❓ Question regarding the Minister's plan to develop health assessments for industrial projects in WA, following a six-year advocacy period. The Minister outlines the government's progress towards incorporating health impact assessments into the existing approval process.
AnsweredQoN 292Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
INDUSTRIAL PROJECTS - HEALTH ASSESSMENT PROCESS
I am very pleased to direct my question to the Minister for Health today because it is, in fact, six years to this very day that I raised the issue of health impact assessments in this house. Can the minister outline his plan to develop health assessments, which is a new program for developments in Western Australia? Dr S.C. Thomas : You mean it only took you six years; you have done very well! Mr J.A. McGINTY
I am very pleased to direct my question to the Minister for Health today because it is, in fact, six years to this very day that I raised the issue of health impact assessments in this house. Can the minister outline his plan to develop health assessments, which is a new program for developments in Western Australia? Dr S.C. Thomas : You mean it only took you six years; you have done very well! Mr J.A. McGINTY
AnswerView source ↗
I think the member for Swan Hills is a prophet before her time. Members will remember that, if my memory serves me correctly, it was the week in which we came to government in 2001 that the disastrous Bellevue chemical fire took place. That was followed by an inquiry, as a result of which the government gave an undertaking that we would establish a process of including health in the assessment process for industrial projects in the state. The public health discussion paper that was released in 2005 was about the content of the new public health bill for Western Australia. It contained essentially two very important statements: firstly, strong policy support for looking at the health implications of industrial projects based on the fact that the World Health Organization had been advocating health impact assessments, like those advocated by the member for Swan Hills, as best practice public health strategy; and, secondly, the consultation that flowed from the discussion paper gave strong support for the incorporation of health impacts in the approval process. The drafting of a new public health bill, which we hope to introduce into Parliament, and certainly as a discussion bill out for public comment in the second half of this year, is proposed to include a head of power to enable health impact assessments to take place. We hope to have a discussion paper out for comment from industry and stakeholders so that we can look at all the issues associated with the inclusion of health impacts, such as those associated with hazardous waste disposal, the issue in Esperance, the Bellevue fire that I have already referred to, and perhaps even the closure of Brookdale, to mention a few that would have benefited enormously from the health impact assessment process. Our concern is not to impose a new approval process on the system, but to look at ways in which we can incorporate health impact assessments into the existing approval process. This would be completely consistent with the integrated project approval system, which the government has introduced over the past 18 months or two years, to ensure that projects can get their approvals, but all relevant factors are taken into account. As I have indicated, we do not wish to particularly create a new approval process, which would be a burden. However, we wish to make sure that we take health issues into account in looking at the impact of industrial proposals. I am looking forward to the consultation about how we can best make the health impact assessment process work and the outcomes of that consultation.
Dr S.C. Thomas : You mean it only took you six years; you have done very well! Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: I think the member for Swan Hills is a prophet before her time. Members will remember that, if my memory serves me correctly, it was the week in which we came to government in 2001 that the disastrous Bellevue chemical fire took place. That was followed by an inquiry, as a result of which the government gave an undertaking that we would establish a process of including health in the assessment process for industrial projects in the state. The public health discussion paper that was released in 2005 was about the content of the new public health bill for Western Australia. It contained essentially two very important statements: firstly, strong policy support for looking at the health implications of industrial projects based on the fact that the World Health Organization had been advocating health impact assessments, like those advocated by the member for Swan Hills, as best practice public health strategy; and, secondly, the consultation that flowed from the discussion paper gave strong support for the incorporation of health impacts in the approval process. The drafting of a new public health bill, which we hope to introduce into Parliament, and certainly as a discussion bill out for public comment in the second half of this year, is proposed to include a head of power to enable health impact assessments to take place. We hope to have a discussion paper out for comment from industry and stakeholders so that we can look at all the issues associated with the inclusion of health impacts, such as those associated with hazardous waste disposal, the issue in Esperance, the Bellevue fire that I have already referred to, and perhaps even the closure of Brookdale, to mention a few that would have benefited enormously from the health impact assessment process. Our concern is not to impose a new approval process on the system, but to look at ways in which we can incorporate health impact assessments into the existing approval process. This would be completely consistent with the integrated project approval system, which the government has introduced over the past 18 months or two years, to ensure that projects can get their approvals, but all relevant factors are taken into account. As I have indicated, we do not wish to particularly create a new approval process, which would be a burden. However, we wish to make sure that we take health issues into account in looking at the impact of industrial proposals. I am looking forward to the consultation about how we can best make the health impact assessment process work and the outcomes of that consultation.
Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: I think the member for Swan Hills is a prophet before her time. Members will remember that, if my memory serves me correctly, it was the week in which we came to government in 2001 that the disastrous Bellevue chemical fire took place. That was followed by an inquiry, as a result of which the government gave an undertaking that we would establish a process of including health in the assessment process for industrial projects in the state. The public health discussion paper that was released in 2005 was about the content of the new public health bill for Western Australia. It contained essentially two very important statements: firstly, strong policy support for looking at the health implications of industrial projects based on the fact that the World Health Organization had been advocating health impact assessments, like those advocated by the member for Swan Hills, as best practice public health strategy; and, secondly, the consultation that flowed from the discussion paper gave strong support for the incorporation of health impacts in the approval process. The drafting of a new public health bill, which we hope to introduce into Parliament, and certainly as a discussion bill out for public comment in the second half of this year, is proposed to include a head of power to enable health impact assessments to take place. We hope to have a discussion paper out for comment from industry and stakeholders so that we can look at all the issues associated with the inclusion of health impacts, such as those associated with hazardous waste disposal, the issue in Esperance, the Bellevue fire that I have already referred to, and perhaps even the closure of Brookdale, to mention a few that would have benefited enormously from the health impact assessment process. Our concern is not to impose a new approval process on the system, but to look at ways in which we can incorporate health impact assessments into the existing approval process. This would be completely consistent with the integrated project approval system, which the government has introduced over the past 18 months or two years, to ensure that projects can get their approvals, but all relevant factors are taken into account. As I have indicated, we do not wish to particularly create a new approval process, which would be a burden. However, we wish to make sure that we take health issues into account in looking at the impact of industrial proposals. I am looking forward to the consultation about how we can best make the health impact assessment process work and the outcomes of that consultation.
I think the member for Swan Hills is a prophet before her time. Members will remember that, if my memory serves me correctly, it was the week in which we came to government in 2001 that the disastrous Bellevue chemical fire took place. That was followed by an inquiry, as a result of which the government gave an undertaking that we would establish a process of including health in the assessment process for industrial projects in the state. The public health discussion paper that was released in 2005 was about the content of the new public health bill for Western Australia. It contained essentially two very important statements: firstly, strong policy support for looking at the health implications of industrial projects based on the fact that the World Health Organization had been advocating health impact assessments, like those advocated by the member for Swan Hills, as best practice public health strategy; and, secondly, the consultation that flowed from the discussion paper gave strong support for the incorporation of health impacts in the approval process. The drafting of a new public health bill, which we hope to introduce into Parliament, and certainly as a discussion bill out for public comment in the second half of this year, is proposed to include a head of power to enable health impact assessments to take place. We hope to have a discussion paper out for comment from industry and stakeholders so that we can look at all the issues associated with the inclusion of health impacts, such as those associated with hazardous waste disposal, the issue in Esperance, the Bellevue fire that I have already referred to, and perhaps even the closure of Brookdale, to mention a few that would have benefited enormously from the health impact assessment process. Our concern is not to impose a new approval process on the system, but to look at ways in which we can incorporate health impact assessments into the existing approval process. This would be completely consistent with the integrated project approval system, which the government has introduced over the past 18 months or two years, to ensure that projects can get their approvals, but all relevant factors are taken into account. As I have indicated, we do not wish to particularly create a new approval process, which would be a burden. However, we wish to make sure that we take health issues into account in looking at the impact of industrial proposals. I am looking forward to the consultation about how we can best make the health impact assessment process work and the outcomes of that consultation.
The drafting of a new public health bill, which we hope to introduce into Parliament, and certainly as a discussion bill out for public comment in the second half of this year, is proposed to include a head of power to enable health impact assessments to take place. We hope to have a discussion paper out for comment from industry and stakeholders so that we can look at all the issues associated with the inclusion of health impacts, such as those associated with hazardous waste disposal, the issue in Esperance, the Bellevue fire that I have already referred to, and perhaps even the closure of Brookdale, to mention a few that would have benefited enormously from the health impact assessment process. Our concern is not to impose a new approval process on the system, but to look at ways in which we can incorporate health impact assessments into the existing approval process. This would be completely consistent with the integrated project approval system, which the government has introduced over the past 18 months or two years, to ensure that projects can get their approvals, but all relevant factors are taken into account. As I have indicated, we do not wish to particularly create a new approval process, which would be a burden. However, we wish to make sure that we take health issues into account in looking at the impact of industrial proposals. I am looking forward to the consultation about how we can best make the health impact assessment process work and the outcomes of that consultation.
Dr S.C. Thomas : You mean it only took you six years; you have done very well! Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: I think the member for Swan Hills is a prophet before her time. Members will remember that, if my memory serves me correctly, it was the week in which we came to government in 2001 that the disastrous Bellevue chemical fire took place. That was followed by an inquiry, as a result of which the government gave an undertaking that we would establish a process of including health in the assessment process for industrial projects in the state. The public health discussion paper that was released in 2005 was about the content of the new public health bill for Western Australia. It contained essentially two very important statements: firstly, strong policy support for looking at the health implications of industrial projects based on the fact that the World Health Organization had been advocating health impact assessments, like those advocated by the member for Swan Hills, as best practice public health strategy; and, secondly, the consultation that flowed from the discussion paper gave strong support for the incorporation of health impacts in the approval process. The drafting of a new public health bill, which we hope to introduce into Parliament, and certainly as a discussion bill out for public comment in the second half of this year, is proposed to include a head of power to enable health impact assessments to take place. We hope to have a discussion paper out for comment from industry and stakeholders so that we can look at all the issues associated with the inclusion of health impacts, such as those associated with hazardous waste disposal, the issue in Esperance, the Bellevue fire that I have already referred to, and perhaps even the closure of Brookdale, to mention a few that would have benefited enormously from the health impact assessment process. Our concern is not to impose a new approval process on the system, but to look at ways in which we can incorporate health impact assessments into the existing approval process. This would be completely consistent with the integrated project approval system, which the government has introduced over the past 18 months or two years, to ensure that projects can get their approvals, but all relevant factors are taken into account. As I have indicated, we do not wish to particularly create a new approval process, which would be a burden. However, we wish to make sure that we take health issues into account in looking at the impact of industrial proposals. I am looking forward to the consultation about how we can best make the health impact assessment process work and the outcomes of that consultation.
Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: I think the member for Swan Hills is a prophet before her time. Members will remember that, if my memory serves me correctly, it was the week in which we came to government in 2001 that the disastrous Bellevue chemical fire took place. That was followed by an inquiry, as a result of which the government gave an undertaking that we would establish a process of including health in the assessment process for industrial projects in the state. The public health discussion paper that was released in 2005 was about the content of the new public health bill for Western Australia. It contained essentially two very important statements: firstly, strong policy support for looking at the health implications of industrial projects based on the fact that the World Health Organization had been advocating health impact assessments, like those advocated by the member for Swan Hills, as best practice public health strategy; and, secondly, the consultation that flowed from the discussion paper gave strong support for the incorporation of health impacts in the approval process. The drafting of a new public health bill, which we hope to introduce into Parliament, and certainly as a discussion bill out for public comment in the second half of this year, is proposed to include a head of power to enable health impact assessments to take place. We hope to have a discussion paper out for comment from industry and stakeholders so that we can look at all the issues associated with the inclusion of health impacts, such as those associated with hazardous waste disposal, the issue in Esperance, the Bellevue fire that I have already referred to, and perhaps even the closure of Brookdale, to mention a few that would have benefited enormously from the health impact assessment process. Our concern is not to impose a new approval process on the system, but to look at ways in which we can incorporate health impact assessments into the existing approval process. This would be completely consistent with the integrated project approval system, which the government has introduced over the past 18 months or two years, to ensure that projects can get their approvals, but all relevant factors are taken into account. As I have indicated, we do not wish to particularly create a new approval process, which would be a burden. However, we wish to make sure that we take health issues into account in looking at the impact of industrial proposals. I am looking forward to the consultation about how we can best make the health impact assessment process work and the outcomes of that consultation.
I think the member for Swan Hills is a prophet before her time. Members will remember that, if my memory serves me correctly, it was the week in which we came to government in 2001 that the disastrous Bellevue chemical fire took place. That was followed by an inquiry, as a result of which the government gave an undertaking that we would establish a process of including health in the assessment process for industrial projects in the state. The public health discussion paper that was released in 2005 was about the content of the new public health bill for Western Australia. It contained essentially two very important statements: firstly, strong policy support for looking at the health implications of industrial projects based on the fact that the World Health Organization had been advocating health impact assessments, like those advocated by the member for Swan Hills, as best practice public health strategy; and, secondly, the consultation that flowed from the discussion paper gave strong support for the incorporation of health impacts in the approval process. The drafting of a new public health bill, which we hope to introduce into Parliament, and certainly as a discussion bill out for public comment in the second half of this year, is proposed to include a head of power to enable health impact assessments to take place. We hope to have a discussion paper out for comment from industry and stakeholders so that we can look at all the issues associated with the inclusion of health impacts, such as those associated with hazardous waste disposal, the issue in Esperance, the Bellevue fire that I have already referred to, and perhaps even the closure of Brookdale, to mention a few that would have benefited enormously from the health impact assessment process. Our concern is not to impose a new approval process on the system, but to look at ways in which we can incorporate health impact assessments into the existing approval process. This would be completely consistent with the integrated project approval system, which the government has introduced over the past 18 months or two years, to ensure that projects can get their approvals, but all relevant factors are taken into account. As I have indicated, we do not wish to particularly create a new approval process, which would be a burden. However, we wish to make sure that we take health issues into account in looking at the impact of industrial proposals. I am looking forward to the consultation about how we can best make the health impact assessment process work and the outcomes of that consultation.
The drafting of a new public health bill, which we hope to introduce into Parliament, and certainly as a discussion bill out for public comment in the second half of this year, is proposed to include a head of power to enable health impact assessments to take place. We hope to have a discussion paper out for comment from industry and stakeholders so that we can look at all the issues associated with the inclusion of health impacts, such as those associated with hazardous waste disposal, the issue in Esperance, the Bellevue fire that I have already referred to, and perhaps even the closure of Brookdale, to mention a few that would have benefited enormously from the health impact assessment process. Our concern is not to impose a new approval process on the system, but to look at ways in which we can incorporate health impact assessments into the existing approval process. This would be completely consistent with the integrated project approval system, which the government has introduced over the past 18 months or two years, to ensure that projects can get their approvals, but all relevant factors are taken into account. As I have indicated, we do not wish to particularly create a new approval process, which would be a burden. However, we wish to make sure that we take health issues into account in looking at the impact of industrial proposals. I am looking forward to the consultation about how we can best make the health impact assessment process work and the outcomes of that consultation.
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.