❓ A parliamentary question regarding the lack of communication between the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) and the Department of Health (DOH) concerning alarming medical results of children with high levels of heavy metals in the Goldfields region. The answer reveals a delay in communication and clarifies the EPA's role.
AnsweredQoN 5793Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the Review of the Environmental Protection (Goldfields Residential Areas) (Sulfur Dioxide) Policy and the Analysis of Submissions at —
http://www.epa.wa.gov.au/epadoclib/AnalysisofSubmissions_EPAWebsite_2.pdf
, in particular 'Issue 14. Health Issues. Comment: Alarming medical results of children with high levels of heavy metals (cadmium, mercury, lead, aluminium and Barium) six times the acceptable reference range. Response to other Issues Department of Health to conduct epidemiological studies alongside the suggested monitoring from DEC, industry and local government.' and my previous question on notice No. 5265 and your answer No. 5, and I ask —
(1) Has the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) advised the Department of Health (DOH) of the concerns expressed in Issue 14 and the subsequent 'Response to other issues Department of Health to conduct epidemiological studies alongside the suggested monitoring from DEC, industry and local government.'?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) If no to (1), when will DEC advise DOH?
(4) If yes to (1), when was DOH advised?
http://www.epa.wa.gov.au/epadoclib/AnalysisofSubmissions_EPAWebsite_2.pdf
, in particular 'Issue 14. Health Issues. Comment: Alarming medical results of children with high levels of heavy metals (cadmium, mercury, lead, aluminium and Barium) six times the acceptable reference range. Response to other Issues Department of Health to conduct epidemiological studies alongside the suggested monitoring from DEC, industry and local government.' and my previous question on notice No. 5265 and your answer No. 5, and I ask —
(1) Has the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) advised the Department of Health (DOH) of the concerns expressed in Issue 14 and the subsequent 'Response to other issues Department of Health to conduct epidemiological studies alongside the suggested monitoring from DEC, industry and local government.'?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) If no to (1), when will DEC advise DOH?
(4) If yes to (1), when was DOH advised?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
18 September 2012
Responded by
Minister for Mental Health representing the Minister for Environment
Response time
35 days
(1) No
(2) - (4) The Review of the Environmental Protection (Goldfields Residential Areas) (Sulfur Dioxide) Policy was the responsibility of the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), which published a summary of submissions received in 2010, including the comment to which the Hon Member refers.
This submission was made by a member of the public and included no supporting evidence.
The EPA, in considering this and some other submissions, concluded that the matters raised were not within the scope of the Environmental Protection Policy. It formed the view that the broader issues raised in the public submissions could be further investigated by relevant agencies as necessary, in the development of an Air Quality Management Plan for the region.
The Office of the EPA did not provide written advice to the Department of Health about these matters, including the full submissions, when the EPA concluded its review. It has since done so, in December 2011.
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) - (4) The Review of the Environmental Protection (Goldfields Residential Areas) (Sulfur Dioxide) Policy was the responsibility of the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), which published a summary of submissions received in 2010, including the comment to which the Hon Member refers.
This submission was made by a member of the public and included no supporting evidence.
The EPA, in considering this and some other submissions, concluded that the matters raised were not within the scope of the Environmental Protection Policy. It formed the view that the broader issues raised in the public submissions could be further investigated by relevant agencies as necessary, in the development of an Air Quality Management Plan for the region.
The Office of the EPA did not provide written advice to the Department of Health about these matters, including the full submissions, when the EPA concluded its review. It has since done so, in December 2011.
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.