Claim of to much tape.

A report which was to be released last week had lined up the Department of Environment and Conservation for a ritual disembowelment. A government-appointed group spent the last 6 months investigating WA's resource approvals procedure, and concluded that the DEC run its own race.I presume this would be by one of the 141 NEW committees created, even though Mr Barnett said some months ago he was going to reduce them. Now his decided another committee is needed to reduce the committees.

One conclusion reached "Activities and decisions are influenced by philosophic beliefs and personal environmental policies, in several cases a belief that projects should not be approved, regardless of what the government wanted",according to one paper from this group. As a concerned member of the public I can only ask "How qualified are these people to be deciding anything, if they believe this rubbish."
To say the DEC are oblivious to the elected administration's policies,are they suggesting policies change with each party. Environmental laws should stand and become more stringent where necessary,not rubber stamped to keep companies happy.
.
The extensive mining approvals and regulation processes of the state Government cost taxpayers approximately $485 million per year, much to the angst of the resource sector, which claim projects are tied in endless red and green tape making WA an
unattractive place to do business. So why is there no mention regarding environmental laws which are far more stringent in their own country.Until WA has adequate, qualified staff at(DEC,DOCEP,EPA,) etc, to carry out the many jobs particularly in the mining and environmental sectors, this government should not be looking to fast track anything.
.
It was very nice of the minister to inform industry that his portfolio priority was to dramatically over haul the current unwieldy approvals process and provide greater certainty and confidence in the mining and resource sector. Are Australian workers receiving the same guarantees and attention regarding safety on work sites?Then there is the environmental concerns re: water,soil,wildlife and air, what protection is being offered to the people and future generations of this state?

Power = Water at homeowners expense.

Over the last few weeks the people of WA have been asked for their comment on the future of water, power, wastes and air/quality just to mention a few. My question would be why, the government or departments aren't interested in our concerns? They have even ignored people well qualified in the different fields. The only conclusion that can be reached is,this way it can be said consultation was had.

The government are proudly crowing over the vast expansion of the coal power industry to happen in the next few years,not how or what they intend to do in reducing their emissions load, a few weeks back WA was named the dirtiest state . The power plants are set to send water consumption sky rocketing, with the potential of draining the Collie River dry and damaging the regions aquifers. The town already has four coal-fired power stations,and now five more are in the works to be completed by 2013, along with a urea plant.Why wasn't the urea plant sent to the north where there is adequate water and gas for their product?I presume it comes down to pass factors, what ever is cheapest is best for industry, too bad about our environment.

The Water Corporation or (department of water) estimated Collie's existing power plants are already extracting groundwater at three times the rate it's recharged by our rainfall. The groundwater could be exhausted within nine years. I find this to be the height of hypocrisy, using potable water for cooling when saline water could be used like at other plants along the coast. The first of the water coming out of the Collie river is saline, which is run into old coal pits and stored. This is the only water that should be used for cooling apart from the saline slug from Wellington Dam, no potable water should be used if our state is running out of such a precious resource.

It was reported last summer that many of Collie's rivers, streams and garden bores ran dry due to the continued drop in the water table. Senator Siewert said the system had already reached its limit and both State and Federal governments should stop approving so many new coal operations. When will WA find a government that can start thinking of long term goals and secure the future health, viability and amenity of our state instead of only seeing the dollar sign now.

Four power stations at Collie use 30GL per annum. By 2013 with construction of the urea plant (arid state) and Bluewaters 2,3 and 4 and Muja A & B power projects, figures on water usage is predicted to rise to 67GL. Why does WA's water shortage only apply to home owners but not the industrial sector? Why do power companies receive what water they want free, at the rate water is being absorbed or used what will future generations do? Where are the renewable energy projects or do they only apply to other countries?

Uranium

Mining uranium is akin to mining asbestos.....and even today I guess there would be a mass outcry if asbestos mining were to be started up again. Native peoples around the world are ignorant of the dangers, they have had their families devastated by cancers in lungs-kidneys-stomach and colon-. Sterility, deformed children death and decimation of their communities resulted in their mining uranium. Uranium tailings contain over a dozen radioactive materials harmful to living beings...thorium 230, radium j 226, radon 222 etc. Nuke is not clean, green and certainly not cheap ! Check the current costing in UK for decommissioning all but two of their nuclear power stations. Uranium 238, which is left after enrichment, is currently in the bodies of Iraqi troops, civilians and allied troops as a result of killing people with shells made by UK and USA.

.The radioactive emissions from these bodies are leaking into the atmosphere to the detriment of global warming. What other nasty surprises can we expect from other purchasers of Australian uranium? Cremation of any body which has died from radiation emits radioactivity into the atmosphere. The enrichment of uranium for production of fuel rods adds hugely to global warming. Each 1000MWe (megawatt electric) nuclear plant requires the equivalent of 45 MWe coal plant which burns 135,000 tons of coal annually.
.After the enrichment to create fuel rods from uranium oxide nuclear reactors routinely emit toxic gasses including krypton, so uranium waste is already causing global warming wherever used. The plutonium and neptunium waste remains in the spent fuel rods and is very much more toxic than even the uranium oxide. It's appaling the amount of world nuclear incidents just for 2009.

.It's just a matter of time before Australia starts taking back waste, they know it can't be buried safely in glass, metal, Synrock or anything else, it will effect the area for years to come. Groundwater, land and air will be incredibly dangerously polluted. Is this what our premier wants to leave his children/grandchildren to deal with ? Plutonium alone has a half life of 250,000 years ! 500,000 years are required before nuclear waste drops below significant danger levels. In Hanford, USA, they tried burying nuclear waste. Steam was seen emerging from the burial site. The drums had disintegrated and waste leaked into the groundwater, boiling it. How close did they come to a nuclear explosion?

.Carting any substance connected with uranium/waste around the world attracts many hazards, the posibility of discharging its contents into the waters of the world. Chernoble and Three Mile Island are just two serious nuclear accidents which have occurred. How long can top quality uranium be mined before it will be dropped to grades as low as .01%. This will have to be transported, pulverised and thousands of tons required for a small amount of uranium with risk to the communities of radioactive dust being strewn around. Workers in this industry are not encouraged to remain long and their health is not monitored as regularly as it should be, whilst working or after they leave the job - why ?

.One way to help the power situation is to make it mandatory to install solar panels on any new home built...currently there are thousands of homes springing up and no sign of solar panels. With all the vacant land (ie desert) where is our renewable energy, 60% of greenhouse gasses are caused by more than power production, although installing more coal powered stations will not help the emissions problems. The premier and his ilk cannot seriously be expecting us to believe they are worried about global warming...billions of dollars from the sale of uranium and, God forbid, the storing of waste and selling off our state's minerals is all they seem interested in.

Ethical councillor

Do politicians need a parliamentary councillor to give them ethical advise or is this more spin at tax payers expense? http://thewest.com.au/ (Plan to offer MP's ethical councilling) I found the article to be one of amazement. Some politicians may be held in low esteem, generally as a result of their questionable behaviour and antics. Constituents may believe anything that would improve MPs' standards of conduct as worth while but is there more here than meets the eye,the proposal for such a position should raise many questions?


.Do we need another created government job for someone to help politicians to tell right from wrong. The appointment would imply that the problem is one of ignorance, rather than indifference to proper standards by MP's who are guided by self-interest and the pursuit of political advantage. Is there a case to be made, that if MP's are unaware of their ethical obligations, they're unfit for public office.
.
It should be questioned as to what powers this councillor would have. A plan put forward by the Nationals was, the holder of the position would have broad powers to give confidential advise on ethics. He is to move into parliament within weeks for the establishment of the position, the job would entail alleviating pressure on MP's and prevent them from making serious mistakes.

.Here is the best part, the proposal is for the advise from the councillor to be confidential. To the extent that even the Corruption and Crime Commission couldn't have access, it could only be released with the permission of the relevant MP and the clerk of each House. He would end up as the guardian of guilty secrets, and the position of councillor could be ethically compromised.

How would this be in the public interest. The ethical standards of MP's are matters of legitimate public concern. It's definitely time that politicians were held accountable for their actions, if this position were to be passed the public have a right to know of advice being given. The main thing that MP's seem to forget is who pays their salaries.