❓ Hon Adele Farina questions the Minister for Environment regarding the EPA's handling of the proposed Osmington coalmine assessment, alleging non-compliance with statutory obligations and seeking clarification on delays and information requests. The Minister defends the EPA's actions, citing the technical complexity of the matter.
AnsweredQoN 137Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
MARGARET RIVER COALMINE — ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AUTHORITY
I refer to the minister’s answer and tabled documents to the question I asked yesterday concerning the proposed Osmington coalmine, which clearly indicate that the 28 days within which the Environmental Protection Authority is required to give written notice of whether it will assess the proposal expired on 28 February. (1) Noting that section 38A notices required the information to be provided by 31 January 2011, why was the EPA unable to make a decision on whether to assess the proposal at its 17 February 2011 meeting? (2) If at its 17 February meeting the EPA determined to request further information, was a further section 38A notice requesting the further information issued? (3) If yes to (2), why was the notice not tabled yesterday and will the minister table it today? (4) If no to (2), why did the EPA fail to meet its statutory obligation pursuant to sections 38A(1) and/or 39A(3) of the Environmental Protection Act? (5) Why did the minister in answer to the question I asked yesterday say that the EPA has complied with section 39A(3) when the documents tabled yesterday clearly show that the EPA has not complied with section 39A(3)? (6) Does the minister condone the EPA’s blatant disregard of its statutory obligations and what action will the minister take to ensure that in future the EPA complies with its statutory requirements? (7) Will the EPA’s decision whether to assess the proposal be open to legal challenge as a result of its failure to comply with its statutory obligations? The PRESIDENT : The definition of concise seems to have been stretched a little today! Hon Adele Farina : I don’t mind a long answer! Hon HELEN MORTON
I refer to the minister’s answer and tabled documents to the question I asked yesterday concerning the proposed Osmington coalmine, which clearly indicate that the 28 days within which the Environmental Protection Authority is required to give written notice of whether it will assess the proposal expired on 28 February. (1) Noting that section 38A notices required the information to be provided by 31 January 2011, why was the EPA unable to make a decision on whether to assess the proposal at its 17 February 2011 meeting? (2) If at its 17 February meeting the EPA determined to request further information, was a further section 38A notice requesting the further information issued? (3) If yes to (2), why was the notice not tabled yesterday and will the minister table it today? (4) If no to (2), why did the EPA fail to meet its statutory obligation pursuant to sections 38A(1) and/or 39A(3) of the Environmental Protection Act? (5) Why did the minister in answer to the question I asked yesterday say that the EPA has complied with section 39A(3) when the documents tabled yesterday clearly show that the EPA has not complied with section 39A(3)? (6) Does the minister condone the EPA’s blatant disregard of its statutory obligations and what action will the minister take to ensure that in future the EPA complies with its statutory requirements? (7) Will the EPA’s decision whether to assess the proposal be open to legal challenge as a result of its failure to comply with its statutory obligations? The PRESIDENT : The definition of concise seems to have been stretched a little today! Hon Adele Farina : I don’t mind a long answer! Hon HELEN MORTON
AnswerView source ↗
I will try to provide a concise response. The Minister for Environment has provided the following response — (1)–(7) As I indicated in my response of 15 March 2011, I was advised by the Environmental Protection Authority that it sought information about the proposal from various agencies and provided notices to those agencies to ensure that it received responses. The EPA considered advice it had received from the various agencies at its meeting of 17 February 2011. Following the meeting of 17 February 2011, the EPA sought further advice, through the Office of the Environmental Protection Authority, from the Department of Water and the Department of Mines and Petroleum with respect to the information that had already been provided pursuant to the notices issued under section 38A of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. This is a technically complex matter and it is important that the EPA has enough information about the proposal to properly and robustly inform its decision about assessment in accordance with its statutory obligations.
(1) Noting that section 38A notices required the information to be provided by 31 January 2011, why was the EPA unable to make a decision on whether to assess the proposal at its 17 February 2011 meeting? (2) If at its 17 February meeting the EPA determined to request further information, was a further section 38A notice requesting the further information issued? (3) If yes to (2), why was the notice not tabled yesterday and will the minister table it today? (4) If no to (2), why did the EPA fail to meet its statutory obligation pursuant to sections 38A(1) and/or 39A(3) of the Environmental Protection Act? (5) Why did the minister in answer to the question I asked yesterday say that the EPA has complied with section 39A(3) when the documents tabled yesterday clearly show that the EPA has not complied with section 39A(3)? (6) Does the minister condone the EPA’s blatant disregard of its statutory obligations and what action will the minister take to ensure that in future the EPA complies with its statutory requirements? (7) Will the EPA’s decision whether to assess the proposal be open to legal challenge as a result of its failure to comply with its statutory obligations? The PRESIDENT : The definition of concise seems to have been stretched a little today! Hon Adele Farina : I don’t mind a long answer! Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I will try to provide a concise response. The Minister for Environment has provided the following response — (1)–(7) As I indicated in my response of 15 March 2011, I was advised by the Environmental Protection Authority that it sought information about the proposal from various agencies and provided notices to those agencies to ensure that it received responses. The EPA considered advice it had received from the various agencies at its meeting of 17 February 2011. Following the meeting of 17 February 2011, the EPA sought further advice, through the Office of the Environmental Protection Authority, from the Department of Water and the Department of Mines and Petroleum with respect to the information that had already been provided pursuant to the notices issued under section 38A of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. This is a technically complex matter and it is important that the EPA has enough information about the proposal to properly and robustly inform its decision about assessment in accordance with its statutory obligations.
(2) If at its 17 February meeting the EPA determined to request further information, was a further section 38A notice requesting the further information issued? (3) If yes to (2), why was the notice not tabled yesterday and will the minister table it today? (4) If no to (2), why did the EPA fail to meet its statutory obligation pursuant to sections 38A(1) and/or 39A(3) of the Environmental Protection Act? (5) Why did the minister in answer to the question I asked yesterday say that the EPA has complied with section 39A(3) when the documents tabled yesterday clearly show that the EPA has not complied with section 39A(3)? (6) Does the minister condone the EPA’s blatant disregard of its statutory obligations and what action will the minister take to ensure that in future the EPA complies with its statutory requirements? (7) Will the EPA’s decision whether to assess the proposal be open to legal challenge as a result of its failure to comply with its statutory obligations? The PRESIDENT : The definition of concise seems to have been stretched a little today! Hon Adele Farina : I don’t mind a long answer! Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I will try to provide a concise response. The Minister for Environment has provided the following response — (1)–(7) As I indicated in my response of 15 March 2011, I was advised by the Environmental Protection Authority that it sought information about the proposal from various agencies and provided notices to those agencies to ensure that it received responses. The EPA considered advice it had received from the various agencies at its meeting of 17 February 2011. Following the meeting of 17 February 2011, the EPA sought further advice, through the Office of the Environmental Protection Authority, from the Department of Water and the Department of Mines and Petroleum with respect to the information that had already been provided pursuant to the notices issued under section 38A of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. This is a technically complex matter and it is important that the EPA has enough information about the proposal to properly and robustly inform its decision about assessment in accordance with its statutory obligations.
(3) If yes to (2), why was the notice not tabled yesterday and will the minister table it today? (4) If no to (2), why did the EPA fail to meet its statutory obligation pursuant to sections 38A(1) and/or 39A(3) of the Environmental Protection Act? (5) Why did the minister in answer to the question I asked yesterday say that the EPA has complied with section 39A(3) when the documents tabled yesterday clearly show that the EPA has not complied with section 39A(3)? (6) Does the minister condone the EPA’s blatant disregard of its statutory obligations and what action will the minister take to ensure that in future the EPA complies with its statutory requirements? (7) Will the EPA’s decision whether to assess the proposal be open to legal challenge as a result of its failure to comply with its statutory obligations? The PRESIDENT : The definition of concise seems to have been stretched a little today! Hon Adele Farina : I don’t mind a long answer! Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I will try to provide a concise response. The Minister for Environment has provided the following response — (1)–(7) As I indicated in my response of 15 March 2011, I was advised by the Environmental Protection Authority that it sought information about the proposal from various agencies and provided notices to those agencies to ensure that it received responses. The EPA considered advice it had received from the various agencies at its meeting of 17 February 2011. Following the meeting of 17 February 2011, the EPA sought further advice, through the Office of the Environmental Protection Authority, from the Department of Water and the Department of Mines and Petroleum with respect to the information that had already been provided pursuant to the notices issued under section 38A of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. This is a technically complex matter and it is important that the EPA has enough information about the proposal to properly and robustly inform its decision about assessment in accordance with its statutory obligations.
(4) If no to (2), why did the EPA fail to meet its statutory obligation pursuant to sections 38A(1) and/or 39A(3) of the Environmental Protection Act? (5) Why did the minister in answer to the question I asked yesterday say that the EPA has complied with section 39A(3) when the documents tabled yesterday clearly show that the EPA has not complied with section 39A(3)? (6) Does the minister condone the EPA’s blatant disregard of its statutory obligations and what action will the minister take to ensure that in future the EPA complies with its statutory requirements? (7) Will the EPA’s decision whether to assess the proposal be open to legal challenge as a result of its failure to comply with its statutory obligations? The PRESIDENT : The definition of concise seems to have been stretched a little today! Hon Adele Farina : I don’t mind a long answer! Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I will try to provide a concise response. The Minister for Environment has provided the following response — (1)–(7) As I indicated in my response of 15 March 2011, I was advised by the Environmental Protection Authority that it sought information about the proposal from various agencies and provided notices to those agencies to ensure that it received responses. The EPA considered advice it had received from the various agencies at its meeting of 17 February 2011. Following the meeting of 17 February 2011, the EPA sought further advice, through the Office of the Environmental Protection Authority, from the Department of Water and the Department of Mines and Petroleum with respect to the information that had already been provided pursuant to the notices issued under section 38A of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. This is a technically complex matter and it is important that the EPA has enough information about the proposal to properly and robustly inform its decision about assessment in accordance with its statutory obligations.
(5) Why did the minister in answer to the question I asked yesterday say that the EPA has complied with section 39A(3) when the documents tabled yesterday clearly show that the EPA has not complied with section 39A(3)? (6) Does the minister condone the EPA’s blatant disregard of its statutory obligations and what action will the minister take to ensure that in future the EPA complies with its statutory requirements? (7) Will the EPA’s decision whether to assess the proposal be open to legal challenge as a result of its failure to comply with its statutory obligations? The PRESIDENT : The definition of concise seems to have been stretched a little today! Hon Adele Farina : I don’t mind a long answer! Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I will try to provide a concise response. The Minister for Environment has provided the following response — (1)–(7) As I indicated in my response of 15 March 2011, I was advised by the Environmental Protection Authority that it sought information about the proposal from various agencies and provided notices to those agencies to ensure that it received responses. The EPA considered advice it had received from the various agencies at its meeting of 17 February 2011. Following the meeting of 17 February 2011, the EPA sought further advice, through the Office of the Environmental Protection Authority, from the Department of Water and the Department of Mines and Petroleum with respect to the information that had already been provided pursuant to the notices issued under section 38A of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. This is a technically complex matter and it is important that the EPA has enough information about the proposal to properly and robustly inform its decision about assessment in accordance with its statutory obligations.
(6) Does the minister condone the EPA’s blatant disregard of its statutory obligations and what action will the minister take to ensure that in future the EPA complies with its statutory requirements? (7) Will the EPA’s decision whether to assess the proposal be open to legal challenge as a result of its failure to comply with its statutory obligations? The PRESIDENT : The definition of concise seems to have been stretched a little today! Hon Adele Farina : I don’t mind a long answer! Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I will try to provide a concise response. The Minister for Environment has provided the following response — (1)–(7) As I indicated in my response of 15 March 2011, I was advised by the Environmental Protection Authority that it sought information about the proposal from various agencies and provided notices to those agencies to ensure that it received responses. The EPA considered advice it had received from the various agencies at its meeting of 17 February 2011. Following the meeting of 17 February 2011, the EPA sought further advice, through the Office of the Environmental Protection Authority, from the Department of Water and the Department of Mines and Petroleum with respect to the information that had already been provided pursuant to the notices issued under section 38A of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. This is a technically complex matter and it is important that the EPA has enough information about the proposal to properly and robustly inform its decision about assessment in accordance with its statutory obligations.
(7) Will the EPA’s decision whether to assess the proposal be open to legal challenge as a result of its failure to comply with its statutory obligations? The PRESIDENT : The definition of concise seems to have been stretched a little today! Hon Adele Farina : I don’t mind a long answer! Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I will try to provide a concise response. The Minister for Environment has provided the following response — (1)–(7) As I indicated in my response of 15 March 2011, I was advised by the Environmental Protection Authority that it sought information about the proposal from various agencies and provided notices to those agencies to ensure that it received responses. The EPA considered advice it had received from the various agencies at its meeting of 17 February 2011. Following the meeting of 17 February 2011, the EPA sought further advice, through the Office of the Environmental Protection Authority, from the Department of Water and the Department of Mines and Petroleum with respect to the information that had already been provided pursuant to the notices issued under section 38A of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. This is a technically complex matter and it is important that the EPA has enough information about the proposal to properly and robustly inform its decision about assessment in accordance with its statutory obligations.
The PRESIDENT : The definition of concise seems to have been stretched a little today! Hon Adele Farina : I don’t mind a long answer! Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I will try to provide a concise response. The Minister for Environment has provided the following response — (1)–(7) As I indicated in my response of 15 March 2011, I was advised by the Environmental Protection Authority that it sought information about the proposal from various agencies and provided notices to those agencies to ensure that it received responses. The EPA considered advice it had received from the various agencies at its meeting of 17 February 2011. Following the meeting of 17 February 2011, the EPA sought further advice, through the Office of the Environmental Protection Authority, from the Department of Water and the Department of Mines and Petroleum with respect to the information that had already been provided pursuant to the notices issued under section 38A of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. This is a technically complex matter and it is important that the EPA has enough information about the proposal to properly and robustly inform its decision about assessment in accordance with its statutory obligations.
Hon Adele Farina : I don’t mind a long answer! Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I will try to provide a concise response. The Minister for Environment has provided the following response — (1)–(7) As I indicated in my response of 15 March 2011, I was advised by the Environmental Protection Authority that it sought information about the proposal from various agencies and provided notices to those agencies to ensure that it received responses. The EPA considered advice it had received from the various agencies at its meeting of 17 February 2011. Following the meeting of 17 February 2011, the EPA sought further advice, through the Office of the Environmental Protection Authority, from the Department of Water and the Department of Mines and Petroleum with respect to the information that had already been provided pursuant to the notices issued under section 38A of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. This is a technically complex matter and it is important that the EPA has enough information about the proposal to properly and robustly inform its decision about assessment in accordance with its statutory obligations.
Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I will try to provide a concise response. The Minister for Environment has provided the following response — (1)–(7) As I indicated in my response of 15 March 2011, I was advised by the Environmental Protection Authority that it sought information about the proposal from various agencies and provided notices to those agencies to ensure that it received responses. The EPA considered advice it had received from the various agencies at its meeting of 17 February 2011. Following the meeting of 17 February 2011, the EPA sought further advice, through the Office of the Environmental Protection Authority, from the Department of Water and the Department of Mines and Petroleum with respect to the information that had already been provided pursuant to the notices issued under section 38A of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. This is a technically complex matter and it is important that the EPA has enough information about the proposal to properly and robustly inform its decision about assessment in accordance with its statutory obligations.
I will try to provide a concise response. The Minister for Environment has provided the following response — (1)–(7) As I indicated in my response of 15 March 2011, I was advised by the Environmental Protection Authority that it sought information about the proposal from various agencies and provided notices to those agencies to ensure that it received responses. The EPA considered advice it had received from the various agencies at its meeting of 17 February 2011. Following the meeting of 17 February 2011, the EPA sought further advice, through the Office of the Environmental Protection Authority, from the Department of Water and the Department of Mines and Petroleum with respect to the information that had already been provided pursuant to the notices issued under section 38A of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. This is a technically complex matter and it is important that the EPA has enough information about the proposal to properly and robustly inform its decision about assessment in accordance with its statutory obligations.
(1)–(7) As I indicated in my response of 15 March 2011, I was advised by the Environmental Protection Authority that it sought information about the proposal from various agencies and provided notices to those agencies to ensure that it received responses. The EPA considered advice it had received from the various agencies at its meeting of 17 February 2011. Following the meeting of 17 February 2011, the EPA sought further advice, through the Office of the Environmental Protection Authority, from the Department of Water and the Department of Mines and Petroleum with respect to the information that had already been provided pursuant to the notices issued under section 38A of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. This is a technically complex matter and it is important that the EPA has enough information about the proposal to properly and robustly inform its decision about assessment in accordance with its statutory obligations.
(1) Noting that section 38A notices required the information to be provided by 31 January 2011, why was the EPA unable to make a decision on whether to assess the proposal at its 17 February 2011 meeting? (2) If at its 17 February meeting the EPA determined to request further information, was a further section 38A notice requesting the further information issued? (3) If yes to (2), why was the notice not tabled yesterday and will the minister table it today? (4) If no to (2), why did the EPA fail to meet its statutory obligation pursuant to sections 38A(1) and/or 39A(3) of the Environmental Protection Act? (5) Why did the minister in answer to the question I asked yesterday say that the EPA has complied with section 39A(3) when the documents tabled yesterday clearly show that the EPA has not complied with section 39A(3)? (6) Does the minister condone the EPA’s blatant disregard of its statutory obligations and what action will the minister take to ensure that in future the EPA complies with its statutory requirements? (7) Will the EPA’s decision whether to assess the proposal be open to legal challenge as a result of its failure to comply with its statutory obligations? The PRESIDENT : The definition of concise seems to have been stretched a little today! Hon Adele Farina : I don’t mind a long answer! Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I will try to provide a concise response. The Minister for Environment has provided the following response — (1)–(7) As I indicated in my response of 15 March 2011, I was advised by the Environmental Protection Authority that it sought information about the proposal from various agencies and provided notices to those agencies to ensure that it received responses. The EPA considered advice it had received from the various agencies at its meeting of 17 February 2011. Following the meeting of 17 February 2011, the EPA sought further advice, through the Office of the Environmental Protection Authority, from the Department of Water and the Department of Mines and Petroleum with respect to the information that had already been provided pursuant to the notices issued under section 38A of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. This is a technically complex matter and it is important that the EPA has enough information about the proposal to properly and robustly inform its decision about assessment in accordance with its statutory obligations.
(2) If at its 17 February meeting the EPA determined to request further information, was a further section 38A notice requesting the further information issued? (3) If yes to (2), why was the notice not tabled yesterday and will the minister table it today? (4) If no to (2), why did the EPA fail to meet its statutory obligation pursuant to sections 38A(1) and/or 39A(3) of the Environmental Protection Act? (5) Why did the minister in answer to the question I asked yesterday say that the EPA has complied with section 39A(3) when the documents tabled yesterday clearly show that the EPA has not complied with section 39A(3)? (6) Does the minister condone the EPA’s blatant disregard of its statutory obligations and what action will the minister take to ensure that in future the EPA complies with its statutory requirements? (7) Will the EPA’s decision whether to assess the proposal be open to legal challenge as a result of its failure to comply with its statutory obligations? The PRESIDENT : The definition of concise seems to have been stretched a little today! Hon Adele Farina : I don’t mind a long answer! Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I will try to provide a concise response. The Minister for Environment has provided the following response — (1)–(7) As I indicated in my response of 15 March 2011, I was advised by the Environmental Protection Authority that it sought information about the proposal from various agencies and provided notices to those agencies to ensure that it received responses. The EPA considered advice it had received from the various agencies at its meeting of 17 February 2011. Following the meeting of 17 February 2011, the EPA sought further advice, through the Office of the Environmental Protection Authority, from the Department of Water and the Department of Mines and Petroleum with respect to the information that had already been provided pursuant to the notices issued under section 38A of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. This is a technically complex matter and it is important that the EPA has enough information about the proposal to properly and robustly inform its decision about assessment in accordance with its statutory obligations.
(3) If yes to (2), why was the notice not tabled yesterday and will the minister table it today? (4) If no to (2), why did the EPA fail to meet its statutory obligation pursuant to sections 38A(1) and/or 39A(3) of the Environmental Protection Act? (5) Why did the minister in answer to the question I asked yesterday say that the EPA has complied with section 39A(3) when the documents tabled yesterday clearly show that the EPA has not complied with section 39A(3)? (6) Does the minister condone the EPA’s blatant disregard of its statutory obligations and what action will the minister take to ensure that in future the EPA complies with its statutory requirements? (7) Will the EPA’s decision whether to assess the proposal be open to legal challenge as a result of its failure to comply with its statutory obligations? The PRESIDENT : The definition of concise seems to have been stretched a little today! Hon Adele Farina : I don’t mind a long answer! Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I will try to provide a concise response. The Minister for Environment has provided the following response — (1)–(7) As I indicated in my response of 15 March 2011, I was advised by the Environmental Protection Authority that it sought information about the proposal from various agencies and provided notices to those agencies to ensure that it received responses. The EPA considered advice it had received from the various agencies at its meeting of 17 February 2011. Following the meeting of 17 February 2011, the EPA sought further advice, through the Office of the Environmental Protection Authority, from the Department of Water and the Department of Mines and Petroleum with respect to the information that had already been provided pursuant to the notices issued under section 38A of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. This is a technically complex matter and it is important that the EPA has enough information about the proposal to properly and robustly inform its decision about assessment in accordance with its statutory obligations.
(4) If no to (2), why did the EPA fail to meet its statutory obligation pursuant to sections 38A(1) and/or 39A(3) of the Environmental Protection Act? (5) Why did the minister in answer to the question I asked yesterday say that the EPA has complied with section 39A(3) when the documents tabled yesterday clearly show that the EPA has not complied with section 39A(3)? (6) Does the minister condone the EPA’s blatant disregard of its statutory obligations and what action will the minister take to ensure that in future the EPA complies with its statutory requirements? (7) Will the EPA’s decision whether to assess the proposal be open to legal challenge as a result of its failure to comply with its statutory obligations? The PRESIDENT : The definition of concise seems to have been stretched a little today! Hon Adele Farina : I don’t mind a long answer! Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I will try to provide a concise response. The Minister for Environment has provided the following response — (1)–(7) As I indicated in my response of 15 March 2011, I was advised by the Environmental Protection Authority that it sought information about the proposal from various agencies and provided notices to those agencies to ensure that it received responses. The EPA considered advice it had received from the various agencies at its meeting of 17 February 2011. Following the meeting of 17 February 2011, the EPA sought further advice, through the Office of the Environmental Protection Authority, from the Department of Water and the Department of Mines and Petroleum with respect to the information that had already been provided pursuant to the notices issued under section 38A of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. This is a technically complex matter and it is important that the EPA has enough information about the proposal to properly and robustly inform its decision about assessment in accordance with its statutory obligations.
(5) Why did the minister in answer to the question I asked yesterday say that the EPA has complied with section 39A(3) when the documents tabled yesterday clearly show that the EPA has not complied with section 39A(3)? (6) Does the minister condone the EPA’s blatant disregard of its statutory obligations and what action will the minister take to ensure that in future the EPA complies with its statutory requirements? (7) Will the EPA’s decision whether to assess the proposal be open to legal challenge as a result of its failure to comply with its statutory obligations? The PRESIDENT : The definition of concise seems to have been stretched a little today! Hon Adele Farina : I don’t mind a long answer! Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I will try to provide a concise response. The Minister for Environment has provided the following response — (1)–(7) As I indicated in my response of 15 March 2011, I was advised by the Environmental Protection Authority that it sought information about the proposal from various agencies and provided notices to those agencies to ensure that it received responses. The EPA considered advice it had received from the various agencies at its meeting of 17 February 2011. Following the meeting of 17 February 2011, the EPA sought further advice, through the Office of the Environmental Protection Authority, from the Department of Water and the Department of Mines and Petroleum with respect to the information that had already been provided pursuant to the notices issued under section 38A of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. This is a technically complex matter and it is important that the EPA has enough information about the proposal to properly and robustly inform its decision about assessment in accordance with its statutory obligations.
(6) Does the minister condone the EPA’s blatant disregard of its statutory obligations and what action will the minister take to ensure that in future the EPA complies with its statutory requirements? (7) Will the EPA’s decision whether to assess the proposal be open to legal challenge as a result of its failure to comply with its statutory obligations? The PRESIDENT : The definition of concise seems to have been stretched a little today! Hon Adele Farina : I don’t mind a long answer! Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I will try to provide a concise response. The Minister for Environment has provided the following response — (1)–(7) As I indicated in my response of 15 March 2011, I was advised by the Environmental Protection Authority that it sought information about the proposal from various agencies and provided notices to those agencies to ensure that it received responses. The EPA considered advice it had received from the various agencies at its meeting of 17 February 2011. Following the meeting of 17 February 2011, the EPA sought further advice, through the Office of the Environmental Protection Authority, from the Department of Water and the Department of Mines and Petroleum with respect to the information that had already been provided pursuant to the notices issued under section 38A of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. This is a technically complex matter and it is important that the EPA has enough information about the proposal to properly and robustly inform its decision about assessment in accordance with its statutory obligations.
(7) Will the EPA’s decision whether to assess the proposal be open to legal challenge as a result of its failure to comply with its statutory obligations? The PRESIDENT : The definition of concise seems to have been stretched a little today! Hon Adele Farina : I don’t mind a long answer! Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I will try to provide a concise response. The Minister for Environment has provided the following response — (1)–(7) As I indicated in my response of 15 March 2011, I was advised by the Environmental Protection Authority that it sought information about the proposal from various agencies and provided notices to those agencies to ensure that it received responses. The EPA considered advice it had received from the various agencies at its meeting of 17 February 2011. Following the meeting of 17 February 2011, the EPA sought further advice, through the Office of the Environmental Protection Authority, from the Department of Water and the Department of Mines and Petroleum with respect to the information that had already been provided pursuant to the notices issued under section 38A of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. This is a technically complex matter and it is important that the EPA has enough information about the proposal to properly and robustly inform its decision about assessment in accordance with its statutory obligations.
The PRESIDENT : The definition of concise seems to have been stretched a little today! Hon Adele Farina : I don’t mind a long answer! Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I will try to provide a concise response. The Minister for Environment has provided the following response — (1)–(7) As I indicated in my response of 15 March 2011, I was advised by the Environmental Protection Authority that it sought information about the proposal from various agencies and provided notices to those agencies to ensure that it received responses. The EPA considered advice it had received from the various agencies at its meeting of 17 February 2011. Following the meeting of 17 February 2011, the EPA sought further advice, through the Office of the Environmental Protection Authority, from the Department of Water and the Department of Mines and Petroleum with respect to the information that had already been provided pursuant to the notices issued under section 38A of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. This is a technically complex matter and it is important that the EPA has enough information about the proposal to properly and robustly inform its decision about assessment in accordance with its statutory obligations.
Hon Adele Farina : I don’t mind a long answer! Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I will try to provide a concise response. The Minister for Environment has provided the following response — (1)–(7) As I indicated in my response of 15 March 2011, I was advised by the Environmental Protection Authority that it sought information about the proposal from various agencies and provided notices to those agencies to ensure that it received responses. The EPA considered advice it had received from the various agencies at its meeting of 17 February 2011. Following the meeting of 17 February 2011, the EPA sought further advice, through the Office of the Environmental Protection Authority, from the Department of Water and the Department of Mines and Petroleum with respect to the information that had already been provided pursuant to the notices issued under section 38A of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. This is a technically complex matter and it is important that the EPA has enough information about the proposal to properly and robustly inform its decision about assessment in accordance with its statutory obligations.
Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I will try to provide a concise response. The Minister for Environment has provided the following response — (1)–(7) As I indicated in my response of 15 March 2011, I was advised by the Environmental Protection Authority that it sought information about the proposal from various agencies and provided notices to those agencies to ensure that it received responses. The EPA considered advice it had received from the various agencies at its meeting of 17 February 2011. Following the meeting of 17 February 2011, the EPA sought further advice, through the Office of the Environmental Protection Authority, from the Department of Water and the Department of Mines and Petroleum with respect to the information that had already been provided pursuant to the notices issued under section 38A of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. This is a technically complex matter and it is important that the EPA has enough information about the proposal to properly and robustly inform its decision about assessment in accordance with its statutory obligations.
I will try to provide a concise response. The Minister for Environment has provided the following response — (1)–(7) As I indicated in my response of 15 March 2011, I was advised by the Environmental Protection Authority that it sought information about the proposal from various agencies and provided notices to those agencies to ensure that it received responses. The EPA considered advice it had received from the various agencies at its meeting of 17 February 2011. Following the meeting of 17 February 2011, the EPA sought further advice, through the Office of the Environmental Protection Authority, from the Department of Water and the Department of Mines and Petroleum with respect to the information that had already been provided pursuant to the notices issued under section 38A of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. This is a technically complex matter and it is important that the EPA has enough information about the proposal to properly and robustly inform its decision about assessment in accordance with its statutory obligations.
(1)–(7) As I indicated in my response of 15 March 2011, I was advised by the Environmental Protection Authority that it sought information about the proposal from various agencies and provided notices to those agencies to ensure that it received responses. The EPA considered advice it had received from the various agencies at its meeting of 17 February 2011. Following the meeting of 17 February 2011, the EPA sought further advice, through the Office of the Environmental Protection Authority, from the Department of Water and the Department of Mines and Petroleum with respect to the information that had already been provided pursuant to the notices issued under section 38A of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. This is a technically complex matter and it is important that the EPA has enough information about the proposal to properly and robustly inform its decision about assessment in accordance with its statutory obligations.
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.