❓ A parliamentary question seeks details on the cost, duration, and penalties related to the Department of Environment's investigation into sewage overflows into the Swan River by the Water Corporation. The response provides some details but lacks specific cost figures.
AnsweredQoN 173Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
WATER CORPORATION - CHARGES RELATING TO SEWAGE OVERFLOW
I refer to the minister’s media statement of 3 March 2006 from the Department of Environment titled “Big win for Swan River over Water Corporation spill”. (1) What were the total direct and associated costs of the Department of Environment’s investigation into the two sewage overflows into the Swan River at Bridge Street, Guildford on 10 July and 14 November 2003, and what was the cost of the management of the case for the time it was before the court? (2) How long did the investigation take before charges were brought against the Water Corporation? (3) What was the cost of legal advice provided on this case? (4) What range of penalties were available under the original charges? (5) What was the modified charge? (6) Will the fine of $25 000 be utilised in the reparation of the Swan River? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH
I refer to the minister’s media statement of 3 March 2006 from the Department of Environment titled “Big win for Swan River over Water Corporation spill”. (1) What were the total direct and associated costs of the Department of Environment’s investigation into the two sewage overflows into the Swan River at Bridge Street, Guildford on 10 July and 14 November 2003, and what was the cost of the management of the case for the time it was before the court? (2) How long did the investigation take before charges were brought against the Water Corporation? (3) What was the cost of legal advice provided on this case? (4) What range of penalties were available under the original charges? (5) What was the modified charge? (6) Will the fine of $25 000 be utilised in the reparation of the Swan River? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for the Environment has provided the following response - (1) The total direct and indirect costs of this Department of Environment investigation have not been calculated. All resource costs, human and otherwise, for this comprehensive investigation were provided by and met through the environmental enforcement unit budget as part of the EEU’s role in providing investigative capability to the Department of Environment. (2)-(3) The Department of Environment’s EEU commenced an investigation into this incident on 14 November 2003, the day the sewage overflow was discovered. As a result of this investigation, an inspection of Water Corporation’s waste management computer system was conducted, which identified that two previously undiscovered similar overflow incidents had occurred on 29 May and 10 July 2003. A thorough investigation into all three incidents was conducted on behalf of the Swan River Trust. The investigation was finalised and the prosecution launched on 21 April 2004 after all available evidence had been collected and passed established internal and external quality assurance processes. The EEU legal officer provided legal advice concerning the investigation and prosecution. Additional legal advice was provided and conduct of the prosecution undertaken by the State Solicitor’s office. (4) The maximum penalty payable by the defendant, if found guilty, under the original charge was $500 000 for each offence. (5) Two modified penalty notices, each for $12 000, were issued under section 49(5) of the Environmental Protection Act for creating an unreasonable emission. (6) The $25 000 total modified penalty will not be utilised in the reparation of the Swan River. The Environmental Protection Act states that proceeds of modified penalties must be paid into consolidated revenue. It should be noted that, as part of this negotiated outcome, the Water Corporation agreed to provide an additional $325 000 to programs designed to improve water quality in the Swan and Canning Rivers.
(1) What were the total direct and associated costs of the Department of Environment’s investigation into the two sewage overflows into the Swan River at Bridge Street, Guildford on 10 July and 14 November 2003, and what was the cost of the management of the case for the time it was before the court? (2) How long did the investigation take before charges were brought against the Water Corporation? (3) What was the cost of legal advice provided on this case? (4) What range of penalties were available under the original charges? (5) What was the modified charge? (6) Will the fine of $25 000 be utilised in the reparation of the Swan River? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for the Environment has provided the following response - (1) The total direct and indirect costs of this Department of Environment investigation have not been calculated. All resource costs, human and otherwise, for this comprehensive investigation were provided by and met through the environmental enforcement unit budget as part of the EEU’s role in providing investigative capability to the Department of Environment. (2)-(3) The Department of Environment’s EEU commenced an investigation into this incident on 14 November 2003, the day the sewage overflow was discovered. As a result of this investigation, an inspection of Water Corporation’s waste management computer system was conducted, which identified that two previously undiscovered similar overflow incidents had occurred on 29 May and 10 July 2003. A thorough investigation into all three incidents was conducted on behalf of the Swan River Trust. The investigation was finalised and the prosecution launched on 21 April 2004 after all available evidence had been collected and passed established internal and external quality assurance processes. The EEU legal officer provided legal advice concerning the investigation and prosecution. Additional legal advice was provided and conduct of the prosecution undertaken by the State Solicitor’s office. (4) The maximum penalty payable by the defendant, if found guilty, under the original charge was $500 000 for each offence. (5) Two modified penalty notices, each for $12 000, were issued under section 49(5) of the Environmental Protection Act for creating an unreasonable emission. (6) The $25 000 total modified penalty will not be utilised in the reparation of the Swan River. The Environmental Protection Act states that proceeds of modified penalties must be paid into consolidated revenue. It should be noted that, as part of this negotiated outcome, the Water Corporation agreed to provide an additional $325 000 to programs designed to improve water quality in the Swan and Canning Rivers.
(2) How long did the investigation take before charges were brought against the Water Corporation? (3) What was the cost of legal advice provided on this case? (4) What range of penalties were available under the original charges? (5) What was the modified charge? (6) Will the fine of $25 000 be utilised in the reparation of the Swan River? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for the Environment has provided the following response - (1) The total direct and indirect costs of this Department of Environment investigation have not been calculated. All resource costs, human and otherwise, for this comprehensive investigation were provided by and met through the environmental enforcement unit budget as part of the EEU’s role in providing investigative capability to the Department of Environment. (2)-(3) The Department of Environment’s EEU commenced an investigation into this incident on 14 November 2003, the day the sewage overflow was discovered. As a result of this investigation, an inspection of Water Corporation’s waste management computer system was conducted, which identified that two previously undiscovered similar overflow incidents had occurred on 29 May and 10 July 2003. A thorough investigation into all three incidents was conducted on behalf of the Swan River Trust. The investigation was finalised and the prosecution launched on 21 April 2004 after all available evidence had been collected and passed established internal and external quality assurance processes. The EEU legal officer provided legal advice concerning the investigation and prosecution. Additional legal advice was provided and conduct of the prosecution undertaken by the State Solicitor’s office. (4) The maximum penalty payable by the defendant, if found guilty, under the original charge was $500 000 for each offence. (5) Two modified penalty notices, each for $12 000, were issued under section 49(5) of the Environmental Protection Act for creating an unreasonable emission. (6) The $25 000 total modified penalty will not be utilised in the reparation of the Swan River. The Environmental Protection Act states that proceeds of modified penalties must be paid into consolidated revenue. It should be noted that, as part of this negotiated outcome, the Water Corporation agreed to provide an additional $325 000 to programs designed to improve water quality in the Swan and Canning Rivers.
(3) What was the cost of legal advice provided on this case? (4) What range of penalties were available under the original charges? (5) What was the modified charge? (6) Will the fine of $25 000 be utilised in the reparation of the Swan River? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for the Environment has provided the following response - (1) The total direct and indirect costs of this Department of Environment investigation have not been calculated. All resource costs, human and otherwise, for this comprehensive investigation were provided by and met through the environmental enforcement unit budget as part of the EEU’s role in providing investigative capability to the Department of Environment. (2)-(3) The Department of Environment’s EEU commenced an investigation into this incident on 14 November 2003, the day the sewage overflow was discovered. As a result of this investigation, an inspection of Water Corporation’s waste management computer system was conducted, which identified that two previously undiscovered similar overflow incidents had occurred on 29 May and 10 July 2003. A thorough investigation into all three incidents was conducted on behalf of the Swan River Trust. The investigation was finalised and the prosecution launched on 21 April 2004 after all available evidence had been collected and passed established internal and external quality assurance processes. The EEU legal officer provided legal advice concerning the investigation and prosecution. Additional legal advice was provided and conduct of the prosecution undertaken by the State Solicitor’s office. (4) The maximum penalty payable by the defendant, if found guilty, under the original charge was $500 000 for each offence. (5) Two modified penalty notices, each for $12 000, were issued under section 49(5) of the Environmental Protection Act for creating an unreasonable emission. (6) The $25 000 total modified penalty will not be utilised in the reparation of the Swan River. The Environmental Protection Act states that proceeds of modified penalties must be paid into consolidated revenue. It should be noted that, as part of this negotiated outcome, the Water Corporation agreed to provide an additional $325 000 to programs designed to improve water quality in the Swan and Canning Rivers.
(4) What range of penalties were available under the original charges? (5) What was the modified charge? (6) Will the fine of $25 000 be utilised in the reparation of the Swan River? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for the Environment has provided the following response - (1) The total direct and indirect costs of this Department of Environment investigation have not been calculated. All resource costs, human and otherwise, for this comprehensive investigation were provided by and met through the environmental enforcement unit budget as part of the EEU’s role in providing investigative capability to the Department of Environment. (2)-(3) The Department of Environment’s EEU commenced an investigation into this incident on 14 November 2003, the day the sewage overflow was discovered. As a result of this investigation, an inspection of Water Corporation’s waste management computer system was conducted, which identified that two previously undiscovered similar overflow incidents had occurred on 29 May and 10 July 2003. A thorough investigation into all three incidents was conducted on behalf of the Swan River Trust. The investigation was finalised and the prosecution launched on 21 April 2004 after all available evidence had been collected and passed established internal and external quality assurance processes. The EEU legal officer provided legal advice concerning the investigation and prosecution. Additional legal advice was provided and conduct of the prosecution undertaken by the State Solicitor’s office. (4) The maximum penalty payable by the defendant, if found guilty, under the original charge was $500 000 for each offence. (5) Two modified penalty notices, each for $12 000, were issued under section 49(5) of the Environmental Protection Act for creating an unreasonable emission. (6) The $25 000 total modified penalty will not be utilised in the reparation of the Swan River. The Environmental Protection Act states that proceeds of modified penalties must be paid into consolidated revenue. It should be noted that, as part of this negotiated outcome, the Water Corporation agreed to provide an additional $325 000 to programs designed to improve water quality in the Swan and Canning Rivers.
(5) What was the modified charge? (6) Will the fine of $25 000 be utilised in the reparation of the Swan River? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for the Environment has provided the following response - (1) The total direct and indirect costs of this Department of Environment investigation have not been calculated. All resource costs, human and otherwise, for this comprehensive investigation were provided by and met through the environmental enforcement unit budget as part of the EEU’s role in providing investigative capability to the Department of Environment. (2)-(3) The Department of Environment’s EEU commenced an investigation into this incident on 14 November 2003, the day the sewage overflow was discovered. As a result of this investigation, an inspection of Water Corporation’s waste management computer system was conducted, which identified that two previously undiscovered similar overflow incidents had occurred on 29 May and 10 July 2003. A thorough investigation into all three incidents was conducted on behalf of the Swan River Trust. The investigation was finalised and the prosecution launched on 21 April 2004 after all available evidence had been collected and passed established internal and external quality assurance processes. The EEU legal officer provided legal advice concerning the investigation and prosecution. Additional legal advice was provided and conduct of the prosecution undertaken by the State Solicitor’s office. (4) The maximum penalty payable by the defendant, if found guilty, under the original charge was $500 000 for each offence. (5) Two modified penalty notices, each for $12 000, were issued under section 49(5) of the Environmental Protection Act for creating an unreasonable emission. (6) The $25 000 total modified penalty will not be utilised in the reparation of the Swan River. The Environmental Protection Act states that proceeds of modified penalties must be paid into consolidated revenue. It should be noted that, as part of this negotiated outcome, the Water Corporation agreed to provide an additional $325 000 to programs designed to improve water quality in the Swan and Canning Rivers.
(6) Will the fine of $25 000 be utilised in the reparation of the Swan River? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for the Environment has provided the following response - (1) The total direct and indirect costs of this Department of Environment investigation have not been calculated. All resource costs, human and otherwise, for this comprehensive investigation were provided by and met through the environmental enforcement unit budget as part of the EEU’s role in providing investigative capability to the Department of Environment. (2)-(3) The Department of Environment’s EEU commenced an investigation into this incident on 14 November 2003, the day the sewage overflow was discovered. As a result of this investigation, an inspection of Water Corporation’s waste management computer system was conducted, which identified that two previously undiscovered similar overflow incidents had occurred on 29 May and 10 July 2003. A thorough investigation into all three incidents was conducted on behalf of the Swan River Trust. The investigation was finalised and the prosecution launched on 21 April 2004 after all available evidence had been collected and passed established internal and external quality assurance processes. The EEU legal officer provided legal advice concerning the investigation and prosecution. Additional legal advice was provided and conduct of the prosecution undertaken by the State Solicitor’s office. (4) The maximum penalty payable by the defendant, if found guilty, under the original charge was $500 000 for each offence. (5) Two modified penalty notices, each for $12 000, were issued under section 49(5) of the Environmental Protection Act for creating an unreasonable emission. (6) The $25 000 total modified penalty will not be utilised in the reparation of the Swan River. The Environmental Protection Act states that proceeds of modified penalties must be paid into consolidated revenue. It should be noted that, as part of this negotiated outcome, the Water Corporation agreed to provide an additional $325 000 to programs designed to improve water quality in the Swan and Canning Rivers.
Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for the Environment has provided the following response - (1) The total direct and indirect costs of this Department of Environment investigation have not been calculated. All resource costs, human and otherwise, for this comprehensive investigation were provided by and met through the environmental enforcement unit budget as part of the EEU’s role in providing investigative capability to the Department of Environment. (2)-(3) The Department of Environment’s EEU commenced an investigation into this incident on 14 November 2003, the day the sewage overflow was discovered. As a result of this investigation, an inspection of Water Corporation’s waste management computer system was conducted, which identified that two previously undiscovered similar overflow incidents had occurred on 29 May and 10 July 2003. A thorough investigation into all three incidents was conducted on behalf of the Swan River Trust. The investigation was finalised and the prosecution launched on 21 April 2004 after all available evidence had been collected and passed established internal and external quality assurance processes. The EEU legal officer provided legal advice concerning the investigation and prosecution. Additional legal advice was provided and conduct of the prosecution undertaken by the State Solicitor’s office. (4) The maximum penalty payable by the defendant, if found guilty, under the original charge was $500 000 for each offence. (5) Two modified penalty notices, each for $12 000, were issued under section 49(5) of the Environmental Protection Act for creating an unreasonable emission. (6) The $25 000 total modified penalty will not be utilised in the reparation of the Swan River. The Environmental Protection Act states that proceeds of modified penalties must be paid into consolidated revenue. It should be noted that, as part of this negotiated outcome, the Water Corporation agreed to provide an additional $325 000 to programs designed to improve water quality in the Swan and Canning Rivers.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for the Environment has provided the following response - (1) The total direct and indirect costs of this Department of Environment investigation have not been calculated. All resource costs, human and otherwise, for this comprehensive investigation were provided by and met through the environmental enforcement unit budget as part of the EEU’s role in providing investigative capability to the Department of Environment. (2)-(3) The Department of Environment’s EEU commenced an investigation into this incident on 14 November 2003, the day the sewage overflow was discovered. As a result of this investigation, an inspection of Water Corporation’s waste management computer system was conducted, which identified that two previously undiscovered similar overflow incidents had occurred on 29 May and 10 July 2003. A thorough investigation into all three incidents was conducted on behalf of the Swan River Trust. The investigation was finalised and the prosecution launched on 21 April 2004 after all available evidence had been collected and passed established internal and external quality assurance processes. The EEU legal officer provided legal advice concerning the investigation and prosecution. Additional legal advice was provided and conduct of the prosecution undertaken by the State Solicitor’s office. (4) The maximum penalty payable by the defendant, if found guilty, under the original charge was $500 000 for each offence. (5) Two modified penalty notices, each for $12 000, were issued under section 49(5) of the Environmental Protection Act for creating an unreasonable emission. (6) The $25 000 total modified penalty will not be utilised in the reparation of the Swan River. The Environmental Protection Act states that proceeds of modified penalties must be paid into consolidated revenue. It should be noted that, as part of this negotiated outcome, the Water Corporation agreed to provide an additional $325 000 to programs designed to improve water quality in the Swan and Canning Rivers.
(1) The total direct and indirect costs of this Department of Environment investigation have not been calculated. All resource costs, human and otherwise, for this comprehensive investigation were provided by and met through the environmental enforcement unit budget as part of the EEU’s role in providing investigative capability to the Department of Environment. (2)-(3) The Department of Environment’s EEU commenced an investigation into this incident on 14 November 2003, the day the sewage overflow was discovered. As a result of this investigation, an inspection of Water Corporation’s waste management computer system was conducted, which identified that two previously undiscovered similar overflow incidents had occurred on 29 May and 10 July 2003. A thorough investigation into all three incidents was conducted on behalf of the Swan River Trust. The investigation was finalised and the prosecution launched on 21 April 2004 after all available evidence had been collected and passed established internal and external quality assurance processes. The EEU legal officer provided legal advice concerning the investigation and prosecution. Additional legal advice was provided and conduct of the prosecution undertaken by the State Solicitor’s office. (4) The maximum penalty payable by the defendant, if found guilty, under the original charge was $500 000 for each offence. (5) Two modified penalty notices, each for $12 000, were issued under section 49(5) of the Environmental Protection Act for creating an unreasonable emission. (6) The $25 000 total modified penalty will not be utilised in the reparation of the Swan River. The Environmental Protection Act states that proceeds of modified penalties must be paid into consolidated revenue. It should be noted that, as part of this negotiated outcome, the Water Corporation agreed to provide an additional $325 000 to programs designed to improve water quality in the Swan and Canning Rivers.
(2)-(3) The Department of Environment’s EEU commenced an investigation into this incident on 14 November 2003, the day the sewage overflow was discovered. As a result of this investigation, an inspection of Water Corporation’s waste management computer system was conducted, which identified that two previously undiscovered similar overflow incidents had occurred on 29 May and 10 July 2003. A thorough investigation into all three incidents was conducted on behalf of the Swan River Trust. The investigation was finalised and the prosecution launched on 21 April 2004 after all available evidence had been collected and passed established internal and external quality assurance processes. The EEU legal officer provided legal advice concerning the investigation and prosecution. Additional legal advice was provided and conduct of the prosecution undertaken by the State Solicitor’s office. (4) The maximum penalty payable by the defendant, if found guilty, under the original charge was $500 000 for each offence. (5) Two modified penalty notices, each for $12 000, were issued under section 49(5) of the Environmental Protection Act for creating an unreasonable emission. (6) The $25 000 total modified penalty will not be utilised in the reparation of the Swan River. The Environmental Protection Act states that proceeds of modified penalties must be paid into consolidated revenue. It should be noted that, as part of this negotiated outcome, the Water Corporation agreed to provide an additional $325 000 to programs designed to improve water quality in the Swan and Canning Rivers.
(5) Two modified penalty notices, each for $12 000, were issued under section 49(5) of the Environmental Protection Act for creating an unreasonable emission. (6) The $25 000 total modified penalty will not be utilised in the reparation of the Swan River. The Environmental Protection Act states that proceeds of modified penalties must be paid into consolidated revenue. It should be noted that, as part of this negotiated outcome, the Water Corporation agreed to provide an additional $325 000 to programs designed to improve water quality in the Swan and Canning Rivers.
(6) The $25 000 total modified penalty will not be utilised in the reparation of the Swan River. The Environmental Protection Act states that proceeds of modified penalties must be paid into consolidated revenue. It should be noted that, as part of this negotiated outcome, the Water Corporation agreed to provide an additional $325 000 to programs designed to improve water quality in the Swan and Canning Rivers.
(1) What were the total direct and associated costs of the Department of Environment’s investigation into the two sewage overflows into the Swan River at Bridge Street, Guildford on 10 July and 14 November 2003, and what was the cost of the management of the case for the time it was before the court? (2) How long did the investigation take before charges were brought against the Water Corporation? (3) What was the cost of legal advice provided on this case? (4) What range of penalties were available under the original charges? (5) What was the modified charge? (6) Will the fine of $25 000 be utilised in the reparation of the Swan River? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for the Environment has provided the following response - (1) The total direct and indirect costs of this Department of Environment investigation have not been calculated. All resource costs, human and otherwise, for this comprehensive investigation were provided by and met through the environmental enforcement unit budget as part of the EEU’s role in providing investigative capability to the Department of Environment. (2)-(3) The Department of Environment’s EEU commenced an investigation into this incident on 14 November 2003, the day the sewage overflow was discovered. As a result of this investigation, an inspection of Water Corporation’s waste management computer system was conducted, which identified that two previously undiscovered similar overflow incidents had occurred on 29 May and 10 July 2003. A thorough investigation into all three incidents was conducted on behalf of the Swan River Trust. The investigation was finalised and the prosecution launched on 21 April 2004 after all available evidence had been collected and passed established internal and external quality assurance processes. The EEU legal officer provided legal advice concerning the investigation and prosecution. Additional legal advice was provided and conduct of the prosecution undertaken by the State Solicitor’s office. (4) The maximum penalty payable by the defendant, if found guilty, under the original charge was $500 000 for each offence. (5) Two modified penalty notices, each for $12 000, were issued under section 49(5) of the Environmental Protection Act for creating an unreasonable emission. (6) The $25 000 total modified penalty will not be utilised in the reparation of the Swan River. The Environmental Protection Act states that proceeds of modified penalties must be paid into consolidated revenue. It should be noted that, as part of this negotiated outcome, the Water Corporation agreed to provide an additional $325 000 to programs designed to improve water quality in the Swan and Canning Rivers.
(2) How long did the investigation take before charges were brought against the Water Corporation? (3) What was the cost of legal advice provided on this case? (4) What range of penalties were available under the original charges? (5) What was the modified charge? (6) Will the fine of $25 000 be utilised in the reparation of the Swan River? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for the Environment has provided the following response - (1) The total direct and indirect costs of this Department of Environment investigation have not been calculated. All resource costs, human and otherwise, for this comprehensive investigation were provided by and met through the environmental enforcement unit budget as part of the EEU’s role in providing investigative capability to the Department of Environment. (2)-(3) The Department of Environment’s EEU commenced an investigation into this incident on 14 November 2003, the day the sewage overflow was discovered. As a result of this investigation, an inspection of Water Corporation’s waste management computer system was conducted, which identified that two previously undiscovered similar overflow incidents had occurred on 29 May and 10 July 2003. A thorough investigation into all three incidents was conducted on behalf of the Swan River Trust. The investigation was finalised and the prosecution launched on 21 April 2004 after all available evidence had been collected and passed established internal and external quality assurance processes. The EEU legal officer provided legal advice concerning the investigation and prosecution. Additional legal advice was provided and conduct of the prosecution undertaken by the State Solicitor’s office. (4) The maximum penalty payable by the defendant, if found guilty, under the original charge was $500 000 for each offence. (5) Two modified penalty notices, each for $12 000, were issued under section 49(5) of the Environmental Protection Act for creating an unreasonable emission. (6) The $25 000 total modified penalty will not be utilised in the reparation of the Swan River. The Environmental Protection Act states that proceeds of modified penalties must be paid into consolidated revenue. It should be noted that, as part of this negotiated outcome, the Water Corporation agreed to provide an additional $325 000 to programs designed to improve water quality in the Swan and Canning Rivers.
(3) What was the cost of legal advice provided on this case? (4) What range of penalties were available under the original charges? (5) What was the modified charge? (6) Will the fine of $25 000 be utilised in the reparation of the Swan River? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for the Environment has provided the following response - (1) The total direct and indirect costs of this Department of Environment investigation have not been calculated. All resource costs, human and otherwise, for this comprehensive investigation were provided by and met through the environmental enforcement unit budget as part of the EEU’s role in providing investigative capability to the Department of Environment. (2)-(3) The Department of Environment’s EEU commenced an investigation into this incident on 14 November 2003, the day the sewage overflow was discovered. As a result of this investigation, an inspection of Water Corporation’s waste management computer system was conducted, which identified that two previously undiscovered similar overflow incidents had occurred on 29 May and 10 July 2003. A thorough investigation into all three incidents was conducted on behalf of the Swan River Trust. The investigation was finalised and the prosecution launched on 21 April 2004 after all available evidence had been collected and passed established internal and external quality assurance processes. The EEU legal officer provided legal advice concerning the investigation and prosecution. Additional legal advice was provided and conduct of the prosecution undertaken by the State Solicitor’s office. (4) The maximum penalty payable by the defendant, if found guilty, under the original charge was $500 000 for each offence. (5) Two modified penalty notices, each for $12 000, were issued under section 49(5) of the Environmental Protection Act for creating an unreasonable emission. (6) The $25 000 total modified penalty will not be utilised in the reparation of the Swan River. The Environmental Protection Act states that proceeds of modified penalties must be paid into consolidated revenue. It should be noted that, as part of this negotiated outcome, the Water Corporation agreed to provide an additional $325 000 to programs designed to improve water quality in the Swan and Canning Rivers.
(4) What range of penalties were available under the original charges? (5) What was the modified charge? (6) Will the fine of $25 000 be utilised in the reparation of the Swan River? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for the Environment has provided the following response - (1) The total direct and indirect costs of this Department of Environment investigation have not been calculated. All resource costs, human and otherwise, for this comprehensive investigation were provided by and met through the environmental enforcement unit budget as part of the EEU’s role in providing investigative capability to the Department of Environment. (2)-(3) The Department of Environment’s EEU commenced an investigation into this incident on 14 November 2003, the day the sewage overflow was discovered. As a result of this investigation, an inspection of Water Corporation’s waste management computer system was conducted, which identified that two previously undiscovered similar overflow incidents had occurred on 29 May and 10 July 2003. A thorough investigation into all three incidents was conducted on behalf of the Swan River Trust. The investigation was finalised and the prosecution launched on 21 April 2004 after all available evidence had been collected and passed established internal and external quality assurance processes. The EEU legal officer provided legal advice concerning the investigation and prosecution. Additional legal advice was provided and conduct of the prosecution undertaken by the State Solicitor’s office. (4) The maximum penalty payable by the defendant, if found guilty, under the original charge was $500 000 for each offence. (5) Two modified penalty notices, each for $12 000, were issued under section 49(5) of the Environmental Protection Act for creating an unreasonable emission. (6) The $25 000 total modified penalty will not be utilised in the reparation of the Swan River. The Environmental Protection Act states that proceeds of modified penalties must be paid into consolidated revenue. It should be noted that, as part of this negotiated outcome, the Water Corporation agreed to provide an additional $325 000 to programs designed to improve water quality in the Swan and Canning Rivers.
(5) What was the modified charge? (6) Will the fine of $25 000 be utilised in the reparation of the Swan River? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for the Environment has provided the following response - (1) The total direct and indirect costs of this Department of Environment investigation have not been calculated. All resource costs, human and otherwise, for this comprehensive investigation were provided by and met through the environmental enforcement unit budget as part of the EEU’s role in providing investigative capability to the Department of Environment. (2)-(3) The Department of Environment’s EEU commenced an investigation into this incident on 14 November 2003, the day the sewage overflow was discovered. As a result of this investigation, an inspection of Water Corporation’s waste management computer system was conducted, which identified that two previously undiscovered similar overflow incidents had occurred on 29 May and 10 July 2003. A thorough investigation into all three incidents was conducted on behalf of the Swan River Trust. The investigation was finalised and the prosecution launched on 21 April 2004 after all available evidence had been collected and passed established internal and external quality assurance processes. The EEU legal officer provided legal advice concerning the investigation and prosecution. Additional legal advice was provided and conduct of the prosecution undertaken by the State Solicitor’s office. (4) The maximum penalty payable by the defendant, if found guilty, under the original charge was $500 000 for each offence. (5) Two modified penalty notices, each for $12 000, were issued under section 49(5) of the Environmental Protection Act for creating an unreasonable emission. (6) The $25 000 total modified penalty will not be utilised in the reparation of the Swan River. The Environmental Protection Act states that proceeds of modified penalties must be paid into consolidated revenue. It should be noted that, as part of this negotiated outcome, the Water Corporation agreed to provide an additional $325 000 to programs designed to improve water quality in the Swan and Canning Rivers.
(6) Will the fine of $25 000 be utilised in the reparation of the Swan River? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for the Environment has provided the following response - (1) The total direct and indirect costs of this Department of Environment investigation have not been calculated. All resource costs, human and otherwise, for this comprehensive investigation were provided by and met through the environmental enforcement unit budget as part of the EEU’s role in providing investigative capability to the Department of Environment. (2)-(3) The Department of Environment’s EEU commenced an investigation into this incident on 14 November 2003, the day the sewage overflow was discovered. As a result of this investigation, an inspection of Water Corporation’s waste management computer system was conducted, which identified that two previously undiscovered similar overflow incidents had occurred on 29 May and 10 July 2003. A thorough investigation into all three incidents was conducted on behalf of the Swan River Trust. The investigation was finalised and the prosecution launched on 21 April 2004 after all available evidence had been collected and passed established internal and external quality assurance processes. The EEU legal officer provided legal advice concerning the investigation and prosecution. Additional legal advice was provided and conduct of the prosecution undertaken by the State Solicitor’s office. (4) The maximum penalty payable by the defendant, if found guilty, under the original charge was $500 000 for each offence. (5) Two modified penalty notices, each for $12 000, were issued under section 49(5) of the Environmental Protection Act for creating an unreasonable emission. (6) The $25 000 total modified penalty will not be utilised in the reparation of the Swan River. The Environmental Protection Act states that proceeds of modified penalties must be paid into consolidated revenue. It should be noted that, as part of this negotiated outcome, the Water Corporation agreed to provide an additional $325 000 to programs designed to improve water quality in the Swan and Canning Rivers.
Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for the Environment has provided the following response - (1) The total direct and indirect costs of this Department of Environment investigation have not been calculated. All resource costs, human and otherwise, for this comprehensive investigation were provided by and met through the environmental enforcement unit budget as part of the EEU’s role in providing investigative capability to the Department of Environment. (2)-(3) The Department of Environment’s EEU commenced an investigation into this incident on 14 November 2003, the day the sewage overflow was discovered. As a result of this investigation, an inspection of Water Corporation’s waste management computer system was conducted, which identified that two previously undiscovered similar overflow incidents had occurred on 29 May and 10 July 2003. A thorough investigation into all three incidents was conducted on behalf of the Swan River Trust. The investigation was finalised and the prosecution launched on 21 April 2004 after all available evidence had been collected and passed established internal and external quality assurance processes. The EEU legal officer provided legal advice concerning the investigation and prosecution. Additional legal advice was provided and conduct of the prosecution undertaken by the State Solicitor’s office. (4) The maximum penalty payable by the defendant, if found guilty, under the original charge was $500 000 for each offence. (5) Two modified penalty notices, each for $12 000, were issued under section 49(5) of the Environmental Protection Act for creating an unreasonable emission. (6) The $25 000 total modified penalty will not be utilised in the reparation of the Swan River. The Environmental Protection Act states that proceeds of modified penalties must be paid into consolidated revenue. It should be noted that, as part of this negotiated outcome, the Water Corporation agreed to provide an additional $325 000 to programs designed to improve water quality in the Swan and Canning Rivers.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for the Environment has provided the following response - (1) The total direct and indirect costs of this Department of Environment investigation have not been calculated. All resource costs, human and otherwise, for this comprehensive investigation were provided by and met through the environmental enforcement unit budget as part of the EEU’s role in providing investigative capability to the Department of Environment. (2)-(3) The Department of Environment’s EEU commenced an investigation into this incident on 14 November 2003, the day the sewage overflow was discovered. As a result of this investigation, an inspection of Water Corporation’s waste management computer system was conducted, which identified that two previously undiscovered similar overflow incidents had occurred on 29 May and 10 July 2003. A thorough investigation into all three incidents was conducted on behalf of the Swan River Trust. The investigation was finalised and the prosecution launched on 21 April 2004 after all available evidence had been collected and passed established internal and external quality assurance processes. The EEU legal officer provided legal advice concerning the investigation and prosecution. Additional legal advice was provided and conduct of the prosecution undertaken by the State Solicitor’s office. (4) The maximum penalty payable by the defendant, if found guilty, under the original charge was $500 000 for each offence. (5) Two modified penalty notices, each for $12 000, were issued under section 49(5) of the Environmental Protection Act for creating an unreasonable emission. (6) The $25 000 total modified penalty will not be utilised in the reparation of the Swan River. The Environmental Protection Act states that proceeds of modified penalties must be paid into consolidated revenue. It should be noted that, as part of this negotiated outcome, the Water Corporation agreed to provide an additional $325 000 to programs designed to improve water quality in the Swan and Canning Rivers.
(1) The total direct and indirect costs of this Department of Environment investigation have not been calculated. All resource costs, human and otherwise, for this comprehensive investigation were provided by and met through the environmental enforcement unit budget as part of the EEU’s role in providing investigative capability to the Department of Environment. (2)-(3) The Department of Environment’s EEU commenced an investigation into this incident on 14 November 2003, the day the sewage overflow was discovered. As a result of this investigation, an inspection of Water Corporation’s waste management computer system was conducted, which identified that two previously undiscovered similar overflow incidents had occurred on 29 May and 10 July 2003. A thorough investigation into all three incidents was conducted on behalf of the Swan River Trust. The investigation was finalised and the prosecution launched on 21 April 2004 after all available evidence had been collected and passed established internal and external quality assurance processes. The EEU legal officer provided legal advice concerning the investigation and prosecution. Additional legal advice was provided and conduct of the prosecution undertaken by the State Solicitor’s office. (4) The maximum penalty payable by the defendant, if found guilty, under the original charge was $500 000 for each offence. (5) Two modified penalty notices, each for $12 000, were issued under section 49(5) of the Environmental Protection Act for creating an unreasonable emission. (6) The $25 000 total modified penalty will not be utilised in the reparation of the Swan River. The Environmental Protection Act states that proceeds of modified penalties must be paid into consolidated revenue. It should be noted that, as part of this negotiated outcome, the Water Corporation agreed to provide an additional $325 000 to programs designed to improve water quality in the Swan and Canning Rivers.
(2)-(3) The Department of Environment’s EEU commenced an investigation into this incident on 14 November 2003, the day the sewage overflow was discovered. As a result of this investigation, an inspection of Water Corporation’s waste management computer system was conducted, which identified that two previously undiscovered similar overflow incidents had occurred on 29 May and 10 July 2003. A thorough investigation into all three incidents was conducted on behalf of the Swan River Trust. The investigation was finalised and the prosecution launched on 21 April 2004 after all available evidence had been collected and passed established internal and external quality assurance processes. The EEU legal officer provided legal advice concerning the investigation and prosecution. Additional legal advice was provided and conduct of the prosecution undertaken by the State Solicitor’s office. (4) The maximum penalty payable by the defendant, if found guilty, under the original charge was $500 000 for each offence. (5) Two modified penalty notices, each for $12 000, were issued under section 49(5) of the Environmental Protection Act for creating an unreasonable emission. (6) The $25 000 total modified penalty will not be utilised in the reparation of the Swan River. The Environmental Protection Act states that proceeds of modified penalties must be paid into consolidated revenue. It should be noted that, as part of this negotiated outcome, the Water Corporation agreed to provide an additional $325 000 to programs designed to improve water quality in the Swan and Canning Rivers.
(5) Two modified penalty notices, each for $12 000, were issued under section 49(5) of the Environmental Protection Act for creating an unreasonable emission. (6) The $25 000 total modified penalty will not be utilised in the reparation of the Swan River. The Environmental Protection Act states that proceeds of modified penalties must be paid into consolidated revenue. It should be noted that, as part of this negotiated outcome, the Water Corporation agreed to provide an additional $325 000 to programs designed to improve water quality in the Swan and Canning Rivers.
(6) The $25 000 total modified penalty will not be utilised in the reparation of the Swan River. The Environmental Protection Act states that proceeds of modified penalties must be paid into consolidated revenue. It should be noted that, as part of this negotiated outcome, the Water Corporation agreed to provide an additional $325 000 to programs designed to improve water quality in the Swan and Canning Rivers.
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.