❓ A WA parliamentary question seeks information regarding a pollution incident near Whaleback Golf Course, including the source, pollutant, responsible party, and potential prosecution. The response confirms the source, pollutant, and ongoing investigation, but acknowledges the impossibility of guaranteeing future prevention.
AnsweredQoN 128Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
(1) Has the DEP identified the source of the pollution that occurred near the Whaleback Golf Course?
(2) If yes -
(a) what was the source of the pollution; and
(b) what was the pollutant?
(3) What company or individual was responsible for the pollution?
(4) Is the DEP proceeding with prosecution in relation to this pollution?
(5) If not, why not?
(6) What measures has the Minister implemented to ensure that a similar pollution incident does not occur within the metropolitan area?
(2) If yes -
(a) what was the source of the pollution; and
(b) what was the pollutant?
(3) What company or individual was responsible for the pollution?
(4) Is the DEP proceeding with prosecution in relation to this pollution?
(5) If not, why not?
(6) What measures has the Minister implemented to ensure that a similar pollution incident does not occur within the metropolitan area?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
28 August 2001
Responded by
Minister for Housing and Works representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage
Response time
28 days
(b) what was the pollutant?
(2) (a) An overflow of liquid waste from an industrial premises. (b) PO5 oil, which is similar to diesel. (3) The DEP has identified the company, but is not releasing the details until investigations have been completed as this may prejudice the case. (4) Yes, a prosecution brief is being prepared. (5) N/A. (6) It is not possible to guarantee that a similar pollution incident does not occur within the metropolitan area. However, the DEP has been conducting joint inspections with DME and Worksafe WA of high-risk chemical storage facilities.
(3) The DEP has identified the company, but is not releasing the details until investigations have been completed as this may prejudice the case. (4) Yes, a prosecution brief is being prepared. (5) N/A. (6) It is not possible to guarantee that a similar pollution incident does not occur within the metropolitan area. However, the DEP has been conducting joint inspections with DME and Worksafe WA of high-risk chemical storage facilities.
(4) Yes, a prosecution brief is being prepared. (5) N/A. (6) It is not possible to guarantee that a similar pollution incident does not occur within the metropolitan area. However, the DEP has been conducting joint inspections with DME and Worksafe WA of high-risk chemical storage facilities.
(5) N/A. (6) It is not possible to guarantee that a similar pollution incident does not occur within the metropolitan area. However, the DEP has been conducting joint inspections with DME and Worksafe WA of high-risk chemical storage facilities.
(6) It is not possible to guarantee that a similar pollution incident does not occur within the metropolitan area. However, the DEP has been conducting joint inspections with DME and Worksafe WA of high-risk chemical storage facilities.
(2) (a) An overflow of liquid waste from an industrial premises. (b) PO5 oil, which is similar to diesel. (3) The DEP has identified the company, but is not releasing the details until investigations have been completed as this may prejudice the case. (4) Yes, a prosecution brief is being prepared. (5) N/A. (6) It is not possible to guarantee that a similar pollution incident does not occur within the metropolitan area. However, the DEP has been conducting joint inspections with DME and Worksafe WA of high-risk chemical storage facilities.
(3) The DEP has identified the company, but is not releasing the details until investigations have been completed as this may prejudice the case. (4) Yes, a prosecution brief is being prepared. (5) N/A. (6) It is not possible to guarantee that a similar pollution incident does not occur within the metropolitan area. However, the DEP has been conducting joint inspections with DME and Worksafe WA of high-risk chemical storage facilities.
(4) Yes, a prosecution brief is being prepared. (5) N/A. (6) It is not possible to guarantee that a similar pollution incident does not occur within the metropolitan area. However, the DEP has been conducting joint inspections with DME and Worksafe WA of high-risk chemical storage facilities.
(5) N/A. (6) It is not possible to guarantee that a similar pollution incident does not occur within the metropolitan area. However, the DEP has been conducting joint inspections with DME and Worksafe WA of high-risk chemical storage facilities.
(6) It is not possible to guarantee that a similar pollution incident does not occur within the metropolitan area. However, the DEP has been conducting joint inspections with DME and Worksafe WA of high-risk chemical storage facilities.
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.