❓ A WA parliamentary question seeks details regarding an environmental breach by Goodchilds Abattoir, including the specific licence conditions breached, justification for the conditions, potential environmental harm, distance to a CALM reserve, and the penalty imposed. The Minister provides detailed answers, including the specific licence condition, the rationale behind it, and the penalty amount.
AnsweredQoN 3210Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to media statement dated Wednesday November 2 2005, titled ‘South West abattoir charged with environmental breach’ -
(1) Can the Minister quote the specific text of the licence conditions that the abattoir was alleged to have breached?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) Can the Minister explain why it was necessary by way of licence conditions to prevent waste matter and cattle faeces from flowing into a neighbouring Department of Conservation and Land Management (CALM) Reserve?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) Can the Minister explain how waste matter from stock holding yards flowing onto the neighbouring CALM reserve causes pollution or environmental harm?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
(7) Can the Minister state the distance in metres that the CALM Reserve is located from the premises boundaries of the abattoir?
(8) If no to (7), why not?
(9) Will the Minister table a copy of the licence conditions for the abattoir?
(10) If no to (9), why not?
(11) Can the Minister indicate how much of a penalty was imposed on the abattoir for breaching licence conditions?
(12) If no to (11), why not?
(1) Can the Minister quote the specific text of the licence conditions that the abattoir was alleged to have breached?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) Can the Minister explain why it was necessary by way of licence conditions to prevent waste matter and cattle faeces from flowing into a neighbouring Department of Conservation and Land Management (CALM) Reserve?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) Can the Minister explain how waste matter from stock holding yards flowing onto the neighbouring CALM reserve causes pollution or environmental harm?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
(7) Can the Minister state the distance in metres that the CALM Reserve is located from the premises boundaries of the abattoir?
(8) If no to (7), why not?
(9) Will the Minister table a copy of the licence conditions for the abattoir?
(10) If no to (9), why not?
(11) Can the Minister indicate how much of a penalty was imposed on the abattoir for breaching licence conditions?
(12) If no to (11), why not?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
14 March 2006
Responded by
Minister for Education and Training representing the Minister for the Environment
Response time
103 days
The Minister for the Environment; Science has provided the following response: The following information is correct as at 16 January 2006. (1) The condition to which Goodchilds Abattoir pleaded guilty, was Condition W5 of Licence number 5423/06. Condition W5 states "The Licensee shall maintain bunding around all lairage areas to contain and direct contaminated water to the waste water treatment ponds." (2) Not applicable. (3) The condition is designed to minimise the likelihood of pollution occurring or there being off site environmental impacts from the abattoir. While off site pollution needs to be managed regardless of the condition of the surrounding environment, CALM provided advice that the reserve in question contains flora and fauna of conservation significance and a wetland that is considered of conservation significance. Waste matter and cattle faeces were identified as a potential to cause eutrophication of the wetland and spread weed species through the reserve. Therefore, the licence condition is designed to minimise the likelihood of off site pollution in its own right, and more specifically, is intended to protect the biological diversity in the CALM reserve. (4) Not applicable. (5) No. (6) There was no allegation of pollution or environmental harm in this case. Licence Condition W5 requires that bunding is maintained around all lairage areas. It is this condition to which Goodchild pleaded guilty as being non-compliant under Section 58(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 . (7) The CALM Reserve and the licensed premises share the same boundary. (8) Not applicable. (9) (See tabled paper no ). (10) Not applicable. (11) A $15,000 penalty and associated costs of $764.85. (12) Not applicable.
The following information is correct as at 16 January 2006. (1) The condition to which Goodchilds Abattoir pleaded guilty, was Condition W5 of Licence number 5423/06. Condition W5 states "The Licensee shall maintain bunding around all lairage areas to contain and direct contaminated water to the waste water treatment ponds." (2) Not applicable. (3) The condition is designed to minimise the likelihood of pollution occurring or there being off site environmental impacts from the abattoir. While off site pollution needs to be managed regardless of the condition of the surrounding environment, CALM provided advice that the reserve in question contains flora and fauna of conservation significance and a wetland that is considered of conservation significance. Waste matter and cattle faeces were identified as a potential to cause eutrophication of the wetland and spread weed species through the reserve. Therefore, the licence condition is designed to minimise the likelihood of off site pollution in its own right, and more specifically, is intended to protect the biological diversity in the CALM reserve. (4) Not applicable. (5) No. (6) There was no allegation of pollution or environmental harm in this case. Licence Condition W5 requires that bunding is maintained around all lairage areas. It is this condition to which Goodchild pleaded guilty as being non-compliant under Section 58(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 . (7) The CALM Reserve and the licensed premises share the same boundary. (8) Not applicable. (9) (See tabled paper no ). (10) Not applicable. (11) A $15,000 penalty and associated costs of $764.85. (12) Not applicable.
(1) The condition to which Goodchilds Abattoir pleaded guilty, was Condition W5 of Licence number 5423/06. Condition W5 states "The Licensee shall maintain bunding around all lairage areas to contain and direct contaminated water to the waste water treatment ponds." (2) Not applicable. (3) The condition is designed to minimise the likelihood of pollution occurring or there being off site environmental impacts from the abattoir. While off site pollution needs to be managed regardless of the condition of the surrounding environment, CALM provided advice that the reserve in question contains flora and fauna of conservation significance and a wetland that is considered of conservation significance. Waste matter and cattle faeces were identified as a potential to cause eutrophication of the wetland and spread weed species through the reserve. Therefore, the licence condition is designed to minimise the likelihood of off site pollution in its own right, and more specifically, is intended to protect the biological diversity in the CALM reserve. (4) Not applicable. (5) No. (6) There was no allegation of pollution or environmental harm in this case. Licence Condition W5 requires that bunding is maintained around all lairage areas. It is this condition to which Goodchild pleaded guilty as being non-compliant under Section 58(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 . (7) The CALM Reserve and the licensed premises share the same boundary. (8) Not applicable. (9) (See tabled paper no ). (10) Not applicable. (11) A $15,000 penalty and associated costs of $764.85. (12) Not applicable.
Condition W5 states "The Licensee shall maintain bunding around all lairage areas to contain and direct contaminated water to the waste water treatment ponds." (2) Not applicable. (3) The condition is designed to minimise the likelihood of pollution occurring or there being off site environmental impacts from the abattoir. While off site pollution needs to be managed regardless of the condition of the surrounding environment, CALM provided advice that the reserve in question contains flora and fauna of conservation significance and a wetland that is considered of conservation significance. Waste matter and cattle faeces were identified as a potential to cause eutrophication of the wetland and spread weed species through the reserve. Therefore, the licence condition is designed to minimise the likelihood of off site pollution in its own right, and more specifically, is intended to protect the biological diversity in the CALM reserve. (4) Not applicable. (5) No. (6) There was no allegation of pollution or environmental harm in this case. Licence Condition W5 requires that bunding is maintained around all lairage areas. It is this condition to which Goodchild pleaded guilty as being non-compliant under Section 58(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 . (7) The CALM Reserve and the licensed premises share the same boundary. (8) Not applicable. (9) (See tabled paper no ). (10) Not applicable. (11) A $15,000 penalty and associated costs of $764.85. (12) Not applicable.
(2) Not applicable. (3) The condition is designed to minimise the likelihood of pollution occurring or there being off site environmental impacts from the abattoir. While off site pollution needs to be managed regardless of the condition of the surrounding environment, CALM provided advice that the reserve in question contains flora and fauna of conservation significance and a wetland that is considered of conservation significance. Waste matter and cattle faeces were identified as a potential to cause eutrophication of the wetland and spread weed species through the reserve. Therefore, the licence condition is designed to minimise the likelihood of off site pollution in its own right, and more specifically, is intended to protect the biological diversity in the CALM reserve. (4) Not applicable. (5) No. (6) There was no allegation of pollution or environmental harm in this case. Licence Condition W5 requires that bunding is maintained around all lairage areas. It is this condition to which Goodchild pleaded guilty as being non-compliant under Section 58(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 . (7) The CALM Reserve and the licensed premises share the same boundary. (8) Not applicable. (9) (See tabled paper no ). (10) Not applicable. (11) A $15,000 penalty and associated costs of $764.85. (12) Not applicable.
(3) The condition is designed to minimise the likelihood of pollution occurring or there being off site environmental impacts from the abattoir. While off site pollution needs to be managed regardless of the condition of the surrounding environment, CALM provided advice that the reserve in question contains flora and fauna of conservation significance and a wetland that is considered of conservation significance. Waste matter and cattle faeces were identified as a potential to cause eutrophication of the wetland and spread weed species through the reserve. Therefore, the licence condition is designed to minimise the likelihood of off site pollution in its own right, and more specifically, is intended to protect the biological diversity in the CALM reserve. (4) Not applicable. (5) No. (6) There was no allegation of pollution or environmental harm in this case. Licence Condition W5 requires that bunding is maintained around all lairage areas. It is this condition to which Goodchild pleaded guilty as being non-compliant under Section 58(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 . (7) The CALM Reserve and the licensed premises share the same boundary. (8) Not applicable. (9) (See tabled paper no ). (10) Not applicable. (11) A $15,000 penalty and associated costs of $764.85. (12) Not applicable.
(4) Not applicable. (5) No. (6) There was no allegation of pollution or environmental harm in this case. Licence Condition W5 requires that bunding is maintained around all lairage areas. It is this condition to which Goodchild pleaded guilty as being non-compliant under Section 58(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 . (7) The CALM Reserve and the licensed premises share the same boundary. (8) Not applicable. (9) (See tabled paper no ). (10) Not applicable. (11) A $15,000 penalty and associated costs of $764.85. (12) Not applicable.
(5) No. (6) There was no allegation of pollution or environmental harm in this case. Licence Condition W5 requires that bunding is maintained around all lairage areas. It is this condition to which Goodchild pleaded guilty as being non-compliant under Section 58(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 . (7) The CALM Reserve and the licensed premises share the same boundary. (8) Not applicable. (9) (See tabled paper no ). (10) Not applicable. (11) A $15,000 penalty and associated costs of $764.85. (12) Not applicable.
(6) There was no allegation of pollution or environmental harm in this case. Licence Condition W5 requires that bunding is maintained around all lairage areas. It is this condition to which Goodchild pleaded guilty as being non-compliant under Section 58(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 . (7) The CALM Reserve and the licensed premises share the same boundary. (8) Not applicable. (9) (See tabled paper no ). (10) Not applicable. (11) A $15,000 penalty and associated costs of $764.85. (12) Not applicable.
(7) The CALM Reserve and the licensed premises share the same boundary. (8) Not applicable. (9) (See tabled paper no ). (10) Not applicable. (11) A $15,000 penalty and associated costs of $764.85. (12) Not applicable.
(8) Not applicable. (9) (See tabled paper no ). (10) Not applicable. (11) A $15,000 penalty and associated costs of $764.85. (12) Not applicable.
(9) (See tabled paper no ). (10) Not applicable. (11) A $15,000 penalty and associated costs of $764.85. (12) Not applicable.
(10) Not applicable. (11) A $15,000 penalty and associated costs of $764.85. (12) Not applicable.
(11) A $15,000 penalty and associated costs of $764.85. (12) Not applicable.
(12) Not applicable.
The following information is correct as at 16 January 2006. (1) The condition to which Goodchilds Abattoir pleaded guilty, was Condition W5 of Licence number 5423/06. Condition W5 states "The Licensee shall maintain bunding around all lairage areas to contain and direct contaminated water to the waste water treatment ponds." (2) Not applicable. (3) The condition is designed to minimise the likelihood of pollution occurring or there being off site environmental impacts from the abattoir. While off site pollution needs to be managed regardless of the condition of the surrounding environment, CALM provided advice that the reserve in question contains flora and fauna of conservation significance and a wetland that is considered of conservation significance. Waste matter and cattle faeces were identified as a potential to cause eutrophication of the wetland and spread weed species through the reserve. Therefore, the licence condition is designed to minimise the likelihood of off site pollution in its own right, and more specifically, is intended to protect the biological diversity in the CALM reserve. (4) Not applicable. (5) No. (6) There was no allegation of pollution or environmental harm in this case. Licence Condition W5 requires that bunding is maintained around all lairage areas. It is this condition to which Goodchild pleaded guilty as being non-compliant under Section 58(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 . (7) The CALM Reserve and the licensed premises share the same boundary. (8) Not applicable. (9) (See tabled paper no ). (10) Not applicable. (11) A $15,000 penalty and associated costs of $764.85. (12) Not applicable.
(1) The condition to which Goodchilds Abattoir pleaded guilty, was Condition W5 of Licence number 5423/06. Condition W5 states "The Licensee shall maintain bunding around all lairage areas to contain and direct contaminated water to the waste water treatment ponds." (2) Not applicable. (3) The condition is designed to minimise the likelihood of pollution occurring or there being off site environmental impacts from the abattoir. While off site pollution needs to be managed regardless of the condition of the surrounding environment, CALM provided advice that the reserve in question contains flora and fauna of conservation significance and a wetland that is considered of conservation significance. Waste matter and cattle faeces were identified as a potential to cause eutrophication of the wetland and spread weed species through the reserve. Therefore, the licence condition is designed to minimise the likelihood of off site pollution in its own right, and more specifically, is intended to protect the biological diversity in the CALM reserve. (4) Not applicable. (5) No. (6) There was no allegation of pollution or environmental harm in this case. Licence Condition W5 requires that bunding is maintained around all lairage areas. It is this condition to which Goodchild pleaded guilty as being non-compliant under Section 58(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 . (7) The CALM Reserve and the licensed premises share the same boundary. (8) Not applicable. (9) (See tabled paper no ). (10) Not applicable. (11) A $15,000 penalty and associated costs of $764.85. (12) Not applicable.
Condition W5 states "The Licensee shall maintain bunding around all lairage areas to contain and direct contaminated water to the waste water treatment ponds." (2) Not applicable. (3) The condition is designed to minimise the likelihood of pollution occurring or there being off site environmental impacts from the abattoir. While off site pollution needs to be managed regardless of the condition of the surrounding environment, CALM provided advice that the reserve in question contains flora and fauna of conservation significance and a wetland that is considered of conservation significance. Waste matter and cattle faeces were identified as a potential to cause eutrophication of the wetland and spread weed species through the reserve. Therefore, the licence condition is designed to minimise the likelihood of off site pollution in its own right, and more specifically, is intended to protect the biological diversity in the CALM reserve. (4) Not applicable. (5) No. (6) There was no allegation of pollution or environmental harm in this case. Licence Condition W5 requires that bunding is maintained around all lairage areas. It is this condition to which Goodchild pleaded guilty as being non-compliant under Section 58(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 . (7) The CALM Reserve and the licensed premises share the same boundary. (8) Not applicable. (9) (See tabled paper no ). (10) Not applicable. (11) A $15,000 penalty and associated costs of $764.85. (12) Not applicable.
(2) Not applicable. (3) The condition is designed to minimise the likelihood of pollution occurring or there being off site environmental impacts from the abattoir. While off site pollution needs to be managed regardless of the condition of the surrounding environment, CALM provided advice that the reserve in question contains flora and fauna of conservation significance and a wetland that is considered of conservation significance. Waste matter and cattle faeces were identified as a potential to cause eutrophication of the wetland and spread weed species through the reserve. Therefore, the licence condition is designed to minimise the likelihood of off site pollution in its own right, and more specifically, is intended to protect the biological diversity in the CALM reserve. (4) Not applicable. (5) No. (6) There was no allegation of pollution or environmental harm in this case. Licence Condition W5 requires that bunding is maintained around all lairage areas. It is this condition to which Goodchild pleaded guilty as being non-compliant under Section 58(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 . (7) The CALM Reserve and the licensed premises share the same boundary. (8) Not applicable. (9) (See tabled paper no ). (10) Not applicable. (11) A $15,000 penalty and associated costs of $764.85. (12) Not applicable.
(3) The condition is designed to minimise the likelihood of pollution occurring or there being off site environmental impacts from the abattoir. While off site pollution needs to be managed regardless of the condition of the surrounding environment, CALM provided advice that the reserve in question contains flora and fauna of conservation significance and a wetland that is considered of conservation significance. Waste matter and cattle faeces were identified as a potential to cause eutrophication of the wetland and spread weed species through the reserve. Therefore, the licence condition is designed to minimise the likelihood of off site pollution in its own right, and more specifically, is intended to protect the biological diversity in the CALM reserve. (4) Not applicable. (5) No. (6) There was no allegation of pollution or environmental harm in this case. Licence Condition W5 requires that bunding is maintained around all lairage areas. It is this condition to which Goodchild pleaded guilty as being non-compliant under Section 58(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 . (7) The CALM Reserve and the licensed premises share the same boundary. (8) Not applicable. (9) (See tabled paper no ). (10) Not applicable. (11) A $15,000 penalty and associated costs of $764.85. (12) Not applicable.
(4) Not applicable. (5) No. (6) There was no allegation of pollution or environmental harm in this case. Licence Condition W5 requires that bunding is maintained around all lairage areas. It is this condition to which Goodchild pleaded guilty as being non-compliant under Section 58(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 . (7) The CALM Reserve and the licensed premises share the same boundary. (8) Not applicable. (9) (See tabled paper no ). (10) Not applicable. (11) A $15,000 penalty and associated costs of $764.85. (12) Not applicable.
(5) No. (6) There was no allegation of pollution or environmental harm in this case. Licence Condition W5 requires that bunding is maintained around all lairage areas. It is this condition to which Goodchild pleaded guilty as being non-compliant under Section 58(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 . (7) The CALM Reserve and the licensed premises share the same boundary. (8) Not applicable. (9) (See tabled paper no ). (10) Not applicable. (11) A $15,000 penalty and associated costs of $764.85. (12) Not applicable.
(6) There was no allegation of pollution or environmental harm in this case. Licence Condition W5 requires that bunding is maintained around all lairage areas. It is this condition to which Goodchild pleaded guilty as being non-compliant under Section 58(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 . (7) The CALM Reserve and the licensed premises share the same boundary. (8) Not applicable. (9) (See tabled paper no ). (10) Not applicable. (11) A $15,000 penalty and associated costs of $764.85. (12) Not applicable.
(7) The CALM Reserve and the licensed premises share the same boundary. (8) Not applicable. (9) (See tabled paper no ). (10) Not applicable. (11) A $15,000 penalty and associated costs of $764.85. (12) Not applicable.
(8) Not applicable. (9) (See tabled paper no ). (10) Not applicable. (11) A $15,000 penalty and associated costs of $764.85. (12) Not applicable.
(9) (See tabled paper no ). (10) Not applicable. (11) A $15,000 penalty and associated costs of $764.85. (12) Not applicable.
(10) Not applicable. (11) A $15,000 penalty and associated costs of $764.85. (12) Not applicable.
(11) A $15,000 penalty and associated costs of $764.85. (12) Not applicable.
(12) 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.