Since winning office, the Abbott
Government has been pushing
the argument that the Federal
Government should hand over
its environmental approval
powers to the States.
If ever there was a case to
demonstrate the need for Federal
involvement in important
environmental decision-making, the
current fall from grace of WA’s
Environmental Protection Authority is
such a case.
In 2012 Justice Wayne Martin ruled
that EPA chairman Paul Vogel acted
wrongly and overstepped the authority
of his office by attempting to
single-handedly approve the
development of a gas project at James
Price Point.
That case arose because EPA board
members were found to have conflicts
of interests — in some cases having
shares in projects they were
evaluating — and the Supreme Court
subsequently found the environmental
approval was unlawful.
Through the period in question, Dr
Vogel allowed board members to
participate in EPA meetings about the
project despite them holding shares in
Woodside Petroleum and another who
worked for Browse joint-venture
partner BHP Billiton.
Yet last week Environment Minister
Albert Jacob introduced to the State
Parliament legislation designed to
safeguard 25 other projects that were
approved by the agency between
2002 and 2012 — projects approved
by the same compromised board of
the EPA.
That means conflicts of interests on
EPA decisions made during that time
frame won’t even be tested under
retrospective legislation.
There is a strong case to say some of
these rulings should be re-examined.
For example, in the case of the Roe
Highway stage 8 extension, the EPA
ignored some of its own advice when it
gave approval for the highway to be
built through one of Perth’s most
important wetland ecosystems, the
Beeliar Wetlands.
It beggars belief and raises serious
questions about the integrity of the
EPA that a conflicted EPA board was
allowed to rule over such major
infrastructure and environmental
projects for so long and would have
continued had not the Supreme Court
intervened.
We expect better of our public
offices, particularly when it comes to
protecting our State’s natural assets.
This is an argument for objective,
science-based rigour in assessing all
potential developments that are likely
to affect our environment.
These assessments must, as a
starting point, always be carried out
free from personal and commercial
interests.
That’s why we need to retain the
Federal layer of protection and
oversight.
The way for the WA Government to
start to win back public trust is not to
rush through Parliament legislation
designed to resuscitate a wounded
EPA, but to embrace a transparent,
Federally administered regime of
environmental approvals.
Most West Australians would agree
we need to strike a balance between
economic development and protecting
the unique natural and cultural values
of our State.
The fact is that State governments
often have conflicts of interests when
it comes to resources extraction
projects because they are dependent
on the royalty income from projects
that are approved. This is not unique
to WA.
Many people in WA today will be
asking whether EPA stands for the
Environmental Protection Authority
or the Environmental Plundering
Agency.
The whole episode shows clear as
day precisely why good management of
nationally significant environment
matters require national rules and
enforcement to be truly effective.
Wade Freeman is the Broome-based
Kimberley project officer for the Australian
Conservation Foundation
There is a strong case
to say some of these
rulings should be
re-examined.

West Australian, Perth
15 Sep 2014, by Wade Freeman