Skip to main content
Home
  • The Legislative Assembly meets on 16/04/2024 (01:00 PM)
    Assembly sit 16/04/2024
  • The Legislative Council meets on 16/04/2024 (01:00 PM)
    Council sit 16/04/2024
  • The Public Administration meets on 08/04/2024 (10:00 AM)
    Committee meet 08/04/2024

Parliamentary Questions


Question On Notice No. 3186 asked in the Legislative Council on 10 September 2020 by Hon Robin Chapple

Question Directed to the: Minister for Environment
Parliament: 40 Session: 1


Question

I refer to the issue of the dust pollution at the West End of Port Hedland, the Port Hedland Industries Council (PHIC), local Industrial projects, and specifically to the data that the Department of Water and Environmental Regulations (DWER; the Department) holds, and that which has been received from PHIC from 2018 to the present, and to the Port Hedland air monitoring network as an instrument of DWER, and I ask:
(a) when did the Minister first become aware that the Department of Jobs Tourism Science and Innovation (DJTSI), via its “Frequently Asked Questions, Government Response” (available at: https://jtsi.wa.gov.au/docs/default-source/default-document-library/185481_port-hedland-dust-management-q-asced110a57ba2628e86e4ff0000981137.pdf?sfvrsn=4d73721c_4), was stating that “No change is proposed to the NEPM guideline for PM2.5 and Government expects this guideline will continue to be met in Port Hedland as it is currently";
(b) will the Minister please table copies of all Government documents, previously or currently made public by or on behalf of the Government, to the effect that “[the] Government expects [PM2.5 dust pollution NEPM measures in Port Hedland] will continue to be met”, as exemplified at (a):
(i) of those documents at (b), which were withdrawn, and when;
(ii) of those documents at (b), which are still in circulation and do not represent the Government's current views; and
(iii) of those documents at (b), which are still in circulation and represent the Government's current views;
(c) does the Minister consider it misleading to the public for the Government to state …Government expects this guideline [for PM2.5] will continue to be met in Port Hedland as it is currently” when at the PM2.5 has in fact exceeded the NEPM guideline, including the latest exceedances of 53% and 20% measured at the Richardson Street and Taplin Street monitors respectively in the last reported year 2018-2019:
(i) if no to (c), why not;
(d) is the Minister aware that PM2.5 and PM10 dust monitoring at the Taplin Street and the Richardson Street Port Hedland monitors are essential monitoring that is required to help protect public health safety in Port Hedland;
(e) can the Minister confirm that the PM2.5 and PM10 monitors at Taplin Street and Richardson Street are operational and providing accurate readings, as of 9 September 2020:
(i) if no to (e), can the Minister explain why not;
(f) will the Minister assure the Port Hedland community that there are no plans to cease the operation of the existing Taplin Street and Richardson Street PM2.5 monitors, in their current locations:
(i) if no to (f), can the Minister please explain the changes to either the operation or location of the monitor(s);
(g) is the Minister aware that the Taplin Street PM10 and PM2.5 monitors are located as close as approximately 200 metres from the local kindergarten and primary school and their playing fields;
(h) can the Minister please advise as to when DWER was informed that PHIC had launched an internal investigation into data discrepancy with its PM10 dust monitor at Taplin Street Port Hedland;
(i) can the Minister please advise when DWER first became aware of any PM10 or PM2.5 PHIC dust monitor readings, being taken in Port Hedland since 1 July 2014, at levels recorded at below zero:
(i) what action was undertaken by DWER in response to these nonsensical readings (i.e. dust levels in the Pilbara at less than zero); and
(j) can the Minister advise, what investigation, steps, and methods of analysis were, and are, being undertaken by the Government to ensure:
(i) monitoring equipment is functional and correctly calibrated;
(ii) data-values cannot be less than zero for real-world applications;
(iii) vexatious data values are not used in any capacity to inform licensing or legal requirements, as in annual reports;
(iv) nonsensical data is identified by the appropriate authority as being nonsensical or vexatious;
(v) nonsensical data collated by the Department is not used to inform policy within other departments (e.g. Department of Health);
(vi) the reputation of the Department, or its instruments, as qualified to collect data; and
(vii) the health of the residents in Port Hedland, as a result of extended fictitious reporting?

Answered on