❓ Question on Notice regarding a hypersaline water and cyanide spillage on Optimum Resources tenement and KCGM land, inquiring about environmental harm, penalties, and management of the incident by the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) and KCGM.
⏳ Awaiting AnswerQoN 3405Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
(a) did the spillage/discharge of hypersaline water containing cyanide stress and kill vegetation and contaminate the soil on the Optimum Resources tenement;
(b) if no to (a), why not;
(c) if yes to (a), did the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) impose a modified penalty for causing material environmental harm under the
Environmental Protection Act 1986
;
(d) did the spillage/discharge of hypersaline water containing cyanide stress and kill vegetation and contaminate the soil on land owned or controlled by KCGM;
(e) if yes to (d), did the DEC impose a modified penalty for causing material environmental harm under the
Environmental Protection Act 1986
;
(f) in relation to the modified penalty notice 1/08, was the history of all previous offences by KCGM taken into consideration in seeking to impose a modified penalty;
(g) if yes to (f), can the Minister explain which specific previous offences and the rationale as to how the modified penalty was determined;
(h) is it correct that Mr Ian Keally from DEC advised the
Kalgoorlie Miner
newspaper that KCGM should have ensured that the spillage did not occur in the first place;
(i) if no to (h), what specific advice did Mr Keally provide in relation to the spillage;
(j) does the fact that the spillage escaped all of its containment ponds mean that it was not well managed;
(k) can the Minister explain the reasons as to how the spillage referred to in modified penalty notice 1/08 cannot be regarded as being well managed by KCGM;
(l) if no to (k), why not;
(m) in relation to the issuing of the modified penalty 1/08, can the Minister explain what is the relevance of the section of that notice which states that Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mines Pty Ltd is also committed to remedying any adverse environmental impacts;
(n) if no to (m) why not;
(o) was the investigation into the spillage completed when the answers for Question on Notice No. 2957 were provided on 26 February 2008; and
(p) if no to (o), why not?
Answered on
(b) if no to (a), why not;
(c) if yes to (a), did the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) impose a modified penalty for causing material environmental harm under the
Environmental Protection Act 1986
;
(d) did the spillage/discharge of hypersaline water containing cyanide stress and kill vegetation and contaminate the soil on land owned or controlled by KCGM;
(e) if yes to (d), did the DEC impose a modified penalty for causing material environmental harm under the
Environmental Protection Act 1986
;
(f) in relation to the modified penalty notice 1/08, was the history of all previous offences by KCGM taken into consideration in seeking to impose a modified penalty;
(g) if yes to (f), can the Minister explain which specific previous offences and the rationale as to how the modified penalty was determined;
(h) is it correct that Mr Ian Keally from DEC advised the
Kalgoorlie Miner
newspaper that KCGM should have ensured that the spillage did not occur in the first place;
(i) if no to (h), what specific advice did Mr Keally provide in relation to the spillage;
(j) does the fact that the spillage escaped all of its containment ponds mean that it was not well managed;
(k) can the Minister explain the reasons as to how the spillage referred to in modified penalty notice 1/08 cannot be regarded as being well managed by KCGM;
(l) if no to (k), why not;
(m) in relation to the issuing of the modified penalty 1/08, can the Minister explain what is the relevance of the section of that notice which states that Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mines Pty Ltd is also committed to remedying any adverse environmental impacts;
(n) if no to (m) why not;
(o) was the investigation into the spillage completed when the answers for Question on Notice No. 2957 were provided on 26 February 2008; and
(p) if no to (o), why not?
Answered on
AnswerView source ↗
⏳
This question is awaiting a response from the Minister.
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.