❓ A WA parliamentary question on notice regarding a newspaper article about a waste site and the Department's alleged lack of rigour in inspections and prosecutions. The Minister's response refers to a previous inquiry report.
AnsweredQoN 1268Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to a newspaper article titled ‘Waste site dubbed a time bomb’ which appeared in the
Sunday Times
August 24 2003 -
(1) Is it correct that Malcolm Russell Director of the Safety, Health and Environment Division stated to the reporter ‘The department acknowledges its lack of rigour in follow up inspections and prosecutions over a 10 year period… with the benefit of hindsight, it is clear (the department) did not perform very well in this area?
(2) If no to (1) what specifically did Mr Russell state to the reporter?
(3) Is it correct that ‘DME officials, now part of the Department of Industry and Resources avoided specific questions from the newspaper’?
(4) If yes to (3) why did this occur and on what basis?
(5) If no to (3) what specifically did happen and why?
(6) Can the Minister state why ‘it is clear’ that the department ‘did not perform very well in this area’?
(7) If no to (6) why not?
(8) Can the Minister explain on what specific date did it acknowledge that ‘The department acknowledges its lack of rigour in follow up inspections and prosecutions over a 10 year period…’?
(9) If no to (8) why not?
(10) Can the Minister explain specifically how did the department come to realise that it ‘did not perform very well in this area’?
(11) If no to (10) why not?
Sunday Times
August 24 2003 -
(1) Is it correct that Malcolm Russell Director of the Safety, Health and Environment Division stated to the reporter ‘The department acknowledges its lack of rigour in follow up inspections and prosecutions over a 10 year period… with the benefit of hindsight, it is clear (the department) did not perform very well in this area?
(2) If no to (1) what specifically did Mr Russell state to the reporter?
(3) Is it correct that ‘DME officials, now part of the Department of Industry and Resources avoided specific questions from the newspaper’?
(4) If yes to (3) why did this occur and on what basis?
(5) If no to (3) what specifically did happen and why?
(6) Can the Minister state why ‘it is clear’ that the department ‘did not perform very well in this area’?
(7) If no to (6) why not?
(8) Can the Minister explain on what specific date did it acknowledge that ‘The department acknowledges its lack of rigour in follow up inspections and prosecutions over a 10 year period…’?
(9) If no to (8) why not?
(10) Can the Minister explain specifically how did the department come to realise that it ‘did not perform very well in this area’?
(11) If no to (10) why not?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
11 November 2003
Responded by
Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for State Development
Response time
53 days
(1) Yes. (2) Not applicable. (3) I am advised that the Department provided, in writing, a general response to the questions raised by the journalist. The response included the statement that “… the issues raised in your questions were considered by the Parliamentary Committee when it was investigating the causes of the fire.” I am further advised that after the article referred to was published, Mr Russell spoke with the journalist at length by telephone and subsequently provided a written response to the specific follow-up questions from the same journalist. (4) See answer (3). (5) See answer (3). (6) I refer the Hon member to the Reports prepared by the Economics and Industry Standing Committee – Bellevue Hazardous Waste Fire Inquiry. (7) Not applicable. (8) Report No.2 of the Economics and Industry Standing Committee – Bellevue Hazardous Waste Fire Inquiry was tabled in the Legislative Assembly on 27 June 2002. (9) Not applicable. (10) See answer 6. (11) Not applicable.
(2) Not applicable. (3) I am advised that the Department provided, in writing, a general response to the questions raised by the journalist. The response included the statement that “… the issues raised in your questions were considered by the Parliamentary Committee when it was investigating the causes of the fire.” I am further advised that after the article referred to was published, Mr Russell spoke with the journalist at length by telephone and subsequently provided a written response to the specific follow-up questions from the same journalist. (4) See answer (3). (5) See answer (3). (6) I refer the Hon member to the Reports prepared by the Economics and Industry Standing Committee – Bellevue Hazardous Waste Fire Inquiry. (7) Not applicable. (8) Report No.2 of the Economics and Industry Standing Committee – Bellevue Hazardous Waste Fire Inquiry was tabled in the Legislative Assembly on 27 June 2002. (9) Not applicable. (10) See answer 6. (11) Not applicable.
(3) I am advised that the Department provided, in writing, a general response to the questions raised by the journalist. The response included the statement that “… the issues raised in your questions were considered by the Parliamentary Committee when it was investigating the causes of the fire.” I am further advised that after the article referred to was published, Mr Russell spoke with the journalist at length by telephone and subsequently provided a written response to the specific follow-up questions from the same journalist. (4) See answer (3). (5) See answer (3). (6) I refer the Hon member to the Reports prepared by the Economics and Industry Standing Committee – Bellevue Hazardous Waste Fire Inquiry. (7) Not applicable. (8) Report No.2 of the Economics and Industry Standing Committee – Bellevue Hazardous Waste Fire Inquiry was tabled in the Legislative Assembly on 27 June 2002. (9) Not applicable. (10) See answer 6. (11) Not applicable.
(4) See answer (3). (5) See answer (3). (6) I refer the Hon member to the Reports prepared by the Economics and Industry Standing Committee – Bellevue Hazardous Waste Fire Inquiry. (7) Not applicable. (8) Report No.2 of the Economics and Industry Standing Committee – Bellevue Hazardous Waste Fire Inquiry was tabled in the Legislative Assembly on 27 June 2002. (9) Not applicable. (10) See answer 6. (11) Not applicable.
(5) See answer (3). (6) I refer the Hon member to the Reports prepared by the Economics and Industry Standing Committee – Bellevue Hazardous Waste Fire Inquiry. (7) Not applicable. (8) Report No.2 of the Economics and Industry Standing Committee – Bellevue Hazardous Waste Fire Inquiry was tabled in the Legislative Assembly on 27 June 2002. (9) Not applicable. (10) See answer 6. (11) Not applicable.
(6) I refer the Hon member to the Reports prepared by the Economics and Industry Standing Committee – Bellevue Hazardous Waste Fire Inquiry. (7) Not applicable. (8) Report No.2 of the Economics and Industry Standing Committee – Bellevue Hazardous Waste Fire Inquiry was tabled in the Legislative Assembly on 27 June 2002. (9) Not applicable. (10) See answer 6. (11) Not applicable.
(7) Not applicable. (8) Report No.2 of the Economics and Industry Standing Committee – Bellevue Hazardous Waste Fire Inquiry was tabled in the Legislative Assembly on 27 June 2002. (9) Not applicable. (10) See answer 6. (11) Not applicable.
(8) Report No.2 of the Economics and Industry Standing Committee – Bellevue Hazardous Waste Fire Inquiry was tabled in the Legislative Assembly on 27 June 2002. (9) Not applicable. (10) See answer 6. (11) Not applicable.
(9) Not applicable. (10) See answer 6. (11) Not applicable.
(10) See answer 6. (11) Not applicable.
(11) Not applicable.
(2) Not applicable. (3) I am advised that the Department provided, in writing, a general response to the questions raised by the journalist. The response included the statement that “… the issues raised in your questions were considered by the Parliamentary Committee when it was investigating the causes of the fire.” I am further advised that after the article referred to was published, Mr Russell spoke with the journalist at length by telephone and subsequently provided a written response to the specific follow-up questions from the same journalist. (4) See answer (3). (5) See answer (3). (6) I refer the Hon member to the Reports prepared by the Economics and Industry Standing Committee – Bellevue Hazardous Waste Fire Inquiry. (7) Not applicable. (8) Report No.2 of the Economics and Industry Standing Committee – Bellevue Hazardous Waste Fire Inquiry was tabled in the Legislative Assembly on 27 June 2002. (9) Not applicable. (10) See answer 6. (11) Not applicable.
(3) I am advised that the Department provided, in writing, a general response to the questions raised by the journalist. The response included the statement that “… the issues raised in your questions were considered by the Parliamentary Committee when it was investigating the causes of the fire.” I am further advised that after the article referred to was published, Mr Russell spoke with the journalist at length by telephone and subsequently provided a written response to the specific follow-up questions from the same journalist. (4) See answer (3). (5) See answer (3). (6) I refer the Hon member to the Reports prepared by the Economics and Industry Standing Committee – Bellevue Hazardous Waste Fire Inquiry. (7) Not applicable. (8) Report No.2 of the Economics and Industry Standing Committee – Bellevue Hazardous Waste Fire Inquiry was tabled in the Legislative Assembly on 27 June 2002. (9) Not applicable. (10) See answer 6. (11) Not applicable.
(4) See answer (3). (5) See answer (3). (6) I refer the Hon member to the Reports prepared by the Economics and Industry Standing Committee – Bellevue Hazardous Waste Fire Inquiry. (7) Not applicable. (8) Report No.2 of the Economics and Industry Standing Committee – Bellevue Hazardous Waste Fire Inquiry was tabled in the Legislative Assembly on 27 June 2002. (9) Not applicable. (10) See answer 6. (11) Not applicable.
(5) See answer (3). (6) I refer the Hon member to the Reports prepared by the Economics and Industry Standing Committee – Bellevue Hazardous Waste Fire Inquiry. (7) Not applicable. (8) Report No.2 of the Economics and Industry Standing Committee – Bellevue Hazardous Waste Fire Inquiry was tabled in the Legislative Assembly on 27 June 2002. (9) Not applicable. (10) See answer 6. (11) Not applicable.
(6) I refer the Hon member to the Reports prepared by the Economics and Industry Standing Committee – Bellevue Hazardous Waste Fire Inquiry. (7) Not applicable. (8) Report No.2 of the Economics and Industry Standing Committee – Bellevue Hazardous Waste Fire Inquiry was tabled in the Legislative Assembly on 27 June 2002. (9) Not applicable. (10) See answer 6. (11) Not applicable.
(7) Not applicable. (8) Report No.2 of the Economics and Industry Standing Committee – Bellevue Hazardous Waste Fire Inquiry was tabled in the Legislative Assembly on 27 June 2002. (9) Not applicable. (10) See answer 6. (11) Not applicable.
(8) Report No.2 of the Economics and Industry Standing Committee – Bellevue Hazardous Waste Fire Inquiry was tabled in the Legislative Assembly on 27 June 2002. (9) Not applicable. (10) See answer 6. (11) Not applicable.
(9) Not applicable. (10) See answer 6. (11) Not applicable.
(10) See answer 6. (11) Not applicable.
(11) Not applicable.
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.