❓ Hon Paul Llewellyn questions the Environment Minister regarding a modified penalty notice issued to the Water Corporation for sewage discharge into the Swan River, focusing on the justification for the penalty and the definition of 'unreasonable emission'. The Minister's response clarifies the basis for the penalty amount and the environmental impact.
AnsweredQoN 3378Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the modified penalty notice issued to the Water Corporation dated 24 February 2006, advertised in
The West Australian
Newspaper for an incident which occurred on 14 November 2003, in the Swan River -
(1) Can the Minister state how the emission of untreated domestic sewage in water form constitute and fall into the category of an unreasonable emission under section 49(5) of the
Environmental Protection Act 1986
?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) Can the Minister explain and define the nature and composition of what was considered to be the specific ‘unreasonable emission’ for this incident?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) Can the Minister define and explain what is considered to be a ‘unreasonable emission’?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
(7) Can the Minister explain how the untreated domestic sewage in water form, unreasonably affect the comfort of any person in the area?
(8) If no to (7), why not?
(9) Can the Minister explain how the untreated domestic sewage in water form, unreasonably affect the welfare of any person in the area?
(10) If no to (9), why not?
(11) Can the Minister explain how the untreated domestic sewage in water form, unreasonably affect the health of any person in the area?
(12) If no to (11), why not?
(13) Can the Minister explain how the untreated domestic sewage in water form, unreasonably affect the convenience of any person in the area?
(14) If no to (13), why not?
(15) Can the Minister explain the rationale as to the amount and how a figure of $ 12 500 for the modified penalty was determined?
(16) If no to (15), why not?
The West Australian
Newspaper for an incident which occurred on 14 November 2003, in the Swan River -
(1) Can the Minister state how the emission of untreated domestic sewage in water form constitute and fall into the category of an unreasonable emission under section 49(5) of the
Environmental Protection Act 1986
?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) Can the Minister explain and define the nature and composition of what was considered to be the specific ‘unreasonable emission’ for this incident?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) Can the Minister define and explain what is considered to be a ‘unreasonable emission’?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
(7) Can the Minister explain how the untreated domestic sewage in water form, unreasonably affect the comfort of any person in the area?
(8) If no to (7), why not?
(9) Can the Minister explain how the untreated domestic sewage in water form, unreasonably affect the welfare of any person in the area?
(10) If no to (9), why not?
(11) Can the Minister explain how the untreated domestic sewage in water form, unreasonably affect the health of any person in the area?
(12) If no to (11), why not?
(13) Can the Minister explain how the untreated domestic sewage in water form, unreasonably affect the convenience of any person in the area?
(14) If no to (13), why not?
(15) Can the Minister explain the rationale as to the amount and how a figure of $ 12 500 for the modified penalty was determined?
(16) If no to (15), why not?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
9 May 2006
Responded by
Minister for Education and Training representing the Minister for the Environment
Response time
35 days
The discharge of 180,000 litres of undiluted and untreated domestic sewage into the Swan River at the point of discharge involved a number of environmental impacts including an odour emission of a kind which involved an unreasonable interference with comfort and amenity. (15) This was the amount required by the Environmental Protection Act 1986 being 10% of the maximum fine that could be imposed for that offence by a court and followed legal advice on that point from the State Solicitor's Office. (16) Not applicable.
(15) This was the amount required by the Environmental Protection Act 1986 being 10% of the maximum fine that could be imposed for that offence by a court and followed legal advice on that point from the State Solicitor's Office. (16) Not applicable.
(16) Not applicable.
(15) This was the amount required by the Environmental Protection Act 1986 being 10% of the maximum fine that could be imposed for that offence by a court and followed legal advice on that point from the State Solicitor's Office. (16) Not applicable.
(16) Not applicable.
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.