❓ Hon Paul Llewellyn questions the Department of Environment's (DoE) handling of pollution from KCGM's tailings dams, alleging inaction despite evidence of vegetation stress. The Minister refers to answers in QoN 3211, confirming vegetation stress but stating it's now controlled.
AnsweredQoN 3213Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to Cooke Review dated January 15 2004, the Thompson and Brett Report dated October 12 2004, question on notice No. 1334 of May 2 1995, the ‘Technical Review Tailings dams’ report dated June 17 1994, and a letter dated October 15 1996, titled ‘Saline Ground Water and Vegetation stress’ signed by Andrew Baker, Director Pollution Prevention Division, Department of Environmental Protection addressed to Mr Bob Crew, General Manager, Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mines Pty Ltd (KCGM) -
(1) Can the Minister explain why the Department of Environment (DoE) in the last four years has focused it resources on defending KCGM and has not been able to identify vegetation being stressed and dying (pollution) in the area of the Fimiston I and Fimiston II and Oroya Tailings dams, whereas the Thompson and Brett report dated October 12 2004, and the Cooke Review clearly identified it?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) Given that the technical review tailings dams report dated June 17 1994, in part states ‘As previously reported (KCGM 1993b) seepage from the tailings dams has caused the water table to rise and stress some of the nearby vegetation.’ Can the Minister explain why the DoE has allowed KCGM for over 12 years to repeatedly cause pollution killing and stressing vegetation without facing a prosecution or clearly preventing further ongoing impacts to vegetation?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) Given that the Minister for the Environment on advice from the Department in 1995 stated ‘There are signs of stress on vegetation located on Hampton Location 32 Trans Australian Railway which KCGM advises is directly related to seepage’, can the Minister explain why the DoE has not been able to firstly identify any stressed and dying vegetation as identified in the Thompson and Brett Review dated October 12 2004, and the cause of the stressed and dying vegetation?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
(7) Can the Minister confirm that the Thompson and Brett report dated October 12 2004, in part states ‘The most obvious impact of seepage and the rising groundwater levels has been on vegetation. A comparison of aerial photographs and evidence of stumps at the site indicate that there has been an identifiable loss of mature trees in the zone previously affected by elevated ground water tables but without testing it is not possible at this stage to prove the cause of death. Some trees in the area appear noticeably stressed or recovering from previous stresses’?
(8) If no to (7), what specifically does it state?
(1) Can the Minister explain why the Department of Environment (DoE) in the last four years has focused it resources on defending KCGM and has not been able to identify vegetation being stressed and dying (pollution) in the area of the Fimiston I and Fimiston II and Oroya Tailings dams, whereas the Thompson and Brett report dated October 12 2004, and the Cooke Review clearly identified it?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) Given that the technical review tailings dams report dated June 17 1994, in part states ‘As previously reported (KCGM 1993b) seepage from the tailings dams has caused the water table to rise and stress some of the nearby vegetation.’ Can the Minister explain why the DoE has allowed KCGM for over 12 years to repeatedly cause pollution killing and stressing vegetation without facing a prosecution or clearly preventing further ongoing impacts to vegetation?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) Given that the Minister for the Environment on advice from the Department in 1995 stated ‘There are signs of stress on vegetation located on Hampton Location 32 Trans Australian Railway which KCGM advises is directly related to seepage’, can the Minister explain why the DoE has not been able to firstly identify any stressed and dying vegetation as identified in the Thompson and Brett Review dated October 12 2004, and the cause of the stressed and dying vegetation?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
(7) Can the Minister confirm that the Thompson and Brett report dated October 12 2004, in part states ‘The most obvious impact of seepage and the rising groundwater levels has been on vegetation. A comparison of aerial photographs and evidence of stumps at the site indicate that there has been an identifiable loss of mature trees in the zone previously affected by elevated ground water tables but without testing it is not possible at this stage to prove the cause of death. Some trees in the area appear noticeably stressed or recovering from previous stresses’?
(8) If no to (7), what specifically does it state?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
14 March 2006
Responded by
Minister for Education and Training representing the Minister for the Environment
Response time
103 days
The Minister for the Environment has provided the following response: The following information is correct as at 16 January 2006. (1) Please refer to the answers provided in Question on Notice 3211. (2) Not applicable. (3) Please refer to the answer provided to part (13) in Question on Notice 3211. (4) Not applicable. (5) As per (1) and (3) (6) Not applicable. (7) Yes, though the next sentence states "This impact has now been controlled by reducing high groundwater levels." (8) Not applicable.
The following information is correct as at 16 January 2006. (1) Please refer to the answers provided in Question on Notice 3211. (2) Not applicable. (3) Please refer to the answer provided to part (13) in Question on Notice 3211. (4) Not applicable. (5) As per (1) and (3) (6) Not applicable. (7) Yes, though the next sentence states "This impact has now been controlled by reducing high groundwater levels." (8) Not applicable.
(1) Please refer to the answers provided in Question on Notice 3211. (2) Not applicable. (3) Please refer to the answer provided to part (13) in Question on Notice 3211. (4) Not applicable. (5) As per (1) and (3) (6) Not applicable. (7) Yes, though the next sentence states "This impact has now been controlled by reducing high groundwater levels." (8) Not applicable.
(2) Not applicable. (3) Please refer to the answer provided to part (13) in Question on Notice 3211. (4) Not applicable. (5) As per (1) and (3) (6) Not applicable. (7) Yes, though the next sentence states "This impact has now been controlled by reducing high groundwater levels." (8) Not applicable.
(3) Please refer to the answer provided to part (13) in Question on Notice 3211. (4) Not applicable. (5) As per (1) and (3) (6) Not applicable. (7) Yes, though the next sentence states "This impact has now been controlled by reducing high groundwater levels." (8) Not applicable.
(4) Not applicable. (5) As per (1) and (3) (6) Not applicable. (7) Yes, though the next sentence states "This impact has now been controlled by reducing high groundwater levels." (8) Not applicable.
(5) As per (1) and (3) (6) Not applicable. (7) Yes, though the next sentence states "This impact has now been controlled by reducing high groundwater levels." (8) Not applicable.
(6) Not applicable. (7) Yes, though the next sentence states "This impact has now been controlled by reducing high groundwater levels." (8) Not applicable.
(7) Yes, though the next sentence states "This impact has now been controlled by reducing high groundwater levels." (8) Not applicable.
(8) Not applicable.
The following information is correct as at 16 January 2006. (1) Please refer to the answers provided in Question on Notice 3211. (2) Not applicable. (3) Please refer to the answer provided to part (13) in Question on Notice 3211. (4) Not applicable. (5) As per (1) and (3) (6) Not applicable. (7) Yes, though the next sentence states "This impact has now been controlled by reducing high groundwater levels." (8) Not applicable.
(1) Please refer to the answers provided in Question on Notice 3211. (2) Not applicable. (3) Please refer to the answer provided to part (13) in Question on Notice 3211. (4) Not applicable. (5) As per (1) and (3) (6) Not applicable. (7) Yes, though the next sentence states "This impact has now been controlled by reducing high groundwater levels." (8) Not applicable.
(2) Not applicable. (3) Please refer to the answer provided to part (13) in Question on Notice 3211. (4) Not applicable. (5) As per (1) and (3) (6) Not applicable. (7) Yes, though the next sentence states "This impact has now been controlled by reducing high groundwater levels." (8) Not applicable.
(3) Please refer to the answer provided to part (13) in Question on Notice 3211. (4) Not applicable. (5) As per (1) and (3) (6) Not applicable. (7) Yes, though the next sentence states "This impact has now been controlled by reducing high groundwater levels." (8) Not applicable.
(4) Not applicable. (5) As per (1) and (3) (6) Not applicable. (7) Yes, though the next sentence states "This impact has now been controlled by reducing high groundwater levels." (8) Not applicable.
(5) As per (1) and (3) (6) Not applicable. (7) Yes, though the next sentence states "This impact has now been controlled by reducing high groundwater levels." (8) Not applicable.
(6) Not applicable. (7) Yes, though the next sentence states "This impact has now been controlled by reducing high groundwater levels." (8) Not applicable.
(7) Yes, though the next sentence states "This impact has now been controlled by reducing high groundwater levels." (8) Not applicable.
(8) 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.