Sign In
or Create a new account
Do you have any other comments? Have we missed anything? Still have unanswered questions?
This online discussion forum has concluded. You can still browse the site but the discussion area will no longer accept new comments or votes.
This online discussion forum has concluded. You can still browse the site but the discussion area will no longer accept new comments or votes.
Comment 1 2 Sep 2010, 7:00 PM
Hi, in my view - it is really quite simple. If people continue to wreck the environment - clearly the potential consequences are not a significant deterent. Look to Singapore for a system that demonstrates results. Why not model your new system on that?
Comment 1.1 5 Sep 2010, 3:45 PM
Thanks Andrew. The system used in Singapore is certainly one end of the compliance spectrum and there may be some merit with aspects of a heavy-handed "stick" approach. Ideally we would like to develop a more balanced approach where EPA provides education and advice to also achieve compliance, what do you think? Gary Laidlaw
Comment 1.1.1 28 Sep 2010, 7:44 AM
In some ways it is unfortunate that the big stick cannot be used. I think the civil libertarians would jump on the enforcers from a great height.
I agree that the only way forward is to have a balanced approach, but it has to be firm and applied, dare I say, ruthlessly.
Maybe a demerit points system for offenders, if a certain number of points are applied; the responsible person would have to either do compulsory training of take on voluntary environmental work.
Comment 1.1.2 4 Oct 2010, 10:56 PM
Hello again,
Well, just having been to Singapore again - it is a mighty clean place, and people abide by the law. Whilst I don't agree with all Singapore policies, they are clearly achieving good environmental outcomes don't you think? Sadly, many people here (Aus) just don't care....even if you do educate them (and they happen to listen.). You need more money and bigger sticks.
Cheers
Comment 2 8 Sep 2010, 5:27 PM
EPA officers are so overworked, it appears to me that the EPA does not have the resources to become more effective or responsive.
I submitted an application and paid a statutory fee in May but still have not received a simple Yes/No decision by September. This is not related to some obscure or complex pollution issue but a simple, straightforward statutory regulation question. I've been told a couple of times there would be a decision by specific dates. A couple of times it was less specific like it probably takes a month, or it will take some time to go through more…
Comment 2.1 9 Sep 2010, 9:39 PM
Visited the Victoria Street offices today to find out why my application had stalled and why telephone calls were not being returned. Unfortunately, the officer who had been evaluating my application has had to take leave so unable to return my calls.
If the EPA wishes to become more effective and responsive then the extended loss of one officer should not derail a process. I guess the current lack of staff within the EPA means workload has to be prioritized and less significant work is delayed.
The new processes to improve effectiveness could fail if there are insufficient staff. To illustrate:- In more…
Comment 3 22 Sep 2010, 9:57 AM
I have been wondering how the EPA would respond to the Victorian Auditor General’s serious doubt about the EPA’s ability to assure that hazardous waste is stored and disposed of appropriately and, by inference, how the EPA should respond by improving its compliance responsibilities. Today I have had a quick read of your Discussion Paper and was disappointed that it makes no mention of a form of transparent self-regulation by independent certification that is used in a number of Australian legal provinces.
There are many other regulated, ‘public good’ industries are certified by independent organisations, such as hospitals, old people’s homes, more…
Comment 3.1 28 Sep 2010, 7:52 AM
I think the idea of the Independent auditors has some merit, but only on the proviso that a close relationship is not allowed to develop between the Auditor and businesses. Whilst I am not suggesting anything inappropriate, I think the general public are wary of independent audits in the same way we are wary on the Independent Planning Permits that are now issued with some very questionable developements being approved.
Any system like this would also need some sort of scrutiny to give the public the confidence that the system is beyond reproach
Comment 3.2 23 Oct 2010, 7:18 PM
Certification to an environmental standard does not necessarily equal better environmental performance. Statutory auditors are expensive and do not always add value. I don't think they are the answer. Given that they are employed by industry, the community does not always consider them to be independant. The EPA just needs to put its head down and get on with it.
Comment 4 13 Oct 2010, 7:20 PM
Actual harm should be treated far more seriously than potential harm. Human health is important and should be given the weight it deserves - the EPA should not just look at physical environmental harm. In particular, noise should be given far more priority and there should be a Road Noise Policy for our State.
Ongoing exposure to noise and/or odour and/or poor air quality can impact heavily on individuals daily lives and needs to be regulated accordingly. This is often a result of poor land use planning. Perhaps planning is an area where the EPA can get more involved to prevent these problems by influencing buffer distances.
Comment 5 16 Oct 2010, 3:37 PM
YES Y WHEN I LOOK UP YOUR WEB ADDRESS DO I HAVE TO GIVE MY DETAILS UP LOAD DOWNLOAD (ON DIALUP) AND WASTE TIME AND ENERGY....I DON'T HAVE TIME TO BELONG TO FORUM'S I JUST WANT THE PLANET SAVED.....WHY WEREN'T ALL THE 'LANDLORD MADE TO REPLACE SHOWER HEADS, WATERSAVING TAPS ETC..WHY WAS THE WATER BAN ON MELBOURNE LIFTED THE SELFISH CITY FOLK WILL JUST WASTE IT AGAIN.....WHY HASN'T INDUSTRY BEEN FORCED TO CHANGE TO WATER SAVING TAPS TOILETS ETC...WHY AREN'T MAJOR ENERGY USING COMPANIES AND NEW SHOPPING CENTRES ETC...MADE TO BE ERECTED 'GREEN' USING SOLAR POWER ETC TO RUN THEIR MONEY MAKING BOTTOMLESS PITS.....IF THE PLANET WAS BEING RUN FOR ALL NOT JUST THE MONEY MAKING FEW WE WOULDN'T BE IN THIS PREDICIMENT....WHY WHY WHY WHY AREN'T WE REPLANTING TREES LIKE OUR LIVES DEPEND ON IT.....IT NOT TO LATE IF WE GET THEM REPLANTED QUICKLY ENOUGH LIKE YESTERDAY....WHY ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE ALLOWED TO CUT DOWN TREES FOR HEATING ETC....NOT MADE TO REPLANT A DOZEN FOR EACH ONE FOR EXAMPLE......WHY AREN'T THE PRISONERS BACK OUT DOING THESE JOBS.....I AM TIRED OF PAYING FOR PEOPLE WHO RIP OFF SOCIETY WHILE A GOOD MANY OF US STRUGGLE....
Comment 5.1 19 Oct 2010, 11:59 AM
i think giving people an opportunity to have their say and participate is really important.
Comment 6 21 Oct 2010, 12:13 PM
Great that the litter campaign is working well
but do you have the info in other languages?
Comment 7 23 Oct 2010, 7:12 PM
The EPA needs to review the guidelines for PAHs/BaP as they are far to stringent (perhaps when you are inundated with requests to have soil reclassified on this basis you will see that you should have listened to advice from industry when the concentrations were being reviewed). Your turnaround time is slow.
Comment 8 24 Oct 2010, 5:47 PM
I would like to see a lot more co-operation with Councils and other bodies that are tasked as enforcers of the EPA requirements, as well as other issues that border on REPA responsibilities.
One of my main concerns is the Council Planning Permit (PP) and EPA Works Approval (WP) process. At the moment the EPA gets asked for an opinion for a PP, a recommendation is given to councils with comments that seem to be based on a quick run through of the proposal.
It is only when the WA is applied for, that the EPA does the comprehensive review (which more…
