❓ A parliamentary question on notice regarding the hygiene and sanitation conditions at the Barrick Kanowna Raleigh underground mine, specifically concerning toilet facilities and their impact on employee health and safety. The response details actions taken and clarifies the Department's awareness and involvement.
AnsweredQoN 2515Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the Barrick Kanowna Raleigh underground operations, and question on notice No. 2275, asked on 20 April 2010, and ask -
(1) In light of the answer provided in parts (1) to (4) in question on notice No. 2275, is the Minister or Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP) aware, that there were only two toilets in the underground mine at Raleigh, when this photograph was taken, that this particular toilet depicted in the photograph was expected to service the crib room, and that the cleanliness and hygiene of the other underground toilet in the mine, was also unacceptable for use by the employees for obvious occupational health reasons?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) In light of (1), is the Minister aware that a journey in a light vehicle from the bottom of the mine to toilets on the surface could take in the vicinity of around 50 minutes, given that a person could be stuck behind a truck, that would not get out of the way to let a light vehicle that was behind it get past?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) In light of (1) and (3), can the Minister state what an employee in the Raleigh underground mine, especially a female employee who would obviously have more complications than a male employee in certain circumstances, was expected to do when they needed to use a toilet facility?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
(7) Can the Minister explain and define specifically all known risks to occupational health, and all possible problems posed otherwise to all underground employees both male and female, in light of the answer provided in parts (1) to (4) in question on notice No. 2275?
(8) If no to (7), why not?
(9) In light of (1), (3), (5) and (7), is the Minister or the DMP aware that some employees, in desperate situations are not prepared to use the underground toilet facilities provided by the management of the Raleigh mine for obvious reasons, were forced to resort to defecating in a rag and storing this in a plastic bag, so that it could be transported out of the mine and disposed of in an appropriate manner at the finish of a 12 hour shift, as a result of the circumstances imposed on them by conditions alluded to in (1) and (3)?
(10) If no to (9), why not?
(11) Given that there were females working in the mine, at the time of the photograph referred to in question on notice No. 2275 was taken, is the Minister aware of any measures taken at the mine, to cater for these workers during times of menstruation and for weak bladders contributed to by child birth?
(12) If no to (11), why not?
(13) In light of the answer provided for parts (1) to (4) in question on notice No. 2275, can the Minister state what specific improvements were made to rectify the hygiene and cleanliness standard, previously held by the management of the mine?
(14) If no to (13), why not?
(15) Can the Minister explain why it is considered to be necessary improvements, on what was previously in place for both toilets and hand wash facilities provided at the toilet?
(16) If no to (15), why not?
(17) On what specific date did DMP inspectors attend the Raleigh mine site in response to a complaint, concerning these toilets?
(18) Had these breaches concerning the toilets been in fact rectified before the DMP inspectorate carried out an investigation in response to a complaint?
(19) If yes to (18), on what specific date were they rectified?
(20) In light of (1), (3), (5), (7) and (9), and the answer provided in part (5) in question on notice No. 2275, will the resident Manager, or any other responsible person, be prosecuted for breaches of Regulations 7.12, 7.13 and 7.14 of the
Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1994 and Regulations 1995,
or for any other breaches of
Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1994 and Regulations 1995
?
(21) If no to (20), why not?
(1) In light of the answer provided in parts (1) to (4) in question on notice No. 2275, is the Minister or Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP) aware, that there were only two toilets in the underground mine at Raleigh, when this photograph was taken, that this particular toilet depicted in the photograph was expected to service the crib room, and that the cleanliness and hygiene of the other underground toilet in the mine, was also unacceptable for use by the employees for obvious occupational health reasons?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) In light of (1), is the Minister aware that a journey in a light vehicle from the bottom of the mine to toilets on the surface could take in the vicinity of around 50 minutes, given that a person could be stuck behind a truck, that would not get out of the way to let a light vehicle that was behind it get past?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) In light of (1) and (3), can the Minister state what an employee in the Raleigh underground mine, especially a female employee who would obviously have more complications than a male employee in certain circumstances, was expected to do when they needed to use a toilet facility?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
(7) Can the Minister explain and define specifically all known risks to occupational health, and all possible problems posed otherwise to all underground employees both male and female, in light of the answer provided in parts (1) to (4) in question on notice No. 2275?
(8) If no to (7), why not?
(9) In light of (1), (3), (5) and (7), is the Minister or the DMP aware that some employees, in desperate situations are not prepared to use the underground toilet facilities provided by the management of the Raleigh mine for obvious reasons, were forced to resort to defecating in a rag and storing this in a plastic bag, so that it could be transported out of the mine and disposed of in an appropriate manner at the finish of a 12 hour shift, as a result of the circumstances imposed on them by conditions alluded to in (1) and (3)?
(10) If no to (9), why not?
(11) Given that there were females working in the mine, at the time of the photograph referred to in question on notice No. 2275 was taken, is the Minister aware of any measures taken at the mine, to cater for these workers during times of menstruation and for weak bladders contributed to by child birth?
(12) If no to (11), why not?
(13) In light of the answer provided for parts (1) to (4) in question on notice No. 2275, can the Minister state what specific improvements were made to rectify the hygiene and cleanliness standard, previously held by the management of the mine?
(14) If no to (13), why not?
(15) Can the Minister explain why it is considered to be necessary improvements, on what was previously in place for both toilets and hand wash facilities provided at the toilet?
(16) If no to (15), why not?
(17) On what specific date did DMP inspectors attend the Raleigh mine site in response to a complaint, concerning these toilets?
(18) Had these breaches concerning the toilets been in fact rectified before the DMP inspectorate carried out an investigation in response to a complaint?
(19) If yes to (18), on what specific date were they rectified?
(20) In light of (1), (3), (5), (7) and (9), and the answer provided in part (5) in question on notice No. 2275, will the resident Manager, or any other responsible person, be prosecuted for breaches of Regulations 7.12, 7.13 and 7.14 of the
Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1994 and Regulations 1995,
or for any other breaches of
Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1994 and Regulations 1995
?
(21) If no to (20), why not?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
10 August 2010
Responded by
Minister for Mines and Petroleum
Response time
54 days
(1) There were two electric toilets underground at the Raleigh mine at the time. The two electric toilets have been replaced by two chemical toilets. The problems experienced with the electric toilets are no longer an issue.
(2) Not applicable
(3) The Department does not dispute that in certain circumstances, such a journey could take 50 minutes.
(4) Not applicable
(5) As I have previously stated, I believe that all mine workers should he provided with suitable hygienic sanitation facilities. These facilities should be readily available at all times.
(6) Not applicable
(7) No
(8) The principal health risks from unhygienic and unsanitary facilities are well known.
(9) No
(10) No complaints have been made to the Department by employees to indicate that this has occurred. If such practice did occur, it is deplorable and I would expect the mine operator to take immediate action to rectify the situation.
(11) No
(12) The Department is not aware of any special measures taken to cater for workers during times of menstruation or for weak bladders contributed to by childbirth. Recent inspections by the Department indicate the toilets were in a usable state.
(13) Following the problems encountered with the underground electric toilets, two temporary portable toilets were installed underground until the electric toilets could be replaced.
(14) Not applicable
(15) The two new chemical toilets installed underground are simpler to use compared to the previous electric toilets.
(16) Not applicable
(17) The Department of Mines and Petroleum's inspectors did not receive a complaint from employees at the mine concerning the underground toilets. The Senior Inspector of Mines received a report from the Hon Helen Bullock MLC Mining and Pastoral. The report alleged a number of poor conditions at the Raleigh Mine. As a response the District Inspector of Mines inspected the areas of concern on 8 March 2010.
(18) Yes. Two portable toilets had been installed underground at the time of the inspection.
(19) The Department does not have a record of the date on which the temporary toilets were installed.
(20) No
(21) No breaches of the
Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1994
and Regulations 1995 relating to these matters were observed during the inspection of 8 March 2010.
Notice: This document is created or edited using unregistered or evaluation copy of rtLib valid for testing or development purposes only. To use it for productive or any other purposes please register it. You may purchase the license on
http://www.rtlib.com
(2) Not applicable
(3) The Department does not dispute that in certain circumstances, such a journey could take 50 minutes.
(4) Not applicable
(5) As I have previously stated, I believe that all mine workers should he provided with suitable hygienic sanitation facilities. These facilities should be readily available at all times.
(6) Not applicable
(7) No
(8) The principal health risks from unhygienic and unsanitary facilities are well known.
(9) No
(10) No complaints have been made to the Department by employees to indicate that this has occurred. If such practice did occur, it is deplorable and I would expect the mine operator to take immediate action to rectify the situation.
(11) No
(12) The Department is not aware of any special measures taken to cater for workers during times of menstruation or for weak bladders contributed to by childbirth. Recent inspections by the Department indicate the toilets were in a usable state.
(13) Following the problems encountered with the underground electric toilets, two temporary portable toilets were installed underground until the electric toilets could be replaced.
(14) Not applicable
(15) The two new chemical toilets installed underground are simpler to use compared to the previous electric toilets.
(16) Not applicable
(17) The Department of Mines and Petroleum's inspectors did not receive a complaint from employees at the mine concerning the underground toilets. The Senior Inspector of Mines received a report from the Hon Helen Bullock MLC Mining and Pastoral. The report alleged a number of poor conditions at the Raleigh Mine. As a response the District Inspector of Mines inspected the areas of concern on 8 March 2010.
(18) Yes. Two portable toilets had been installed underground at the time of the inspection.
(19) The Department does not have a record of the date on which the temporary toilets were installed.
(20) No
(21) No breaches of the
Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1994
and Regulations 1995 relating to these matters were observed during the inspection of 8 March 2010.
Notice: This document is created or edited using unregistered or evaluation copy of rtLib valid for testing or development purposes only. To use it for productive or any other purposes please register it. You may purchase the license on
http://www.rtlib.com
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.