❓ A WA parliamentary question on notice regarding the cleanliness and hygiene of underground toilets at the Barrick Kanowna Raleigh mine, and the adequacy of DMP inspections and responses to employee concerns. The response indicates some issues were identified and addressed, but also reveals gaps in inspection practices.
AnsweredQoN 2491Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the Barrick Kanowna Raleigh underground operations and question on notice No. 2275, 20 April 2010, and ask -
(1) In light of the answer provided in part (1-4), for question on notice No. 2275, can the Minister state specifically how and when the Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP) inspectors, became aware of the problem with the cleanliness and hygiene of the underground toilets as depicted in the photograph?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) Can the Minister state, -
(a) how many inspections have taken place by DMP inspectors in the last two years at the Raleigh underground mine; and
(b) on what specific dates these occurred?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) In light of the answer provided in part (1-4), in question on notice No. 2275, can the Minister state how long the toilets in the Raleigh Mine have been in an unclean and unhygienic condition, without handwash facilities or any means to maintain cleanliness available as depicted in the photograph referred to?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
(7) In light of the answer provided in part (1-4), in question on notice No. 2275, can the Minister state why the DMP inspectors have not identified the breach of Regulations 7.12, 7.13 and 7.14 of the
Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1994 and Regulations 1995,
in previous inspections conducted in the mine despite the toilet facilities being in such an appalling condition for a very long period time?
(8) If no to (7), why not?
(9) In light of the answer provided in part (1-4), in question on notice No. 2275, can the Minister state whether or not the DMP inspectors, checked in the Safety Toolbox Meeting Minutes Book to see how many concerns had been raised by the employees with management at Raleigh mine concerning the cleanliness and hygiene of the underground toilets, as depicted in the photograph, in the mine in the past 24 months?
(10) If no to (9), why not?
(11) If yes to (9), will the Minister state, -
(a) how many complaints/concerns were received;
(b) the specific date and exact nature of the complaint/concern;
(c) what the course of action for management was for each; and
(d) how long each complaint/concern took to resolve?
(12) If no to (11), why not?
(13) With regard to (11), will the Minister expediently require an investigation into this matter to ensure that the safety committee at that mine is functioning effectively?
(14) If no to (13), why not?
(15) Is it correct that, in relation to the answer provided in part (1-4), in question on notice No. 2275, the cleanliness and hygiene of the underground toilets within the mine in the past 24 months as depicted in the photograph saw multiple concerns raised by the employees with management in the Safety Toolbox Meeting Minutes Book, and those complaints went ignored for a considerable period of that time?
(16) If no to (15), what specifically is correct in relation to this matter?
(1) In light of the answer provided in part (1-4), for question on notice No. 2275, can the Minister state specifically how and when the Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP) inspectors, became aware of the problem with the cleanliness and hygiene of the underground toilets as depicted in the photograph?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) Can the Minister state, -
(a) how many inspections have taken place by DMP inspectors in the last two years at the Raleigh underground mine; and
(b) on what specific dates these occurred?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) In light of the answer provided in part (1-4), in question on notice No. 2275, can the Minister state how long the toilets in the Raleigh Mine have been in an unclean and unhygienic condition, without handwash facilities or any means to maintain cleanliness available as depicted in the photograph referred to?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
(7) In light of the answer provided in part (1-4), in question on notice No. 2275, can the Minister state why the DMP inspectors have not identified the breach of Regulations 7.12, 7.13 and 7.14 of the
Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1994 and Regulations 1995,
in previous inspections conducted in the mine despite the toilet facilities being in such an appalling condition for a very long period time?
(8) If no to (7), why not?
(9) In light of the answer provided in part (1-4), in question on notice No. 2275, can the Minister state whether or not the DMP inspectors, checked in the Safety Toolbox Meeting Minutes Book to see how many concerns had been raised by the employees with management at Raleigh mine concerning the cleanliness and hygiene of the underground toilets, as depicted in the photograph, in the mine in the past 24 months?
(10) If no to (9), why not?
(11) If yes to (9), will the Minister state, -
(a) how many complaints/concerns were received;
(b) the specific date and exact nature of the complaint/concern;
(c) what the course of action for management was for each; and
(d) how long each complaint/concern took to resolve?
(12) If no to (11), why not?
(13) With regard to (11), will the Minister expediently require an investigation into this matter to ensure that the safety committee at that mine is functioning effectively?
(14) If no to (13), why not?
(15) Is it correct that, in relation to the answer provided in part (1-4), in question on notice No. 2275, the cleanliness and hygiene of the underground toilets within the mine in the past 24 months as depicted in the photograph saw multiple concerns raised by the employees with management in the Safety Toolbox Meeting Minutes Book, and those complaints went ignored for a considerable period of that time?
(16) If no to (15), what specifically is correct in relation to this matter?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
10 August 2010
Responded by
Minister for Mines and Petroleum
Response time
56 days
(1) During an underground inspection of the Raleigh Mine on 10 February 2010 the Underground Manager advised the District Inspector of problems with the underground electric toilets. This related to the way in which the toilets were installed and being used. The Underground Manager advised that new toilets had been ordered and portable temporary toilets had been installed in the mine.
(2) Not applicable
(3)
(a) From 1 June 2008 there have been 28 inspections at the Raleigh Underground Mine.
(b)
18 June 2008
20 June 2008
11 July 2008
30 July 2008
11 September 2008
28 October 2008
14 November 2008
9 December 2008
5 January 2009
22 January 2009
19 March 2009
21 March 2009
14 May 2009
6 July 2009
9 July 2009
8 September 2009
9 September 2009
21 September 2009
13 October 2009
2 December 2009
7 January 2010
10 February 2010
8 March 2010
27 April 2010
4 May 2010
18 May 2010
19 Mary 2010
11 June 2010
(4) Not applicable
(5) Recent inspections of the underground toilets at the Raleigh Mine do not indicate that they are now in an unclean and unhygienic condition.
(6) Not applicable
(7) Such matters are generally brought to the attention of inspectors by employees.
(8) Not applicable
(9) The Department of Mines and Petroleum inspectors did not check the Safety Toolbox Meeting Minutes Book.
(10) Employees' Inspectors of Mines attend some of the safety meetings held by each crew. No complaints were received from employees that would warrant a check of these minutes.
(11)
(a)-(d) Not applicable
(12) Not applicable
(13) No
(14) The minutes referred to in Question 9 are the minutes of each crew's individual safety meeting held once during that crew's roster. They are not the minutes of the meetings of the Safety and Health Committee as referred to in the
Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1994.
As such they do not provide an indication of how effectively the Safety and Health Committee is functioning.
(15) Concerns were raised in the Safety Toolbox Meeting Minutes Book on six occasions since 1 June 2008. They mainly relate to the way in which the toilets have been used. Actions taken to rectify the concerns raised are also listed in the minutes.
(16) Not applicable
Notice: This document is created or edited using unregistered or evaluation copy of rtLib valid for testing or development purposes only. To use it for productive or any other purposes please register it. You may purchase the license on
http://www.rtlib.com
(2) Not applicable
(3)
(a) From 1 June 2008 there have been 28 inspections at the Raleigh Underground Mine.
(b)
18 June 2008
20 June 2008
11 July 2008
30 July 2008
11 September 2008
28 October 2008
14 November 2008
9 December 2008
5 January 2009
22 January 2009
19 March 2009
21 March 2009
14 May 2009
6 July 2009
9 July 2009
8 September 2009
9 September 2009
21 September 2009
13 October 2009
2 December 2009
7 January 2010
10 February 2010
8 March 2010
27 April 2010
4 May 2010
18 May 2010
19 Mary 2010
11 June 2010
(4) Not applicable
(5) Recent inspections of the underground toilets at the Raleigh Mine do not indicate that they are now in an unclean and unhygienic condition.
(6) Not applicable
(7) Such matters are generally brought to the attention of inspectors by employees.
(8) Not applicable
(9) The Department of Mines and Petroleum inspectors did not check the Safety Toolbox Meeting Minutes Book.
(10) Employees' Inspectors of Mines attend some of the safety meetings held by each crew. No complaints were received from employees that would warrant a check of these minutes.
(11)
(a)-(d) Not applicable
(12) Not applicable
(13) No
(14) The minutes referred to in Question 9 are the minutes of each crew's individual safety meeting held once during that crew's roster. They are not the minutes of the meetings of the Safety and Health Committee as referred to in the
Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1994.
As such they do not provide an indication of how effectively the Safety and Health Committee is functioning.
(15) Concerns were raised in the Safety Toolbox Meeting Minutes Book on six occasions since 1 June 2008. They mainly relate to the way in which the toilets have been used. Actions taken to rectify the concerns raised are also listed in the minutes.
(16) Not applicable
Notice: This document is created or edited using unregistered or evaluation copy of rtLib valid for testing or development purposes only. To use it for productive or any other purposes please register it. You may purchase the license on
http://www.rtlib.com
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.