The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN [3.34 p.m.]: I focus on what should be a basic human right—to live in a pollution-free environment—as well as the urgent need for adequate information to protect our right to life, health and clean water. The protection of the environment is a vital part of contemporary human rights doctrine. The International Court of Justice has found that damage to the environment undermines all human rights in the universal declaration and other human rights instruments. Every day we are exposed to toxic chemicals through pesticide spray drift, air pollution and emissions from products, including children’s toys, contaminated soil, drinking water and food.Persistent organic pollutants [POPs] are chemicals that remain intact in the environment for long periods, become widely distributed geographically, bioaccumulate in the fatty tissue of humans and wildlife, and have adverse effects on human health or on the environment. Persistent organic pollutants are generally created by humans in industrial processes for common products such as pesticides, solvents and pharmaceuticals. According to a World Health Organization paper on food safety released in November 2011, human exposure to some compounds and scenarios, even to low levels of persistent organic pollutants can lead to, among other things, increased cancer risk, reproductive disorders, alteration of the immune system, neuro-behavioural impairment, endocrine disruption, genotoxity and increased birth defects.Some persistent organic pollutants are considered to be endocrine disrupting chemicals. Endocrine disrupting chemicals disrupt the network of glands and organs in the human body that secrete hormones that regulate growth, metabolism, reproduction and physiological functions. Endocrine disrupting chemicals can mimic or block a hormone, which is of particular concern for unborn babies as their development depends on the availability of certain hormones at certain times. Endocrine disrupting chemicals have been linked to health problems ranging from acute childhood leukaemia and other cancers to neuro-behavioural effects, such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder [ADHD], as well as effects on the reproductive and immune systems.
The World Health Organization has stated that approximately three million children under the age of five die every year due to environmental hazards. This is not limited to developing countries. Children in both the developing and the developed worlds are affected by exposure to hazardous chemicals. In 2004 the European Union’s Ministerial Conference on Children’s Environmental Health concluded that reducing exposure to hazardous chemicals could save the lives of many children. In July 2010 the National Toxics Network and the World Wildlife Fund Australia released a list of Australia’s most dangerous pesticides, more than 80 of which are prohibited overseas because of the risks they pose to human health and the environment. The National Toxics Network states on its website:

The list includes 17 chemicals that are known, likely or probable carcinogens, and 48 chemicals flagged as having the potential to interfere with hormones. More than 20 have been classified as either extremely or highly hazardous by the World Health Organisation yet remain available for use on Australian farms.

This appalling situation is evidence that Australia’s regulatory system for chemicals is failing to keep us safe from dangerous exposure. European pesticides regulation is founded on the precautionary principle designed to protect human health and the environment before profits. As a result, many dangerous chemicals have been removed from the market. Through reforms in farming and food processing European governments are supporting programs for farmers to switch to biological approaches to farming instead of relying on pesticides. The European Union is widely recognised as the world leader in chemical regulation, employing a systematic approach to reappraising chemicals to ensure public health. Consumers are encouraged to make educated choices via European Union policy marks—labels indicating geographic origin, use of traditional methods or ingredients and organic inputs.

Australia’s approach to chemical regulation is very different to Europe’s approach and involves a multitude of authorities at various levels of government. The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority is responsible for regulating pesticides. On its website, the authority assures consumers that new products are subject to a rigorous scientific assessment process before they are registered. Older registered chemicals undergo a review, but only if new information suggests there is a risk. The review process can drag on for years, and there are several potentially highly toxic chemicals that have been under review for 10 years or more.Australia is lagging far behind the precautionary principle many other countries use to safeguard public health. Here, use of a pesticide is permitted unless there is conclusive scientific evidence that its approved use is hazardous to human health and it persists as an environmental pollutant. The highly toxic insecticidal ingredient endosulfan, for example, continued to be used on a wide range of citrus fruit, vegetables and cereals in Australia, despite having been banned in more than 60 countries, including New Zealand, the European Union and several Asian and West African nations. It was finally and belatedly banned by our Federal pesticides regulator in October 2010 and distribution companies have been given two years to run down their supplies.

The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority must surely recognise that while Australia may have unique wildlife and different farming conditions, the toxicology of these dangerous pesticides is the same. If smoking causes cancer in the United States, it will also cause cancer in Australia. It is the carcinogens that matter; not the country. If a pesticide is too dangerous to use in Europe, it is too dangerous to use in Australia. It is up to governments to ensure that the chemicals used on our crops and in our homes are safe and that the community knows the potential impacts of exposure. The Greens call on both State and Federal governments to ensure our regulatory regime keeps chemicals deemed too dangerous away from our food and away from us.

Greens MP and environment spokesperson Cate Faehrmann says the NSW Government should impose a moratorium on new artificial turf fields and playgrounds until the health and environmental risks are fully understood and are able to be mitigated.

See the Sun Herald’s investigation: “Threat of toxic playgrounds”

“We’ve got young kids on these playgrounds and teenagers on these sports fields. It’s essential that we take a precautionary approach and be sure of the risks before we roll out more of these potentially toxic fields,” said Ms Faehrmann.

Cate at the Northbridge Oval.

“Until we know exactly what the human health impacts are, the NSW Government should impose a moratorium on new artificial turf. And in the mean time pressure must be applied to the national regular to do the research that’s required.

“What’s of real concern is that there has been very little government oversight of this product, despite it being used every day by children and containing known carcinogens and corrosive chemicals.

“It’s even more worrying when we don’t know what the products are made out of. How can we begin to understand the health impacts if we don’t know which chemicals we are exposing our kids to?

Do you want your kids playing on artificial turf? More research is required.

“I’m hearing this turf can reach dangerous temperatures on hot summer days. Some overseas jurisdictions are even starting to rip out artificial turf and replacing it with natural turf because of these concerns.

“More and more councils and sporting organisations in Sydney are looking at artificial turf as a way to reduce maintenance costs and extend playing time in playgrounds and sports fields. From the information that’s out there I would urge them to think again,” said Ms Faehrmann.

One of the most commonly used polymers for artificial turf, Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer (M-class) rubber, has not been subject to any human health or environmental toxicological assessment by the Australian regulator, the National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme (NICNAS) and the Department of Health.

A paper and review of the available literature on toxics in artificial turf was submitted to Marrickville Council by Dr Gavin L Edwards, an environmental toxicologist at the University of New South Wales. Read the submission here.

Specks of rubber found on the surface of the artificial turf sports field at Northbridge.

Greens MP and environment spokesperson Cate Faehrmann has congratulated the NSW Government for today’s package of reforms to pollution laws and says the Greens are looking forward to working with the government to ensure these and further changes are implemented quickly.

“It’s excellent the government has responded quickly to strengthen notification requirements to ‘immediate’ as the Greens bill would have done. Re-establishing the Environmental Protection Authority as an independent body is also welcome but it needs to be adequately resourced to undertake monitoring and enforcement,” said Ms Faehrmann.

“Without increased funding to monitor polluting industry, the community can’t have any confidence incidents like the Orica hexavalent chromium spill won’t occur again.

“The Greens will now closely examine the O’Reilly Report and work with the government to find ways of strengthening laws over the longer term.

“Despite there still being some way to go before our pollution laws fully protect communities and the environment, I want to congratulate the government for moving quickly with these reforms.

“Hopefully the political grandstanding over Orica can now end. The Greens are looking forward to the Parliamentary Inquiry and the government’s audit that will provide further insight and recommendations to protect our environment and communities from pollution,” said Ms Faehrmann.

Media contact: Peter Stahel 0433 005 727

Greens MP and environment spokesperson Cate Faehrmann has welcomed reports that the government will undertake environmental audits of 42 industrial sites in NSW, calling it long overdue.

“Many of these companies have breached their licence conditions year after year. There are clearly serious problems and it’s a relief to finally see some action being taken,” said Ms Faehrmann.

“Companies which have a licence to pollute know that if they breach their licence conditions they will cop a fine, but rarely is this fine a deterrent in itself.

“It’s well known that companies would prefer to pay a $10,000 or even a $50,000 fine rather than investing in cleaning up their businesses.

“We need to think about the cumulative impacts on our environment of every single licence breach. Since 1999 there have been 74 breaches of pollution licences that have caused material harm and ended up in the Land and Environment Court.

“All political parties need to work together to ensure these laws are strengthened.

“Now is the time to be looking at broad changes and reform and the next step is the Greens bill to strengthen notification requirements. Notification to authorities should be immediate and that’s what the Greens bill does,” said Ms Faehrmann.

Media contact: Peter Stahel 0433 005 727

I present The Greens’ Protection of the Environment Operations Amendment (Notification of Pollution Incidents) Bill 2011, which is a very simple yet very important bill. The intent of the bill is clear. It amends the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 to expedite the notification of pollution incidents that cause or threaten material harm to the environment. As members will no doubt be aware, this bill has been inspired by the recent accident at the Orica Limited Kooragang Island facility, which manufactures ammonium nitrate. A plume of hexavalent chromium was released on Monday 8 August at approximately 6.00 p.m. The plume settled in the nearby residential area of Stockton. Hexavalent chromium is one of the more potent carcinogens and presents a real risk to human beings when inhaled or digested.

Over recent weeks serious questions were raised not only about how the accident happened but also the inadequate response from both the company and the Government. One of the most troubling issues is that Orica took 16 hours to notify the Office of Environment and Heritage. Notification did not occur until 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday 9 August. During this time, and for several days afterwards, children played outside and people collected vegetables from their garden. One resident told me that she juiced the spinach and beetroot leaves from her garden each morning, for her and her husband, as per usual, until they found out about the incident. That is three whole mornings that this woman and her husband were drinking the juice of vegetable leaves after the highly carcinogenic chemical hexavalent chromium was released into the atmosphere and no doubt settled on every leaf in their garden. This is clearly unacceptable.

The Greens bill will restore some level of community confidence that they will be told when accidents like these occur. This confidence is extremely important to all communities that reside near polluting businesses and industry, not just to Stockton residents. This Greens bill is a simple and effective measure that can be taken immediately to expedite the notification of pollution incidents that cause or threaten material harm to the environment and to communities. The definition of “material harm to the environment” is contained in part 5.7 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act. Section 147 states:

(1) For the purposes of this Part:

(a) harm to the environment is material if:

(i) it involves actual or potential harm to the health or safety of human beings or to ecosystems that is not trivial, or

(ii) it results in actual or potential loss or property damage of an amount, or amounts in aggregate, exceeding $10,000 (or such other amount as is prescribed by the regulations), and

(b) loss includes the reasonable costs and expenses that would be incurred in taking all reasonable and practicable measures to prevent, mitigate or make good harm to the environment.

(2) For the purposes of this Part, it does not matter that harm to the environment is caused only in the premises where the pollution incident occurs.

At present section 148 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 requires any such pollution incident to be notified to the appropriate regulatory authority as soon as practicable after the persons associated with the activity that has caused the incident become aware of the incident. Section 149 of that Act enables the regulations to prescribe the manner or form of notifying those pollution incidents. The purpose of this bill is to amend that Act to replace “as soon as practicable” with “immediately” so as to require the immediate notification of those pollution incidents which cause, or threaten to cause, material harm to the environment. Part 3 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011, “duty to notify of notifiable incidents”, states:

A person who conducts a business or undertaking must ensure that the regulator is notified immediately after becoming aware that a notifiable incident arising out of the conduct of the business or undertaking has occurred.

It states that notice must be given in accordance with this section and by the fastest possible means and that notice must be given by telephone or in writing. Clearly, a serious chemical spill that has the potential to harm human health, either through the inhalation of airborne particles or the drinking of contaminated water, or some such other means, has the potential to be of a similar serious nature to warrant immediate notification, as is allowed for in the Work Health and Safety Act.

Clause 101, Notification of pollution incidents, of the Protection of the Environment Operations (General) Regulation 2009 states that, for the purposes of section 149 of the Act, a pollution incident that is required to be notified to the Environment Protection Authority under part 5.7 of the Act is to be notified verbally to the Environment Protection Authority by telephoning the authority’s environment line, followed by notification in writing within seven days of the date on which the incident occurred. The Environment Protection Authority has a phone line established for the reporting of incidents where the Office of Environment and Heritage staff can be contacted 24 hours a day via its pollution line on 131 555. This bill makes no change to that reporting mechanism.

The bill essentially makes it clear to companies that when an accident or failure occurs at their business or operation which has the potential to cause material harm to the environment, and hence communities, it is their duty to notify authorities immediately after becoming aware of the incident. Given we now live in a world blessed with mobile technology, this is not an onerous requirement on an employee or employer. Immediate notification means that the authorities can set about notifying potentially affected residents and assisting with the clean-up, if necessary.

I want to refer to examples of the difference between “as soon as practicable” and “immediate” in other pieces of legislation. “As soon as practicable” appears often in regulation, but it does not seem appropriate when we are considering the notification of pollution incidents that cause or threaten material harm to the environment. The pattern appears to be that “as soon as practicable” allows for normal practices to continue. A chemical incident such as the one at Stockton clearly is not one where normal practices continue. Looking at comparisons in law, a broadcaster who broadcasts under a statutory licence under section 47A of the Commonwealth Copyright Act 1968 is required “as soon as practicable” after such a broadcast is completed to make a record, either in writing in the prescribed form or in such other manner as is prescribed. In the Northern Territory under the Health and Community Services Complaints Act 1998, once two medical practitioners certify that a person is mentally ill, the medical superintendent must bring that person before a magistrate “as soon as practicable”.

Pursuant to the Commonwealth Corporations Act 2001 and its regulations, the Health and Community Services Complaints Commission must notify any complaint concerning a registered provider to the relevant national board “as soon as practicable” and consult with the board as to whether the complaint should be referred to the commissioner or to the board. Pursuant to the Commonwealth International Monetary Agreements Act 1947, a drawee institution must pay or dishonour a duly presented cheque “as soon as reasonably practicable”. According to the Queensland Retail Shop Leases Act 1994, once a retail tenancy dispute is referred to the chief executive by either a mediator or a party to the dispute, the chief executive must “as soon as reasonably practicable” refer the dispute to a Retail Shop Lease Tribunal legal member to hold a directions hearing.

In case law the definitions of “as soon as practicable” and “immediately” also have been discussed. Richards and Schutt in 1978 in the Supreme Court of Australia held that the words “as soon as practicable” allow for normal factors of police practice and for the lapse of some time, provided it is a short time, while any other necessary action is being taken. David Hay’s fourth edition of Words and Phrases Legally Defined explores the term “practicable”. He states that “practicable” means reasonably practicable, having regard, amongst other things, to local conditions and circumstances, to the financial implications and to the current state of technical knowledge. In situations that can seriously risk the health of the community and the environment, immediate notification, not “as soon as practicable” surely must apply. The seriousness with which this Parliament takes failure to notify is important. During the second reading of the original Protection of the Environment Operations Act in 1997, then environment Minister Pam Allan stated:

The bill consolidates as well as simplifies the complexities of the existing environmental offence provisions and imposes a new duty to notify the Environment Protection Authority or councils of a pollution incident that causes or threatens to cause material environmental harm. Failure to notify is a new offence. The Government has doubled the penalties for what are known as tier 2 offences, with the maximum penalty increasing from $125,000 to $250,000 for companies and from $60,000 to $120,000 for individuals. Not only does this bring the penalties in line with the Marine Pollution Act, but the Government clearly wants to send a signal to perpetrators and to the courts that significant penalties should be applied to those who flout the law.

The fines have since increased. Now, failure to notify an incident that causes material harm to the environment carries a maximum penalty of $1 million in the case of a continuing offence of a corporation and a further penalty of $120,000 for each day the offence continues. In the case of an individual the fine is $250,000 and $60,000 for each day the offence continues. These are serious fines for the serious incident of failure to notify the authorities of an incident that causes material harm to the environment and, obviously, communities. The Greens argue that delays in notification also should be regarded as a serious offence.

It is not only the recent situation at Orica where delays in notification have occurred. Delays in notification by companies also occurred under a Labor government. The media have shown strong interest in the delays in notification in relation to the Orica incident—that is, the delay in the environment Minister, Robyn Parker, being informed, the delay in the Minister notifying the public and the delay in her department notifying the Minister. But this also happened under Labor. Therefore, changes to the law are absolutely necessary. We will continue to see companies breach licence conditions and fail to notify government unless they are required to do so by law.

I will give a few examples of the delays that have occurred. I make the point that they also occurred under the previous Government. The Protection of the Environment Operations Act has been in force for a long time, many companies have environment protection licences and, unfortunately, many companies breach those licences, often with serious consequences for the surrounding environment, particularly waterways and air. The examples I refer to are all incidents of material harm where the regulator was notified later than the day of the incident. All these examples would be covered under this amendment to the Act.

In December 2002 a company did not notify then environment Minister Bob Debus for 37 days after an incident of material harm. Again, two incidents occurred where then environment Minister Bob Debus was not notified for nine days and eight days. An incident occurred where then environment Minister Verity Firth was not notified for six days. Then environment Minister Phil Koperberg was not notified for two days and in 2007 for one day of incidents of material harm. So this occurred under a number of environment Ministers. When I was working at the Nature Conservation Council I became sick of briefing environment Ministers on the same issue every six months, it seemed, because a new environment Minister had been appointed. I do not know what actions those environment Ministers took once they were notified. A series of provisions must be changed in the environment protection laws to remedy this situation.

This bill makes one simple amendment to the Protection of the Environment Operations Act, which brings it into line with the Work Health and Safety Act. It will address all the issues, not only the Orica contamination, which has become a political issue. Labor is using this incident for political point scoring. I am disappointed that Labor does not seem to have the same passion about reforming our environmental protection laws to achieve good outcomes, rather than good headlines. I wish this was about improving our environmental laws rather than about bashing the other side. Delays in notification in the Orica spill meant that children played in playgrounds for three days following the incident and people ate vegetables from their garden and went about their daily lives completely oblivious to their potentially toxic environment. That is unacceptable—just as the delays that occurred when Labor was in government and we had the same laws were unacceptable.

I remind the House that Orica has breached its licence conditions 131 times in the past 10 years. I concede that some of those licence breaches were not very serious, but every year, bar one, over the past 10 years Orica has failed to meet its licence conditions. The Environment Protection Authority website reports that Orica’s facility in Newcastle alone has breached its pollution licence 88 times since 2000, including unlawful releases of arsenic in 2009 and hexavalent chromium in 2006. That all happened under Labor’s watch and it has happened under the Coalition Government’s watch. Here is a very good opportunity for us to tighten environmental laws to protect our waterways, the air and our community’s health. Such an event could happen again—it could happen again tomorrow or in six months—and next time it might not be Orica that is responsible.

While I support the inquiry that is taking place, and I look forward to being on that committee and seeing the report of Brendan O’Reilly handed down on 30 September, I know that more measures will be required. This amendment is an extremely simple but important step and it can be taken immediately to restore confidence in companies’ activities. The main concerns of the Stockton community were about pollution laws and why the company waited so long before it notified the authorities. When I spoke to residents about how simple this amendment is and how it is similar to that covered by the Work Health and Safety Act, they said to me that surely everyone would support such an amendment. I have also heard the Minister for the Environment say that such a change is necessary. In conversations I have had with people from all sides I get a sense that this is a simple amendment to a very important Act but that it will make a big difference for pollution laws in this State and will restore community confidence in the Government to monitor companies and what they do to our environment. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps and set down as an order of the day for a future day.

Greens MP and environment spokesperson Cate Faehrmann says the Upper House inquiry into the Orica incident is a missed opportunity to examine the capacity of government to enforce pollution licences and to respond to pollution incidents.

The Greens attempted to amend Labor’s successful motion today calling for an Upper House inquiry into the Orica incident. The Greens amendment was unsuccessful.

“The Greens support and look forward to this inquiry. However we’re disappointed that the committee won’t also examine the capacity of the Office of Environment and Heritage and the Environment Protection Authority to protect the environment and communities from pollution,” said Ms Faehrmann.

“There’s no point in finding out what fell over in terms of the government’s response to this if we can’t make recommendations to ensure it won’t happen again.

“Orica is just the thin edge of the wedge when it comes to pollution incidents in this state. Environment Protection Licences are breached all the time across NSW,” said Ms Faehrmann.

The Greens addition to the terms of reference read as follows:

“(iv)     the capacity of the Environment Protection Authority and the Office of Environment and Heritage to adequately respond to this incident and to monitor and enforce Environment Protection Licences, and”

Media contact: Peter Stahel 0433 005 727