❓ A parliamentary question regarding the impartiality of the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) board members and the Minister's plans for future appointments, focusing on potential conflicts of interest and the breadth of experience sought in new members. The Minister acknowledges community concerns about board member absences during key decisions but affirms compliance with existing regulations.
AnsweredQoN 862Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the minister’s plans to give the membership of the Environmental Protection Authority a new look as reported in yesterday’s The West Australian . (1) Does the minister believe that any of the existing EPA board members have acted in breach of their responsibilities to the board? (2) If yes, what action will the minister take on her conflict of interest concerns, and when will this action be taken? (3) If no, why has the minister stated that the current EPA guidelines are unacceptable? (4) Is it, as the minister’s public statements imply, simply her intention to replace board members who have extensive practical experience and expertise in both industry and the environment with people who represent green anti-development interests and who have little or no relevant industry experience? The SPEAKER: The first part of the question asks for an opinion - if not a legal opinion - and the minister might bear that in mind when answering. Dr EDWARDS
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(4) It is unfortunate, but many people in the community are concerned that on occasions the board members - that five-member group - of the Environmental Protection Authority stay outside the doors when important environmental decisions are made. We face a scenario at the moment in which two members out of the five-member EPA cannot take part in decision making on a sensitive issue. It is of concern to the community and to me when two members of the board of the EPA take themselves outside and do not participate and put their expertise on the table. We may not be getting the best environmental decisions for the State. This situation is catered for under the Environmental Protection Act, which lays out the procedure for what people must do if they have a conflict of interest. I am happy that the board members of the EPA are following both the letter of the law and their own code of practice. I have raised my concerns and those of the broader community with the Chairman of the EPA when these situations have occurred. As far as possible it has been my practice since coming to government to keep people on for the full extent of their terms, especially if they were appointed by the previous Government. All five current members of the EPA were appointed by the previous Government and we have kept them on; they will serve pretty much their full terms, which expire at the end of this year or the middle of next year. The Chairman of the EPA has signalled to me that he would like to go when his term expires; we will be advertising for that position shortly. A long lead time is necessary to get the best person. We will be advertising as required under the Act for new members of the EPA and I will be looking for a broader breadth of experience. I believe other people are out there with the necessary expertise, knowledge, interest and time, and without the potential conflicts of interest, who can serve the State well. At the end of the day, it must be remembered that people who are appointed to the board of the EPA, while on the one hand performing a magnificent service for the State, on the other hand have a huge responsibility to be the No 1 environmental watchdog. Some onus falls on them to make sure they avoid those conflicts of interest. Mr MASTERS: I have a supplementary question. The SPEAKER: I am not taking any more supplementary questions today due to the time constraints.
(1) Does the minister believe that any of the existing EPA board members have acted in breach of their responsibilities to the board? (2) If yes, what action will the minister take on her conflict of interest concerns, and when will this action be taken? (3) If no, why has the minister stated that the current EPA guidelines are unacceptable? (4) Is it, as the minister’s public statements imply, simply her intention to replace board members who have extensive practical experience and expertise in both industry and the environment with people who represent green anti-development interests and who have little or no relevant industry experience? The SPEAKER: The first part of the question asks for an opinion - if not a legal opinion - and the minister might bear that in mind when answering. Dr EDWARDS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(4) It is unfortunate, but many people in the community are concerned that on occasions the board members - that five-member group - of the Environmental Protection Authority stay outside the doors when important environmental decisions are made. We face a scenario at the moment in which two members out of the five-member EPA cannot take part in decision making on a sensitive issue. It is of concern to the community and to me when two members of the board of the EPA take themselves outside and do not participate and put their expertise on the table. We may not be getting the best environmental decisions for the State. This situation is catered for under the Environmental Protection Act, which lays out the procedure for what people must do if they have a conflict of interest. I am happy that the board members of the EPA are following both the letter of the law and their own code of practice. I have raised my concerns and those of the broader community with the Chairman of the EPA when these situations have occurred. As far as possible it has been my practice since coming to government to keep people on for the full extent of their terms, especially if they were appointed by the previous Government. All five current members of the EPA were appointed by the previous Government and we have kept them on; they will serve pretty much their full terms, which expire at the end of this year or the middle of next year. The Chairman of the EPA has signalled to me that he would like to go when his term expires; we will be advertising for that position shortly. A long lead time is necessary to get the best person. We will be advertising as required under the Act for new members of the EPA and I will be looking for a broader breadth of experience. I believe other people are out there with the necessary expertise, knowledge, interest and time, and without the potential conflicts of interest, who can serve the State well. At the end of the day, it must be remembered that people who are appointed to the board of the EPA, while on the one hand performing a magnificent service for the State, on the other hand have a huge responsibility to be the No 1 environmental watchdog. Some onus falls on them to make sure they avoid those conflicts of interest. Mr MASTERS: I have a supplementary question. The SPEAKER: I am not taking any more supplementary questions today due to the time constraints.
(2) If yes, what action will the minister take on her conflict of interest concerns, and when will this action be taken? (3) If no, why has the minister stated that the current EPA guidelines are unacceptable? (4) Is it, as the minister’s public statements imply, simply her intention to replace board members who have extensive practical experience and expertise in both industry and the environment with people who represent green anti-development interests and who have little or no relevant industry experience? The SPEAKER: The first part of the question asks for an opinion - if not a legal opinion - and the minister might bear that in mind when answering. Dr EDWARDS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(4) It is unfortunate, but many people in the community are concerned that on occasions the board members - that five-member group - of the Environmental Protection Authority stay outside the doors when important environmental decisions are made. We face a scenario at the moment in which two members out of the five-member EPA cannot take part in decision making on a sensitive issue. It is of concern to the community and to me when two members of the board of the EPA take themselves outside and do not participate and put their expertise on the table. We may not be getting the best environmental decisions for the State. This situation is catered for under the Environmental Protection Act, which lays out the procedure for what people must do if they have a conflict of interest. I am happy that the board members of the EPA are following both the letter of the law and their own code of practice. I have raised my concerns and those of the broader community with the Chairman of the EPA when these situations have occurred. As far as possible it has been my practice since coming to government to keep people on for the full extent of their terms, especially if they were appointed by the previous Government. All five current members of the EPA were appointed by the previous Government and we have kept them on; they will serve pretty much their full terms, which expire at the end of this year or the middle of next year. The Chairman of the EPA has signalled to me that he would like to go when his term expires; we will be advertising for that position shortly. A long lead time is necessary to get the best person. We will be advertising as required under the Act for new members of the EPA and I will be looking for a broader breadth of experience. I believe other people are out there with the necessary expertise, knowledge, interest and time, and without the potential conflicts of interest, who can serve the State well. At the end of the day, it must be remembered that people who are appointed to the board of the EPA, while on the one hand performing a magnificent service for the State, on the other hand have a huge responsibility to be the No 1 environmental watchdog. Some onus falls on them to make sure they avoid those conflicts of interest. Mr MASTERS: I have a supplementary question. The SPEAKER: I am not taking any more supplementary questions today due to the time constraints.
(3) If no, why has the minister stated that the current EPA guidelines are unacceptable? (4) Is it, as the minister’s public statements imply, simply her intention to replace board members who have extensive practical experience and expertise in both industry and the environment with people who represent green anti-development interests and who have little or no relevant industry experience? The SPEAKER: The first part of the question asks for an opinion - if not a legal opinion - and the minister might bear that in mind when answering. Dr EDWARDS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(4) It is unfortunate, but many people in the community are concerned that on occasions the board members - that five-member group - of the Environmental Protection Authority stay outside the doors when important environmental decisions are made. We face a scenario at the moment in which two members out of the five-member EPA cannot take part in decision making on a sensitive issue. It is of concern to the community and to me when two members of the board of the EPA take themselves outside and do not participate and put their expertise on the table. We may not be getting the best environmental decisions for the State. This situation is catered for under the Environmental Protection Act, which lays out the procedure for what people must do if they have a conflict of interest. I am happy that the board members of the EPA are following both the letter of the law and their own code of practice. I have raised my concerns and those of the broader community with the Chairman of the EPA when these situations have occurred. As far as possible it has been my practice since coming to government to keep people on for the full extent of their terms, especially if they were appointed by the previous Government. All five current members of the EPA were appointed by the previous Government and we have kept them on; they will serve pretty much their full terms, which expire at the end of this year or the middle of next year. The Chairman of the EPA has signalled to me that he would like to go when his term expires; we will be advertising for that position shortly. A long lead time is necessary to get the best person. We will be advertising as required under the Act for new members of the EPA and I will be looking for a broader breadth of experience. I believe other people are out there with the necessary expertise, knowledge, interest and time, and without the potential conflicts of interest, who can serve the State well. At the end of the day, it must be remembered that people who are appointed to the board of the EPA, while on the one hand performing a magnificent service for the State, on the other hand have a huge responsibility to be the No 1 environmental watchdog. Some onus falls on them to make sure they avoid those conflicts of interest. Mr MASTERS: I have a supplementary question. The SPEAKER: I am not taking any more supplementary questions today due to the time constraints.
(4) Is it, as the minister’s public statements imply, simply her intention to replace board members who have extensive practical experience and expertise in both industry and the environment with people who represent green anti-development interests and who have little or no relevant industry experience? The SPEAKER: The first part of the question asks for an opinion - if not a legal opinion - and the minister might bear that in mind when answering. Dr EDWARDS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(4) It is unfortunate, but many people in the community are concerned that on occasions the board members - that five-member group - of the Environmental Protection Authority stay outside the doors when important environmental decisions are made. We face a scenario at the moment in which two members out of the five-member EPA cannot take part in decision making on a sensitive issue. It is of concern to the community and to me when two members of the board of the EPA take themselves outside and do not participate and put their expertise on the table. We may not be getting the best environmental decisions for the State. This situation is catered for under the Environmental Protection Act, which lays out the procedure for what people must do if they have a conflict of interest. I am happy that the board members of the EPA are following both the letter of the law and their own code of practice. I have raised my concerns and those of the broader community with the Chairman of the EPA when these situations have occurred. As far as possible it has been my practice since coming to government to keep people on for the full extent of their terms, especially if they were appointed by the previous Government. All five current members of the EPA were appointed by the previous Government and we have kept them on; they will serve pretty much their full terms, which expire at the end of this year or the middle of next year. The Chairman of the EPA has signalled to me that he would like to go when his term expires; we will be advertising for that position shortly. A long lead time is necessary to get the best person. We will be advertising as required under the Act for new members of the EPA and I will be looking for a broader breadth of experience. I believe other people are out there with the necessary expertise, knowledge, interest and time, and without the potential conflicts of interest, who can serve the State well. At the end of the day, it must be remembered that people who are appointed to the board of the EPA, while on the one hand performing a magnificent service for the State, on the other hand have a huge responsibility to be the No 1 environmental watchdog. Some onus falls on them to make sure they avoid those conflicts of interest. Mr MASTERS: I have a supplementary question. The SPEAKER: I am not taking any more supplementary questions today due to the time constraints.
The SPEAKER: The first part of the question asks for an opinion - if not a legal opinion - and the minister might bear that in mind when answering. Dr EDWARDS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(4) It is unfortunate, but many people in the community are concerned that on occasions the board members - that five-member group - of the Environmental Protection Authority stay outside the doors when important environmental decisions are made. We face a scenario at the moment in which two members out of the five-member EPA cannot take part in decision making on a sensitive issue. It is of concern to the community and to me when two members of the board of the EPA take themselves outside and do not participate and put their expertise on the table. We may not be getting the best environmental decisions for the State. This situation is catered for under the Environmental Protection Act, which lays out the procedure for what people must do if they have a conflict of interest. I am happy that the board members of the EPA are following both the letter of the law and their own code of practice. I have raised my concerns and those of the broader community with the Chairman of the EPA when these situations have occurred. As far as possible it has been my practice since coming to government to keep people on for the full extent of their terms, especially if they were appointed by the previous Government. All five current members of the EPA were appointed by the previous Government and we have kept them on; they will serve pretty much their full terms, which expire at the end of this year or the middle of next year. The Chairman of the EPA has signalled to me that he would like to go when his term expires; we will be advertising for that position shortly. A long lead time is necessary to get the best person. We will be advertising as required under the Act for new members of the EPA and I will be looking for a broader breadth of experience. I believe other people are out there with the necessary expertise, knowledge, interest and time, and without the potential conflicts of interest, who can serve the State well. At the end of the day, it must be remembered that people who are appointed to the board of the EPA, while on the one hand performing a magnificent service for the State, on the other hand have a huge responsibility to be the No 1 environmental watchdog. Some onus falls on them to make sure they avoid those conflicts of interest. Mr MASTERS: I have a supplementary question. The SPEAKER: I am not taking any more supplementary questions today due to the time constraints.
Dr EDWARDS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(4) It is unfortunate, but many people in the community are concerned that on occasions the board members - that five-member group - of the Environmental Protection Authority stay outside the doors when important environmental decisions are made. We face a scenario at the moment in which two members out of the five-member EPA cannot take part in decision making on a sensitive issue. It is of concern to the community and to me when two members of the board of the EPA take themselves outside and do not participate and put their expertise on the table. We may not be getting the best environmental decisions for the State. This situation is catered for under the Environmental Protection Act, which lays out the procedure for what people must do if they have a conflict of interest. I am happy that the board members of the EPA are following both the letter of the law and their own code of practice. I have raised my concerns and those of the broader community with the Chairman of the EPA when these situations have occurred. As far as possible it has been my practice since coming to government to keep people on for the full extent of their terms, especially if they were appointed by the previous Government. All five current members of the EPA were appointed by the previous Government and we have kept them on; they will serve pretty much their full terms, which expire at the end of this year or the middle of next year. The Chairman of the EPA has signalled to me that he would like to go when his term expires; we will be advertising for that position shortly. A long lead time is necessary to get the best person. We will be advertising as required under the Act for new members of the EPA and I will be looking for a broader breadth of experience. I believe other people are out there with the necessary expertise, knowledge, interest and time, and without the potential conflicts of interest, who can serve the State well. At the end of the day, it must be remembered that people who are appointed to the board of the EPA, while on the one hand performing a magnificent service for the State, on the other hand have a huge responsibility to be the No 1 environmental watchdog. Some onus falls on them to make sure they avoid those conflicts of interest. Mr MASTERS: I have a supplementary question. The SPEAKER: I am not taking any more supplementary questions today due to the time constraints.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(4) It is unfortunate, but many people in the community are concerned that on occasions the board members - that five-member group - of the Environmental Protection Authority stay outside the doors when important environmental decisions are made. We face a scenario at the moment in which two members out of the five-member EPA cannot take part in decision making on a sensitive issue. It is of concern to the community and to me when two members of the board of the EPA take themselves outside and do not participate and put their expertise on the table. We may not be getting the best environmental decisions for the State. This situation is catered for under the Environmental Protection Act, which lays out the procedure for what people must do if they have a conflict of interest. I am happy that the board members of the EPA are following both the letter of the law and their own code of practice. I have raised my concerns and those of the broader community with the Chairman of the EPA when these situations have occurred. As far as possible it has been my practice since coming to government to keep people on for the full extent of their terms, especially if they were appointed by the previous Government. All five current members of the EPA were appointed by the previous Government and we have kept them on; they will serve pretty much their full terms, which expire at the end of this year or the middle of next year. The Chairman of the EPA has signalled to me that he would like to go when his term expires; we will be advertising for that position shortly. A long lead time is necessary to get the best person. We will be advertising as required under the Act for new members of the EPA and I will be looking for a broader breadth of experience. I believe other people are out there with the necessary expertise, knowledge, interest and time, and without the potential conflicts of interest, who can serve the State well. At the end of the day, it must be remembered that people who are appointed to the board of the EPA, while on the one hand performing a magnificent service for the State, on the other hand have a huge responsibility to be the No 1 environmental watchdog. Some onus falls on them to make sure they avoid those conflicts of interest. Mr MASTERS: I have a supplementary question. The SPEAKER: I am not taking any more supplementary questions today due to the time constraints.
(1)-(4) It is unfortunate, but many people in the community are concerned that on occasions the board members - that five-member group - of the Environmental Protection Authority stay outside the doors when important environmental decisions are made. We face a scenario at the moment in which two members out of the five-member EPA cannot take part in decision making on a sensitive issue. It is of concern to the community and to me when two members of the board of the EPA take themselves outside and do not participate and put their expertise on the table. We may not be getting the best environmental decisions for the State. This situation is catered for under the Environmental Protection Act, which lays out the procedure for what people must do if they have a conflict of interest. I am happy that the board members of the EPA are following both the letter of the law and their own code of practice. I have raised my concerns and those of the broader community with the Chairman of the EPA when these situations have occurred. As far as possible it has been my practice since coming to government to keep people on for the full extent of their terms, especially if they were appointed by the previous Government. All five current members of the EPA were appointed by the previous Government and we have kept them on; they will serve pretty much their full terms, which expire at the end of this year or the middle of next year. The Chairman of the EPA has signalled to me that he would like to go when his term expires; we will be advertising for that position shortly. A long lead time is necessary to get the best person. We will be advertising as required under the Act for new members of the EPA and I will be looking for a broader breadth of experience. I believe other people are out there with the necessary expertise, knowledge, interest and time, and without the potential conflicts of interest, who can serve the State well. At the end of the day, it must be remembered that people who are appointed to the board of the EPA, while on the one hand performing a magnificent service for the State, on the other hand have a huge responsibility to be the No 1 environmental watchdog. Some onus falls on them to make sure they avoid those conflicts of interest. Mr MASTERS: I have a supplementary question. The SPEAKER: I am not taking any more supplementary questions today due to the time constraints.
As far as possible it has been my practice since coming to government to keep people on for the full extent of their terms, especially if they were appointed by the previous Government. All five current members of the EPA were appointed by the previous Government and we have kept them on; they will serve pretty much their full terms, which expire at the end of this year or the middle of next year. The Chairman of the EPA has signalled to me that he would like to go when his term expires; we will be advertising for that position shortly. A long lead time is necessary to get the best person. We will be advertising as required under the Act for new members of the EPA and I will be looking for a broader breadth of experience. I believe other people are out there with the necessary expertise, knowledge, interest and time, and without the potential conflicts of interest, who can serve the State well. At the end of the day, it must be remembered that people who are appointed to the board of the EPA, while on the one hand performing a magnificent service for the State, on the other hand have a huge responsibility to be the No 1 environmental watchdog. Some onus falls on them to make sure they avoid those conflicts of interest.
The SPEAKER: I am not taking any more supplementary questions today due to the time constraints.
(1) Does the minister believe that any of the existing EPA board members have acted in breach of their responsibilities to the board? (2) If yes, what action will the minister take on her conflict of interest concerns, and when will this action be taken? (3) If no, why has the minister stated that the current EPA guidelines are unacceptable? (4) Is it, as the minister’s public statements imply, simply her intention to replace board members who have extensive practical experience and expertise in both industry and the environment with people who represent green anti-development interests and who have little or no relevant industry experience? The SPEAKER: The first part of the question asks for an opinion - if not a legal opinion - and the minister might bear that in mind when answering. Dr EDWARDS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(4) It is unfortunate, but many people in the community are concerned that on occasions the board members - that five-member group - of the Environmental Protection Authority stay outside the doors when important environmental decisions are made. We face a scenario at the moment in which two members out of the five-member EPA cannot take part in decision making on a sensitive issue. It is of concern to the community and to me when two members of the board of the EPA take themselves outside and do not participate and put their expertise on the table. We may not be getting the best environmental decisions for the State. This situation is catered for under the Environmental Protection Act, which lays out the procedure for what people must do if they have a conflict of interest. I am happy that the board members of the EPA are following both the letter of the law and their own code of practice. I have raised my concerns and those of the broader community with the Chairman of the EPA when these situations have occurred. As far as possible it has been my practice since coming to government to keep people on for the full extent of their terms, especially if they were appointed by the previous Government. All five current members of the EPA were appointed by the previous Government and we have kept them on; they will serve pretty much their full terms, which expire at the end of this year or the middle of next year. The Chairman of the EPA has signalled to me that he would like to go when his term expires; we will be advertising for that position shortly. A long lead time is necessary to get the best person. We will be advertising as required under the Act for new members of the EPA and I will be looking for a broader breadth of experience. I believe other people are out there with the necessary expertise, knowledge, interest and time, and without the potential conflicts of interest, who can serve the State well. At the end of the day, it must be remembered that people who are appointed to the board of the EPA, while on the one hand performing a magnificent service for the State, on the other hand have a huge responsibility to be the No 1 environmental watchdog. Some onus falls on them to make sure they avoid those conflicts of interest. Mr MASTERS: I have a supplementary question. The SPEAKER: I am not taking any more supplementary questions today due to the time constraints.
(2) If yes, what action will the minister take on her conflict of interest concerns, and when will this action be taken? (3) If no, why has the minister stated that the current EPA guidelines are unacceptable? (4) Is it, as the minister’s public statements imply, simply her intention to replace board members who have extensive practical experience and expertise in both industry and the environment with people who represent green anti-development interests and who have little or no relevant industry experience? The SPEAKER: The first part of the question asks for an opinion - if not a legal opinion - and the minister might bear that in mind when answering. Dr EDWARDS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(4) It is unfortunate, but many people in the community are concerned that on occasions the board members - that five-member group - of the Environmental Protection Authority stay outside the doors when important environmental decisions are made. We face a scenario at the moment in which two members out of the five-member EPA cannot take part in decision making on a sensitive issue. It is of concern to the community and to me when two members of the board of the EPA take themselves outside and do not participate and put their expertise on the table. We may not be getting the best environmental decisions for the State. This situation is catered for under the Environmental Protection Act, which lays out the procedure for what people must do if they have a conflict of interest. I am happy that the board members of the EPA are following both the letter of the law and their own code of practice. I have raised my concerns and those of the broader community with the Chairman of the EPA when these situations have occurred. As far as possible it has been my practice since coming to government to keep people on for the full extent of their terms, especially if they were appointed by the previous Government. All five current members of the EPA were appointed by the previous Government and we have kept them on; they will serve pretty much their full terms, which expire at the end of this year or the middle of next year. The Chairman of the EPA has signalled to me that he would like to go when his term expires; we will be advertising for that position shortly. A long lead time is necessary to get the best person. We will be advertising as required under the Act for new members of the EPA and I will be looking for a broader breadth of experience. I believe other people are out there with the necessary expertise, knowledge, interest and time, and without the potential conflicts of interest, who can serve the State well. At the end of the day, it must be remembered that people who are appointed to the board of the EPA, while on the one hand performing a magnificent service for the State, on the other hand have a huge responsibility to be the No 1 environmental watchdog. Some onus falls on them to make sure they avoid those conflicts of interest. Mr MASTERS: I have a supplementary question. The SPEAKER: I am not taking any more supplementary questions today due to the time constraints.
(3) If no, why has the minister stated that the current EPA guidelines are unacceptable? (4) Is it, as the minister’s public statements imply, simply her intention to replace board members who have extensive practical experience and expertise in both industry and the environment with people who represent green anti-development interests and who have little or no relevant industry experience? The SPEAKER: The first part of the question asks for an opinion - if not a legal opinion - and the minister might bear that in mind when answering. Dr EDWARDS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(4) It is unfortunate, but many people in the community are concerned that on occasions the board members - that five-member group - of the Environmental Protection Authority stay outside the doors when important environmental decisions are made. We face a scenario at the moment in which two members out of the five-member EPA cannot take part in decision making on a sensitive issue. It is of concern to the community and to me when two members of the board of the EPA take themselves outside and do not participate and put their expertise on the table. We may not be getting the best environmental decisions for the State. This situation is catered for under the Environmental Protection Act, which lays out the procedure for what people must do if they have a conflict of interest. I am happy that the board members of the EPA are following both the letter of the law and their own code of practice. I have raised my concerns and those of the broader community with the Chairman of the EPA when these situations have occurred. As far as possible it has been my practice since coming to government to keep people on for the full extent of their terms, especially if they were appointed by the previous Government. All five current members of the EPA were appointed by the previous Government and we have kept them on; they will serve pretty much their full terms, which expire at the end of this year or the middle of next year. The Chairman of the EPA has signalled to me that he would like to go when his term expires; we will be advertising for that position shortly. A long lead time is necessary to get the best person. We will be advertising as required under the Act for new members of the EPA and I will be looking for a broader breadth of experience. I believe other people are out there with the necessary expertise, knowledge, interest and time, and without the potential conflicts of interest, who can serve the State well. At the end of the day, it must be remembered that people who are appointed to the board of the EPA, while on the one hand performing a magnificent service for the State, on the other hand have a huge responsibility to be the No 1 environmental watchdog. Some onus falls on them to make sure they avoid those conflicts of interest. Mr MASTERS: I have a supplementary question. The SPEAKER: I am not taking any more supplementary questions today due to the time constraints.
(4) Is it, as the minister’s public statements imply, simply her intention to replace board members who have extensive practical experience and expertise in both industry and the environment with people who represent green anti-development interests and who have little or no relevant industry experience? The SPEAKER: The first part of the question asks for an opinion - if not a legal opinion - and the minister might bear that in mind when answering. Dr EDWARDS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(4) It is unfortunate, but many people in the community are concerned that on occasions the board members - that five-member group - of the Environmental Protection Authority stay outside the doors when important environmental decisions are made. We face a scenario at the moment in which two members out of the five-member EPA cannot take part in decision making on a sensitive issue. It is of concern to the community and to me when two members of the board of the EPA take themselves outside and do not participate and put their expertise on the table. We may not be getting the best environmental decisions for the State. This situation is catered for under the Environmental Protection Act, which lays out the procedure for what people must do if they have a conflict of interest. I am happy that the board members of the EPA are following both the letter of the law and their own code of practice. I have raised my concerns and those of the broader community with the Chairman of the EPA when these situations have occurred. As far as possible it has been my practice since coming to government to keep people on for the full extent of their terms, especially if they were appointed by the previous Government. All five current members of the EPA were appointed by the previous Government and we have kept them on; they will serve pretty much their full terms, which expire at the end of this year or the middle of next year. The Chairman of the EPA has signalled to me that he would like to go when his term expires; we will be advertising for that position shortly. A long lead time is necessary to get the best person. We will be advertising as required under the Act for new members of the EPA and I will be looking for a broader breadth of experience. I believe other people are out there with the necessary expertise, knowledge, interest and time, and without the potential conflicts of interest, who can serve the State well. At the end of the day, it must be remembered that people who are appointed to the board of the EPA, while on the one hand performing a magnificent service for the State, on the other hand have a huge responsibility to be the No 1 environmental watchdog. Some onus falls on them to make sure they avoid those conflicts of interest. Mr MASTERS: I have a supplementary question. The SPEAKER: I am not taking any more supplementary questions today due to the time constraints.
The SPEAKER: The first part of the question asks for an opinion - if not a legal opinion - and the minister might bear that in mind when answering. Dr EDWARDS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(4) It is unfortunate, but many people in the community are concerned that on occasions the board members - that five-member group - of the Environmental Protection Authority stay outside the doors when important environmental decisions are made. We face a scenario at the moment in which two members out of the five-member EPA cannot take part in decision making on a sensitive issue. It is of concern to the community and to me when two members of the board of the EPA take themselves outside and do not participate and put their expertise on the table. We may not be getting the best environmental decisions for the State. This situation is catered for under the Environmental Protection Act, which lays out the procedure for what people must do if they have a conflict of interest. I am happy that the board members of the EPA are following both the letter of the law and their own code of practice. I have raised my concerns and those of the broader community with the Chairman of the EPA when these situations have occurred. As far as possible it has been my practice since coming to government to keep people on for the full extent of their terms, especially if they were appointed by the previous Government. All five current members of the EPA were appointed by the previous Government and we have kept them on; they will serve pretty much their full terms, which expire at the end of this year or the middle of next year. The Chairman of the EPA has signalled to me that he would like to go when his term expires; we will be advertising for that position shortly. A long lead time is necessary to get the best person. We will be advertising as required under the Act for new members of the EPA and I will be looking for a broader breadth of experience. I believe other people are out there with the necessary expertise, knowledge, interest and time, and without the potential conflicts of interest, who can serve the State well. At the end of the day, it must be remembered that people who are appointed to the board of the EPA, while on the one hand performing a magnificent service for the State, on the other hand have a huge responsibility to be the No 1 environmental watchdog. Some onus falls on them to make sure they avoid those conflicts of interest. Mr MASTERS: I have a supplementary question. The SPEAKER: I am not taking any more supplementary questions today due to the time constraints.
Dr EDWARDS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(4) It is unfortunate, but many people in the community are concerned that on occasions the board members - that five-member group - of the Environmental Protection Authority stay outside the doors when important environmental decisions are made. We face a scenario at the moment in which two members out of the five-member EPA cannot take part in decision making on a sensitive issue. It is of concern to the community and to me when two members of the board of the EPA take themselves outside and do not participate and put their expertise on the table. We may not be getting the best environmental decisions for the State. This situation is catered for under the Environmental Protection Act, which lays out the procedure for what people must do if they have a conflict of interest. I am happy that the board members of the EPA are following both the letter of the law and their own code of practice. I have raised my concerns and those of the broader community with the Chairman of the EPA when these situations have occurred. As far as possible it has been my practice since coming to government to keep people on for the full extent of their terms, especially if they were appointed by the previous Government. All five current members of the EPA were appointed by the previous Government and we have kept them on; they will serve pretty much their full terms, which expire at the end of this year or the middle of next year. The Chairman of the EPA has signalled to me that he would like to go when his term expires; we will be advertising for that position shortly. A long lead time is necessary to get the best person. We will be advertising as required under the Act for new members of the EPA and I will be looking for a broader breadth of experience. I believe other people are out there with the necessary expertise, knowledge, interest and time, and without the potential conflicts of interest, who can serve the State well. At the end of the day, it must be remembered that people who are appointed to the board of the EPA, while on the one hand performing a magnificent service for the State, on the other hand have a huge responsibility to be the No 1 environmental watchdog. Some onus falls on them to make sure they avoid those conflicts of interest. Mr MASTERS: I have a supplementary question. The SPEAKER: I am not taking any more supplementary questions today due to the time constraints.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(4) It is unfortunate, but many people in the community are concerned that on occasions the board members - that five-member group - of the Environmental Protection Authority stay outside the doors when important environmental decisions are made. We face a scenario at the moment in which two members out of the five-member EPA cannot take part in decision making on a sensitive issue. It is of concern to the community and to me when two members of the board of the EPA take themselves outside and do not participate and put their expertise on the table. We may not be getting the best environmental decisions for the State. This situation is catered for under the Environmental Protection Act, which lays out the procedure for what people must do if they have a conflict of interest. I am happy that the board members of the EPA are following both the letter of the law and their own code of practice. I have raised my concerns and those of the broader community with the Chairman of the EPA when these situations have occurred. As far as possible it has been my practice since coming to government to keep people on for the full extent of their terms, especially if they were appointed by the previous Government. All five current members of the EPA were appointed by the previous Government and we have kept them on; they will serve pretty much their full terms, which expire at the end of this year or the middle of next year. The Chairman of the EPA has signalled to me that he would like to go when his term expires; we will be advertising for that position shortly. A long lead time is necessary to get the best person. We will be advertising as required under the Act for new members of the EPA and I will be looking for a broader breadth of experience. I believe other people are out there with the necessary expertise, knowledge, interest and time, and without the potential conflicts of interest, who can serve the State well. At the end of the day, it must be remembered that people who are appointed to the board of the EPA, while on the one hand performing a magnificent service for the State, on the other hand have a huge responsibility to be the No 1 environmental watchdog. Some onus falls on them to make sure they avoid those conflicts of interest. Mr MASTERS: I have a supplementary question. The SPEAKER: I am not taking any more supplementary questions today due to the time constraints.
(1)-(4) It is unfortunate, but many people in the community are concerned that on occasions the board members - that five-member group - of the Environmental Protection Authority stay outside the doors when important environmental decisions are made. We face a scenario at the moment in which two members out of the five-member EPA cannot take part in decision making on a sensitive issue. It is of concern to the community and to me when two members of the board of the EPA take themselves outside and do not participate and put their expertise on the table. We may not be getting the best environmental decisions for the State. This situation is catered for under the Environmental Protection Act, which lays out the procedure for what people must do if they have a conflict of interest. I am happy that the board members of the EPA are following both the letter of the law and their own code of practice. I have raised my concerns and those of the broader community with the Chairman of the EPA when these situations have occurred. As far as possible it has been my practice since coming to government to keep people on for the full extent of their terms, especially if they were appointed by the previous Government. All five current members of the EPA were appointed by the previous Government and we have kept them on; they will serve pretty much their full terms, which expire at the end of this year or the middle of next year. The Chairman of the EPA has signalled to me that he would like to go when his term expires; we will be advertising for that position shortly. A long lead time is necessary to get the best person. We will be advertising as required under the Act for new members of the EPA and I will be looking for a broader breadth of experience. I believe other people are out there with the necessary expertise, knowledge, interest and time, and without the potential conflicts of interest, who can serve the State well. At the end of the day, it must be remembered that people who are appointed to the board of the EPA, while on the one hand performing a magnificent service for the State, on the other hand have a huge responsibility to be the No 1 environmental watchdog. Some onus falls on them to make sure they avoid those conflicts of interest. Mr MASTERS: I have a supplementary question. The SPEAKER: I am not taking any more supplementary questions today due to the time constraints.
As far as possible it has been my practice since coming to government to keep people on for the full extent of their terms, especially if they were appointed by the previous Government. All five current members of the EPA were appointed by the previous Government and we have kept them on; they will serve pretty much their full terms, which expire at the end of this year or the middle of next year. The Chairman of the EPA has signalled to me that he would like to go when his term expires; we will be advertising for that position shortly. A long lead time is necessary to get the best person. We will be advertising as required under the Act for new members of the EPA and I will be looking for a broader breadth of experience. I believe other people are out there with the necessary expertise, knowledge, interest and time, and without the potential conflicts of interest, who can serve the State well. At the end of the day, it must be remembered that people who are appointed to the board of the EPA, while on the one hand performing a magnificent service for the State, on the other hand have a huge responsibility to be the No 1 environmental watchdog. Some onus falls on them to make sure they avoid those conflicts of interest.
The SPEAKER: I am not taking any more supplementary questions today due to the time constraints.
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.