❓ A WA parliamentary question scrutinising the independent review of environmental approvals, focusing on the selection process, potential conflicts of interest, consultation practices, and proposed changes to the Environment Protection Act. The response provides some details but deflects on key points.
AnsweredQoN 1935Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I
refer to the Independent Review of WA Environmental Approvals, Processes and
Procedures , undertaken by Dr Paul Vogel and David McFerran, the Streamline WA
response to the report and the media release from the Premier and Environment
Minister dated 12 December 2023, and I ask: (a) when, and by whom, was the decision made to engage Dr Vogel and David McFerran to
conduct the review; (b) how
were Dr Vogel and Mr McFerran selected to conduct the review; (c) what
criteria were used to ensure Dr Vogel and Mr McFerran qualified as independent; (d) did
either Dr Vogel or Mr McFerran declare any conflicts of interest in relation to
current or potential future involvement on behalf of proponents in Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) assessment processes: (i) if yes to (d), what was the nature of that declaration; (e) was
the conduct of the review put out to tender: (i) if no to (e), why not; (f) what
were the dates of the commencement and the completion of the review; (g) what
was the cost of the review; (h) is
the review report available in full to the public: (i) if no to (h), why not; (i) when
will the review be made public; (j) who
outside of Government was consulted in: (i) the
drafting of the terms of reference for the review; and (ii) the
course of the review; (k) if
industry groups or companies were consulted by the independent reviewers, when
did those consultations occur and who was present at them; (l) why
were no conservation groups consulted by the independent reviewers; (m) when
will the further consultation with conservation groups, referred to in the media
release, commence and which groups will be consulted; (n) what stage is the drafting of the proposed amendments to the Environment
Protection Act 1986 at; (o) recommendation
6 of the review, which the government has accepted, calls for a shift in the
culture of the Office of EPA to one which facilitates sustainable development.
Given the Environment Protection Act (EP Act) states that the purpose of the
EPA is to protect the WA environment and prevent, control, abate and mitigate
pollution and environmental harm, is the Government proposing to amend the
EPA’s purpose to facilitating sustainable development; (p) recommendation
36(c), which the government has accepted, proposes removing all public appeal
rights under Part IV of the EP Act. Given that none of the previous reviews of
the EPA and the EP Act, involving extensive stakeholder consultation, including
those in 2020, 2016, 2009, have recommended the removal of these public
appeal rights, why has the government accepted this recommendation; (q) recommendations
32 and 38 appear intended to limit and constrain the EPA’s assessment of matters
relating to the social, cultural and climate change impacts of proposals. How
can the public have confidence that those matters will be adequately and
transparently assessed by other agencies given those agencies do not have the
same statutory purpose or objects or, in the case of climate impacts,
WA-specific expertise as the EPA; (r) how
will the Government ensure that any external consultant or technical experts
brought in to assist the EPA do not have any conflicts of interest, direct or
indirect, in relation to the companies or projects they may be assisting with; (s) how
will the Government ensure that any additional skills-based appointments to the
board of the EPA, as recommended by the review, are conducted so as to ensure that
no ongoing or recurring conflicts of interest are likely to arise; (t) is
the Government considering changing the existing conflict of interest
provisions in the EP Act: (i) if
yes to (w), in what way; (u) how
will the new role and team of Coordinator General located in the Department of
Jobs, Tourism, Science and Innovation relate to the existing Streamline WA
Steering Committee and Streamline WA Council of Regulators to ensure there is
not duplication and role confusion; and (v) will
the Coordinator General have decision making precedence over the Streamline WA
Steering Committee or the Streamline WA Council of Regulators?
refer to the Independent Review of WA Environmental Approvals, Processes and
Procedures , undertaken by Dr Paul Vogel and David McFerran, the Streamline WA
response to the report and the media release from the Premier and Environment
Minister dated 12 December 2023, and I ask: (a) when, and by whom, was the decision made to engage Dr Vogel and David McFerran to
conduct the review; (b) how
were Dr Vogel and Mr McFerran selected to conduct the review; (c) what
criteria were used to ensure Dr Vogel and Mr McFerran qualified as independent; (d) did
either Dr Vogel or Mr McFerran declare any conflicts of interest in relation to
current or potential future involvement on behalf of proponents in Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) assessment processes: (i) if yes to (d), what was the nature of that declaration; (e) was
the conduct of the review put out to tender: (i) if no to (e), why not; (f) what
were the dates of the commencement and the completion of the review; (g) what
was the cost of the review; (h) is
the review report available in full to the public: (i) if no to (h), why not; (i) when
will the review be made public; (j) who
outside of Government was consulted in: (i) the
drafting of the terms of reference for the review; and (ii) the
course of the review; (k) if
industry groups or companies were consulted by the independent reviewers, when
did those consultations occur and who was present at them; (l) why
were no conservation groups consulted by the independent reviewers; (m) when
will the further consultation with conservation groups, referred to in the media
release, commence and which groups will be consulted; (n) what stage is the drafting of the proposed amendments to the Environment
Protection Act 1986 at; (o) recommendation
6 of the review, which the government has accepted, calls for a shift in the
culture of the Office of EPA to one which facilitates sustainable development.
Given the Environment Protection Act (EP Act) states that the purpose of the
EPA is to protect the WA environment and prevent, control, abate and mitigate
pollution and environmental harm, is the Government proposing to amend the
EPA’s purpose to facilitating sustainable development; (p) recommendation
36(c), which the government has accepted, proposes removing all public appeal
rights under Part IV of the EP Act. Given that none of the previous reviews of
the EPA and the EP Act, involving extensive stakeholder consultation, including
those in 2020, 2016, 2009, have recommended the removal of these public
appeal rights, why has the government accepted this recommendation; (q) recommendations
32 and 38 appear intended to limit and constrain the EPA’s assessment of matters
relating to the social, cultural and climate change impacts of proposals. How
can the public have confidence that those matters will be adequately and
transparently assessed by other agencies given those agencies do not have the
same statutory purpose or objects or, in the case of climate impacts,
WA-specific expertise as the EPA; (r) how
will the Government ensure that any external consultant or technical experts
brought in to assist the EPA do not have any conflicts of interest, direct or
indirect, in relation to the companies or projects they may be assisting with; (s) how
will the Government ensure that any additional skills-based appointments to the
board of the EPA, as recommended by the review, are conducted so as to ensure that
no ongoing or recurring conflicts of interest are likely to arise; (t) is
the Government considering changing the existing conflict of interest
provisions in the EP Act: (i) if
yes to (w), in what way; (u) how
will the new role and team of Coordinator General located in the Department of
Jobs, Tourism, Science and Innovation relate to the existing Streamline WA
Steering Committee and Streamline WA Council of Regulators to ensure there is
not duplication and role confusion; and (v) will
the Coordinator General have decision making precedence over the Streamline WA
Steering Committee or the Streamline WA Council of Regulators?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
16 April 2024
Responded by
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Environment
Response time
6 days
(a) The review was commissioned by Treasury in the second half of 2023.
(b) Dr Vogel and Mr McFerran were appointed based on their significant cross-jurisdictional expertise in a wide range of matters pertaining to environmental approvals.
(c) Further to the above, the respondents were required to outline their suitability to deliver the proposed services, including relevant experience, and their capacity to deliver within the required timeframe.
(d) Proponents were requested to declare any perceived or potential conflicts of interest. No conflicts of interest were declared or identified with respect to current or potential future involvement on behalf of proponents in the EPA assessment process. However, Mr McFerran declared he is the Chair of the Swan River Trust and in that role has an advisory role reporting to the Minister for Environment.
(e) No. i) Because of the tight timeframe for the review and the limited pool of suitably qualified and experienced consultants, direct quotes were sought.
(f) The review commenced on 2 October 2023 and was completed on 3 November 2023.
(g) $112,150.
(h)-(i) The report is Cabinet in Confidence
(j)-(m)Government is aware that Dr Vogel and McFerran met with a range of stakeholders. As the review was led by an independent consultant, the government does not have access to specific details on individual stakeholder meetings.
Government is advised that the Conservation Council of WA did not respond to an invitation by Dr Vogel and Mr McFerran to engage in the process.
Consultation with industry, and conservation and Aboriginal engagement groups on the implementation of proposed reforms is underway. Further consultations are planned.
Government intends to introduce amendments to the Environment Protection Act 1986 later this year.
(o)-(q) Government is working to implement the review’s recommendations. The EPA’s objective to protect the WA environment and prevent, control, abate and mitigate pollution and environmental harm will remain. The appeals process is an important part of the environmental regulatory process. The review provided a useful opportunity to consider options to reform the appeals process alongside the government’s broader objective to streamline approval processes while continuing to ensure the highest levels of protection for Western Australia’s unique environment.
(r)-(s) Any individual hired to assist the EPA is required to abide by the Department of Water and Environmental Regulations’ Conflict of Interest (CoI) Policy and completed a CoI declaration.
(t) No.
(u)-(v) These questions should be directed to the Minister for State Development.
(b) Dr Vogel and Mr McFerran were appointed based on their significant cross-jurisdictional expertise in a wide range of matters pertaining to environmental approvals.
(c) Further to the above, the respondents were required to outline their suitability to deliver the proposed services, including relevant experience, and their capacity to deliver within the required timeframe.
(d) Proponents were requested to declare any perceived or potential conflicts of interest. No conflicts of interest were declared or identified with respect to current or potential future involvement on behalf of proponents in the EPA assessment process. However, Mr McFerran declared he is the Chair of the Swan River Trust and in that role has an advisory role reporting to the Minister for Environment.
(e) No. i) Because of the tight timeframe for the review and the limited pool of suitably qualified and experienced consultants, direct quotes were sought.
(f) The review commenced on 2 October 2023 and was completed on 3 November 2023.
(g) $112,150.
(h)-(i) The report is Cabinet in Confidence
(j)-(m)Government is aware that Dr Vogel and McFerran met with a range of stakeholders. As the review was led by an independent consultant, the government does not have access to specific details on individual stakeholder meetings.
Government is advised that the Conservation Council of WA did not respond to an invitation by Dr Vogel and Mr McFerran to engage in the process.
Consultation with industry, and conservation and Aboriginal engagement groups on the implementation of proposed reforms is underway. Further consultations are planned.
Government intends to introduce amendments to the Environment Protection Act 1986 later this year.
(o)-(q) Government is working to implement the review’s recommendations. The EPA’s objective to protect the WA environment and prevent, control, abate and mitigate pollution and environmental harm will remain. The appeals process is an important part of the environmental regulatory process. The review provided a useful opportunity to consider options to reform the appeals process alongside the government’s broader objective to streamline approval processes while continuing to ensure the highest levels of protection for Western Australia’s unique environment.
(r)-(s) Any individual hired to assist the EPA is required to abide by the Department of Water and Environmental Regulations’ Conflict of Interest (CoI) Policy and completed a CoI declaration.
(t) No.
(u)-(v) These questions should be directed to the Minister for State Development.
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.