within 12 months of the incident first coming to the attention of the authorised officer. For more serious
Page 5864
pollution incidents, the EPA or the endorsement agencies will have to take proceedings within three years of the incident first coming to the attention of the authorised officer.

What will be the effect of that? First, inefficiency in the EPA will be encouraged because it will know that the heat is off and that it will not have to work as quickly to deal with pollution incidents or proactively look for them, which is a worry. Second, it will mean that if an EPA officer is advised of an incident that occurred five or six years ago, when community and industry knowledge was not as great as it is today, that officer could deal with the incident because it comes within the 12-month limit in the case of a summary matter, or the three-year limit in the case of a serious matter. Where is the justice for industry? The Minister and the Government would say, "Anything justifies the means. Let us get these terrible polluters." The Opposition agrees with that approach, provided the Government complies with the basic rules of law and natural justice and acts with a reasonable level of fairness to the people involved.

If the Government had extended the maximum time limit to four years, five years or six years under the statute of limitations the Opposition could have lived with that, but to have no time limit, to be able to go back 20 years, is absolutely crazy. Proposed section 12(6) flies in the face of all the principles of reasonableness that normally apply to the introduction of new laws. It provides that the legislation is retrospective. For heaven's sake, that is ridiculous! In other words, proceedings may be taken in respect of offences committed not only after the commencement of this legislation but prior to it. It is clearly the intention of the Government to embark upon an industry witch-hunt. As much as the Opposition wants to be as pro-active as possible on environmental issues, as much as it wants the environment cleaned up, it will not behave like a blinded ideologue and support legislation that clearly is a damnation on a whole section of our community and denies the basic fundamental rights of knowing what one is responsible for. The bill happily makes the proposed legislation retrospective, and the Opposition does not accept that.

If the Government accepts that industry needs to be encouraged and needs to be a partner in the process of stopping pollution - and I believe that on occasions, albeit rarely, the Government has accepted that - the legislation should not be retrospective. If a company conducts a voluntary study and audit of its problems, which as I said might have occurred five, six or 10 years ago, and if it addresses them, it should not be penalised. The company may do the right thing, try to address its problems and maintain its records for future reference to ensure that the same problems will not recur. But under the proposed legislation an officer from the Environment Protection Authority, having received a complaint, can within 12 months or three years respectively of first having received the complaint, visit the company and go through its entire records. At almost any time an EPA officer, on the strength of a complaint, will be authorised to visit a company and dig through the documents in its filing cabinet and on that basis institute proceedings against the company for past incidents of pollution; they do not even have to be contemporaneous.

With some incidents it would perhaps be appropriate to institute proceedings, but the downside of such an approach is that companies will not want to investigate their pollution problems. They will certainly not keep records with a view to making things better, because they know that big brother, under the Premier and the Minister for the Environment, will be out there with big sticks looking through their filing cabinets, doing all sorts of unfair and unreasonable things. The Opposition is totally supportive of any reasonable steps to encourage business to be partners in a quest to stop pollution. But it is counterproductive if, in this transition phase, the Government is able to kick companies and destroy incentive by giving the EPA carte blanche to look at records.

Only a few weeks ago the Government introduced legislation to establish a register of accredited auditors to examine contaminated land. The legislation was largely supported by the Opposition, following a great degree of consultation. In the course of discussions it was made clear that the Government seemed to have a desire to encourage industry and that voluntary audits of contaminated land, voluntary acts by companies to try to clean up their acts, would not result in the Government looking over their shoulder and wielding a big stick. This proposed legislation is far worse than that situation. It seems as though the Government is all over the place like a dog's breakfast. It does not know which direction it should take to bring about a reduction in pollution. From this point the only way we will achieve a substantial reduction in pollution is with the goodwill of everyone involved in the process. One does not achieve goodwill if one does not talk to people.

Only half an hour ago I spoke to representatives of the Australian Chamber of Manufactures, which consulted 22 New South Wales companies. Its representatives told me that despite a letter to the Minister for the Environment yesterday telling her that it wanted to consult on this issue, it had received not one phone call. The Government must have some sort of financial restrictions. Is this the way it will balance its budget? It does not make phone calls to consult anybody. Guess who told the Australian Chamber of Manufactures about the legislation? Was it the Government? No, it was not. Who was it?

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Gaudry): Order! The honourable member will address his remarks through the Chair.

Mr HAZZARD: It was the Opposition that notified the various industry groups that this legislation was coming before the House. Indeed, the
Page 5865
Opposition was not told until last week when the Minister made the announcement that this legislation was coming before the House. No consultation had taken place. During my time as shadow minister for the environment a great deal of consultation occurred with the Acting Minister for the Environment. I would have thought that it was reasonable at least to consult with the Opposition about something on which there should be a collaborative effort: a reduction of pollution in our society. Blind ideology should not close off consultation and discussion. The Opposition notified the Australian Chamber of Manufactures, along with various environment groups. However, it is acknowledged that the bulk of the environment groups appeared to have been involved in discussions. But the people who are at the coalface of this issue were not notified at all. The Australian Chamber of Manufactures did not write to the Minister until Monday. In a letter dated 11 November 1996 addressed to the Hon. Pam Allan, Minister for the Environment, the chamber said:

The Australian Chamber of Manufactures has recently become aware the Environmental Legislation Amendment Enforcement Bill 1996 is currently before Parliament. We are disappointed not to have been consulted on this bill. Our major concerns are:

•Use of voluntary audits: - As you are aware, ACM has for many years promoted and advised manufacturing industry to undertake voluntary examination of their environmental performance. In the past, you have supported this approach.

By exposing confidential records and voluntary audits to seizure, the Environmental Legislation Amendment Enforcement Bill 1996 has unintended consequences which negate this voluntary approach.

In other words, the Australian Chamber of Manufactures is simply stating what the Opposition is saying to the Minister today - that the Minister should have immediately instructed her department to put this bill on hold. The Government has indicated that the House will sit for another three weeks. It could sit for five weeks; the Opposition is happy to stay until Christmas. This bill could have been dealt with next week, thereby allowing some consultation on this particular issue. The Chamber of Manufactures also addressed the issue of retrospectivity in its letter, stating:

•Retrospectivity: - ACM objects to Schedule 1 12(3) which states:

". . . must contain the date on which evidence of the offence first came to the attention of any relevant authorised officer and need not contain particulars of the date on which the offence was committed"

EPA officers could discover past incidents and prosecute through a company's own records over matters which occurred even before the proclamation of the environmental law under which the company is being prosecuted.

The chamber was simply stating that the sort of issues I have raised in this debate are real issues to its members, who are major players in New South Wales and are employers of many people in New South Wales. As a group the chamber is interested in reducing pollution and it asked the Government to meet with it and discuss the bill. Of course, the answer was deafening silence. The chamber issued a press release on Monday - just in case the Minister had not seen the letter, though I believe he probably has - which stated:

The Australian Chamber of Manufactures has warned that proposed new environmental laws in New South Wales would significantly increase the legal risks of operating in that State.

Translate "increase the legal risks of operating in that State" to mean that business will not want to come to New South Wales and if it has the opportunity it will go somewhere else. The Premier went to England two weeks ago at the expense of the taxpayers and told companies in England to come to New South Wales because his Government provides a great environment for business. Well, they can all go down to Victoria; Jeff Kennett will have them. If one of those English companies rang the Australian Chamber of Manufactures and asked what it is like to operate in New South Wales, there is no way it would get the answer that it is worthwhile coming. The chamber would answer that in New South Wales when major issues arise business cannot even get to talk to the Government.

The Premier fills the newspapers with stories about the Government doing the right thing by business and yet in major areas of interest, for example, the environment, the Minister for the Environment will not even talk to interested parties. Ideology is put up like a huge barrier and the debate is stopped. As I said, the Opposition would dearly love to make the environment pollution laws work. It would dearly love to have the opportunity to consult with industry and with the significant and important players in the conservation movement who have contributed so much to good environmental law in New South Wales. The Opposition would have liked to have the time to discuss these issues in detail with many different groups such as the Nature Conservation Council, the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Total Environment Centre, the Environmental Defender's Office and the World Wide Fund for Nature. But what chance did it get? Next to none, because the legislation was introduced only the week before last with no forewarning, no discussion and no effort to ensure workable outcomes.

For that reason and that reason alone, because of the ridiculous approach of this Government to the issue, the Opposition is now forced to oppose the legislation. It is not something I am happy about because the Opposition would like good, substantive, workable environmental laws but instead we have pathetic laws which will be counterproductive. No doubt the legislation will pass through the House because the Government has the majority, albeit ever so slight. But the issues involved will probably cause industry not to be a partner with this Government in endeavours to reduce pollution.

Page 5866

This bill sends a clear message to a major section of our community that this Government has not the slightest interest in discussing this or trying to reach a middle ground. It is about conflict; it is about blind ideology; and it is about proposing legislation for the sake of getting it through the House urgently. I know the honourable member for Keira is keen to speak, and I look forward to hearing what he has to say, but I want to add one final point. I understand that these proposals have been put to two previous Ministers who were across their portfolios, one of whom the Minister for the Environment has said good things about on occasions in this House.

Mr O'Farrell: Chris Hartcher?

Mr HAZZARD: Not the honourable member for Gosford. The Minister does not tend to say good things about him. This proposal was rejected by the other Ministers, who were across their portfolios and understood the importance of a partnership to attack the problems of pollution. Unfortunately, the Minister for the Environment has been duped either by her own blind ideology - and I hope not - or by the blind ideology of departmental officers from the Environment Protection Authority and other areas. She has been prepared to accept the proposals as good law. It will not be good law; it will be counterproductive and will not work. The Opposition opposes the bill.

Mr MARKHAM (Keira) [11.37]: It is great to have the opportunity to be able to support the Minister for the Environment in this very good piece of legislation. I congratulate the Minister on bringing forward this legislation because as far as I am concerned not enough can be done to make sure that future generations are not poisoned by the pollution of companies. The honourable member for Wakehurst referred to the Premier's visit to England to successfully drum up business for this State. The honourable member said that the English companies will race off down to Victoria. But it seems odd that the changes contained in the bill with respect to limitation periods are not unique; similar provisions exist under Victoria's environmental protection legislation. If the Opposition believes that this legislation will drive business out of New South Wales and into Victoria it has got it absolutely wrong.

Let me make some comments about the industrial area that I represent, which generates massive wealth for this State. I do not know whether the north shore of Sydney ever has any industrial pollution but pollution in the industrial area of Port Kembla is brought to my attention on a daily basis. In particular, in relation to the coke works at Corrimal, which are owned by Illawarra Coke Company Pty Limited, on 9 August I wrote to the EPA about an incident of poisoning of the atmosphere which disrupted schoolchildren at the local high school who were sitting for their trial higher school certificate examinations. In fact, a number of those students had to go home, along with a number of teachers, because the obnoxious smell that inundated the classrooms for a couple of days made them sick.

Mr Hazzard: How will this legislation help that?

Mr MARKHAM: I do not care how it does it. If the Government can put anything in place to stop it, I will always support it, unlike the Opposition, which only protects polluters.

Mr Hazzard: How will this legislation solve that problem?

Mr MARKHAM: The Opposition is protecting polluters by opposing this legislation. I want to make sure that the kids in my electorate live in the healthiest environment possible. The Environment Protection Authority responded to the concerns I raised as follows:

The EPA shares your concerns about the downwind impact of the Coke works on the surrounding residential area. Planning decisions made in the past mean that there is very little buffer available to protect residents from plant emissions. As you may be aware the severity of emissions is usually associated with strong winds which prevail during this time of year. Efforts to improve the level of environmental performance by the plant using both technical and operational means will continue to be a high priority issue for the EPA.

The EPA carried out an investigation of the Coke works on the morning of 9 August 1996 -

so, officers moved swiftly when I contacted them to investigate what was going on, but in other areas companies sneakily try to hide pollution activities by releasing emissions at night when the local member does not have the opportunity to bring it to the attention of the EPA -

following notification of a number of complaints from local residents. The EPA found that charging and pushing operations on C1 Battery were being carried out according to the conditions of the Company's Pollution Control Licence and that the existing controls were not adequate to prevent fugitive emissions escaping from the boundary of the premises. The recently installed dosing equipment to reduce odour in the quenching emissions was also operating properly.

But that still did not overcome the problem of young children and teachers being gassed at a high school half a kilometre away. It is important that these amendments are introduced now. The Government is progressing its review of the State's pollution laws, but that will take time. In the meantime the EPA must be properly able to enforce existing pollution control laws because I have no doubt that some businesses are flouting the law. The Illawarra Coke Company Pty Limited has just taken over operations from CRA and at least has tried to address the problems associated with coke-making in a residential area. I have undertaken a number of inspections of that coke factory and attended a number of public meetings, but the problem still exists. A considerable amount of money has been spent on installing a hydrogen peroxide infusion system in the dousing operations of the quenching tower. At my request the Minister for the
Page 5867
Environment organised, through the EPA, an inspection of the quenching operation. This new system has reduced rotten egg gas odour emissions by 80 per cent. Anyone who has experienced the smell of rotten egg gas would appreciate that even with an 80 per cent reduction, the remaining 20 per cent is quite evident.

Whenever the wind blows from the south-west or the west, the odour problem occurs. At least Illawarra Coke Company has tried, and continues to try, to alleviate the problem. The Minister is aware of those efforts and has granted an exemption on certain aspects of the company's licence so that it can continue to operate and employ 60 people. The management of the Corrimal coke works is aware of the problem and has set up a community consultative team to inform the community of what it is doing. The four people on that team are Valerie Hussain, who has lived in the Corrimal area for 20 years; Bruce Pleasant, who has lived in the area for 40 years and whose children attended local schools; Carolyn McQuiggin, who is from Corrimal High School; and Mal Golledge, who is the stationmaster at Corrimal station, which is adjacent to the coke works. On numerous occasions Mal has indicated to me that at times he is subjected to horrific odours from fugitive emissions that have escaped the coke works boundaries.

Those team members will meet regularly and inspect the coke works regularly. Positive things are happening with reducing pollution emissions from industry only because I, the local member for Keira, am vigilant in taking up the concerns of local residents and impressing upon the company that it must be a greater corporate citizen with greater respect for residents, particularly schoolchildren, in that area. This is positive legislation and will go a long way to ensuring that those who try to get away with polluting are brought before the law. On 23 June 1995 the Land and Environment Court fined Illawarra Coke Company Limited $20,000 and ordered it to pay legal costs of $8,715 for an offence under the Clean Air Act. The offence related to the emission of thick smoke from the coal coking works operated by the company at 27 Railway Street, Corrimal, on 21 September 1993. At that time the operations were owned by CRA, which has since ceased coking operations in the Illawarra and is also trying to get out of coal production in the Illawarra.

Mr Hazzard: How will this legislation help?

Mr MARKHAM: The honourable member protects polluters and will argue that point all the time. I am here to make sure that polluters are brought before the law. I support the Minister for the Environment on this positive and worthwhile amending legislation. Regardless of what the honourable member for Wakehurst says in his tirade in protecting polluters, bad luck. The ability of prosecutors to nominate the day on which evidence of environmental offences came to the attention of the relevant authorised officer is crucial to the smooth working of the proposed amendment, otherwise prosecutors will be forced to call evidence from all its authorised officers to show when a matter first came to the attention of one of its officers. Clearly, this would be a needless waste of resources and time. By introducing this bill the Government is ensuring that our environment can be better than it is now.

Mr Hazzard: Does the honourable member believe this, or is he just reading a speech?

Mr MARKHAM: The Government knows the views of the honourable member for Wakehurst and the Opposition. The Government, the Minister and I are ensuring that businesses in this State operate in the most environmentally friendly and environmentally sound way. This legislation will keep businesses on their toes; it will ensure that they do not pollute the environment. I do not know how often the honourable member for Wakehurst visits schools in his electorate to listen to what the kids are saying about pollution and the environment. The kids are asking governments and legislators to protect the environment. They see and know what happens. They know that if the Government does not legislate they will have the legacy of a polluted environment.

Mr Hazzard: The honourable member and I agree on that, but the Government should do it properly.

Mr MARKHAM: It is being done properly; it is being done in a proactive way. I again applaud the Minister for the Environment for bringing forward this legislation. She has my total support. If members opposite had any understanding of and feeling and respect for the kids in New South Wales they would support the legislation too.

Mr RICHARDSON (The Hills) [11.51]: The honourable member for Keira made a most interesting and edifying speech about the coke works in his electorate and the problems associated with it. All honourable members would sympathise with the predicament in which the honourable member found himself. Indeed, they would applaud the fact that he has been vigilant in identifying instances of pollution, bringing them to the attention of the Environment Protection Authority and getting the EPA to take action. As I listened to the honourable member speak for 14 minutes I honestly thought that he was speaking for the Opposition and against the bill because he said, "I do not care how the bill does it as long as it does it." The honourable member said that the existing provisions - this bill has not been passed, it has not been proclaimed and it is not an Act of Parliament - served him, his constituents and the schools in his electorate well. He said that the provisions dealt with the problems relating to the coke works in his electorate.

Clearly, the honourable member does not understand the bill and what it means. He simply listed the litany of problems associated with the coke works and then made the telling statement "I do not care how the bill does it". The Opposition
Page 5868
cares about the legislation and its effects. Certainly, in this instance, the Opposition cares about the effects of the legislation on the State economy. The Opposition cares about the effects of the legislation in terms of making the Environment Protection Authority less efficient than it is at present, because the bill is likely to make EPA officers slapdash in their approach to environmental issues.

Mr Hazzard: Relaxed.

Mr RICHARDSON: As the honourable member says, the bill will make them relaxed. Quite frankly, it is likely to be counterproductive. I do not understand why the Government has chosen to bring in this bill now. The intention in this legislation appears to be to address a specific problem relating to waterways. According to the Minister's second reading speech, in the judgment in Environment Protection Authority v Bathurst City Council, which was handed down in November 1995, the court decided that for offences involving the pollution of waters the offence is complete when the pollution occurs. In other words, time will begin to run the moment that any pollutant enters the waters and changes the environmental condition of those waters. The difficulty is that a prosecutor may not be able to show exactly when this event occurred and so cannot prove that he or she has brought the prosecution within the appropriate time period.

The honourable member for Keira did not say that. He said that Environment Protection Authority officers had clearly identified the problem and were able to act on it immediately. So far as I can tell, the Minister for the Environment is using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut, because this bill does not simply tackle the issue of water pollution; it is all-encompassing. The bill also amends such Acts as the Noise Control Act. If members opposite can tell me how the introduction of retrospective legislation to amend the Noise Control Act will benefit the environment of this State - so that a company that created unacceptable noise on business premises 10 years ago can be prosecuted now - they do not understand what government is all about. The retrospectivity of the bill is absolute anathema to Opposition members.

I am sure that many Government members would be appalled by the notion that companies will be placed in legal jeopardy because, essentially, the statute of limitations will be extended for all time. Theoretically, under this legislation a company could be prosecuted in the year 2100 for an offence committed now, so long as adequate proof could be provided. The honourable member for Oxley believes that he will be here but the rest of us will not - and company officers may well have changed in that time. Essentially, the bill is anti-business. Indeed, as the honourable member for Wakehurst said, the Government has shown consistently since it came to office in March last year that it is anti-business. It has shown its credentials through the Waste Minimisation and Management Act. On the weekend the Government was severely criticised for aspects of that Act. Business is criticising the Government for this bill.

Mr Allan Handberg, the Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Chamber of Manufactures, is horrified by this bill and its implications for business in this State. Mr Handberg wrote to the Minister for the Environment two days ago on this matter. Of course, he has not received a response. One would not expect a response because the Minister does not want to concern herself with legitimate considerations about her legislation. She is simply following her doctrinaire approach to environmental issues. In his letter to the Minister Mr Handberg made this point:

ACM has for many years promoted and advised manufacturing industry to undertake voluntary examination of their environmental performance. In the past, you have supported this approach.

The Opposition consulted the Australian Chamber of Manufactures and the Green groups about these proposals, and it supports the notion that business should be responsible for cleaning up its act. Although that approach has not proved to be perfect, it has proved beneficial to the environment in the past. In future companies will run the risk of their confidential records and voluntary audits - companies are not required to carry out audits; they carry out audits in negotiation and agreement with the Australian Chamber of Manufactures - being exposed to seizure by EPA officers, who can enter company premises at any time.

Mr Hazzard: No privacy in the company whatever.

Mr RICHARDSON: They have no privacy whatsoever. The Government and the Environment Protection Authority have previously stated that voluntary audit information will not be used by the EPA in a prosecution unless it is brought into evidence by the defendant. Of course, that will not be the case now.

Mrs Lo Po': What are they scared of?

Mr RICHARDSON: The bill empowers officers of the EPA to enter any office, seize any documents they wish and use them in evidence against a company. I will take up the point raised by the Minister for Fair Trading, and Minister for Women, who is at the table. She asked what the companies are scared of. It is not a matter of what the companies are scared of; it is a matter of what we are all scared of. The companies are obviously all scared of the Labor Party, and they will not be willing to carry out the voluntary audits they have been carrying out in the past. So the legislation will result in worse environmental outcomes for the people of New South Wales. Mr Handberg from the Australian Chamber of Manufactures further said:

The EPA rules when an offence is brought to trial. The defendant has no ability to verify when the incident was discovered as EPA records are not publicly available.

Page 5869

That is another problem in the legislation. An EPA officer can miraculously discover at some time or another that an incident of pollution has occurred. The prosecution can then start from that time. Under the legislation there is no requirement for that officer to verify that the information came to him at the time he said it did. Once again, this will encourage gross inefficiency within the EPA. Mr Handberg alluded to that when he said:

EPA inefficiencies in bringing persons to trial are encouraged under this approach as there would no longer be an imperative to deal with offences when they occur.

Mr Handberg also said:

. . . current NSW environmental legislation is adequate as existing legislation allows:

•reverse onus of proof by defendants;

•strict liability on tier two offences;

•environmental offences are deemed criminal offences; and

•the power to require information by companies and individuals.

As the honourable member for Keira pointed out, the existing legislation does the job. No Government speaker has put forward any compelling argument about the need to introduce this legislation at this time. The Government intends to release an exposure draft of the Protection of the Environment Operations Bill and a green paper by the end of this year.

Mr Hazzard: We will not see it.

Mr RICHARDSON: The honourable member for Wakehurst suggests that we will not see it. I hope that the Minister for the Environment will give us adequate time to read the bill. The draft bill is supposed to be available for public consultation for a three-month period. What will this legislation achieve over that six-month period? Why was it imperative for it to be introduced at this time? The Court of Appeal delivered its judgment in the matter of Environment Protection Authority v Bathurst City Council in November 1995. The issue has been dealt with. What imperative is there for the Minister to introduce this legislation now? Why does the bill apply to the Noise Control Act? What need is there for it to apply to that Act?

I understand that there are serious ongoing concerns relating to pollution of water or pollution of the air. Where does the Noise Control Act fit into the bill? The Minister did exactly the same thing with the Waste Minimisation and Management Act. It is enshrined in that Act that discharges of pollution into the water and the air and waste going to landfill will be reduced by 60 per cent. Even though we challenged the Minister during debate in this House, she gave no explanation as to why those provisions had been included in that Act. The Opposition certainly opposes this legislation. We do not believe it will do what the Minister has suggested it will do. A more appropriate course of action would be to wait for the Minister's new draft bill and the green paper. They should be available for the community consultation that the Minister has so manifestly failed to carry out in respect of this legislation.

Ms FICARRA (Georges River) [12.05]: It pains the coalition to oppose the Environmental Legislation Amendment (Enforcement) Bill, because generally it supports the universal objective of identifying and prosecuting polluters. The Opposition objects to the way the legislation has been rushed through this House without consultation. It had similar concerns about the waste minimisation legislation, which is proving to be difficult to comply with. Local government bodies everywhere are objecting to the fine print in that legislation, just as they are objecting to the fine print in this legislation.

The legislation extends the limitation period within which proceedings for offences against the environmental legislation must be instituted to within three years of a pollution incident. It empowers authorised officers to make inspections if they suspect that pollution has been caused in or from particular premises. The Minister made it clear in her second reading speech that the intention of the legislation is to increase the likelihood of successfully prosecuting polluters even when pollution occurred at some time in the past. That is very altruistic and publicly it sounds terrific. However, the coalition is concerned about the fine print in the bill and the methodology of such environmental altruism. The principle is fine but the bill will fall down in the fine print and in its delivery, in a manner similar to the waste minimisation legislation.

In my inaugural speech in this House I said that my major concern was the environment, particularly water quality in the Georges River electorate. I have a good relationship with the Georges River Catchment Management Committee, which is doing a fantastic job, as are many other catchment management committees throughout the State. The members of those committees are community representatives, industry representatives and users of the rivers. Members of those committees have said to me that they are upset that they are never consulted on issues such as this to ensure that the legislation actually works and to ensure that particular objectives are achieved. The Georges River Combined Councils has established an estuary management committee. That committee is doing fine work and is considering establishing a Georges River keeper to be funded by the nine local councils that border the Georges River.

I congratulate three people on their efforts in this area: Councillor Graham Starke, President of the Georges River Combined Councils; Ross Stewart, Deputy Mayor; and Councillor John Griffin from Hurstville City Council. That is an example of local government, communities and industry all working together, sensibly consulting on and investigating various matters. In those circumstances the likelihood of a particular proposition succeeding is
Page 5870
far greater. The coalition has no sympathy for polluters. It supports the work of the Environment Protection Authority, but wants to ensure that any legislation that is enacted is workable. The Opposition is concerned about paragraph (a) of the objects of the bill, which states:

To extend the limitation period within which proceedings for offences against the environmental legislation must be instituted so as to enable proceedings to be instituted within the requisite period after evidence of the offence first comes to the attention -

and that is the significant part of the paragraph -

of any relevant authorised officer under that legislation (instead of only within the requisite period after the commission of the alleged offence) . . .

What does that really mean? Will a lot of vindictive moves against companies and industries being investigated by the EPA be fast-tracked? That probably will not happen, because the EPA would have to justify that. Regardless of whether the older methodology or the proposed methodology is used, clear-cut evidence is needed that will stand up in a court of law. If someone is unduly challenged he or she can go to the courts and fight it, as many have done - and many have won. Retrospectivity worries the coalition. I believe it is un-Australian. The coalition has said many times that it would be better to get industry working hand in hand with the Government. Prosecutions become shaky if they are left unattended for some time.

Past experience has shown that evidence in such cases does not stand up in court and many prosecutions have failed. As the honourable member for Wakehurst has said, the bill could encourage tardiness in investigations. Officers of the EPA do not act as quickly as they should, perhaps because resource allocation has been minimal. Instead of asking for adequate resources they wait for time to go by and evidence becomes more flimsy. The concept is fraught with a great many difficulties. Paragraph (b) of the objects of the bill states:

(b) to make it clear that authorised officers may enter premises under the environmental legislation if the officer suspects that pollution has been caused in or from the premises (at present the power of entry applies in some cases only if the officer suspects that pollution is being or is likely to be caused),

That is reasonable. Only if the officers suspect that it is likely or reasonable should they enter the premises. If that is not so, what is the point of this legislation? The legislation is not giving the officers any powers in addition to those they already have. If solid evidence is available that is when the EPA officers should enter premises. The Opposition and the Chamber of Manufactures, which consulted 22 of its members, both believe that the current legislation is sufficient. The Opposition is concerned about victimisation. One would hope that the EPA officers are professional enough not to indulge in victimisation. However, in the past there have been cases in the bureaucracy in various departments in which it has happened. It is unclear to me why paragraph (c) is included in the objects of the bill. It states:

(c) to make it clear that authorised officers may require an occupier of premises under the environmental legislation to produce records if the officer suspects that pollution has been caused in or from the premises (at present the power to require the production of records applies only if the officer suspects that pollution is being or is usually caused).

What is wrong with that? That is justifiable. So far as I am concerned no proof has been presented to justify any changes to the current law. There has been no proof of cases having failed that would have succeeded if the provisions of the bill were in place. This bill is populist legislation and gives little thought to the accountability of authorities for their actions. Strong grounds must be available before officers enter company premises, demand to inspect records and put company personnel through all sorts of hassles. If EPA officers are not on absolutely solid ground, they should not be wasting their time or the company's time. The coalition is most upset that consultation has not occurred. An article that appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald on 19 June was headed "Pollute and pay policy tougher". The coalition supports many of the sentiments in that article, which stated:

NSW industries face an increase in pollution tax next year under a plan to make business pay for environmental clean ups.

Industries which continue to be heavy polluters will be charged according to the amount they produce, under new laws to come into effect this year.

All industries and businesses will have restrictions placed on them which will limit the amount of pollution they can emit.

They are fine sentiments and I hope there will be more consultation as to the fine print of that legislation than has occurred in this case. The coalition supports the imposition of restrictions on polluters. The wrongdoers in industry should be dealt with in a tougher way. They should be responsible for cleaning up the mess they make, but let us consult more widely with industry and let us not have messy legislation such as the waste minimisation legislation.

The Government should increase the allocation of resources to control stormwater runoff, which is the biggest polluter of our waterways. Particular assistance should be given to local government to fund the installation of gross pollutant traps. Hurstville and Kogarah councils have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on the installation of such traps. The State Government should allocate more resources for the installation of those traps. The intention of the legislation is fine. However, the fine print and the methodology is flawed. More consultation is needed to meet community expectations in relation to environmental pollution. It pains me to say it, but the coalition must oppose the legislation.

Ms ALLAN (Blacktown - Minister for the Environment) [12.14], in reply: I thank honourable members from both sides of the House who contributed to the debate. There was certainly some confusion in the speeches made by those on the
Page 5871
other side of the Chamber about the intent of this legislation. Some of that confusion certainly came through in the press release from the Australian Chamber of Manufactures. I will address that matter in a moment. The mentor of the honourable member for Wakehurst, the Hon. Tim Moore, a former Minister for the Environment in this State, would have hung his head in shame had he been listening to the speech of the honourable member for Wakehurst.

I hate to offer a history lesson at this time but it may be appropriate. I would rather get it over with now than spend part of every speech about environmental legislation in this Parliament in the next few years going over the same ground. One of the reasons New South Wales has a very tough set of environmental protection laws is that at the time they were introduced the responsible Minister was very keen to take on both the private and public sectors in this State to make sure that the laws of this State were the strongest in the country. Those laws had two architects, and one was the mentor of the honourable member for Wakehurst, the Hon. Tim Moore. I am proud to say that he was on the right track and he received a great deal of support from the then Opposition when he introduced those laws. The other architect of the tough environmental laws in this State is another former mentor of the honourable member for Wakehurst, the Hon. Terry Metherell.

Mr Hazzard: How many mentors have I got?

Ms ALLAN: The honourable member for Wakehurst has only two mentors, and their functions have been extremely limited. Nevertheless, they were responsible for two important processes in this State: tough legislation, and a important authority, the Environment Protection Authority, which was able to enforce those laws. The current Opposition cannot now bleat about tough environmental protection laws when its own members were the co-architects of those laws. Several years down the track from the time those laws commenced to operate the EPA has acknowledged that they have some weaknesses. These amendments are an attempt to consolidate and improve those laws.

Frankly, I was surprised that the Opposition spokesperson on the environment devoted his entire speech to the concerns of industry. As a sideline we should perhaps talk about what industry thinks about this legislation, but why is the person responsible for environment protection on the other side of the Chamber spending all his time talking about industry's concerns about this issue? The honourable member for Keira accused Opposition members of being protectors of pollution. That is not a rash statement; it is an appropriate statement based on the performance of the current shadow minister for the environment.

I do not want to tell him how to do his job, but I will. In this Chamber the shadow Minister for the environment does not do his job by protecting the concerns and, in some places, the ignorance of industry. He should articulate the concerns of the conservation movement and seek to protect the environment. That is the job of the shadow minister for the environment. He should not merely be the stooge of a ill-informed sectional interest group in this State. The former Government brought forward legislation for tough penalties for environmental offences and for the protection of the environment. The former Government created the current EPA with the help of the then Independent in this Chamber, the Hon. Terry Metherell. It is now obvious that there are limitations in that legislation and it is entirely appropriate for the Government and the EPA to make recommendations about how the legislation should be improved. It is important that the amendments in the bill be dealt with now.

Mr Hazzard: Why?

Ms ALLAN: I am about to tell you. If he did not listen in the first place, perhaps I should reiterate for the benefit of the honourable member for Wakehurst that the Government is undertaking the review that has already been mentioned in the debate in preparation for the second stage of the environment protection legislation. Although the Opposition may not acknowledge this, the Government and industry acknowledge that it takes time to ensure that adequate consultation takes place.

[Interruption]

I just heard a note of hysteria from the honourable member for Wakehurst.

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The member for Wakehurst has had the opportunity to speak in the debate and will remain silent.

Ms ALLAN: Medication is available for the problem. In the meantime, while the Government continues to improve the overall package of the State's pollution laws it has to ensure that regulatory authorities like the Environment Protection Authority can still do their job properly. That is what this legislation is all about. The legislation is based on legislation that exists both in Australia and overseas. Under section 63A of the Victorian Act, the EPA may start criminal proceedings for certain environmental offences within one year of obtaining evidence which the EPA considers sufficient to warrant prosecution.

The New South Wales Government has decided not to replicate the Victorian provision as the time limit in that State will apply only when the Victorian EPA determines that it has sufficient evidence to commence prosecution. The Government believes that in practice such a provision gives little guidance on when time limits begin, and could result in confusion and controversy. Despite the allegations made by the honourable member for Wakehurst, which were backed up by his colleagues, the Government does not want to create more confusion, controversy and unpredictability for industry in this State. A provision similar to that proposed in this bill exists in Ontario's Environment Protection Act.
Page 5872
Section 148 of that Act provides that criminal proceedings may be commenced within two years of the date on which evidence of an offence first comes to the attention of an authorised officer.

That provision forms the basis of the provision in this bill. Under the provisions of the existing pollution control legislation authorised officers have the power to enter premises or obtain documents when pollution is being caused or is likely to be caused in or from those premises. However, they are not explicitly given the power to enter premises or to obtain documents when the pollution has occurred wholly in the past. Such an incident may clearly need to be investigated. Not one of the three members opposite who spoke in the debate acknowledged that possibility. They adopt the attitude that it is out of mind and therefore it is not relevant; they should not think about it if it happened in the past. That is not good enough in this day and age. The Government has introduced a bill to amend the relevant Acts to ensure that authorised officers of relevant organisations - not an environmental cavalry of volunteers, but authorised officers - have the power to investigate past pollution incidents, which, of course, may still have an impact on the environment.

The ability of prosecutors to nominate the day on which evidence of an environmental offence came to the attention of a relevant authorised officer is crucial to the smooth working of the proposed amendment. If prosecutors were not able to do that they would be forced to call evidence from all their authorised officers to show when a matter first came to the attention of one of their officers. That is obviously a waste of resources and time. Unlike members opposite, I am well aware that no section of government - certainly not the environment portfolio - has unlimited resources. Our resources should be used wisely and effectively. It will always be open to a defendant to show that a matter came to the attention of a relevant authorised officer at an earlier date and as a result proceedings have not been instituted within time.

Mr Hazzard: How do they do that? Tell us how they do it. You should have the courage of your convictions and tell us.

Ms ALLAN: Was the honourable member for Wakehurst not told in kindergarten that he cannot listen and talk at the same time? It is not appropriate that polluters escape liability merely because an offence has gone undetected for a number of months or years. There is a crucial difference between the view of the Government and the view of the Opposition. Why should those who are responsible for something that happened in the past, whether it was months or years ago, escape prosecution? The Government, the EPA and many members of the community certainly do not believe they should. The Opposition believes they should, and that is an appalling statement of its commitment to environmental protection.

Much of the debate has revolved around a statement by the Australian Chamber of Manufactures concerning this legislation. Contrary to the allegations made in the Chamber, I am aware of a press release of 11 November issued by Allan Handberg, on behalf of the Australian Chamber of Manufactures, who has already been mentioned in the debate. My office has received a letter from the Australian Chamber of Manufactures, and some concern has been expressed in this debate that the letter has not been replied to. I have news for the Opposition. The letter was written on 11 November and was received today, 13 November. It is unlikely that a reply could have been sent in that time frame.

If the Opposition has a copy of the letter as well as the press release, I suggest that the Australian Chamber of Manufactures go back to the drawing board and get its communications in order. My office does have telephones, and the chamber has not telephoned, though it has obviously been hot on the phone to the Opposition. If the Australian Chamber of Manufactures and Mr Allan Handberg have a pressing concern about a matter such as this it would have been appropriate to contact my office.

Mr Hazzard: They contacted you and you haven't rung back.

Ms ALLAN: The honourable member for Wakehurst is still not listening. He is still back in his pre-kindergarten days, talking and not listening, then coming to a conclusion that is invariably wrong. If the Australian Chamber of Manufactures is concerned, it should pick up the telephone occasionally, not only to talk to its mates in the Opposition but to talk to people in the Government. As it turns out, many of the concerns of the Chamber of Manufactures are not valid. I refer particularly to the use of voluntary audits, which are raised in the letter received by my office today.

Mr Hazzard: It was faxed to you on Monday afternoon.

Ms ALLAN: I am sorry that the honourable member for Wakehurst seems to know more about the use of telecommunications by the Australian Chamber of Manufactures than the chamber knows. He has to do his job for the environment broadly; he cannot do it for one sectional interest within the community. That is not his job. He should learn his job; that is what he is paid for. The EPA already has the power to obtain documents relating to pollution caused at particular premises. As I have already said, it does not have the power to obtain documents about one-off past pollution incidents. That is what the legislation seeks to address.

The Government is concerned that the Australian Chamber of Manufactures is confusing the purpose of the legislation with its concern that the Government will start seizing voluntary audits from companies. That is not the case. It is not the policy, practice or intention of the Government or the EPA to compulsorily require voluntary audits. I spend considerable time talking to industry
Page 5873
representatives, and I regularly talk about the fact that the Government wants to encourage industry to audit its own operations environmentally. The Government understands that if it had unfettered access to those voluntary audit documents industry would be discouraged from undertaking such audits.

Industry knows that is not the intent of this legislation. It is not the intent of the second stage of the environment protection legislation that is currently being discussed with industry to require voluntary audits to be carried out. Allan Handberg might not know it, but industry as a whole knows it. It is government policy that voluntary audit documents should be protected to encourage industry to carry out such audits. I give that assurance to industry and to the Opposition, although I do not expect the Opposition to fully understand it. The Environment Protection Authority has power to access the documents even without the amendment, but it is not EPA policy to access them.

The other issue raised by the Australian Chamber of Manufactures relates to retrospectivity. It is important that the new limitation period apply to serious past offences, which may go undetected for a long time or may take considerable time to investigate thoroughly. There may be deliberate discharges to complex stormwater systems, but what about natural underground water systems? What about pollution that might occur there over a long time, yet remain undetected? This is a complex issue. We cannot assume that there has been no pollution simply because of the exhaustion of the time frame established by the courts. and because any offence is now covered by the current legislation. Past environmental offences have to be dealt with. That is the philosophy of this Government; it is not a blind ideology but a commitment to ensure that the environment is thoroughly protected.

This measure does not provide for retrospectivity in the traditional sense. It does not make a previously lawful activity unlawful. Rather, it enables appropriate action to be taken against those who have committed environmental offences in the past. Another issue of concern discussed at some length by a number of members opposite was the possibility of the legislation encouraging inefficiency. I do not believe there is inefficiency at present. Occasionally greater speed in dealing with a matter would have been appreciated, but generally speaking delays have not been attributed to inefficiency. The legislation will not encourage inefficiencies. The Environment Protection Authority will continue to investigate and prosecute offences in a timely manner. The Opposition is short-sighted in opposing the legislation, and signals a major change of direction in its commitment to tough environmental legislation in this State. That is a heritage and a practice that people in the previous Government, particularly the former Minister for the Environment, Tim Moore, were very proud of. In fact, he incensed industry because he was so concerned about ensuring that this State had the best environmental laws. It is not appropriate that we retreat from that, and it is not appropriate that his party chooses to retreat from it. I commend the bill to the House.

Question - That this bill be now read a second time - put.

The House divided.

[In division]

Mr Rixon: On a point of order. When the doors were locked the honourable member for Bligh was on the Opposition side of the House.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Chair was not aware of that.

Mr Rixon: When the door was closed the honourable member for Bligh was on this side of the Chamber. She has now moved across to the other side.

Mr Beckroge: On the point of order. It is quite obvious that the honourable member for Bligh made an error, and I ask you, Mr Speaker, to recommit the division and ring the bell for 10 seconds.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The standing orders do not allow for that. The honourable member for Bligh will abide by the standing orders and sit where she was when the doors were locked, on the Opposition side. The count will continue.

Ms Allan Mr Markham
Mr Amery Mr Martin
Mr Anderson Ms Meagher
Ms Andrews Mr Mills
Mr Aquilina Mr Moss
Mrs Beamer Mr Nagle
Mr Crittenden Mr Neilly
Mr Debus Ms Nori
Mr Face Mr E. T. Page
Mr Gaudry Mr Price
Mr Gibson Dr Refshauge
Mrs Grusovin Mr Rogan
Ms Hall Mr Rumble
Mr Harrison Mr Scully
Ms Harrison Mr Shedden
Mr Hunter Mr Stewart
Mr Iemma Mr Sullivan
Mr Knowles Mr Tripodi
Mr Langton Mr Watkins
Mrs Lo Po' Mr Woods
Mr Lynch Mr Yeadon
Dr Macdonald Tellers,
Mr McBride Mr Beckroge
Mr McManus Mr Thompson

Page 5874

Mr Beck Mr O'Farrell
Mr Blackmore Mr D. L. Page
Mr Brogden Mr Peacocke
Mr Chappell Mr Phillips
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Photios
Mr Cochran Mr Richardson
Mr Collins Mr Rixon
Mr Cruickshank Mr Rozzoli
Mr Debnam Mr Schipp
Mr Ellis Mr Schultz
Ms Ficarra Mrs Skinner
Mr Fraser Mr Slack-Smith
Mr Glachan Mr Small
Mr Hartcher Mr Smith
Mr Hazzard Mr Souris
Mr Humpherson Mr Tink
Dr Kernohan Mr J. H. Turner
Mr MacCarthy Mr Windsor
Mr Merton Tellers,
Ms Moore Mr Jeffery
Mr O'Doherty Mr Kerr

Mr Carr Mr Armstrong
Mr Clough Mr Downy
Mr Knight Mr R. W. Turner

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [12.43]: I just indicate in this Committee phase -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House is now on the third reading of the bill.

Ms ALLAN (Blacktown - Minister for the Environment) [12.43]: I ask leave of the House to move the third reading of this bill forthwith.

Leave granted.

Ms ALLAN: I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Mr Hazzard: On a point of order. I had indicated a few seconds ago to you, Mr Speaker, that I wished to go into Committee. The Minister is now moving that the bill be now read a third time. I ask you to rule on the basis that I had sought the call to go into Committee.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House was asked if leave was granted to move the third reading, and leave was granted. The Chair is bound by the wish of the House, not by that of an individual member.

Mr Hazzard: Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is the decision.

Mr Hartcher: On the point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have ruled on the point of order.

Mr Phillips: On another point of order. Mr Speaker, before the call for leave to proceed to the third reading I stood in my place and indicated that the Opposition wanted to go into Committee. You looked me fair square in the eyes, then ignored me and proceeded to put the question on the third reading.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! What the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has said is perfectly correct, but the procedure is that leave is either granted or it is not granted. The honourable member has been told explicitly that leave was granted to move to the third reading and that is the stage the House is at now.

Question - That this bill be now read a third time - put.

The House divided.

Ms Allan Mr Martin
Mr Amery Ms Meagher
Mr Anderson Mr Mills
Ms Andrews Ms Moore
Mr Aquilina Mr Moss
Mrs Beamer Mr Nagle
Mr Crittenden Mr Neilly
Mr Debus Ms Nori
Mr Face Mr E. T. Page
Mr Gaudry Mr Price
Mr Gibson Dr Refshauge
Mrs Grusovin Mr Rogan
Ms Hall Mr Rumble
Mr Harrison Mr Scully
Ms Harrison Mr Shedden
Mr Hunter Mr Stewart
Mr Iemma Mr Sullivan
Mr Knowles Mr Tripodi
Mr Langton Mr Watkins
Mrs Lo Po' Mr Woods
Mr Lynch Mr Yeadon
Dr Macdonald
Mr McBride Tellers,
Mr McManus Mr Beckroge
Mr Markham Mr Thompson

Page 5875

Mr Beck Mr O'Farrell
Mr Blackmore Mr D. L. Page
Mr Brogden Mr Peacocke
Mr Chappell Mr Phillips
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Photios
Mr Cochran Mr Richardson
Mr Collins Mr Rixon
Mr Cruickshank Mr Rozzoli
Mr Debnam Mr Schipp
Mr Ellis Mr Schultz
Ms Ficarra Mrs Skinner
Mr Fraser Mr Slack-Smith
Mr Glachan Mr Small
Mr Hartcher Mr Smith
Mr Hazzard Mr Souris
Mr Humpherson Mr Tink
Dr Kernohan Mr J. H. Turner
Mr Kinross Mr Windsor
Mr MacCarthy Tellers,
Mr Merton Mr Jeffery
Mr O'Doherty Mr Kerr

Mr Carr Mr Armstrong
Mr Clough Mr Downy
Mr Knight Mr R. W. Turner

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

[Mr Speaker left the chair at 12.54 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]