Parliamentary Questions

(a) is it correct that the Minister advised the Collie Mail that "it is a privilege to mine our once pristine environment and I find it disrespectful to our native flora and fauna for mining companies to find every loophole they can to avoid rehabilitation";
(b) if no to (a), what specifically did the Minister state to the Collie Mail;
(c) can the Minister explain what he meant with the statement "Rogue players, as they’ve been called, should not be allowed to shift their costs to the rest of the industry negatively impacting other companies", as reported in the article referred to above;
(d) if no to (c), why;
(e) is it correct that, in January 2016, the Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP) issued letters or notifications to Carnegie Gold requiring the companies concerned to lodge unconditional performance bonds for an amount over 8.6 million dollars;
(f) if no to (e), what is specifically correct with respect to precise date and the financial amount of dollars requested for the unconditional performance bonds;
(g) if yes to (e), can the Minister table a copy of these letters/notifications and provide the specific tenement number, including an explanation and justification for each as to why the DMP decided to take action to request unconditional performance bonds be lodged by Carnegie Gold;
(h) prior to January 2016, can the Minister explain why the DMP has been so accommodating in allowing the mining companies for all the above projects concerned to exploit every loophole available to avoid rehabilitation obligations exposing the State of Western Australia to unnecessary liabilities and impacting on the rest of the industry;
(i) if no to (h), why not;
(j) given the company(s) above has publicly stated that there is no guarantee they will be able to meet all of their liabilities in the future, will the Minister take urgent action to impose unconditional performance bonds for all the above projects held by the company(s) so that rogue players are not allowed to persist in the industry;
(k) if no to (j), why not;
(l) if yes to (j), when and how will this occur to prevent rogue players;
(m) will the Minister please table all notices and/or letters that have been sent to Swan Gold, Carnegie Gold and all the other subsidiary companies now owned by Eastern Goldfields Limited, requesting the payment of bonds, the amount of those bonds and the justification for requesting the payment of those bonds;
(n) when did the department first identify major environmental concerns with the company(s) and their associated mining tenure; and
(o) will the Minister please list all specific dates when the department was made aware of these concerns and the associated subsidiary company, or relevant mining tenure held?
Answered on 17 August 2017

(a) No. The quote referenced in the question is attributed to a community representative, Leonie Scoffern.

(b) “The McGowan Labor Government is keeping its promise and taking action to improve the Mining Rehabilitation Fund. Changes need to be made so mining companies can’t use legal loopholes to avoid their environmental rehabilitation obligations.

Rogue' players, as they’ve been called, should not be allowed to shift their costs to the rest of the industry, negatively impacting other companies.

In light of experience, there is a need to assess and improve the MRF so that the industry is protected.

We have sent a submission to the Senate with two main recommendations: that accounting procedures are upgraded to more transparent reporting on environmental liability, and to update the Commonwealth Corporation Act 2001 regarding the treatment to mine site rehabilitation obligations in the case of insolvency.”

(c) The statement is in reference to the term used by the former Director General of Mines and Petroleum to describe the potential allegation that unscrupulous mining operators might knowingly transfer environmental liability to the State.

(d) Not applicable

(e) Yes

(f) Not applicable

(g) The associated letters/notifications are of an administrative nature. The specific tenement numbers are provided below. The decision to request unconditional performance bonds was made in line with DMP’s published guidance titled “The Administration of mining securities for mine sites regulated by the Department of Mines and Petroleum”.

E30/335, E30/336, E30/338, L16/72, L24/170, L29/34, L29/38, L30/35, L30/37, L30/43, M16/268, M16/470, M30/1, M30/100, M30/102, M30/103, M30/107, M30/109, M30/111, M30/122, M30/123, M30/131, M30/132, M30/137, M30/148, M30/150, M30/159, M30/16, M30/178, M30/187, M30/34, M30/42, M30/44, M30/48, M30/5, M30/59, M30/60, M30/63, M30/7, M30/72, M30/75, M30/80, M30/84, M30/98.

(h) The McGowan Labor Government took office on 17 march 2017. I am advised that the Department of Mines and Petroleum acted in accordance with guidelines.

(i) Not applicable

(j) The Department advises that the issues that warranted the application of an unconditional performance bond have been addressed.

(k) Not applicable.

(l) The McGowan Labor Government is reviewing the operations of the MRF to ensure the protection of the public interest.

(m) See (g). There are no further requests for unconditional performance bonds for the referenced companies.

(n) January 2015.

(o) January 2015, Carnegie Gold Pty Ltd

September 2015, Carnegie Gold Pty Ltd