Skip to main content
Home

Parliamentary Questions

Question On Notice No. 102 asked in the Legislative Council on 29 June 2017 by Hon Robin Scott

Question Directed to the: Minister for Regional Development representing the Minister for Mines and Petroleum
Minister responding: Hon W.J. Johnston
Parliament: 40 Session: 1
Question


(1) With reference to the Mining Warden's Court decision, Blackfin P/L v Mineralogy PL WAMW19, dated 4 October 2013, concerning applications for exemptions and applications for forfeiture made to the Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP) I ask, can the Minister advise whether DMP policy guidelines and Form 5 Operations Reports now make clear the requirement of the Mining Act 1978 and Mining Regulations 1981 that expenditure must be “on or in connection with mining on a mining tenement” before it can be claimed as expenditure in Form 5 Operations Reports?

(2) If the answer is in the negative, will the Minister direct the DMP to change both the policy guidelines and the text of Form 5 Operations Reports to clearly state that expenditure must be “on or in connection with mining on a mining tenement” before it can be claimed as expenditure in Form 5 Operations Reports?
(3) Does the Minister agree that the provisions of Regulation 96C of the Mining Regulations 1981 do not entitle the holder of any mining title to claim expenditure for administration and overheads by simply applying the formula of 20 per cent?
Answered on 7 September 2017

(1) No

(2) This information is laid out under the definition of “expenditure conditions” in section 8 of the Mining Act 1978 and is stated in Regulations 15, 21 and 31 of the Mining Regulations 1981. In addition, the Form 5 Operations Report states what are non-allowable expenditures and policy guidelines and the Form 5 Operations Report are currently being updated by the Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety.

(3) Yes