❓ Hon Giz Watson questions the Minister for Environment regarding the completeness and public review period of the Gorgon proposal's EIS/ERMP, particularly concerning deferred sections and the adequacy of the review period. The Minister acknowledges the EPA's flexibility and commits to seeking assurance of a full 10-week review period.
AnsweredQoN 667Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to page 20 of the executive summary of the draft environmental impact statement/environmental review and management program for the Gorgon proposal, and I ask - (1) Is the minister aware that the recently released 2500-page EIS/ERMP is incomplete? (2) Is the minister aware that some of the documents that should have been included in the draft EIS/ERMP will be available for public review for about only four weeks? (3) Is the minister satisfied that the requirement for a draft EIS/ERMP for public review for 10 weeks will be met, considering that a significant part of that draft EIS/ERMP will be exposed for public review for only four weeks? (4) Does the minister accept that sections of the document, such as those that relate to quarantining and dredging impacts in particular, cannot be meaningfully reviewed by stakeholders and members of the public until the deferred sections are finally released? (5) Will the minister now direct the Environmental Protection Authority to extend the public comment period to accommodate the above concerns? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(5) I am aware that under clause 8.9 of the Environmental Protection Authority’s environmental impact assessment - part 4, division 1 of the administrative procedures 2002 - the EPA may accept submissions beyond the review period, when there are delays in the environmental review, the document is made reasonably available and the authority considers the delay necessary. The Minister for the Environment will seek an assurance from the EPA that the public will be given the full 10 weeks to comment on all aspects of the ERMP.
(1) Is the minister aware that the recently released 2500-page EIS/ERMP is incomplete? (2) Is the minister aware that some of the documents that should have been included in the draft EIS/ERMP will be available for public review for about only four weeks? (3) Is the minister satisfied that the requirement for a draft EIS/ERMP for public review for 10 weeks will be met, considering that a significant part of that draft EIS/ERMP will be exposed for public review for only four weeks? (4) Does the minister accept that sections of the document, such as those that relate to quarantining and dredging impacts in particular, cannot be meaningfully reviewed by stakeholders and members of the public until the deferred sections are finally released? (5) Will the minister now direct the Environmental Protection Authority to extend the public comment period to accommodate the above concerns? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(5) I am aware that under clause 8.9 of the Environmental Protection Authority’s environmental impact assessment - part 4, division 1 of the administrative procedures 2002 - the EPA may accept submissions beyond the review period, when there are delays in the environmental review, the document is made reasonably available and the authority considers the delay necessary. The Minister for the Environment will seek an assurance from the EPA that the public will be given the full 10 weeks to comment on all aspects of the ERMP.
(2) Is the minister aware that some of the documents that should have been included in the draft EIS/ERMP will be available for public review for about only four weeks? (3) Is the minister satisfied that the requirement for a draft EIS/ERMP for public review for 10 weeks will be met, considering that a significant part of that draft EIS/ERMP will be exposed for public review for only four weeks? (4) Does the minister accept that sections of the document, such as those that relate to quarantining and dredging impacts in particular, cannot be meaningfully reviewed by stakeholders and members of the public until the deferred sections are finally released? (5) Will the minister now direct the Environmental Protection Authority to extend the public comment period to accommodate the above concerns? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(5) I am aware that under clause 8.9 of the Environmental Protection Authority’s environmental impact assessment - part 4, division 1 of the administrative procedures 2002 - the EPA may accept submissions beyond the review period, when there are delays in the environmental review, the document is made reasonably available and the authority considers the delay necessary. The Minister for the Environment will seek an assurance from the EPA that the public will be given the full 10 weeks to comment on all aspects of the ERMP.
(3) Is the minister satisfied that the requirement for a draft EIS/ERMP for public review for 10 weeks will be met, considering that a significant part of that draft EIS/ERMP will be exposed for public review for only four weeks? (4) Does the minister accept that sections of the document, such as those that relate to quarantining and dredging impacts in particular, cannot be meaningfully reviewed by stakeholders and members of the public until the deferred sections are finally released? (5) Will the minister now direct the Environmental Protection Authority to extend the public comment period to accommodate the above concerns? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(5) I am aware that under clause 8.9 of the Environmental Protection Authority’s environmental impact assessment - part 4, division 1 of the administrative procedures 2002 - the EPA may accept submissions beyond the review period, when there are delays in the environmental review, the document is made reasonably available and the authority considers the delay necessary. The Minister for the Environment will seek an assurance from the EPA that the public will be given the full 10 weeks to comment on all aspects of the ERMP.
(4) Does the minister accept that sections of the document, such as those that relate to quarantining and dredging impacts in particular, cannot be meaningfully reviewed by stakeholders and members of the public until the deferred sections are finally released? (5) Will the minister now direct the Environmental Protection Authority to extend the public comment period to accommodate the above concerns? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(5) I am aware that under clause 8.9 of the Environmental Protection Authority’s environmental impact assessment - part 4, division 1 of the administrative procedures 2002 - the EPA may accept submissions beyond the review period, when there are delays in the environmental review, the document is made reasonably available and the authority considers the delay necessary. The Minister for the Environment will seek an assurance from the EPA that the public will be given the full 10 weeks to comment on all aspects of the ERMP.
(5) Will the minister now direct the Environmental Protection Authority to extend the public comment period to accommodate the above concerns? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(5) I am aware that under clause 8.9 of the Environmental Protection Authority’s environmental impact assessment - part 4, division 1 of the administrative procedures 2002 - the EPA may accept submissions beyond the review period, when there are delays in the environmental review, the document is made reasonably available and the authority considers the delay necessary. The Minister for the Environment will seek an assurance from the EPA that the public will be given the full 10 weeks to comment on all aspects of the ERMP.
Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(5) I am aware that under clause 8.9 of the Environmental Protection Authority’s environmental impact assessment - part 4, division 1 of the administrative procedures 2002 - the EPA may accept submissions beyond the review period, when there are delays in the environmental review, the document is made reasonably available and the authority considers the delay necessary. The Minister for the Environment will seek an assurance from the EPA that the public will be given the full 10 weeks to comment on all aspects of the ERMP.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(5) I am aware that under clause 8.9 of the Environmental Protection Authority’s environmental impact assessment - part 4, division 1 of the administrative procedures 2002 - the EPA may accept submissions beyond the review period, when there are delays in the environmental review, the document is made reasonably available and the authority considers the delay necessary. The Minister for the Environment will seek an assurance from the EPA that the public will be given the full 10 weeks to comment on all aspects of the ERMP.
(1)-(5) I am aware that under clause 8.9 of the Environmental Protection Authority’s environmental impact assessment - part 4, division 1 of the administrative procedures 2002 - the EPA may accept submissions beyond the review period, when there are delays in the environmental review, the document is made reasonably available and the authority considers the delay necessary. The Minister for the Environment will seek an assurance from the EPA that the public will be given the full 10 weeks to comment on all aspects of the ERMP.
(1) Is the minister aware that the recently released 2500-page EIS/ERMP is incomplete? (2) Is the minister aware that some of the documents that should have been included in the draft EIS/ERMP will be available for public review for about only four weeks? (3) Is the minister satisfied that the requirement for a draft EIS/ERMP for public review for 10 weeks will be met, considering that a significant part of that draft EIS/ERMP will be exposed for public review for only four weeks? (4) Does the minister accept that sections of the document, such as those that relate to quarantining and dredging impacts in particular, cannot be meaningfully reviewed by stakeholders and members of the public until the deferred sections are finally released? (5) Will the minister now direct the Environmental Protection Authority to extend the public comment period to accommodate the above concerns? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(5) I am aware that under clause 8.9 of the Environmental Protection Authority’s environmental impact assessment - part 4, division 1 of the administrative procedures 2002 - the EPA may accept submissions beyond the review period, when there are delays in the environmental review, the document is made reasonably available and the authority considers the delay necessary. The Minister for the Environment will seek an assurance from the EPA that the public will be given the full 10 weeks to comment on all aspects of the ERMP.
(2) Is the minister aware that some of the documents that should have been included in the draft EIS/ERMP will be available for public review for about only four weeks? (3) Is the minister satisfied that the requirement for a draft EIS/ERMP for public review for 10 weeks will be met, considering that a significant part of that draft EIS/ERMP will be exposed for public review for only four weeks? (4) Does the minister accept that sections of the document, such as those that relate to quarantining and dredging impacts in particular, cannot be meaningfully reviewed by stakeholders and members of the public until the deferred sections are finally released? (5) Will the minister now direct the Environmental Protection Authority to extend the public comment period to accommodate the above concerns? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(5) I am aware that under clause 8.9 of the Environmental Protection Authority’s environmental impact assessment - part 4, division 1 of the administrative procedures 2002 - the EPA may accept submissions beyond the review period, when there are delays in the environmental review, the document is made reasonably available and the authority considers the delay necessary. The Minister for the Environment will seek an assurance from the EPA that the public will be given the full 10 weeks to comment on all aspects of the ERMP.
(3) Is the minister satisfied that the requirement for a draft EIS/ERMP for public review for 10 weeks will be met, considering that a significant part of that draft EIS/ERMP will be exposed for public review for only four weeks? (4) Does the minister accept that sections of the document, such as those that relate to quarantining and dredging impacts in particular, cannot be meaningfully reviewed by stakeholders and members of the public until the deferred sections are finally released? (5) Will the minister now direct the Environmental Protection Authority to extend the public comment period to accommodate the above concerns? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(5) I am aware that under clause 8.9 of the Environmental Protection Authority’s environmental impact assessment - part 4, division 1 of the administrative procedures 2002 - the EPA may accept submissions beyond the review period, when there are delays in the environmental review, the document is made reasonably available and the authority considers the delay necessary. The Minister for the Environment will seek an assurance from the EPA that the public will be given the full 10 weeks to comment on all aspects of the ERMP.
(4) Does the minister accept that sections of the document, such as those that relate to quarantining and dredging impacts in particular, cannot be meaningfully reviewed by stakeholders and members of the public until the deferred sections are finally released? (5) Will the minister now direct the Environmental Protection Authority to extend the public comment period to accommodate the above concerns? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(5) I am aware that under clause 8.9 of the Environmental Protection Authority’s environmental impact assessment - part 4, division 1 of the administrative procedures 2002 - the EPA may accept submissions beyond the review period, when there are delays in the environmental review, the document is made reasonably available and the authority considers the delay necessary. The Minister for the Environment will seek an assurance from the EPA that the public will be given the full 10 weeks to comment on all aspects of the ERMP.
(5) Will the minister now direct the Environmental Protection Authority to extend the public comment period to accommodate the above concerns? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(5) I am aware that under clause 8.9 of the Environmental Protection Authority’s environmental impact assessment - part 4, division 1 of the administrative procedures 2002 - the EPA may accept submissions beyond the review period, when there are delays in the environmental review, the document is made reasonably available and the authority considers the delay necessary. The Minister for the Environment will seek an assurance from the EPA that the public will be given the full 10 weeks to comment on all aspects of the ERMP.
Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(5) I am aware that under clause 8.9 of the Environmental Protection Authority’s environmental impact assessment - part 4, division 1 of the administrative procedures 2002 - the EPA may accept submissions beyond the review period, when there are delays in the environmental review, the document is made reasonably available and the authority considers the delay necessary. The Minister for the Environment will seek an assurance from the EPA that the public will be given the full 10 weeks to comment on all aspects of the ERMP.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(5) I am aware that under clause 8.9 of the Environmental Protection Authority’s environmental impact assessment - part 4, division 1 of the administrative procedures 2002 - the EPA may accept submissions beyond the review period, when there are delays in the environmental review, the document is made reasonably available and the authority considers the delay necessary. The Minister for the Environment will seek an assurance from the EPA that the public will be given the full 10 weeks to comment on all aspects of the ERMP.
(1)-(5) I am aware that under clause 8.9 of the Environmental Protection Authority’s environmental impact assessment - part 4, division 1 of the administrative procedures 2002 - the EPA may accept submissions beyond the review period, when there are delays in the environmental review, the document is made reasonably available and the authority considers the delay necessary. The Minister for the Environment will seek an assurance from the EPA that the public will be given the full 10 weeks to comment on all aspects of the ERMP.
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.