Criminology Research Council grant ; (15/84)
This study examined the administrative processes and factors which lead to enforcement decisions made under principal pollution control legislation in South Australia. The methodology involved examination of approximately 1500 cases recorded in government files in four South Australian Government agencies in two departments-the Department of Environment and Planning (DEP) and the Engineering and Water Supply Department (E&WS Dept). The principal findings of the study included the following:
Prosecution (or even serious consideration of prosecution) is rarely a strategy adopted to ensure adherence to pollution control legislation. Generally speaking, South Australian pollution control agencies pursue a policy of non-punitive resolution of pollution matters. Prosecution is used only as a last resort.
Government officers use a wide range of non-punitive approaches to resolving environmental matters including:
- notification of a complaint to polluter:
- inspection, sampling/testing;
- notifying the polluter of the breach of legislation;
- brief, moderate or extensive negotiation with the polluter; and
- the issuing of a formal notice of a breach.
There is considerable variation in the approaches taken by the respective departments. This is often a reflection of the legislation on which the particular department relies, but can also reflect the policies of respective departments. The Noise Control Branch, for example, tends to rely on resolution by informal processes, reflecting the complaint-based structure of the Noise Control Act. On the other hand, the Air Quality Branch relies heavily on resolution through both inspection and the issuing of formal notices of a breach.
By way of contrast with both the above agencies, the Water Resources Branch and Trade Wastes Section of the Engineering and Water Supply Department during the study period either recommended or commenced prosecution in a significantly higher proportion of matters than was the case for either agency within the Department of Environment and Planning.
Generally, less serious matters were resolved in a relatively short period whereas those matters which were resolved only over protracted periods of time (greater than three months) were of significant or major seriousness. That is, those matters which were serious tended to be more difficult to resolve or to arise out of situations which protracted resolution.
There is a clear tendency in South Australia for cases involving significant or major breaches to take longer to resolve than those involving less serious breaches. There is little apparent administrative attempt to counter this trend.
No prosecution involved heavy industry. Four cases were successfully completed against light industry and 13 cases were considered for prosecution or commenced against rural industry (primarily wineries).
South Australian pollution control agencies may significantly benefit in implementing their respective legislation through a close examination of the range of factors contributing to delays in resolving many of the more significant pollution control matters. In this respect the report concludes that greater consideration should be given to the more frequent use of prosecution to encourage polluters to comply with legislative and administrative requirements.