❓ Hon. Sue Ellery questions the Minister for Mines and Petroleum regarding the Auditor General's report on mining compliance. The Minister responds cautiously, acknowledging the report but expressing reservations about some conclusions and outlining a shift towards risk-based environmental management.
AnsweredQoN 835Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND PETROLEUM — AUDITOR GENERAL’S REPORT
I refer to the Auditor General’s report “Ensuring Compliance with Conditions on Mining”. (1) Does the minister support all the findings and recommendations in the report for the Department of Mines and Petroleum? (2) If no to (1), which does he not support and why? (3) Will the minister commit to provide sufficient personnel and resources so that departmental officers can adequately monitor and inspect to ensure compliance with environmental conditions? Hon NORMAN MOORE
I refer to the Auditor General’s report “Ensuring Compliance with Conditions on Mining”. (1) Does the minister support all the findings and recommendations in the report for the Department of Mines and Petroleum? (2) If no to (1), which does he not support and why? (3) Will the minister commit to provide sufficient personnel and resources so that departmental officers can adequately monitor and inspect to ensure compliance with environmental conditions? Hon NORMAN MOORE
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for the question. (1)–(3) As the member may well know, when reports of the Auditor General are tabled, that is the first time the minister sees it—that was about two hours ago. I actually have not gone through every aspect of the report to determine what the government’s position will be in respect of these matters. I think some of the conclusions reached have been reached as a result of some confusion about the way in which environmental compliance is being undertaken by the Department of Mines and Petroleum. We are getting away from a prescriptive regulatory system of environmental compliance to a system much more related to risk management. If I can put it in simple terms: that means we identify the most risky environmental areas of the industry and put resources into making sure those environmental issues are dealt with first. There are some mine sites that are far less environmentally sensitive than others. By going from this prescriptive regulatory system to a risk assessment system we are changing the way the department manages compliance in respect of environmental matters. There has been a little confusion in the process of the Auditor General looking at what the department has been doing and what it intends to do in the future. I am also a little perplexed at some of the conclusions that have been reached bearing in mind some of the commentary in the report itself. I will quote a couple of comments that seem to be a little different from the final conclusion. The report states, for example — We found no cases of significant environmental harm that had occurred without DMP’s knowledge. That statement suggested it did not know what was going on, but the Auditor General could find no evidence of environmental harm. Similarly, in respect of enforcement of environmental issues, the report states — DMP’s approach to environmental enforcement is appropriate and potentially successful. The “potentially successful” comment relates to the risk assessment process we are going through. I am a little confused about some of the conclusions that have been reached in respect of this report and what is actually contained within it. However, as always, I will take on board the recommendations of the Auditor General. I will sit down with him, and sit down with the department, to work our way through this. What really matters at the end of the day is that the department is operating effectively, efficiently and appropriately, and that we are managing the environmental aspects of mining in a proper way. In respect of more resources, if there are more resources necessary, I will seek to have those provided. Can I just say this—the previous government had the same problem—environmental officers are very rare. Indeed many mining companies, because they have to find environmental officers themselves to get their applications in the system, are in fact pinching people from government agencies who have those qualifications. That was the same with mine safety, but I have put in place a system in which mine safety inspectors get paid a lot more money than they used to so we can be competitive with the mining industry. It may be necessary to give some thought to that in respect of environmental management in the mining industry. The point I make is that of course I will take on board the recommendations of the Auditor General. I have not had a chance to read through it in any great detail yet. One of the problems with this system is that as a minister I do not know what is in this report until it is tabled. We will put in place any changes that are necessary to meet the requirements of the Auditor General.
(1) Does the minister support all the findings and recommendations in the report for the Department of Mines and Petroleum? (2) If no to (1), which does he not support and why? (3) Will the minister commit to provide sufficient personnel and resources so that departmental officers can adequately monitor and inspect to ensure compliance with environmental conditions? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: I thank the member for the question. (1)–(3) As the member may well know, when reports of the Auditor General are tabled, that is the first time the minister sees it—that was about two hours ago. I actually have not gone through every aspect of the report to determine what the government’s position will be in respect of these matters. I think some of the conclusions reached have been reached as a result of some confusion about the way in which environmental compliance is being undertaken by the Department of Mines and Petroleum. We are getting away from a prescriptive regulatory system of environmental compliance to a system much more related to risk management. If I can put it in simple terms: that means we identify the most risky environmental areas of the industry and put resources into making sure those environmental issues are dealt with first. There are some mine sites that are far less environmentally sensitive than others. By going from this prescriptive regulatory system to a risk assessment system we are changing the way the department manages compliance in respect of environmental matters. There has been a little confusion in the process of the Auditor General looking at what the department has been doing and what it intends to do in the future. I am also a little perplexed at some of the conclusions that have been reached bearing in mind some of the commentary in the report itself. I will quote a couple of comments that seem to be a little different from the final conclusion. The report states, for example — We found no cases of significant environmental harm that had occurred without DMP’s knowledge. That statement suggested it did not know what was going on, but the Auditor General could find no evidence of environmental harm. Similarly, in respect of enforcement of environmental issues, the report states — DMP’s approach to environmental enforcement is appropriate and potentially successful. The “potentially successful” comment relates to the risk assessment process we are going through. I am a little confused about some of the conclusions that have been reached in respect of this report and what is actually contained within it. However, as always, I will take on board the recommendations of the Auditor General. I will sit down with him, and sit down with the department, to work our way through this. What really matters at the end of the day is that the department is operating effectively, efficiently and appropriately, and that we are managing the environmental aspects of mining in a proper way. In respect of more resources, if there are more resources necessary, I will seek to have those provided. Can I just say this—the previous government had the same problem—environmental officers are very rare. Indeed many mining companies, because they have to find environmental officers themselves to get their applications in the system, are in fact pinching people from government agencies who have those qualifications. That was the same with mine safety, but I have put in place a system in which mine safety inspectors get paid a lot more money than they used to so we can be competitive with the mining industry. It may be necessary to give some thought to that in respect of environmental management in the mining industry. The point I make is that of course I will take on board the recommendations of the Auditor General. I have not had a chance to read through it in any great detail yet. One of the problems with this system is that as a minister I do not know what is in this report until it is tabled. We will put in place any changes that are necessary to meet the requirements of the Auditor General.
(2) If no to (1), which does he not support and why? (3) Will the minister commit to provide sufficient personnel and resources so that departmental officers can adequately monitor and inspect to ensure compliance with environmental conditions? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: I thank the member for the question. (1)–(3) As the member may well know, when reports of the Auditor General are tabled, that is the first time the minister sees it—that was about two hours ago. I actually have not gone through every aspect of the report to determine what the government’s position will be in respect of these matters. I think some of the conclusions reached have been reached as a result of some confusion about the way in which environmental compliance is being undertaken by the Department of Mines and Petroleum. We are getting away from a prescriptive regulatory system of environmental compliance to a system much more related to risk management. If I can put it in simple terms: that means we identify the most risky environmental areas of the industry and put resources into making sure those environmental issues are dealt with first. There are some mine sites that are far less environmentally sensitive than others. By going from this prescriptive regulatory system to a risk assessment system we are changing the way the department manages compliance in respect of environmental matters. There has been a little confusion in the process of the Auditor General looking at what the department has been doing and what it intends to do in the future. I am also a little perplexed at some of the conclusions that have been reached bearing in mind some of the commentary in the report itself. I will quote a couple of comments that seem to be a little different from the final conclusion. The report states, for example — We found no cases of significant environmental harm that had occurred without DMP’s knowledge. That statement suggested it did not know what was going on, but the Auditor General could find no evidence of environmental harm. Similarly, in respect of enforcement of environmental issues, the report states — DMP’s approach to environmental enforcement is appropriate and potentially successful. The “potentially successful” comment relates to the risk assessment process we are going through. I am a little confused about some of the conclusions that have been reached in respect of this report and what is actually contained within it. However, as always, I will take on board the recommendations of the Auditor General. I will sit down with him, and sit down with the department, to work our way through this. What really matters at the end of the day is that the department is operating effectively, efficiently and appropriately, and that we are managing the environmental aspects of mining in a proper way. In respect of more resources, if there are more resources necessary, I will seek to have those provided. Can I just say this—the previous government had the same problem—environmental officers are very rare. Indeed many mining companies, because they have to find environmental officers themselves to get their applications in the system, are in fact pinching people from government agencies who have those qualifications. That was the same with mine safety, but I have put in place a system in which mine safety inspectors get paid a lot more money than they used to so we can be competitive with the mining industry. It may be necessary to give some thought to that in respect of environmental management in the mining industry. The point I make is that of course I will take on board the recommendations of the Auditor General. I have not had a chance to read through it in any great detail yet. One of the problems with this system is that as a minister I do not know what is in this report until it is tabled. We will put in place any changes that are necessary to meet the requirements of the Auditor General.
(3) Will the minister commit to provide sufficient personnel and resources so that departmental officers can adequately monitor and inspect to ensure compliance with environmental conditions? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: I thank the member for the question. (1)–(3) As the member may well know, when reports of the Auditor General are tabled, that is the first time the minister sees it—that was about two hours ago. I actually have not gone through every aspect of the report to determine what the government’s position will be in respect of these matters. I think some of the conclusions reached have been reached as a result of some confusion about the way in which environmental compliance is being undertaken by the Department of Mines and Petroleum. We are getting away from a prescriptive regulatory system of environmental compliance to a system much more related to risk management. If I can put it in simple terms: that means we identify the most risky environmental areas of the industry and put resources into making sure those environmental issues are dealt with first. There are some mine sites that are far less environmentally sensitive than others. By going from this prescriptive regulatory system to a risk assessment system we are changing the way the department manages compliance in respect of environmental matters. There has been a little confusion in the process of the Auditor General looking at what the department has been doing and what it intends to do in the future. I am also a little perplexed at some of the conclusions that have been reached bearing in mind some of the commentary in the report itself. I will quote a couple of comments that seem to be a little different from the final conclusion. The report states, for example — We found no cases of significant environmental harm that had occurred without DMP’s knowledge. That statement suggested it did not know what was going on, but the Auditor General could find no evidence of environmental harm. Similarly, in respect of enforcement of environmental issues, the report states — DMP’s approach to environmental enforcement is appropriate and potentially successful. The “potentially successful” comment relates to the risk assessment process we are going through. I am a little confused about some of the conclusions that have been reached in respect of this report and what is actually contained within it. However, as always, I will take on board the recommendations of the Auditor General. I will sit down with him, and sit down with the department, to work our way through this. What really matters at the end of the day is that the department is operating effectively, efficiently and appropriately, and that we are managing the environmental aspects of mining in a proper way. In respect of more resources, if there are more resources necessary, I will seek to have those provided. Can I just say this—the previous government had the same problem—environmental officers are very rare. Indeed many mining companies, because they have to find environmental officers themselves to get their applications in the system, are in fact pinching people from government agencies who have those qualifications. That was the same with mine safety, but I have put in place a system in which mine safety inspectors get paid a lot more money than they used to so we can be competitive with the mining industry. It may be necessary to give some thought to that in respect of environmental management in the mining industry. The point I make is that of course I will take on board the recommendations of the Auditor General. I have not had a chance to read through it in any great detail yet. One of the problems with this system is that as a minister I do not know what is in this report until it is tabled. We will put in place any changes that are necessary to meet the requirements of the Auditor General.
Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: I thank the member for the question. (1)–(3) As the member may well know, when reports of the Auditor General are tabled, that is the first time the minister sees it—that was about two hours ago. I actually have not gone through every aspect of the report to determine what the government’s position will be in respect of these matters. I think some of the conclusions reached have been reached as a result of some confusion about the way in which environmental compliance is being undertaken by the Department of Mines and Petroleum. We are getting away from a prescriptive regulatory system of environmental compliance to a system much more related to risk management. If I can put it in simple terms: that means we identify the most risky environmental areas of the industry and put resources into making sure those environmental issues are dealt with first. There are some mine sites that are far less environmentally sensitive than others. By going from this prescriptive regulatory system to a risk assessment system we are changing the way the department manages compliance in respect of environmental matters. There has been a little confusion in the process of the Auditor General looking at what the department has been doing and what it intends to do in the future. I am also a little perplexed at some of the conclusions that have been reached bearing in mind some of the commentary in the report itself. I will quote a couple of comments that seem to be a little different from the final conclusion. The report states, for example — We found no cases of significant environmental harm that had occurred without DMP’s knowledge. That statement suggested it did not know what was going on, but the Auditor General could find no evidence of environmental harm. Similarly, in respect of enforcement of environmental issues, the report states — DMP’s approach to environmental enforcement is appropriate and potentially successful. The “potentially successful” comment relates to the risk assessment process we are going through. I am a little confused about some of the conclusions that have been reached in respect of this report and what is actually contained within it. However, as always, I will take on board the recommendations of the Auditor General. I will sit down with him, and sit down with the department, to work our way through this. What really matters at the end of the day is that the department is operating effectively, efficiently and appropriately, and that we are managing the environmental aspects of mining in a proper way. In respect of more resources, if there are more resources necessary, I will seek to have those provided. Can I just say this—the previous government had the same problem—environmental officers are very rare. Indeed many mining companies, because they have to find environmental officers themselves to get their applications in the system, are in fact pinching people from government agencies who have those qualifications. That was the same with mine safety, but I have put in place a system in which mine safety inspectors get paid a lot more money than they used to so we can be competitive with the mining industry. It may be necessary to give some thought to that in respect of environmental management in the mining industry. The point I make is that of course I will take on board the recommendations of the Auditor General. I have not had a chance to read through it in any great detail yet. One of the problems with this system is that as a minister I do not know what is in this report until it is tabled. We will put in place any changes that are necessary to meet the requirements of the Auditor General.
I thank the member for the question. (1)–(3) As the member may well know, when reports of the Auditor General are tabled, that is the first time the minister sees it—that was about two hours ago. I actually have not gone through every aspect of the report to determine what the government’s position will be in respect of these matters. I think some of the conclusions reached have been reached as a result of some confusion about the way in which environmental compliance is being undertaken by the Department of Mines and Petroleum. We are getting away from a prescriptive regulatory system of environmental compliance to a system much more related to risk management. If I can put it in simple terms: that means we identify the most risky environmental areas of the industry and put resources into making sure those environmental issues are dealt with first. There are some mine sites that are far less environmentally sensitive than others. By going from this prescriptive regulatory system to a risk assessment system we are changing the way the department manages compliance in respect of environmental matters. There has been a little confusion in the process of the Auditor General looking at what the department has been doing and what it intends to do in the future. I am also a little perplexed at some of the conclusions that have been reached bearing in mind some of the commentary in the report itself. I will quote a couple of comments that seem to be a little different from the final conclusion. The report states, for example — We found no cases of significant environmental harm that had occurred without DMP’s knowledge. That statement suggested it did not know what was going on, but the Auditor General could find no evidence of environmental harm. Similarly, in respect of enforcement of environmental issues, the report states — DMP’s approach to environmental enforcement is appropriate and potentially successful. The “potentially successful” comment relates to the risk assessment process we are going through. I am a little confused about some of the conclusions that have been reached in respect of this report and what is actually contained within it. However, as always, I will take on board the recommendations of the Auditor General. I will sit down with him, and sit down with the department, to work our way through this. What really matters at the end of the day is that the department is operating effectively, efficiently and appropriately, and that we are managing the environmental aspects of mining in a proper way. In respect of more resources, if there are more resources necessary, I will seek to have those provided. Can I just say this—the previous government had the same problem—environmental officers are very rare. Indeed many mining companies, because they have to find environmental officers themselves to get their applications in the system, are in fact pinching people from government agencies who have those qualifications. That was the same with mine safety, but I have put in place a system in which mine safety inspectors get paid a lot more money than they used to so we can be competitive with the mining industry. It may be necessary to give some thought to that in respect of environmental management in the mining industry. The point I make is that of course I will take on board the recommendations of the Auditor General. I have not had a chance to read through it in any great detail yet. One of the problems with this system is that as a minister I do not know what is in this report until it is tabled. We will put in place any changes that are necessary to meet the requirements of the Auditor General.
(1)–(3) As the member may well know, when reports of the Auditor General are tabled, that is the first time the minister sees it—that was about two hours ago. I actually have not gone through every aspect of the report to determine what the government’s position will be in respect of these matters. I think some of the conclusions reached have been reached as a result of some confusion about the way in which environmental compliance is being undertaken by the Department of Mines and Petroleum. We are getting away from a prescriptive regulatory system of environmental compliance to a system much more related to risk management. If I can put it in simple terms: that means we identify the most risky environmental areas of the industry and put resources into making sure those environmental issues are dealt with first. There are some mine sites that are far less environmentally sensitive than others. By going from this prescriptive regulatory system to a risk assessment system we are changing the way the department manages compliance in respect of environmental matters. There has been a little confusion in the process of the Auditor General looking at what the department has been doing and what it intends to do in the future. I am also a little perplexed at some of the conclusions that have been reached bearing in mind some of the commentary in the report itself. I will quote a couple of comments that seem to be a little different from the final conclusion. The report states, for example — We found no cases of significant environmental harm that had occurred without DMP’s knowledge. That statement suggested it did not know what was going on, but the Auditor General could find no evidence of environmental harm. Similarly, in respect of enforcement of environmental issues, the report states — DMP’s approach to environmental enforcement is appropriate and potentially successful. The “potentially successful” comment relates to the risk assessment process we are going through. I am a little confused about some of the conclusions that have been reached in respect of this report and what is actually contained within it. However, as always, I will take on board the recommendations of the Auditor General. I will sit down with him, and sit down with the department, to work our way through this. What really matters at the end of the day is that the department is operating effectively, efficiently and appropriately, and that we are managing the environmental aspects of mining in a proper way. In respect of more resources, if there are more resources necessary, I will seek to have those provided. Can I just say this—the previous government had the same problem—environmental officers are very rare. Indeed many mining companies, because they have to find environmental officers themselves to get their applications in the system, are in fact pinching people from government agencies who have those qualifications. That was the same with mine safety, but I have put in place a system in which mine safety inspectors get paid a lot more money than they used to so we can be competitive with the mining industry. It may be necessary to give some thought to that in respect of environmental management in the mining industry. The point I make is that of course I will take on board the recommendations of the Auditor General. I have not had a chance to read through it in any great detail yet. One of the problems with this system is that as a minister I do not know what is in this report until it is tabled. We will put in place any changes that are necessary to meet the requirements of the Auditor General.
In respect of more resources, if there are more resources necessary, I will seek to have those provided. Can I just say this—the previous government had the same problem—environmental officers are very rare. Indeed many mining companies, because they have to find environmental officers themselves to get their applications in the system, are in fact pinching people from government agencies who have those qualifications. That was the same with mine safety, but I have put in place a system in which mine safety inspectors get paid a lot more money than they used to so we can be competitive with the mining industry. It may be necessary to give some thought to that in respect of environmental management in the mining industry. The point I make is that of course I will take on board the recommendations of the Auditor General. I have not had a chance to read through it in any great detail yet. One of the problems with this system is that as a minister I do not know what is in this report until it is tabled. We will put in place any changes that are necessary to meet the requirements of the Auditor General.
(1) Does the minister support all the findings and recommendations in the report for the Department of Mines and Petroleum? (2) If no to (1), which does he not support and why? (3) Will the minister commit to provide sufficient personnel and resources so that departmental officers can adequately monitor and inspect to ensure compliance with environmental conditions? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: I thank the member for the question. (1)–(3) As the member may well know, when reports of the Auditor General are tabled, that is the first time the minister sees it—that was about two hours ago. I actually have not gone through every aspect of the report to determine what the government’s position will be in respect of these matters. I think some of the conclusions reached have been reached as a result of some confusion about the way in which environmental compliance is being undertaken by the Department of Mines and Petroleum. We are getting away from a prescriptive regulatory system of environmental compliance to a system much more related to risk management. If I can put it in simple terms: that means we identify the most risky environmental areas of the industry and put resources into making sure those environmental issues are dealt with first. There are some mine sites that are far less environmentally sensitive than others. By going from this prescriptive regulatory system to a risk assessment system we are changing the way the department manages compliance in respect of environmental matters. There has been a little confusion in the process of the Auditor General looking at what the department has been doing and what it intends to do in the future. I am also a little perplexed at some of the conclusions that have been reached bearing in mind some of the commentary in the report itself. I will quote a couple of comments that seem to be a little different from the final conclusion. The report states, for example — We found no cases of significant environmental harm that had occurred without DMP’s knowledge. That statement suggested it did not know what was going on, but the Auditor General could find no evidence of environmental harm. Similarly, in respect of enforcement of environmental issues, the report states — DMP’s approach to environmental enforcement is appropriate and potentially successful. The “potentially successful” comment relates to the risk assessment process we are going through. I am a little confused about some of the conclusions that have been reached in respect of this report and what is actually contained within it. However, as always, I will take on board the recommendations of the Auditor General. I will sit down with him, and sit down with the department, to work our way through this. What really matters at the end of the day is that the department is operating effectively, efficiently and appropriately, and that we are managing the environmental aspects of mining in a proper way. In respect of more resources, if there are more resources necessary, I will seek to have those provided. Can I just say this—the previous government had the same problem—environmental officers are very rare. Indeed many mining companies, because they have to find environmental officers themselves to get their applications in the system, are in fact pinching people from government agencies who have those qualifications. That was the same with mine safety, but I have put in place a system in which mine safety inspectors get paid a lot more money than they used to so we can be competitive with the mining industry. It may be necessary to give some thought to that in respect of environmental management in the mining industry. The point I make is that of course I will take on board the recommendations of the Auditor General. I have not had a chance to read through it in any great detail yet. One of the problems with this system is that as a minister I do not know what is in this report until it is tabled. We will put in place any changes that are necessary to meet the requirements of the Auditor General.
(2) If no to (1), which does he not support and why? (3) Will the minister commit to provide sufficient personnel and resources so that departmental officers can adequately monitor and inspect to ensure compliance with environmental conditions? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: I thank the member for the question. (1)–(3) As the member may well know, when reports of the Auditor General are tabled, that is the first time the minister sees it—that was about two hours ago. I actually have not gone through every aspect of the report to determine what the government’s position will be in respect of these matters. I think some of the conclusions reached have been reached as a result of some confusion about the way in which environmental compliance is being undertaken by the Department of Mines and Petroleum. We are getting away from a prescriptive regulatory system of environmental compliance to a system much more related to risk management. If I can put it in simple terms: that means we identify the most risky environmental areas of the industry and put resources into making sure those environmental issues are dealt with first. There are some mine sites that are far less environmentally sensitive than others. By going from this prescriptive regulatory system to a risk assessment system we are changing the way the department manages compliance in respect of environmental matters. There has been a little confusion in the process of the Auditor General looking at what the department has been doing and what it intends to do in the future. I am also a little perplexed at some of the conclusions that have been reached bearing in mind some of the commentary in the report itself. I will quote a couple of comments that seem to be a little different from the final conclusion. The report states, for example — We found no cases of significant environmental harm that had occurred without DMP’s knowledge. That statement suggested it did not know what was going on, but the Auditor General could find no evidence of environmental harm. Similarly, in respect of enforcement of environmental issues, the report states — DMP’s approach to environmental enforcement is appropriate and potentially successful. The “potentially successful” comment relates to the risk assessment process we are going through. I am a little confused about some of the conclusions that have been reached in respect of this report and what is actually contained within it. However, as always, I will take on board the recommendations of the Auditor General. I will sit down with him, and sit down with the department, to work our way through this. What really matters at the end of the day is that the department is operating effectively, efficiently and appropriately, and that we are managing the environmental aspects of mining in a proper way. In respect of more resources, if there are more resources necessary, I will seek to have those provided. Can I just say this—the previous government had the same problem—environmental officers are very rare. Indeed many mining companies, because they have to find environmental officers themselves to get their applications in the system, are in fact pinching people from government agencies who have those qualifications. That was the same with mine safety, but I have put in place a system in which mine safety inspectors get paid a lot more money than they used to so we can be competitive with the mining industry. It may be necessary to give some thought to that in respect of environmental management in the mining industry. The point I make is that of course I will take on board the recommendations of the Auditor General. I have not had a chance to read through it in any great detail yet. One of the problems with this system is that as a minister I do not know what is in this report until it is tabled. We will put in place any changes that are necessary to meet the requirements of the Auditor General.
(3) Will the minister commit to provide sufficient personnel and resources so that departmental officers can adequately monitor and inspect to ensure compliance with environmental conditions? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: I thank the member for the question. (1)–(3) As the member may well know, when reports of the Auditor General are tabled, that is the first time the minister sees it—that was about two hours ago. I actually have not gone through every aspect of the report to determine what the government’s position will be in respect of these matters. I think some of the conclusions reached have been reached as a result of some confusion about the way in which environmental compliance is being undertaken by the Department of Mines and Petroleum. We are getting away from a prescriptive regulatory system of environmental compliance to a system much more related to risk management. If I can put it in simple terms: that means we identify the most risky environmental areas of the industry and put resources into making sure those environmental issues are dealt with first. There are some mine sites that are far less environmentally sensitive than others. By going from this prescriptive regulatory system to a risk assessment system we are changing the way the department manages compliance in respect of environmental matters. There has been a little confusion in the process of the Auditor General looking at what the department has been doing and what it intends to do in the future. I am also a little perplexed at some of the conclusions that have been reached bearing in mind some of the commentary in the report itself. I will quote a couple of comments that seem to be a little different from the final conclusion. The report states, for example — We found no cases of significant environmental harm that had occurred without DMP’s knowledge. That statement suggested it did not know what was going on, but the Auditor General could find no evidence of environmental harm. Similarly, in respect of enforcement of environmental issues, the report states — DMP’s approach to environmental enforcement is appropriate and potentially successful. The “potentially successful” comment relates to the risk assessment process we are going through. I am a little confused about some of the conclusions that have been reached in respect of this report and what is actually contained within it. However, as always, I will take on board the recommendations of the Auditor General. I will sit down with him, and sit down with the department, to work our way through this. What really matters at the end of the day is that the department is operating effectively, efficiently and appropriately, and that we are managing the environmental aspects of mining in a proper way. In respect of more resources, if there are more resources necessary, I will seek to have those provided. Can I just say this—the previous government had the same problem—environmental officers are very rare. Indeed many mining companies, because they have to find environmental officers themselves to get their applications in the system, are in fact pinching people from government agencies who have those qualifications. That was the same with mine safety, but I have put in place a system in which mine safety inspectors get paid a lot more money than they used to so we can be competitive with the mining industry. It may be necessary to give some thought to that in respect of environmental management in the mining industry. The point I make is that of course I will take on board the recommendations of the Auditor General. I have not had a chance to read through it in any great detail yet. One of the problems with this system is that as a minister I do not know what is in this report until it is tabled. We will put in place any changes that are necessary to meet the requirements of the Auditor General.
Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: I thank the member for the question. (1)–(3) As the member may well know, when reports of the Auditor General are tabled, that is the first time the minister sees it—that was about two hours ago. I actually have not gone through every aspect of the report to determine what the government’s position will be in respect of these matters. I think some of the conclusions reached have been reached as a result of some confusion about the way in which environmental compliance is being undertaken by the Department of Mines and Petroleum. We are getting away from a prescriptive regulatory system of environmental compliance to a system much more related to risk management. If I can put it in simple terms: that means we identify the most risky environmental areas of the industry and put resources into making sure those environmental issues are dealt with first. There are some mine sites that are far less environmentally sensitive than others. By going from this prescriptive regulatory system to a risk assessment system we are changing the way the department manages compliance in respect of environmental matters. There has been a little confusion in the process of the Auditor General looking at what the department has been doing and what it intends to do in the future. I am also a little perplexed at some of the conclusions that have been reached bearing in mind some of the commentary in the report itself. I will quote a couple of comments that seem to be a little different from the final conclusion. The report states, for example — We found no cases of significant environmental harm that had occurred without DMP’s knowledge. That statement suggested it did not know what was going on, but the Auditor General could find no evidence of environmental harm. Similarly, in respect of enforcement of environmental issues, the report states — DMP’s approach to environmental enforcement is appropriate and potentially successful. The “potentially successful” comment relates to the risk assessment process we are going through. I am a little confused about some of the conclusions that have been reached in respect of this report and what is actually contained within it. However, as always, I will take on board the recommendations of the Auditor General. I will sit down with him, and sit down with the department, to work our way through this. What really matters at the end of the day is that the department is operating effectively, efficiently and appropriately, and that we are managing the environmental aspects of mining in a proper way. In respect of more resources, if there are more resources necessary, I will seek to have those provided. Can I just say this—the previous government had the same problem—environmental officers are very rare. Indeed many mining companies, because they have to find environmental officers themselves to get their applications in the system, are in fact pinching people from government agencies who have those qualifications. That was the same with mine safety, but I have put in place a system in which mine safety inspectors get paid a lot more money than they used to so we can be competitive with the mining industry. It may be necessary to give some thought to that in respect of environmental management in the mining industry. The point I make is that of course I will take on board the recommendations of the Auditor General. I have not had a chance to read through it in any great detail yet. One of the problems with this system is that as a minister I do not know what is in this report until it is tabled. We will put in place any changes that are necessary to meet the requirements of the Auditor General.
I thank the member for the question. (1)–(3) As the member may well know, when reports of the Auditor General are tabled, that is the first time the minister sees it—that was about two hours ago. I actually have not gone through every aspect of the report to determine what the government’s position will be in respect of these matters. I think some of the conclusions reached have been reached as a result of some confusion about the way in which environmental compliance is being undertaken by the Department of Mines and Petroleum. We are getting away from a prescriptive regulatory system of environmental compliance to a system much more related to risk management. If I can put it in simple terms: that means we identify the most risky environmental areas of the industry and put resources into making sure those environmental issues are dealt with first. There are some mine sites that are far less environmentally sensitive than others. By going from this prescriptive regulatory system to a risk assessment system we are changing the way the department manages compliance in respect of environmental matters. There has been a little confusion in the process of the Auditor General looking at what the department has been doing and what it intends to do in the future. I am also a little perplexed at some of the conclusions that have been reached bearing in mind some of the commentary in the report itself. I will quote a couple of comments that seem to be a little different from the final conclusion. The report states, for example — We found no cases of significant environmental harm that had occurred without DMP’s knowledge. That statement suggested it did not know what was going on, but the Auditor General could find no evidence of environmental harm. Similarly, in respect of enforcement of environmental issues, the report states — DMP’s approach to environmental enforcement is appropriate and potentially successful. The “potentially successful” comment relates to the risk assessment process we are going through. I am a little confused about some of the conclusions that have been reached in respect of this report and what is actually contained within it. However, as always, I will take on board the recommendations of the Auditor General. I will sit down with him, and sit down with the department, to work our way through this. What really matters at the end of the day is that the department is operating effectively, efficiently and appropriately, and that we are managing the environmental aspects of mining in a proper way. In respect of more resources, if there are more resources necessary, I will seek to have those provided. Can I just say this—the previous government had the same problem—environmental officers are very rare. Indeed many mining companies, because they have to find environmental officers themselves to get their applications in the system, are in fact pinching people from government agencies who have those qualifications. That was the same with mine safety, but I have put in place a system in which mine safety inspectors get paid a lot more money than they used to so we can be competitive with the mining industry. It may be necessary to give some thought to that in respect of environmental management in the mining industry. The point I make is that of course I will take on board the recommendations of the Auditor General. I have not had a chance to read through it in any great detail yet. One of the problems with this system is that as a minister I do not know what is in this report until it is tabled. We will put in place any changes that are necessary to meet the requirements of the Auditor General.
(1)–(3) As the member may well know, when reports of the Auditor General are tabled, that is the first time the minister sees it—that was about two hours ago. I actually have not gone through every aspect of the report to determine what the government’s position will be in respect of these matters. I think some of the conclusions reached have been reached as a result of some confusion about the way in which environmental compliance is being undertaken by the Department of Mines and Petroleum. We are getting away from a prescriptive regulatory system of environmental compliance to a system much more related to risk management. If I can put it in simple terms: that means we identify the most risky environmental areas of the industry and put resources into making sure those environmental issues are dealt with first. There are some mine sites that are far less environmentally sensitive than others. By going from this prescriptive regulatory system to a risk assessment system we are changing the way the department manages compliance in respect of environmental matters. There has been a little confusion in the process of the Auditor General looking at what the department has been doing and what it intends to do in the future. I am also a little perplexed at some of the conclusions that have been reached bearing in mind some of the commentary in the report itself. I will quote a couple of comments that seem to be a little different from the final conclusion. The report states, for example — We found no cases of significant environmental harm that had occurred without DMP’s knowledge. That statement suggested it did not know what was going on, but the Auditor General could find no evidence of environmental harm. Similarly, in respect of enforcement of environmental issues, the report states — DMP’s approach to environmental enforcement is appropriate and potentially successful. The “potentially successful” comment relates to the risk assessment process we are going through. I am a little confused about some of the conclusions that have been reached in respect of this report and what is actually contained within it. However, as always, I will take on board the recommendations of the Auditor General. I will sit down with him, and sit down with the department, to work our way through this. What really matters at the end of the day is that the department is operating effectively, efficiently and appropriately, and that we are managing the environmental aspects of mining in a proper way. In respect of more resources, if there are more resources necessary, I will seek to have those provided. Can I just say this—the previous government had the same problem—environmental officers are very rare. Indeed many mining companies, because they have to find environmental officers themselves to get their applications in the system, are in fact pinching people from government agencies who have those qualifications. That was the same with mine safety, but I have put in place a system in which mine safety inspectors get paid a lot more money than they used to so we can be competitive with the mining industry. It may be necessary to give some thought to that in respect of environmental management in the mining industry. The point I make is that of course I will take on board the recommendations of the Auditor General. I have not had a chance to read through it in any great detail yet. One of the problems with this system is that as a minister I do not know what is in this report until it is tabled. We will put in place any changes that are necessary to meet the requirements of the Auditor General.
In respect of more resources, if there are more resources necessary, I will seek to have those provided. Can I just say this—the previous government had the same problem—environmental officers are very rare. Indeed many mining companies, because they have to find environmental officers themselves to get their applications in the system, are in fact pinching people from government agencies who have those qualifications. That was the same with mine safety, but I have put in place a system in which mine safety inspectors get paid a lot more money than they used to so we can be competitive with the mining industry. It may be necessary to give some thought to that in respect of environmental management in the mining industry. The point I make is that of course I will take on board the recommendations of the Auditor General. I have not had a chance to read through it in any great detail yet. One of the problems with this system is that as a minister I do not know what is in this report until it is tabled. We will put in place any changes that are necessary to meet the requirements of the Auditor General.
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.