Red Hill Quarry — Supreme Court Ruling
1223. Hon Alison Xamon to the Minister for Environment
I refer to the 2007 Western Australian Supreme Court ruling on the Hanson (previously Pioneer) quarry (WASCA 137, and in particular paragraph 126, page 49) and to the Ombudsman’s document of 2 January 2009, Report on an investigation into the complaint received from Mr Tony Elwood concerning the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC), and ask —
(1) What actions will the Minister take against Hanson, given the court’s finding that Hanson’s quarrying activities in the Southern Extension and West Pit Extension prior to 25 January 2006 failed to comply with ministerial conditions?
(2) If the answer to (1) is none, why?
(3) What actions is the Minister taking to follow-up the findings of the Ombudsman, regarding the actions of the DEC in this matter?
(4) If the answer to (3) is none, why?
(5) Has the DEC reported back to the Ombudsman?
(6) If yes to (5), would the Minister please table DEC’s report?
Hon DONNA FARAGHER replied:
(1)-(2) I have been advised that the then Department of Environment (DoE) investigated this matter in late 2005. The investigation found that commitments made by Hanson (formerly Pioneer Concrete Pty Ltd) in Statement 199, relating to the visual amenity of the quarry, were unlikely to be enforceable and concluded that it was not in the public interest to commence a prosecution.
A further Statement was issued by the then Minister for the Environment on 21 December 2005 (Statement 705). The new conditions imposed through Statement 705 have stringent rehabilitation and screening requirements, including consultation with land owners and occupiers.
I would expect the Director General of the Department of Environment and Conservation to take appropriate compliance and enforcement action under the Environmental Protection Act 1986.
(3)-(5) It is the responsibility of the Director General of the Department of Environment and Conservation to implement the findings of the Ombudsman's report and I am advised that he has addressed these matters and reported back to the Ombudsman on 6 July 2009.
(6) No, the Ombudsman has advised that reports on responses to investigations are confidential.