❓ Hon Paul Llewellyn questions the Department of Environment regarding alleged double standards in enforcing environmental regulations, specifically comparing the treatment of Kalgoorlie Abrasive Services and KCGM concerning noise and sulphur dioxide emissions. The Minister confirms fines for the former and ongoing investigations for the latter.
AnsweredQoN 2583Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to questions on notice No. 601 of April 18 2002, Nos. 591, 588, 587, 589, 590, 592, 593 of April 17 2002, No. 1262 of September 19 2003, various newspaper articles which appeared in the
Kalgoorlie Miner
dated Thursday, April 28 2005 titled ‘Business a victim of double standards’, another newspaper article which appeared on page 13 in
The West Australian
on June 15 2002, concerning the Department of Environmental Protection alleged to be a toothless tiger over its failure to pursue KCGM -
(1) Is it correct that the business Kalgoorlie Abrasive Services was forced to pay $750 in fines and had to invest over $100,000 to establish a noise boundary?
(2) If no to (1), how much in fines did the business have to pay?
(3) Can the Minister explain how did the Department impose or bring about the fine?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) Can the Minister explain under what section of the
Environmental Protection Act 1986
quoting the specific text of what was alleged the business was in breach of when enforcement action was taken against Kalgoorlie Abrasive Blasting Services?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
(7) Can the Minister indicate when the Department of Environment in Kalgoorlie is finally going to prosecute KCGM at any of its premises for breaching any licence conditions, not monitoring for dust despite making commitments to, breaches of sulphur of dioxide levels to clearly demonstrate that the Department has changed its cultural attitude from negotiating with the alleged offender of
the
Environmental Protection Act 1986
and start consistently enforcing the law without double standards of enforcement being applied?
(8) If no to (7), why not?
(9) Will the Department of Environment prosecute Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mines Pty Ltd for breaching sulphur dioxide limits in May 2005 under the Environmental Protection Policy?
(10) If no to (9), why not?
(11) Has the definition of the environment in the answer for part 5 for question on notice No. 1262 of September 19 2003, changed under the
Environmental Protection Act 1986
?
(12) If yes to (11), can the Minister define and explain what it specifically has changed to?
(13) Is it correct that KCGM issued a press release dated May 30 2005 in relation to breaches of the sulphur dioxide levels under the Environmental Protection Policy which in part states ‘We are very sorry that this has occurred, and on behalf of KCGM I would like apologise for any inconvenience to Coolgardie residents for this event’?
(14) If no to (13), what is specifically stated in the KCGM press release dated May 30 2005?
Kalgoorlie Miner
dated Thursday, April 28 2005 titled ‘Business a victim of double standards’, another newspaper article which appeared on page 13 in
The West Australian
on June 15 2002, concerning the Department of Environmental Protection alleged to be a toothless tiger over its failure to pursue KCGM -
(1) Is it correct that the business Kalgoorlie Abrasive Services was forced to pay $750 in fines and had to invest over $100,000 to establish a noise boundary?
(2) If no to (1), how much in fines did the business have to pay?
(3) Can the Minister explain how did the Department impose or bring about the fine?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) Can the Minister explain under what section of the
Environmental Protection Act 1986
quoting the specific text of what was alleged the business was in breach of when enforcement action was taken against Kalgoorlie Abrasive Blasting Services?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
(7) Can the Minister indicate when the Department of Environment in Kalgoorlie is finally going to prosecute KCGM at any of its premises for breaching any licence conditions, not monitoring for dust despite making commitments to, breaches of sulphur of dioxide levels to clearly demonstrate that the Department has changed its cultural attitude from negotiating with the alleged offender of
the
Environmental Protection Act 1986
and start consistently enforcing the law without double standards of enforcement being applied?
(8) If no to (7), why not?
(9) Will the Department of Environment prosecute Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mines Pty Ltd for breaching sulphur dioxide limits in May 2005 under the Environmental Protection Policy?
(10) If no to (9), why not?
(11) Has the definition of the environment in the answer for part 5 for question on notice No. 1262 of September 19 2003, changed under the
Environmental Protection Act 1986
?
(12) If yes to (11), can the Minister define and explain what it specifically has changed to?
(13) Is it correct that KCGM issued a press release dated May 30 2005 in relation to breaches of the sulphur dioxide levels under the Environmental Protection Policy which in part states ‘We are very sorry that this has occurred, and on behalf of KCGM I would like apologise for any inconvenience to Coolgardie residents for this event’?
(14) If no to (13), what is specifically stated in the KCGM press release dated May 30 2005?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
11 October 2005
Responded by
Minister for Education and Training representing the Minister for the Environment
Response time
40 days
The Minister for the Environment; Science has provided the following response: (1) The Department of Environment has issued two infringement notices to Kalgoorlie Abrasive Blasting Services Pty Ltd for a total of $750. The Department of Environment understands that Kalgoorlie Abrasive Blasting Services are seeking City of Kalgoorlie Boulder approval for a new shed at their Pauley Court premises to ensure they are compliant with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1987 . (2) Not applicable. (3) The Department of Environment undertook an investigation into Kalgoorlie Abrasive Blasting Services following a number of noise complaints from February 2004 through to February 2005. These investigations included sound measurements at the complainant's premises. A number of these sound measurements were in excess of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1987 . Following the issue of a warning in March 2004 the Department of Environment issued two infringement notices, one for $250 in August 2004 and the second for $500 in November 2004. A further warning was issued in February 2005 following another noise complaint, at which time Kalgoorlie Abrasive Blasting Services committed to several initiatives to bring them into compliance with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1987. (4) Not applicable. (5) The infringement notices were issued as an alleged breach of Section 7(1) of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1987 , which states: "Noise emitted from any premises or public place when received at other premises (a) must not cause, or significantly contribute to, a level of noise which exceeds the assigned level in respect of noise received at a premise of that king; and (b) must be free of - (i) tonality (ii) impulsiveness; and (iii) modulation, when assessed under regulation 9." (6) Not applicable. (7) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the Department of Environment investigation into this event is ongoing. (8) Not applicable. (9) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the Department of Environment investigation into this event is ongoing. (10) Not applicable. (11) No. (12) Not applicable. (13) Yes. (14) Not applicable.
(1) The Department of Environment has issued two infringement notices to Kalgoorlie Abrasive Blasting Services Pty Ltd for a total of $750. The Department of Environment understands that Kalgoorlie Abrasive Blasting Services are seeking City of Kalgoorlie Boulder approval for a new shed at their Pauley Court premises to ensure they are compliant with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1987 . (2) Not applicable. (3) The Department of Environment undertook an investigation into Kalgoorlie Abrasive Blasting Services following a number of noise complaints from February 2004 through to February 2005. These investigations included sound measurements at the complainant's premises. A number of these sound measurements were in excess of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1987 . Following the issue of a warning in March 2004 the Department of Environment issued two infringement notices, one for $250 in August 2004 and the second for $500 in November 2004. A further warning was issued in February 2005 following another noise complaint, at which time Kalgoorlie Abrasive Blasting Services committed to several initiatives to bring them into compliance with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1987. (4) Not applicable. (5) The infringement notices were issued as an alleged breach of Section 7(1) of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1987 , which states: "Noise emitted from any premises or public place when received at other premises (a) must not cause, or significantly contribute to, a level of noise which exceeds the assigned level in respect of noise received at a premise of that king; and (b) must be free of - (i) tonality (ii) impulsiveness; and (iii) modulation, when assessed under regulation 9." (6) Not applicable. (7) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the Department of Environment investigation into this event is ongoing. (8) Not applicable. (9) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the Department of Environment investigation into this event is ongoing. (10) Not applicable. (11) No. (12) Not applicable. (13) Yes. (14) Not applicable.
(2) Not applicable. (3) The Department of Environment undertook an investigation into Kalgoorlie Abrasive Blasting Services following a number of noise complaints from February 2004 through to February 2005. These investigations included sound measurements at the complainant's premises. A number of these sound measurements were in excess of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1987 . Following the issue of a warning in March 2004 the Department of Environment issued two infringement notices, one for $250 in August 2004 and the second for $500 in November 2004. A further warning was issued in February 2005 following another noise complaint, at which time Kalgoorlie Abrasive Blasting Services committed to several initiatives to bring them into compliance with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1987. (4) Not applicable. (5) The infringement notices were issued as an alleged breach of Section 7(1) of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1987 , which states: "Noise emitted from any premises or public place when received at other premises (a) must not cause, or significantly contribute to, a level of noise which exceeds the assigned level in respect of noise received at a premise of that king; and (b) must be free of - (i) tonality (ii) impulsiveness; and (iii) modulation, when assessed under regulation 9." (6) Not applicable. (7) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the Department of Environment investigation into this event is ongoing. (8) Not applicable. (9) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the Department of Environment investigation into this event is ongoing. (10) Not applicable. (11) No. (12) Not applicable. (13) Yes. (14) Not applicable.
(3) The Department of Environment undertook an investigation into Kalgoorlie Abrasive Blasting Services following a number of noise complaints from February 2004 through to February 2005. These investigations included sound measurements at the complainant's premises. A number of these sound measurements were in excess of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1987 . Following the issue of a warning in March 2004 the Department of Environment issued two infringement notices, one for $250 in August 2004 and the second for $500 in November 2004. A further warning was issued in February 2005 following another noise complaint, at which time Kalgoorlie Abrasive Blasting Services committed to several initiatives to bring them into compliance with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1987. (4) Not applicable. (5) The infringement notices were issued as an alleged breach of Section 7(1) of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1987 , which states: "Noise emitted from any premises or public place when received at other premises (a) must not cause, or significantly contribute to, a level of noise which exceeds the assigned level in respect of noise received at a premise of that king; and (b) must be free of - (i) tonality (ii) impulsiveness; and (iii) modulation, when assessed under regulation 9." (6) Not applicable. (7) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the Department of Environment investigation into this event is ongoing. (8) Not applicable. (9) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the Department of Environment investigation into this event is ongoing. (10) Not applicable. (11) No. (12) Not applicable. (13) Yes. (14) Not applicable.
(4) Not applicable. (5) The infringement notices were issued as an alleged breach of Section 7(1) of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1987 , which states: "Noise emitted from any premises or public place when received at other premises (a) must not cause, or significantly contribute to, a level of noise which exceeds the assigned level in respect of noise received at a premise of that king; and (b) must be free of - (i) tonality (ii) impulsiveness; and (iii) modulation, when assessed under regulation 9." (6) Not applicable. (7) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the Department of Environment investigation into this event is ongoing. (8) Not applicable. (9) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the Department of Environment investigation into this event is ongoing. (10) Not applicable. (11) No. (12) Not applicable. (13) Yes. (14) Not applicable.
(5) The infringement notices were issued as an alleged breach of Section 7(1) of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1987 , which states: "Noise emitted from any premises or public place when received at other premises (a) must not cause, or significantly contribute to, a level of noise which exceeds the assigned level in respect of noise received at a premise of that king; and (b) must be free of - (i) tonality (ii) impulsiveness; and (iii) modulation, when assessed under regulation 9." (6) Not applicable. (7) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the Department of Environment investigation into this event is ongoing. (8) Not applicable. (9) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the Department of Environment investigation into this event is ongoing. (10) Not applicable. (11) No. (12) Not applicable. (13) Yes. (14) Not applicable.
(a) must not cause, or significantly contribute to, a level of noise which exceeds the assigned level in respect of noise received at a premise of that king; and (b) must be free of - (i) tonality (ii) impulsiveness; and (iii) modulation, when assessed under regulation 9." (6) Not applicable. (7) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the Department of Environment investigation into this event is ongoing. (8) Not applicable. (9) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the Department of Environment investigation into this event is ongoing. (10) Not applicable. (11) No. (12) Not applicable. (13) Yes. (14) Not applicable.
(b) must be free of - (i) tonality (ii) impulsiveness; and (iii) modulation, when assessed under regulation 9." (6) Not applicable. (7) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the Department of Environment investigation into this event is ongoing. (8) Not applicable. (9) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the Department of Environment investigation into this event is ongoing. (10) Not applicable. (11) No. (12) Not applicable. (13) Yes. (14) Not applicable.
(6) Not applicable. (7) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the Department of Environment investigation into this event is ongoing. (8) Not applicable. (9) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the Department of Environment investigation into this event is ongoing. (10) Not applicable. (11) No. (12) Not applicable. (13) Yes. (14) Not applicable.
(7) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the Department of Environment investigation into this event is ongoing. (8) Not applicable. (9) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the Department of Environment investigation into this event is ongoing. (10) Not applicable. (11) No. (12) Not applicable. (13) Yes. (14) Not applicable.
(8) Not applicable. (9) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the Department of Environment investigation into this event is ongoing. (10) Not applicable. (11) No. (12) Not applicable. (13) Yes. (14) Not applicable.
(9) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the Department of Environment investigation into this event is ongoing. (10) Not applicable. (11) No. (12) Not applicable. (13) Yes. (14) Not applicable.
(10) Not applicable. (11) No. (12) Not applicable. (13) Yes. (14) Not applicable.
(11) No. (12) Not applicable. (13) Yes. (14) Not applicable.
(12) Not applicable. (13) Yes. (14) Not applicable.
(13) Yes. (14) Not applicable.
(14) Not applicable.
(1) The Department of Environment has issued two infringement notices to Kalgoorlie Abrasive Blasting Services Pty Ltd for a total of $750. The Department of Environment understands that Kalgoorlie Abrasive Blasting Services are seeking City of Kalgoorlie Boulder approval for a new shed at their Pauley Court premises to ensure they are compliant with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1987 . (2) Not applicable. (3) The Department of Environment undertook an investigation into Kalgoorlie Abrasive Blasting Services following a number of noise complaints from February 2004 through to February 2005. These investigations included sound measurements at the complainant's premises. A number of these sound measurements were in excess of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1987 . Following the issue of a warning in March 2004 the Department of Environment issued two infringement notices, one for $250 in August 2004 and the second for $500 in November 2004. A further warning was issued in February 2005 following another noise complaint, at which time Kalgoorlie Abrasive Blasting Services committed to several initiatives to bring them into compliance with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1987. (4) Not applicable. (5) The infringement notices were issued as an alleged breach of Section 7(1) of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1987 , which states: "Noise emitted from any premises or public place when received at other premises (a) must not cause, or significantly contribute to, a level of noise which exceeds the assigned level in respect of noise received at a premise of that king; and (b) must be free of - (i) tonality (ii) impulsiveness; and (iii) modulation, when assessed under regulation 9." (6) Not applicable. (7) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the Department of Environment investigation into this event is ongoing. (8) Not applicable. (9) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the Department of Environment investigation into this event is ongoing. (10) Not applicable. (11) No. (12) Not applicable. (13) Yes. (14) Not applicable.
(2) Not applicable. (3) The Department of Environment undertook an investigation into Kalgoorlie Abrasive Blasting Services following a number of noise complaints from February 2004 through to February 2005. These investigations included sound measurements at the complainant's premises. A number of these sound measurements were in excess of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1987 . Following the issue of a warning in March 2004 the Department of Environment issued two infringement notices, one for $250 in August 2004 and the second for $500 in November 2004. A further warning was issued in February 2005 following another noise complaint, at which time Kalgoorlie Abrasive Blasting Services committed to several initiatives to bring them into compliance with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1987. (4) Not applicable. (5) The infringement notices were issued as an alleged breach of Section 7(1) of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1987 , which states: "Noise emitted from any premises or public place when received at other premises (a) must not cause, or significantly contribute to, a level of noise which exceeds the assigned level in respect of noise received at a premise of that king; and (b) must be free of - (i) tonality (ii) impulsiveness; and (iii) modulation, when assessed under regulation 9." (6) Not applicable. (7) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the Department of Environment investigation into this event is ongoing. (8) Not applicable. (9) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the Department of Environment investigation into this event is ongoing. (10) Not applicable. (11) No. (12) Not applicable. (13) Yes. (14) Not applicable.
(3) The Department of Environment undertook an investigation into Kalgoorlie Abrasive Blasting Services following a number of noise complaints from February 2004 through to February 2005. These investigations included sound measurements at the complainant's premises. A number of these sound measurements were in excess of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1987 . Following the issue of a warning in March 2004 the Department of Environment issued two infringement notices, one for $250 in August 2004 and the second for $500 in November 2004. A further warning was issued in February 2005 following another noise complaint, at which time Kalgoorlie Abrasive Blasting Services committed to several initiatives to bring them into compliance with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1987. (4) Not applicable. (5) The infringement notices were issued as an alleged breach of Section 7(1) of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1987 , which states: "Noise emitted from any premises or public place when received at other premises (a) must not cause, or significantly contribute to, a level of noise which exceeds the assigned level in respect of noise received at a premise of that king; and (b) must be free of - (i) tonality (ii) impulsiveness; and (iii) modulation, when assessed under regulation 9." (6) Not applicable. (7) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the Department of Environment investigation into this event is ongoing. (8) Not applicable. (9) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the Department of Environment investigation into this event is ongoing. (10) Not applicable. (11) No. (12) Not applicable. (13) Yes. (14) Not applicable.
(4) Not applicable. (5) The infringement notices were issued as an alleged breach of Section 7(1) of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1987 , which states: "Noise emitted from any premises or public place when received at other premises (a) must not cause, or significantly contribute to, a level of noise which exceeds the assigned level in respect of noise received at a premise of that king; and (b) must be free of - (i) tonality (ii) impulsiveness; and (iii) modulation, when assessed under regulation 9." (6) Not applicable. (7) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the Department of Environment investigation into this event is ongoing. (8) Not applicable. (9) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the Department of Environment investigation into this event is ongoing. (10) Not applicable. (11) No. (12) Not applicable. (13) Yes. (14) Not applicable.
(5) The infringement notices were issued as an alleged breach of Section 7(1) of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1987 , which states: "Noise emitted from any premises or public place when received at other premises (a) must not cause, or significantly contribute to, a level of noise which exceeds the assigned level in respect of noise received at a premise of that king; and (b) must be free of - (i) tonality (ii) impulsiveness; and (iii) modulation, when assessed under regulation 9." (6) Not applicable. (7) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the Department of Environment investigation into this event is ongoing. (8) Not applicable. (9) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the Department of Environment investigation into this event is ongoing. (10) Not applicable. (11) No. (12) Not applicable. (13) Yes. (14) Not applicable.
(a) must not cause, or significantly contribute to, a level of noise which exceeds the assigned level in respect of noise received at a premise of that king; and (b) must be free of - (i) tonality (ii) impulsiveness; and (iii) modulation, when assessed under regulation 9." (6) Not applicable. (7) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the Department of Environment investigation into this event is ongoing. (8) Not applicable. (9) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the Department of Environment investigation into this event is ongoing. (10) Not applicable. (11) No. (12) Not applicable. (13) Yes. (14) Not applicable.
(b) must be free of - (i) tonality (ii) impulsiveness; and (iii) modulation, when assessed under regulation 9." (6) Not applicable. (7) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the Department of Environment investigation into this event is ongoing. (8) Not applicable. (9) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the Department of Environment investigation into this event is ongoing. (10) Not applicable. (11) No. (12) Not applicable. (13) Yes. (14) Not applicable.
(6) Not applicable. (7) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the Department of Environment investigation into this event is ongoing. (8) Not applicable. (9) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the Department of Environment investigation into this event is ongoing. (10) Not applicable. (11) No. (12) Not applicable. (13) Yes. (14) Not applicable.
(7) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the Department of Environment investigation into this event is ongoing. (8) Not applicable. (9) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the Department of Environment investigation into this event is ongoing. (10) Not applicable. (11) No. (12) Not applicable. (13) Yes. (14) Not applicable.
(8) Not applicable. (9) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the Department of Environment investigation into this event is ongoing. (10) Not applicable. (11) No. (12) Not applicable. (13) Yes. (14) Not applicable.
(9) It is not appropriate for me to comment, as the Department of Environment investigation into this event is ongoing. (10) Not applicable. (11) No. (12) Not applicable. (13) Yes. (14) Not applicable.
(10) Not applicable. (11) No. (12) Not applicable. (13) Yes. (14) Not applicable.
(11) No. (12) Not applicable. (13) Yes. (14) Not applicable.
(12) Not applicable. (13) Yes. (14) Not applicable.
(13) Yes. (14) Not applicable.
(14) Not applicable.
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.