❓ Hon. Jon Ford questions the Minister for Mines and Petroleum regarding the Uranium Advisory Group's assessment of WA's uranium mining regulations against world best practice. The Minister acknowledges the gap and outlines ongoing efforts to achieve it.
AnsweredQoN 300Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
URANIUM
MINING — REGULATIONS
300. Hon JON FORD to the Minister for Mines and Petroleum:
I refer to the concluding paragraph of the review of the
uranium mining regulations summary paper made available on the Department of
Mines and Petroleum's website on Monday, 14 May 2012, which states in
part —
The Uranium Advisory Group believes
that World Best Practice represents the future of mining regulation, is
appropriate for Western Australia, and that the time for Western Australia to
commence on the path to World Best Practice in uranium mining is now.
(1) Is the
uranium advisory group correct in its assertion that Western Australia's
mining regulatory processes are not consistent with world best practice.
(2) If yes to
(1), when will Western Australia's mining regulatory process be equal
to or exceed world best practice, and how much will it cost?
(3) If no to (1),
why?
MINING — REGULATIONS
300. Hon JON FORD to the Minister for Mines and Petroleum:
I refer to the concluding paragraph of the review of the
uranium mining regulations summary paper made available on the Department of
Mines and Petroleum's website on Monday, 14 May 2012, which states in
part —
The Uranium Advisory Group believes
that World Best Practice represents the future of mining regulation, is
appropriate for Western Australia, and that the time for Western Australia to
commence on the path to World Best Practice in uranium mining is now.
(1) Is the
uranium advisory group correct in its assertion that Western Australia's
mining regulatory processes are not consistent with world best practice.
(2) If yes to
(1), when will Western Australia's mining regulatory process be equal
to or exceed world best practice, and how much will it cost?
(3) If no to (1),
why?
AnswerView source ↗
(1)–(3) Obviously
the member was not listening to the last debate, because I went through this in
some detail and I actually read out the summary of the findings of that
particular group. I then explained to the house, as I will again, that we had
not reached world best practice. I am told the term is ''world best
practice'' as opposed to ''worlds'', plural. I did not
know that until I started talking about world best practice, which is
apparently what it is.
Hon Sue Ellery : That and the Kama Sutra . We are learning a lot about you!
Hon NORMAN MOORE : Exactly; the Leader of the Opposition is
quite right. I do not know anything about the Kama Sutra other than that there are a lot of positions. I am
interested in these things. When it comes to uranium mining, the Labor Party
has more positions than the Kama Sutra .
Coming back to the question, I explained
that according to that report, we had not yet reached world best practice. We
were then provided with a number of recommendations that we needed to address.
The majority of those related not so much to the Department of Mines and
Petroleum's regulatory system but to the relationship between the
various agencies and how they were not necessarily singing the same song when
it came to risk-based assessments and those sorts of philosophical views of how
we manage regulation. We are continuing to work with the other agencies so that
we can deliver on what the group has advised us to do.
I guess there was no malice in the
question but I would have thought we might have got some credit for doing this.
The reason why I did this was, first of all, we had a review done of the
departments that are involved in any radioactive material. That was the
Department of Mines and Petroleum, the Department of State Development, the
Environmental Protection Authority, the Department of Environment and
Conservation and the Radiological Council. That review stated that our
regulatory system is adequate for the task. We thought we should go beyond that
and get a panel of scientists from CSIRO and the universities to give us an
independent assessment, and that is what we did. We made it public. There is no
secret about it. It states that we have a way to go. We will continue to work
to ensure that we deliver on what is regarded as world best practice. How much
will it cost? I do not know but we will spend what it takes because, as I keep
saying, I genuinely believe that if uranium is going to be mined in Western
Australia, it has to be done under a regulatory system that is world best
practice.
the member was not listening to the last debate, because I went through this in
some detail and I actually read out the summary of the findings of that
particular group. I then explained to the house, as I will again, that we had
not reached world best practice. I am told the term is ''world best
practice'' as opposed to ''worlds'', plural. I did not
know that until I started talking about world best practice, which is
apparently what it is.
Hon Sue Ellery : That and the Kama Sutra . We are learning a lot about you!
Hon NORMAN MOORE : Exactly; the Leader of the Opposition is
quite right. I do not know anything about the Kama Sutra other than that there are a lot of positions. I am
interested in these things. When it comes to uranium mining, the Labor Party
has more positions than the Kama Sutra .
Coming back to the question, I explained
that according to that report, we had not yet reached world best practice. We
were then provided with a number of recommendations that we needed to address.
The majority of those related not so much to the Department of Mines and
Petroleum's regulatory system but to the relationship between the
various agencies and how they were not necessarily singing the same song when
it came to risk-based assessments and those sorts of philosophical views of how
we manage regulation. We are continuing to work with the other agencies so that
we can deliver on what the group has advised us to do.
I guess there was no malice in the
question but I would have thought we might have got some credit for doing this.
The reason why I did this was, first of all, we had a review done of the
departments that are involved in any radioactive material. That was the
Department of Mines and Petroleum, the Department of State Development, the
Environmental Protection Authority, the Department of Environment and
Conservation and the Radiological Council. That review stated that our
regulatory system is adequate for the task. We thought we should go beyond that
and get a panel of scientists from CSIRO and the universities to give us an
independent assessment, and that is what we did. We made it public. There is no
secret about it. It states that we have a way to go. We will continue to work
to ensure that we deliver on what is regarded as world best practice. How much
will it cost? I do not know but we will spend what it takes because, as I keep
saying, I genuinely believe that if uranium is going to be mined in Western
Australia, it has to be done under a regulatory system that is world best
practice.
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.