|Question On Notice No. 1759 asked in the Legislative Council on 8 November 2018 by Hon Robin Chapple |
Question Directed to the: Minister for Environment
Minister responding: Hon S.N. Dawson
Parliament: 40 Session: 1
I refer to the Minister for
Environment’s letter, Reference 62,0269 to the Chair of the Standing Committee
on Environment and Public Affairs, and refer to the statement:
“The Maitland Strategic Industrial Area has been set
aside for projects focused on the domestic market and potential future
export-orientated industrial development.”, and I ask:
(a) is the answer
that the site is set aside for the domestic market in line with the proposal
originally identified in the Maitland Heavy Industry Estate Karratha, Public
Environmental Review - October 1994, prepared by AGC Woodward-Clyde Pty Ltd for
Landcorp and the Department of Resources Development and the Gutteridge Haskins
& Davey Pty Ltd strategy for the Maitland Strategic Industrial Estate,
(b) if no to (a), why not;
(c) if yes to (a), how;
(d) when responding to the question relating to the
cumulative air shed of pollutants and all emissions that impact on Murujuga, is
it acceptable that the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) will continue
to consider any proposals on a case-by-case basis and not at a cumulative level;
(e) if yes to (d), why;
(f) given that the Government has ruled out the use of
West Intercourse Island for porting and industrial purposes and, in response to
information provided to the Standing Committee on Environment and Public
Affairs by the petitioners, did the Minister consider that the option to use the
original parcel of land identified in the Concept, the Pilbara Study and the
DRD Pilbara Heavy Industry Site Evaluation Karratha Area for industrial
development on the mainland (this parcel of land is part of Temporary Reserve
70/5461 and has a ministerial purpose for the industrial development of the
Roebourne and Karratha area and is significantly closer to the Burrup than
Maitland and has an existing infrastructure corridor); and
(g) if no to (f), why not?
Answered on 6 December 2018
(b) Heritage and environmental constraints make a new port at West Intercourse Island unfeasible. Export related projects at Maitland Strategic Industrial Area (SIA) would need to export their product via Dampier Port facilities at King Bay, located 30 kilometres away.
(c) Not applicable
(d) The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) considers cumulative impacts as part of its assessment of proposals. As part of the requirement for scoping, the EPA requires proponents to address cumulative impacts, which are then discussed in the proponents environmental review document. This is then assessed by the EPA.
(e) Not applicable.
(g) It is noted that the Hon Member has referenced The Pilbara Development Concept for the 1970’s, Department of Development and Decentralisation (no date), and Pilbara Heavy Industry Site Evaluation Karratha, Department of Resource Development, 1993, documents that are now outdated.
Since the 1990’s, the State has invested significant resources in the planning and development of the Maitland SIA, including:
– having the land zoned for Strategic Industry under the City of Karratha Local Planning Scheme, and preparation of an Improvement Scheme confirming the land planning framework to guide future industrial development at Maitland SIA;
– negotiating statutory clearance with the Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety to take interests created under the Mining Act 1978 (WA); and
– other environmental, geotechnical and hydrological studies to ascertain the feasibility of developing the Maitland SIA.