❓ Hon Robin Chapple questions the Minister for Mines and Petroleum regarding the condition of a toilet facility at the Kanowna Belle mine, alleging it was unusable, infested, and inaccessible for inspection by employee representatives. The Minister deferred the answer to a previous question.
AnsweredQoN 2539Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the photographs available for viewing at,
http://www.robinchapple.org.au/node/460
entitled ‘2010-02-01 Kanowna Belle UG Toilet.pdf’ of an underground toilet facility taken on 1 February 2010, on the surface at the Kanowna Belle mine in the Kalgoorlie region owned by Barrick Gold, and ask -
(1) Is it correct that on 1 February 2010, the toilet facility depicted in the photographs referred to above was from the 440 level of the Kanowna Belle Mine, and that before it was transported to the surface, it was the only toilet facility that was available to service the area of the mine below the 860 level, where the other toilet facilities are located?
(2) If no to (1), what then is specifically correct concerning this matter?
(3) Is it correct that the senior management of the Kanowna Belle Mine, refused a representative from an employee representative body the right to go and inspect the condition of the toilet facility at the 440 level depicted in the photographs referred to in (1), and the toilet facilities at the 860 level of the mine, even though that representative had received several complaints concerning the condition of the toilets, and had the right to carry out an inspection, and an investigation concerning this matter?
(4) If no to (3), what then is specifically correct concerning this matter?
(5) Is it correct that when the senior management of the Kanowna Belle Mine later conceded and allowed the representative referred to in (3), the right to go and inspect the condition of the toilet facilities depicted in the photographs referred to in (1), and that this same management refused to allow the representative to inspect the toilet facility at its usual location, at the 440 level of the mine, but rather ordered that it be brought to the surface for inspection?
(6) If no to (5), what then is specifically correct concerning this matter?
(7) Is it correct that it was reported by numerous employees in the Kanowna Belle Mine, that when the toilet facility depicted in the photographs referred to in (1), was at its usual location at the 440 level of the mine, it was not only unusable but also unapproachable because of not only the overwhelming stench coming from the toilet facility, but also because of a large swarm of bugs and insects that frequented the area of the toilet facility?
(8) If no to (7), what then is specifically correct concerning this matter?
(9) Is it correct that when the employee representative referred to in (5), went to inspect the condition of the toilet facility depicted in the photographs referred to in (1), on the surface, that the underground foreman who escorted him refused to go anywhere near the toilet facility because the stench was overwhelming and sickening?
(10) If no to (9), what is specifically correct concerning this matter?
http://www.robinchapple.org.au/node/460
entitled ‘2010-02-01 Kanowna Belle UG Toilet.pdf’ of an underground toilet facility taken on 1 February 2010, on the surface at the Kanowna Belle mine in the Kalgoorlie region owned by Barrick Gold, and ask -
(1) Is it correct that on 1 February 2010, the toilet facility depicted in the photographs referred to above was from the 440 level of the Kanowna Belle Mine, and that before it was transported to the surface, it was the only toilet facility that was available to service the area of the mine below the 860 level, where the other toilet facilities are located?
(2) If no to (1), what then is specifically correct concerning this matter?
(3) Is it correct that the senior management of the Kanowna Belle Mine, refused a representative from an employee representative body the right to go and inspect the condition of the toilet facility at the 440 level depicted in the photographs referred to in (1), and the toilet facilities at the 860 level of the mine, even though that representative had received several complaints concerning the condition of the toilets, and had the right to carry out an inspection, and an investigation concerning this matter?
(4) If no to (3), what then is specifically correct concerning this matter?
(5) Is it correct that when the senior management of the Kanowna Belle Mine later conceded and allowed the representative referred to in (3), the right to go and inspect the condition of the toilet facilities depicted in the photographs referred to in (1), and that this same management refused to allow the representative to inspect the toilet facility at its usual location, at the 440 level of the mine, but rather ordered that it be brought to the surface for inspection?
(6) If no to (5), what then is specifically correct concerning this matter?
(7) Is it correct that it was reported by numerous employees in the Kanowna Belle Mine, that when the toilet facility depicted in the photographs referred to in (1), was at its usual location at the 440 level of the mine, it was not only unusable but also unapproachable because of not only the overwhelming stench coming from the toilet facility, but also because of a large swarm of bugs and insects that frequented the area of the toilet facility?
(8) If no to (7), what then is specifically correct concerning this matter?
(9) Is it correct that when the employee representative referred to in (5), went to inspect the condition of the toilet facility depicted in the photographs referred to in (1), on the surface, that the underground foreman who escorted him refused to go anywhere near the toilet facility because the stench was overwhelming and sickening?
(10) If no to (9), what is specifically correct concerning this matter?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
10 August 2010
Responded by
Minister for Mines and Petroleum
Response time
42 days
Please refer to parliamentary question 2516.
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
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.