❓ A WA parliamentary question seeks information about a 1988 'buddy' arrangement within the EPA, potentially circumventing environmental oversight. The Minister's response acknowledges the memo but cites destroyed records and superseded agreements.
AnsweredQoN 3360Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to Environment Protection Authority (EPA) Internal Memo/Minute Folio No 39/88, File No 6 of 18 March 1988, signed by D.B. Sykes, re ‘buddy’ arrangement -
(1) Whilst this ‘buddy’ arrangement existed some 16 years ago, can the Minister assure the Parliament that no such ‘buddy’ arrangement exists now?
(2) Can the Minister advise when his Department became aware of this ‘buddy’ arrangement?
(3) When was the Minister advised of this ‘buddy arrangement?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) On what date was this ‘buddy’ arrangement officially cancelled?
(6) Can the Minister identify which project did not go through the EPA filtering committee as a result of the Internal Memo/Minute Folio No 39/88, File No 6 of 18 March 1988, signed by D.B. Sykes?
(7) Can the Minister identify who was the C.E.O. referred to in the Memo/Minute?
(8) Is there any record of, or understanding of the nature or basis for this ‘buddy’ arrangement?
(9) If yes to (8), will the Minister provide a copy?
(10) Is there any other information that may indicate that this ‘buddy’ arrangement caused other proposals not to appear before the EPA or its filtering committee?
(11) Was the Department aware of any other ‘buddy’ arrangement that may have been established between Departmental officers and companies, and if so what were they?
(12) Can the Minister assure parliament that no such ‘buddy’ systems now exist within the Department?
(1) Whilst this ‘buddy’ arrangement existed some 16 years ago, can the Minister assure the Parliament that no such ‘buddy’ arrangement exists now?
(2) Can the Minister advise when his Department became aware of this ‘buddy’ arrangement?
(3) When was the Minister advised of this ‘buddy arrangement?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) On what date was this ‘buddy’ arrangement officially cancelled?
(6) Can the Minister identify which project did not go through the EPA filtering committee as a result of the Internal Memo/Minute Folio No 39/88, File No 6 of 18 March 1988, signed by D.B. Sykes?
(7) Can the Minister identify who was the C.E.O. referred to in the Memo/Minute?
(8) Is there any record of, or understanding of the nature or basis for this ‘buddy’ arrangement?
(9) If yes to (8), will the Minister provide a copy?
(10) Is there any other information that may indicate that this ‘buddy’ arrangement caused other proposals not to appear before the EPA or its filtering committee?
(11) Was the Department aware of any other ‘buddy’ arrangement that may have been established between Departmental officers and companies, and if so what were they?
(12) Can the Minister assure parliament that no such ‘buddy’ systems now exist within the Department?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
2 May 2006
Responded by
Minister for Education and Training representing the Minister for the Environment
Response time
42 days
Many of the Departmental records of this time have been officially destroyed as no longer being relevant to the Department's operations. In addition, the author of the hand-written internal memo to which the question refers retired many years ago. It is presumed that the memo refers to the relationship between proposals received by the then Department of Mines for mining or petroleum exploration or production and, those of them requiring referral to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) underPart IV Environmental Protection Act 1986 and those requiring Works Approval and Licensing under Part V of the Environmental Protection Act. Only those proposals which, if implemented, would have a significant effect upon the environment required referral under Part IV. Prescribed premises, principally milling and grinding operations, required Works Approvals and Licences under Part V of the Act. In 1987-88, the Mines Department received over 9000 mining tenement applications and 30 petroleum exploration and production applications. There was an obvious need to apply a test of environmental significance to these to meet the requirements of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. While the use of the term "buddy" in the internal memo may have been injudicious with hindsight, clarifying EPA's requirements for decision-making authorities would have been important as the Environmental Protection Act 1986 which commenced on 20 February 1987 had been operational for only a little over a year at this time. Regardless of whatever administrative arrangements existed in early 1988, the Hon Member can be assured that these have long been superseded by a suite of Memoranda of Understanding (MoU) between the EPA and a number of Government agencies including the (now) Department of Industry and Resources. These are publicly available on the EPA's website (www.epa.wa.gov.au). The MoU's set out arrangements for referral of environmentally significant proposals to the EPA for environmental impact assessment. (7) The CEO of the Department in 1988 was Mr Barry Carbon. (8-12) See answer to questions (1-6)
It is presumed that the memo refers to the relationship between proposals received by the then Department of Mines for mining or petroleum exploration or production and, those of them requiring referral to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) underPart IV Environmental Protection Act 1986 and those requiring Works Approval and Licensing under Part V of the Environmental Protection Act. Only those proposals which, if implemented, would have a significant effect upon the environment required referral under Part IV. Prescribed premises, principally milling and grinding operations, required Works Approvals and Licences under Part V of the Act. In 1987-88, the Mines Department received over 9000 mining tenement applications and 30 petroleum exploration and production applications. There was an obvious need to apply a test of environmental significance to these to meet the requirements of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. While the use of the term "buddy" in the internal memo may have been injudicious with hindsight, clarifying EPA's requirements for decision-making authorities would have been important as the Environmental Protection Act 1986 which commenced on 20 February 1987 had been operational for only a little over a year at this time. Regardless of whatever administrative arrangements existed in early 1988, the Hon Member can be assured that these have long been superseded by a suite of Memoranda of Understanding (MoU) between the EPA and a number of Government agencies including the (now) Department of Industry and Resources. These are publicly available on the EPA's website (www.epa.wa.gov.au). The MoU's set out arrangements for referral of environmentally significant proposals to the EPA for environmental impact assessment. (7) The CEO of the Department in 1988 was Mr Barry Carbon. (8-12) See answer to questions (1-6)
Only those proposals which, if implemented, would have a significant effect upon the environment required referral under Part IV. Prescribed premises, principally milling and grinding operations, required Works Approvals and Licences under Part V of the Act. In 1987-88, the Mines Department received over 9000 mining tenement applications and 30 petroleum exploration and production applications. There was an obvious need to apply a test of environmental significance to these to meet the requirements of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. While the use of the term "buddy" in the internal memo may have been injudicious with hindsight, clarifying EPA's requirements for decision-making authorities would have been important as the Environmental Protection Act 1986 which commenced on 20 February 1987 had been operational for only a little over a year at this time. Regardless of whatever administrative arrangements existed in early 1988, the Hon Member can be assured that these have long been superseded by a suite of Memoranda of Understanding (MoU) between the EPA and a number of Government agencies including the (now) Department of Industry and Resources. These are publicly available on the EPA's website (www.epa.wa.gov.au). The MoU's set out arrangements for referral of environmentally significant proposals to the EPA for environmental impact assessment. (7) The CEO of the Department in 1988 was Mr Barry Carbon. (8-12) See answer to questions (1-6)
In 1987-88, the Mines Department received over 9000 mining tenement applications and 30 petroleum exploration and production applications. There was an obvious need to apply a test of environmental significance to these to meet the requirements of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. While the use of the term "buddy" in the internal memo may have been injudicious with hindsight, clarifying EPA's requirements for decision-making authorities would have been important as the Environmental Protection Act 1986 which commenced on 20 February 1987 had been operational for only a little over a year at this time. Regardless of whatever administrative arrangements existed in early 1988, the Hon Member can be assured that these have long been superseded by a suite of Memoranda of Understanding (MoU) between the EPA and a number of Government agencies including the (now) Department of Industry and Resources. These are publicly available on the EPA's website (www.epa.wa.gov.au). The MoU's set out arrangements for referral of environmentally significant proposals to the EPA for environmental impact assessment. (7) The CEO of the Department in 1988 was Mr Barry Carbon. (8-12) See answer to questions (1-6)
There was an obvious need to apply a test of environmental significance to these to meet the requirements of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. While the use of the term "buddy" in the internal memo may have been injudicious with hindsight, clarifying EPA's requirements for decision-making authorities would have been important as the Environmental Protection Act 1986 which commenced on 20 February 1987 had been operational for only a little over a year at this time. Regardless of whatever administrative arrangements existed in early 1988, the Hon Member can be assured that these have long been superseded by a suite of Memoranda of Understanding (MoU) between the EPA and a number of Government agencies including the (now) Department of Industry and Resources. These are publicly available on the EPA's website (www.epa.wa.gov.au). The MoU's set out arrangements for referral of environmentally significant proposals to the EPA for environmental impact assessment. (7) The CEO of the Department in 1988 was Mr Barry Carbon. (8-12) See answer to questions (1-6)
While the use of the term "buddy" in the internal memo may have been injudicious with hindsight, clarifying EPA's requirements for decision-making authorities would have been important as the Environmental Protection Act 1986 which commenced on 20 February 1987 had been operational for only a little over a year at this time. Regardless of whatever administrative arrangements existed in early 1988, the Hon Member can be assured that these have long been superseded by a suite of Memoranda of Understanding (MoU) between the EPA and a number of Government agencies including the (now) Department of Industry and Resources. These are publicly available on the EPA's website (www.epa.wa.gov.au). The MoU's set out arrangements for referral of environmentally significant proposals to the EPA for environmental impact assessment. (7) The CEO of the Department in 1988 was Mr Barry Carbon. (8-12) See answer to questions (1-6)
Regardless of whatever administrative arrangements existed in early 1988, the Hon Member can be assured that these have long been superseded by a suite of Memoranda of Understanding (MoU) between the EPA and a number of Government agencies including the (now) Department of Industry and Resources. These are publicly available on the EPA's website (www.epa.wa.gov.au). The MoU's set out arrangements for referral of environmentally significant proposals to the EPA for environmental impact assessment. (7) The CEO of the Department in 1988 was Mr Barry Carbon. (8-12) See answer to questions (1-6)
The MoU's set out arrangements for referral of environmentally significant proposals to the EPA for environmental impact assessment. (7) The CEO of the Department in 1988 was Mr Barry Carbon. (8-12) See answer to questions (1-6)
(7) The CEO of the Department in 1988 was Mr Barry Carbon. (8-12) See answer to questions (1-6)
(8-12) See answer to questions (1-6)
It is presumed that the memo refers to the relationship between proposals received by the then Department of Mines for mining or petroleum exploration or production and, those of them requiring referral to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) underPart IV Environmental Protection Act 1986 and those requiring Works Approval and Licensing under Part V of the Environmental Protection Act. Only those proposals which, if implemented, would have a significant effect upon the environment required referral under Part IV. Prescribed premises, principally milling and grinding operations, required Works Approvals and Licences under Part V of the Act. In 1987-88, the Mines Department received over 9000 mining tenement applications and 30 petroleum exploration and production applications. There was an obvious need to apply a test of environmental significance to these to meet the requirements of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. While the use of the term "buddy" in the internal memo may have been injudicious with hindsight, clarifying EPA's requirements for decision-making authorities would have been important as the Environmental Protection Act 1986 which commenced on 20 February 1987 had been operational for only a little over a year at this time. Regardless of whatever administrative arrangements existed in early 1988, the Hon Member can be assured that these have long been superseded by a suite of Memoranda of Understanding (MoU) between the EPA and a number of Government agencies including the (now) Department of Industry and Resources. These are publicly available on the EPA's website (www.epa.wa.gov.au). The MoU's set out arrangements for referral of environmentally significant proposals to the EPA for environmental impact assessment. (7) The CEO of the Department in 1988 was Mr Barry Carbon. (8-12) See answer to questions (1-6)
Only those proposals which, if implemented, would have a significant effect upon the environment required referral under Part IV. Prescribed premises, principally milling and grinding operations, required Works Approvals and Licences under Part V of the Act. In 1987-88, the Mines Department received over 9000 mining tenement applications and 30 petroleum exploration and production applications. There was an obvious need to apply a test of environmental significance to these to meet the requirements of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. While the use of the term "buddy" in the internal memo may have been injudicious with hindsight, clarifying EPA's requirements for decision-making authorities would have been important as the Environmental Protection Act 1986 which commenced on 20 February 1987 had been operational for only a little over a year at this time. Regardless of whatever administrative arrangements existed in early 1988, the Hon Member can be assured that these have long been superseded by a suite of Memoranda of Understanding (MoU) between the EPA and a number of Government agencies including the (now) Department of Industry and Resources. These are publicly available on the EPA's website (www.epa.wa.gov.au). The MoU's set out arrangements for referral of environmentally significant proposals to the EPA for environmental impact assessment. (7) The CEO of the Department in 1988 was Mr Barry Carbon. (8-12) See answer to questions (1-6)
In 1987-88, the Mines Department received over 9000 mining tenement applications and 30 petroleum exploration and production applications. There was an obvious need to apply a test of environmental significance to these to meet the requirements of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. While the use of the term "buddy" in the internal memo may have been injudicious with hindsight, clarifying EPA's requirements for decision-making authorities would have been important as the Environmental Protection Act 1986 which commenced on 20 February 1987 had been operational for only a little over a year at this time. Regardless of whatever administrative arrangements existed in early 1988, the Hon Member can be assured that these have long been superseded by a suite of Memoranda of Understanding (MoU) between the EPA and a number of Government agencies including the (now) Department of Industry and Resources. These are publicly available on the EPA's website (www.epa.wa.gov.au). The MoU's set out arrangements for referral of environmentally significant proposals to the EPA for environmental impact assessment. (7) The CEO of the Department in 1988 was Mr Barry Carbon. (8-12) See answer to questions (1-6)
There was an obvious need to apply a test of environmental significance to these to meet the requirements of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. While the use of the term "buddy" in the internal memo may have been injudicious with hindsight, clarifying EPA's requirements for decision-making authorities would have been important as the Environmental Protection Act 1986 which commenced on 20 February 1987 had been operational for only a little over a year at this time. Regardless of whatever administrative arrangements existed in early 1988, the Hon Member can be assured that these have long been superseded by a suite of Memoranda of Understanding (MoU) between the EPA and a number of Government agencies including the (now) Department of Industry and Resources. These are publicly available on the EPA's website (www.epa.wa.gov.au). The MoU's set out arrangements for referral of environmentally significant proposals to the EPA for environmental impact assessment. (7) The CEO of the Department in 1988 was Mr Barry Carbon. (8-12) See answer to questions (1-6)
While the use of the term "buddy" in the internal memo may have been injudicious with hindsight, clarifying EPA's requirements for decision-making authorities would have been important as the Environmental Protection Act 1986 which commenced on 20 February 1987 had been operational for only a little over a year at this time. Regardless of whatever administrative arrangements existed in early 1988, the Hon Member can be assured that these have long been superseded by a suite of Memoranda of Understanding (MoU) between the EPA and a number of Government agencies including the (now) Department of Industry and Resources. These are publicly available on the EPA's website (www.epa.wa.gov.au). The MoU's set out arrangements for referral of environmentally significant proposals to the EPA for environmental impact assessment. (7) The CEO of the Department in 1988 was Mr Barry Carbon. (8-12) See answer to questions (1-6)
Regardless of whatever administrative arrangements existed in early 1988, the Hon Member can be assured that these have long been superseded by a suite of Memoranda of Understanding (MoU) between the EPA and a number of Government agencies including the (now) Department of Industry and Resources. These are publicly available on the EPA's website (www.epa.wa.gov.au). The MoU's set out arrangements for referral of environmentally significant proposals to the EPA for environmental impact assessment. (7) The CEO of the Department in 1988 was Mr Barry Carbon. (8-12) See answer to questions (1-6)
The MoU's set out arrangements for referral of environmentally significant proposals to the EPA for environmental impact assessment. (7) The CEO of the Department in 1988 was Mr Barry Carbon. (8-12) See answer to questions (1-6)
(7) The CEO of the Department in 1988 was Mr Barry Carbon. (8-12) See answer to questions (1-6)
(8-12) See answer to questions (1-6)
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.