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. 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