❓ Hon Robin Chapple questions the Minister for State Development regarding the government's response to the Cooke Review on mining impacts in Kalgoorlie, particularly concerning tailings dams and the scope of subsequent reviews.
AnsweredQoN 2468Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to a media statement dated August 24 2004 titled ‘Government responds to the Cooke Review’, a letter from myself dated November 3 2003 addressed to the Hon Clive Brown MLA, Minister for State Development, titled ‘Cooke Review’, and the Government’s response to the Final Report of the Cooke Review tabled in Parliament on the August 24 2004 -
(1) Is it correct that part of this media statement states in part ‘The State Government will conduct a broad review of the interactions between mining operations and local communities as a result of recommendations arising from the Review of Environmental and Public Safety Impacts of mining in the Kalgoorlie Area (the Cooke Review)’?
(2) If no to (1), will the Minister table the media statement dated August 24 2004?
(3) Can the Minister explain why the Government is now wasting further taxpayers money claiming to conduct a broad review, given that we have a had a specific review on the Environmental and Public Safety Impacts of Mining in the Kalgoorlie area which in itself has been a total waste of time, for the following reasons -
(a) Cooke Review was not given an extension of time as per my specific request in the letter dated November 3 2003;
(b) specific matters have not been investigated, despite assurances from Government that they would be; and
(c) evidence was not gathered/investigated in the specific manner as part of the agreed process of the review and ultimately very little, if any, of the matters that are in the Cooke Review will be brought to any finality or conclusion within a short period of time?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) Can the Minister explain how the Government can claim to be addressing the issues of both the Fimiston I and Fimiston II tailings dams given that Mr Tony Cooke found that the evidence supports the contentions of Optimum Resources that their lease has been directly and adversely affected by the located and management of the TSF’s (Tailings dams), given that the terms of the reference for Fimiston I review are very narrow, do not include the conduct of the specific regulatory enforcement by Government Agencies and most certainly do not include the Fimiston II tailings dam?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
(7) Can the Minister explain why the terms of reference for the review do not cover the Fimiston II tailings dam, which is separate from the Fimiston I tailings dam, in a different location, built in different times to that of the Fimiston I tailings dam with different notices of intent and design parameters, when clearly the Cooke Review identified the Fimiston II dam as being a contributor to the direct and adverse impacts caused on Optimum Resources leases?
(8) If no to (7), why not?
(9) Will the Minister extend the terms of engagement and alter the terms of reference to include the Fimiston II tailings dam?
(10) If no to (9), why not?
(1) Is it correct that part of this media statement states in part ‘The State Government will conduct a broad review of the interactions between mining operations and local communities as a result of recommendations arising from the Review of Environmental and Public Safety Impacts of mining in the Kalgoorlie Area (the Cooke Review)’?
(2) If no to (1), will the Minister table the media statement dated August 24 2004?
(3) Can the Minister explain why the Government is now wasting further taxpayers money claiming to conduct a broad review, given that we have a had a specific review on the Environmental and Public Safety Impacts of Mining in the Kalgoorlie area which in itself has been a total waste of time, for the following reasons -
(a) Cooke Review was not given an extension of time as per my specific request in the letter dated November 3 2003;
(b) specific matters have not been investigated, despite assurances from Government that they would be; and
(c) evidence was not gathered/investigated in the specific manner as part of the agreed process of the review and ultimately very little, if any, of the matters that are in the Cooke Review will be brought to any finality or conclusion within a short period of time?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) Can the Minister explain how the Government can claim to be addressing the issues of both the Fimiston I and Fimiston II tailings dams given that Mr Tony Cooke found that the evidence supports the contentions of Optimum Resources that their lease has been directly and adversely affected by the located and management of the TSF’s (Tailings dams), given that the terms of the reference for Fimiston I review are very narrow, do not include the conduct of the specific regulatory enforcement by Government Agencies and most certainly do not include the Fimiston II tailings dam?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
(7) Can the Minister explain why the terms of reference for the review do not cover the Fimiston II tailings dam, which is separate from the Fimiston I tailings dam, in a different location, built in different times to that of the Fimiston I tailings dam with different notices of intent and design parameters, when clearly the Cooke Review identified the Fimiston II dam as being a contributor to the direct and adverse impacts caused on Optimum Resources leases?
(8) If no to (7), why not?
(9) Will the Minister extend the terms of engagement and alter the terms of reference to include the Fimiston II tailings dam?
(10) If no to (9), why not?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
10 November 2004
Responded by
Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for State Development
Response time
42 days
(b) specific matters have not been investigated, despite assurances from Government that they would be; and (c) evidence was not gathered/investigated in the specific manner as part of the agreed process of the review and ultimately very little, if any, of the matters that are in the Cooke Review will be brought to any finality or conclusion within a short period of time?
(c) evidence was not gathered/investigated in the specific manner as part of the agreed process of the review and ultimately very little, if any, of the matters that are in the Cooke Review will be brought to any finality or conclusion within a short period of time?
(2) Not applicable. (3) Some recommendations contained in the Final Report of the Cooke Review have application to the mining industry across the entire State. In these circumstances it is appropriate to consult with the broader community, local government and the mining industry. (4) Not applicable. (5) The Fimiston I TSF is the subject of an application, by KCGM, for environmental approval and there was value in commissioning an independent technical review of the hydrogeological setting and the geotechnical integrity of the Fimiston I TSF and to advise on the KCGM proposal to progressively raise the TSF by 10 metres. The independent technical review of Fimiston I TSF was not commissioned as a review of administrative decisions and processes. (6) Not applicable. (7) The independent technical review was principally commissioned to provide independent expert advice on the hydrogeological setting and the geotechnical integrity of the Fimiston I TSF and to advise on the KCGM proposal to progressively raise the TSF by 10 metres. This advice was to assist in the consideration of the KCGM application. (8) Not applicable. (9) No. (10) The contract for an independent technical review of Fimiston I TSF has been concluded.
(3) Some recommendations contained in the Final Report of the Cooke Review have application to the mining industry across the entire State. In these circumstances it is appropriate to consult with the broader community, local government and the mining industry. (4) Not applicable. (5) The Fimiston I TSF is the subject of an application, by KCGM, for environmental approval and there was value in commissioning an independent technical review of the hydrogeological setting and the geotechnical integrity of the Fimiston I TSF and to advise on the KCGM proposal to progressively raise the TSF by 10 metres. The independent technical review of Fimiston I TSF was not commissioned as a review of administrative decisions and processes. (6) Not applicable. (7) The independent technical review was principally commissioned to provide independent expert advice on the hydrogeological setting and the geotechnical integrity of the Fimiston I TSF and to advise on the KCGM proposal to progressively raise the TSF by 10 metres. This advice was to assist in the consideration of the KCGM application. (8) Not applicable. (9) No. (10) The contract for an independent technical review of Fimiston I TSF has been concluded.
(4) Not applicable. (5) The Fimiston I TSF is the subject of an application, by KCGM, for environmental approval and there was value in commissioning an independent technical review of the hydrogeological setting and the geotechnical integrity of the Fimiston I TSF and to advise on the KCGM proposal to progressively raise the TSF by 10 metres. The independent technical review of Fimiston I TSF was not commissioned as a review of administrative decisions and processes. (6) Not applicable. (7) The independent technical review was principally commissioned to provide independent expert advice on the hydrogeological setting and the geotechnical integrity of the Fimiston I TSF and to advise on the KCGM proposal to progressively raise the TSF by 10 metres. This advice was to assist in the consideration of the KCGM application. (8) Not applicable. (9) No. (10) The contract for an independent technical review of Fimiston I TSF has been concluded.
(5) The Fimiston I TSF is the subject of an application, by KCGM, for environmental approval and there was value in commissioning an independent technical review of the hydrogeological setting and the geotechnical integrity of the Fimiston I TSF and to advise on the KCGM proposal to progressively raise the TSF by 10 metres. The independent technical review of Fimiston I TSF was not commissioned as a review of administrative decisions and processes. (6) Not applicable. (7) The independent technical review was principally commissioned to provide independent expert advice on the hydrogeological setting and the geotechnical integrity of the Fimiston I TSF and to advise on the KCGM proposal to progressively raise the TSF by 10 metres. This advice was to assist in the consideration of the KCGM application. (8) Not applicable. (9) No. (10) The contract for an independent technical review of Fimiston I TSF has been concluded.
(6) Not applicable. (7) The independent technical review was principally commissioned to provide independent expert advice on the hydrogeological setting and the geotechnical integrity of the Fimiston I TSF and to advise on the KCGM proposal to progressively raise the TSF by 10 metres. This advice was to assist in the consideration of the KCGM application. (8) Not applicable. (9) No. (10) The contract for an independent technical review of Fimiston I TSF has been concluded.
(7) The independent technical review was principally commissioned to provide independent expert advice on the hydrogeological setting and the geotechnical integrity of the Fimiston I TSF and to advise on the KCGM proposal to progressively raise the TSF by 10 metres. This advice was to assist in the consideration of the KCGM application. (8) Not applicable. (9) No. (10) The contract for an independent technical review of Fimiston I TSF has been concluded.
(8) Not applicable. (9) No. (10) The contract for an independent technical review of Fimiston I TSF has been concluded.
(9) No. (10) The contract for an independent technical review of Fimiston I TSF has been concluded.
(10) The contract for an independent technical review of Fimiston I TSF has been concluded.
(c) evidence was not gathered/investigated in the specific manner as part of the agreed process of the review and ultimately very little, if any, of the matters that are in the Cooke Review will be brought to any finality or conclusion within a short period of time?
(2) Not applicable. (3) Some recommendations contained in the Final Report of the Cooke Review have application to the mining industry across the entire State. In these circumstances it is appropriate to consult with the broader community, local government and the mining industry. (4) Not applicable. (5) The Fimiston I TSF is the subject of an application, by KCGM, for environmental approval and there was value in commissioning an independent technical review of the hydrogeological setting and the geotechnical integrity of the Fimiston I TSF and to advise on the KCGM proposal to progressively raise the TSF by 10 metres. The independent technical review of Fimiston I TSF was not commissioned as a review of administrative decisions and processes. (6) Not applicable. (7) The independent technical review was principally commissioned to provide independent expert advice on the hydrogeological setting and the geotechnical integrity of the Fimiston I TSF and to advise on the KCGM proposal to progressively raise the TSF by 10 metres. This advice was to assist in the consideration of the KCGM application. (8) Not applicable. (9) No. (10) The contract for an independent technical review of Fimiston I TSF has been concluded.
(3) Some recommendations contained in the Final Report of the Cooke Review have application to the mining industry across the entire State. In these circumstances it is appropriate to consult with the broader community, local government and the mining industry. (4) Not applicable. (5) The Fimiston I TSF is the subject of an application, by KCGM, for environmental approval and there was value in commissioning an independent technical review of the hydrogeological setting and the geotechnical integrity of the Fimiston I TSF and to advise on the KCGM proposal to progressively raise the TSF by 10 metres. The independent technical review of Fimiston I TSF was not commissioned as a review of administrative decisions and processes. (6) Not applicable. (7) The independent technical review was principally commissioned to provide independent expert advice on the hydrogeological setting and the geotechnical integrity of the Fimiston I TSF and to advise on the KCGM proposal to progressively raise the TSF by 10 metres. This advice was to assist in the consideration of the KCGM application. (8) Not applicable. (9) No. (10) The contract for an independent technical review of Fimiston I TSF has been concluded.
(4) Not applicable. (5) The Fimiston I TSF is the subject of an application, by KCGM, for environmental approval and there was value in commissioning an independent technical review of the hydrogeological setting and the geotechnical integrity of the Fimiston I TSF and to advise on the KCGM proposal to progressively raise the TSF by 10 metres. The independent technical review of Fimiston I TSF was not commissioned as a review of administrative decisions and processes. (6) Not applicable. (7) The independent technical review was principally commissioned to provide independent expert advice on the hydrogeological setting and the geotechnical integrity of the Fimiston I TSF and to advise on the KCGM proposal to progressively raise the TSF by 10 metres. This advice was to assist in the consideration of the KCGM application. (8) Not applicable. (9) No. (10) The contract for an independent technical review of Fimiston I TSF has been concluded.
(5) The Fimiston I TSF is the subject of an application, by KCGM, for environmental approval and there was value in commissioning an independent technical review of the hydrogeological setting and the geotechnical integrity of the Fimiston I TSF and to advise on the KCGM proposal to progressively raise the TSF by 10 metres. The independent technical review of Fimiston I TSF was not commissioned as a review of administrative decisions and processes. (6) Not applicable. (7) The independent technical review was principally commissioned to provide independent expert advice on the hydrogeological setting and the geotechnical integrity of the Fimiston I TSF and to advise on the KCGM proposal to progressively raise the TSF by 10 metres. This advice was to assist in the consideration of the KCGM application. (8) Not applicable. (9) No. (10) The contract for an independent technical review of Fimiston I TSF has been concluded.
(6) Not applicable. (7) The independent technical review was principally commissioned to provide independent expert advice on the hydrogeological setting and the geotechnical integrity of the Fimiston I TSF and to advise on the KCGM proposal to progressively raise the TSF by 10 metres. This advice was to assist in the consideration of the KCGM application. (8) Not applicable. (9) No. (10) The contract for an independent technical review of Fimiston I TSF has been concluded.
(7) The independent technical review was principally commissioned to provide independent expert advice on the hydrogeological setting and the geotechnical integrity of the Fimiston I TSF and to advise on the KCGM proposal to progressively raise the TSF by 10 metres. This advice was to assist in the consideration of the KCGM application. (8) Not applicable. (9) No. (10) The contract for an independent technical review of Fimiston I TSF has been concluded.
(8) Not applicable. (9) No. (10) The contract for an independent technical review of Fimiston I TSF has been concluded.
(9) No. (10) The contract for an independent technical review of Fimiston I TSF has been concluded.
(10) The contract for an independent technical review of Fimiston I TSF has been concluded.
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.