❓ A parliamentary question addresses dust pollution in Williamstown from mining and other land uses, seeking detailed plans, ownership information, evidence of exacerbating factors, and details of departmental investigations and consultations with KCGM. The Minister's response clarifies the department's jurisdiction and actions.
AnsweredQoN 429Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to a letter dated October 29 2001 signed by Clive Brown MLA, Minister for State Development reference 3075, 3707, 4023, 4987 and 5348 -
(1) Can the Minister provide a large detailed scaled plan indicating around the eastern boundary of Kalgoorlie where there are many large areas of disturbed land besides KCGM’s operations that according to the Department contribute to the general dust load in the Williamstown area?
(2) If not, why not?
(3) Can the Minister state who are the owners/holders with specific tenement numbers of the land beside’s KCGM’s operations that contribute to the dust load in the Williamstown area?
(4) If not, why not?
(5) Can the Minister explain and also table any evidence to show that this has been exacerbated this year by a very dry winter?
(6) If not, why not?
(7) Can the Minister explain how the Department established as a fact that the unacceptable dust resulting from the compacting by KCGM of a bund wall near Mr Meyer-Forst’s property was a one-off activity carried out as part of KCGM’s normal operations?
(8) If not, why not?
(9) Can the Minister state on what basis how the Department established as a fact through the investigation that this dust was generated by rehabilitation work carried out by KCGM at its Mt Percy tailings storage facility?
(10) If not, why not?
(11) Is it correct that the Department has recently requested and received KCGM’s assurance that it will use its best endeavours to ensure that, wherever necessary and appropriate in the future, satisfactory prior consultation takes place with all parties likely to be directly affected by the company’s activities?
(12) If yes, can the Minister give both the specific dates and state whether it was in writing or verbal on which the Department requested and then later received KCGM’s assurance?
(1) Can the Minister provide a large detailed scaled plan indicating around the eastern boundary of Kalgoorlie where there are many large areas of disturbed land besides KCGM’s operations that according to the Department contribute to the general dust load in the Williamstown area?
(2) If not, why not?
(3) Can the Minister state who are the owners/holders with specific tenement numbers of the land beside’s KCGM’s operations that contribute to the dust load in the Williamstown area?
(4) If not, why not?
(5) Can the Minister explain and also table any evidence to show that this has been exacerbated this year by a very dry winter?
(6) If not, why not?
(7) Can the Minister explain how the Department established as a fact that the unacceptable dust resulting from the compacting by KCGM of a bund wall near Mr Meyer-Forst’s property was a one-off activity carried out as part of KCGM’s normal operations?
(8) If not, why not?
(9) Can the Minister state on what basis how the Department established as a fact through the investigation that this dust was generated by rehabilitation work carried out by KCGM at its Mt Percy tailings storage facility?
(10) If not, why not?
(11) Is it correct that the Department has recently requested and received KCGM’s assurance that it will use its best endeavours to ensure that, wherever necessary and appropriate in the future, satisfactory prior consultation takes place with all parties likely to be directly affected by the company’s activities?
(12) If yes, can the Minister give both the specific dates and state whether it was in writing or verbal on which the Department requested and then later received KCGM’s assurance?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
26 March 2002
Responded by
Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for State Development
Response time
28 days
(1) to (4) I am informed that the Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources does not possess a plan such as that requested by the Hon Member. Regarding dust generation from disturbed land, the Department has jurisdiction only in relation to land disturbed by mining operations and not over land that has been disturbed by other land based activities including those carried out by pastoralists, local authorities or private land owners. In view of this, I see no need or justification for the Department's resources to be expended in the creation of such a plan or in the task of identifying owners or occupiers of areas of disturbed land which may contribute to the general dust load in the Williamstown area. (5) & (6) The Department holds no specific evidence that the general dust load in the Williamstown area in 2001 was exacerbated by that year's dry winter. The Department's conclusion to this effect was based on observations by Departmental officers who have had many years of experience in all aspects of dust generation and control. (7) to (10) The Department arrived at its conclusions regarding KCGM's activities carried out on the bund wall and the Mt Percy tailings storage facility after investigating both matters and uncovering no evidence which could give rise to any doubt as to the validity of those conclusions. (11) Yes. (12) On 11 September and 16 October 2001 the Department verbally requested and received KCGM's assurance as referred to by the Hon Member in Question 11.
Regarding dust generation from disturbed land, the Department has jurisdiction only in relation to land disturbed by mining operations and not over land that has been disturbed by other land based activities including those carried out by pastoralists, local authorities or private land owners. In view of this, I see no need or justification for the Department's resources to be expended in the creation of such a plan or in the task of identifying owners or occupiers of areas of disturbed land which may contribute to the general dust load in the Williamstown area. (5) & (6) The Department holds no specific evidence that the general dust load in the Williamstown area in 2001 was exacerbated by that year's dry winter. The Department's conclusion to this effect was based on observations by Departmental officers who have had many years of experience in all aspects of dust generation and control. (7) to (10) The Department arrived at its conclusions regarding KCGM's activities carried out on the bund wall and the Mt Percy tailings storage facility after investigating both matters and uncovering no evidence which could give rise to any doubt as to the validity of those conclusions. (11) Yes. (12) On 11 September and 16 October 2001 the Department verbally requested and received KCGM's assurance as referred to by the Hon Member in Question 11.
(5) & (6) The Department holds no specific evidence that the general dust load in the Williamstown area in 2001 was exacerbated by that year's dry winter. The Department's conclusion to this effect was based on observations by Departmental officers who have had many years of experience in all aspects of dust generation and control. (7) to (10) The Department arrived at its conclusions regarding KCGM's activities carried out on the bund wall and the Mt Percy tailings storage facility after investigating both matters and uncovering no evidence which could give rise to any doubt as to the validity of those conclusions. (11) Yes. (12) On 11 September and 16 October 2001 the Department verbally requested and received KCGM's assurance as referred to by the Hon Member in Question 11.
(7) to (10) The Department arrived at its conclusions regarding KCGM's activities carried out on the bund wall and the Mt Percy tailings storage facility after investigating both matters and uncovering no evidence which could give rise to any doubt as to the validity of those conclusions. (11) Yes. (12) On 11 September and 16 October 2001 the Department verbally requested and received KCGM's assurance as referred to by the Hon Member in Question 11.
(11) Yes. (12) On 11 September and 16 October 2001 the Department verbally requested and received KCGM's assurance as referred to by the Hon Member in Question 11.
(12) On 11 September and 16 October 2001 the Department verbally requested and received KCGM's assurance as referred to by the Hon Member in Question 11.
Regarding dust generation from disturbed land, the Department has jurisdiction only in relation to land disturbed by mining operations and not over land that has been disturbed by other land based activities including those carried out by pastoralists, local authorities or private land owners. In view of this, I see no need or justification for the Department's resources to be expended in the creation of such a plan or in the task of identifying owners or occupiers of areas of disturbed land which may contribute to the general dust load in the Williamstown area. (5) & (6) The Department holds no specific evidence that the general dust load in the Williamstown area in 2001 was exacerbated by that year's dry winter. The Department's conclusion to this effect was based on observations by Departmental officers who have had many years of experience in all aspects of dust generation and control. (7) to (10) The Department arrived at its conclusions regarding KCGM's activities carried out on the bund wall and the Mt Percy tailings storage facility after investigating both matters and uncovering no evidence which could give rise to any doubt as to the validity of those conclusions. (11) Yes. (12) On 11 September and 16 October 2001 the Department verbally requested and received KCGM's assurance as referred to by the Hon Member in Question 11.
(5) & (6) The Department holds no specific evidence that the general dust load in the Williamstown area in 2001 was exacerbated by that year's dry winter. The Department's conclusion to this effect was based on observations by Departmental officers who have had many years of experience in all aspects of dust generation and control. (7) to (10) The Department arrived at its conclusions regarding KCGM's activities carried out on the bund wall and the Mt Percy tailings storage facility after investigating both matters and uncovering no evidence which could give rise to any doubt as to the validity of those conclusions. (11) Yes. (12) On 11 September and 16 October 2001 the Department verbally requested and received KCGM's assurance as referred to by the Hon Member in Question 11.
(7) to (10) The Department arrived at its conclusions regarding KCGM's activities carried out on the bund wall and the Mt Percy tailings storage facility after investigating both matters and uncovering no evidence which could give rise to any doubt as to the validity of those conclusions. (11) Yes. (12) On 11 September and 16 October 2001 the Department verbally requested and received KCGM's assurance as referred to by the Hon Member in Question 11.
(11) Yes. (12) On 11 September and 16 October 2001 the Department verbally requested and received KCGM's assurance as referred to by the Hon Member in Question 11.
(12) On 11 September and 16 October 2001 the Department verbally requested and received KCGM's assurance as referred to by the Hon Member in Question 11.
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.