❓ A WA parliamentary question on notice regarding the handling of hazardous waste at the Bellevue and Brookdale facilities. The question seeks to reconcile conflicting information and determine if the Brookdale site was properly assessed.
AnsweredQoN 578Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
Further to my question 361 of 19 September, it was stated in evidence to the parliamentary inquiry into the Waste Control Pty Ltd fire that the Bellevue hazardous waste facility was allowed to stay open because there was no viable option for handling hazardous waste. (1) How can the Minister for the Environment and Heritage reconcile this evidence with the answer given to my question 361 of 19 September that the Department of Environmental Protection advised that the Brookdale site was selected in 1998 for the management of hazardous waste in response to the clear community need for the safe treatment of such material? (2) Is it correct that the Brookdale site was not properly assessed for its suitability for handling hazardous waste prior to sending such waste to this facility? (3) If so, who was responsible for this decision? Hon TOM STEPHENS
AnswerView source ↗
I have an answer to the member’s question. I note that the preface to the question mentions evidence to a parliamentary inquiry. I presume that refers to a parliamentary inquiry in the other place. I will give the answer, but perhaps the President will give me advice at some stage in the future about whether that is the appropriate way for us to operate. (1) The Department of Environmental Protection has advised that the Waste Control Pty Ltd facility was the only facility in Western Australia with large capacity stills that enabled the treatment of certain solvent wastes. The facility was unable to treat all of Western Australia’s hazardous waste. As a community need existed, the Brookdale liquid waste treatment facility was selected for those other wastes. (2)-(3) These questions were answered in response to the questions without notice 352, dated 18 September 2001, and 361, dated 19 September 2001.
(1) How can the Minister for the Environment and Heritage reconcile this evidence with the answer given to my question 361 of 19 September that the Department of Environmental Protection advised that the Brookdale site was selected in 1998 for the management of hazardous waste in response to the clear community need for the safe treatment of such material? (2) Is it correct that the Brookdale site was not properly assessed for its suitability for handling hazardous waste prior to sending such waste to this facility? (3) If so, who was responsible for this decision? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I have an answer to the member’s question. I note that the preface to the question mentions evidence to a parliamentary inquiry. I presume that refers to a parliamentary inquiry in the other place. I will give the answer, but perhaps the President will give me advice at some stage in the future about whether that is the appropriate way for us to operate. (1) The Department of Environmental Protection has advised that the Waste Control Pty Ltd facility was the only facility in Western Australia with large capacity stills that enabled the treatment of certain solvent wastes. The facility was unable to treat all of Western Australia’s hazardous waste. As a community need existed, the Brookdale liquid waste treatment facility was selected for those other wastes. (2)-(3) These questions were answered in response to the questions without notice 352, dated 18 September 2001, and 361, dated 19 September 2001.
(2) Is it correct that the Brookdale site was not properly assessed for its suitability for handling hazardous waste prior to sending such waste to this facility? (3) If so, who was responsible for this decision? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I have an answer to the member’s question. I note that the preface to the question mentions evidence to a parliamentary inquiry. I presume that refers to a parliamentary inquiry in the other place. I will give the answer, but perhaps the President will give me advice at some stage in the future about whether that is the appropriate way for us to operate. (1) The Department of Environmental Protection has advised that the Waste Control Pty Ltd facility was the only facility in Western Australia with large capacity stills that enabled the treatment of certain solvent wastes. The facility was unable to treat all of Western Australia’s hazardous waste. As a community need existed, the Brookdale liquid waste treatment facility was selected for those other wastes. (2)-(3) These questions were answered in response to the questions without notice 352, dated 18 September 2001, and 361, dated 19 September 2001.
(3) If so, who was responsible for this decision? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I have an answer to the member’s question. I note that the preface to the question mentions evidence to a parliamentary inquiry. I presume that refers to a parliamentary inquiry in the other place. I will give the answer, but perhaps the President will give me advice at some stage in the future about whether that is the appropriate way for us to operate. (1) The Department of Environmental Protection has advised that the Waste Control Pty Ltd facility was the only facility in Western Australia with large capacity stills that enabled the treatment of certain solvent wastes. The facility was unable to treat all of Western Australia’s hazardous waste. As a community need existed, the Brookdale liquid waste treatment facility was selected for those other wastes. (2)-(3) These questions were answered in response to the questions without notice 352, dated 18 September 2001, and 361, dated 19 September 2001.
Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I have an answer to the member’s question. I note that the preface to the question mentions evidence to a parliamentary inquiry. I presume that refers to a parliamentary inquiry in the other place. I will give the answer, but perhaps the President will give me advice at some stage in the future about whether that is the appropriate way for us to operate. (1) The Department of Environmental Protection has advised that the Waste Control Pty Ltd facility was the only facility in Western Australia with large capacity stills that enabled the treatment of certain solvent wastes. The facility was unable to treat all of Western Australia’s hazardous waste. As a community need existed, the Brookdale liquid waste treatment facility was selected for those other wastes. (2)-(3) These questions were answered in response to the questions without notice 352, dated 18 September 2001, and 361, dated 19 September 2001.
I have an answer to the member’s question. I note that the preface to the question mentions evidence to a parliamentary inquiry. I presume that refers to a parliamentary inquiry in the other place. I will give the answer, but perhaps the President will give me advice at some stage in the future about whether that is the appropriate way for us to operate. (1) The Department of Environmental Protection has advised that the Waste Control Pty Ltd facility was the only facility in Western Australia with large capacity stills that enabled the treatment of certain solvent wastes. The facility was unable to treat all of Western Australia’s hazardous waste. As a community need existed, the Brookdale liquid waste treatment facility was selected for those other wastes. (2)-(3) These questions were answered in response to the questions without notice 352, dated 18 September 2001, and 361, dated 19 September 2001.
(1) The Department of Environmental Protection has advised that the Waste Control Pty Ltd facility was the only facility in Western Australia with large capacity stills that enabled the treatment of certain solvent wastes. The facility was unable to treat all of Western Australia’s hazardous waste. As a community need existed, the Brookdale liquid waste treatment facility was selected for those other wastes. (2)-(3) These questions were answered in response to the questions without notice 352, dated 18 September 2001, and 361, dated 19 September 2001.
(2)-(3) These questions were answered in response to the questions without notice 352, dated 18 September 2001, and 361, dated 19 September 2001.
(1) How can the Minister for the Environment and Heritage reconcile this evidence with the answer given to my question 361 of 19 September that the Department of Environmental Protection advised that the Brookdale site was selected in 1998 for the management of hazardous waste in response to the clear community need for the safe treatment of such material? (2) Is it correct that the Brookdale site was not properly assessed for its suitability for handling hazardous waste prior to sending such waste to this facility? (3) If so, who was responsible for this decision? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I have an answer to the member’s question. I note that the preface to the question mentions evidence to a parliamentary inquiry. I presume that refers to a parliamentary inquiry in the other place. I will give the answer, but perhaps the President will give me advice at some stage in the future about whether that is the appropriate way for us to operate. (1) The Department of Environmental Protection has advised that the Waste Control Pty Ltd facility was the only facility in Western Australia with large capacity stills that enabled the treatment of certain solvent wastes. The facility was unable to treat all of Western Australia’s hazardous waste. As a community need existed, the Brookdale liquid waste treatment facility was selected for those other wastes. (2)-(3) These questions were answered in response to the questions without notice 352, dated 18 September 2001, and 361, dated 19 September 2001.
(2) Is it correct that the Brookdale site was not properly assessed for its suitability for handling hazardous waste prior to sending such waste to this facility? (3) If so, who was responsible for this decision? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I have an answer to the member’s question. I note that the preface to the question mentions evidence to a parliamentary inquiry. I presume that refers to a parliamentary inquiry in the other place. I will give the answer, but perhaps the President will give me advice at some stage in the future about whether that is the appropriate way for us to operate. (1) The Department of Environmental Protection has advised that the Waste Control Pty Ltd facility was the only facility in Western Australia with large capacity stills that enabled the treatment of certain solvent wastes. The facility was unable to treat all of Western Australia’s hazardous waste. As a community need existed, the Brookdale liquid waste treatment facility was selected for those other wastes. (2)-(3) These questions were answered in response to the questions without notice 352, dated 18 September 2001, and 361, dated 19 September 2001.
(3) If so, who was responsible for this decision? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I have an answer to the member’s question. I note that the preface to the question mentions evidence to a parliamentary inquiry. I presume that refers to a parliamentary inquiry in the other place. I will give the answer, but perhaps the President will give me advice at some stage in the future about whether that is the appropriate way for us to operate. (1) The Department of Environmental Protection has advised that the Waste Control Pty Ltd facility was the only facility in Western Australia with large capacity stills that enabled the treatment of certain solvent wastes. The facility was unable to treat all of Western Australia’s hazardous waste. As a community need existed, the Brookdale liquid waste treatment facility was selected for those other wastes. (2)-(3) These questions were answered in response to the questions without notice 352, dated 18 September 2001, and 361, dated 19 September 2001.
Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I have an answer to the member’s question. I note that the preface to the question mentions evidence to a parliamentary inquiry. I presume that refers to a parliamentary inquiry in the other place. I will give the answer, but perhaps the President will give me advice at some stage in the future about whether that is the appropriate way for us to operate. (1) The Department of Environmental Protection has advised that the Waste Control Pty Ltd facility was the only facility in Western Australia with large capacity stills that enabled the treatment of certain solvent wastes. The facility was unable to treat all of Western Australia’s hazardous waste. As a community need existed, the Brookdale liquid waste treatment facility was selected for those other wastes. (2)-(3) These questions were answered in response to the questions without notice 352, dated 18 September 2001, and 361, dated 19 September 2001.
I have an answer to the member’s question. I note that the preface to the question mentions evidence to a parliamentary inquiry. I presume that refers to a parliamentary inquiry in the other place. I will give the answer, but perhaps the President will give me advice at some stage in the future about whether that is the appropriate way for us to operate. (1) The Department of Environmental Protection has advised that the Waste Control Pty Ltd facility was the only facility in Western Australia with large capacity stills that enabled the treatment of certain solvent wastes. The facility was unable to treat all of Western Australia’s hazardous waste. As a community need existed, the Brookdale liquid waste treatment facility was selected for those other wastes. (2)-(3) These questions were answered in response to the questions without notice 352, dated 18 September 2001, and 361, dated 19 September 2001.
(1) The Department of Environmental Protection has advised that the Waste Control Pty Ltd facility was the only facility in Western Australia with large capacity stills that enabled the treatment of certain solvent wastes. The facility was unable to treat all of Western Australia’s hazardous waste. As a community need existed, the Brookdale liquid waste treatment facility was selected for those other wastes. (2)-(3) These questions were answered in response to the questions without notice 352, dated 18 September 2001, and 361, dated 19 September 2001.
(2)-(3) These questions were answered in response to the questions without notice 352, dated 18 September 2001, and 361, dated 19 September 2001.
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.