Question On Notice No. 1458 asked in the Legislative Council on 14 August 2018 by Hon Robin Chapple
Question Directed to the: Minister for Regional Development representing the Minister for Mines and Petroleum
Parliament: 40 Session: 1
Question
I refer to Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP) specific
advice given to the Appeals Convenor and Minister for the Environment report/
decision, dated January 2016, concerning potential clearing impacts of dust,
noise being generated by Hawthorn Resources and concerns about the proximity of
clearing in relation to the homestead and amenity impacts on Pinjin Station
well before the Mining Proposal was lodged with the department seeking approval
with a document, dated 26 November 2015, and I ask:
(a) can the Minister explain why the DMP provided incorrect and misleading
advice to the Appeals Convenor concerning section 20(5) of the Mining Act 1978
indicating that firstly the applicant (Hawthorn) will be required to comply
with section 20(5) of the Mining Act 1978 and secondly that any non compliance will
be deemed a breach of condition which may result in a penalty being imposed or
tenement forfeited given the department has now allowed/permitted on a growing
scale and magnitude hundreds of thousands of dollars of infrastructure and
occupied buildings to be totally obliterated/destroyed and damaged including
bedding, personal items, cooking equipment, lighting, water tanks, and many
other items without taking any action for a deemed breach of condition resulting
in a penalty being imposed or the tenement being forfeited;
(b) if no to (a), why not;
(c) can
the Minister state the specific measures by the DMP to ensure that both
dust and noise levels were clearly and adequately covered with operating
commitments in the mining proposal, dated 26 November 2015, or recommending and
imposing further tenement conditions to address these matters before giving any
approval to Hawthorn Resources to protect occupied buildings including
the amenity and health of people living on the station; and
(d) if no to (c), why not?
Answered on 11 September 2018
(a) Firstly, the applicant (Hawthorn) are required to comply with section 20(5) of the Mining Act 1978. Secondly, due to human error, a mistake was made in late 2015 by the then Department of Mines and Petroleum when it indicated that failure to comply with Section 20(5) of the Mining Act would constitute a breach of tenement conditions. Section 20(5) of the Mining Act does not link to the tenement condition breach provisions within the Act, and hence cannot, in itself, be considered a breach of tenement conditions. Failure to comply with section 20(5) may, however, constitute an offence under other sections of the Mining Act, which can result in penalties being imposed.
(b) Not applicable
(c) The Mining Proposal was assessed to meet the requirements of the Guidelines for Mining Proposals in Western Australia (February 2006). Tenement conditions have been imposed, as necessary, and monitored, within the scope of the condition setting powers of the Mining Act 1978.
(d) Not applicable