Question On Notice No. 476 asked in the Legislative Council on 31 October 2017 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 a letter of approval signed by Marnie Leybourne, Director Operations Environment, from the Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP), dated 22 January 2016, addressed to Mr Cranston Edwards for a Program of Work (POW) registration ID 56198, which apparently was dated 25 June 2015, and I ask:
(a) can the Minister give a specific date as to when the above referred to POW was received by the DMP;
(b) if no to (a), why not;
(c) can the Minister explain why it took nearly seven months for a professional small prospector/gold producer to get approval from the environmental division of the DMP to be able to conduct exploration in a timely manner, which ultimately provides for job generation and employment in the eastern goldfields region;
(d) if no to (c), why not;
(e) given the Government's stated commitments to generating jobs, employment, reducing red tape, eliminating duplication/complexity and fast tracking approvals, does the Minister regard the timeframe of nearly seven months to get approval to conduct work and then ultimately generate wealth for the State as being acceptable for any POW lodged with the department;
(f) if no to (e), why not;
(g) if yes to (e), why;
(h) does the Minister recognise that significant delays over many extended months to POW’s approval by the DMP for professional small gold producers/prospectors effectively puts them out of work, costing jobs in the mining sector, generation of income, which is spent through the local community in terms of the economic multiplier effect and is not helpful in terms of stimulating the Western Australian State economy;
(i) if no to (h), why not; and
(j) if yes to (h), will the Minister ensure that the department takes expedient action to stop this from occurring in order to help stimulate the economy?
Answered on 5 December 2017
(a) 25 June 2015.
(b) Not Applicable
(c) Due to the nature of the application, additional information was sought from the proponent and other agencies which resulted in the application being placed ‘on hold’ for a period of 80 business days. During this “stop the clock” period the Department worked with the proponent on aspects of the POW that required further information. The assessment time within DMP amounted to a total of 22 business days. The assessment time for this application is within the Department’s target timeframe of 30 business days (excluding “stop the clock” periods).
(d) Not Applicable
(e) The total assessment time amounted to 22 business days. This assessment time is within the Department’s target timeframe of 30 business days (excluding days on hold).
(f) Not Applicable
(g) See answer to (e).
(h) The Department is fully aware of the desire of applicants to have the applications promptly assessed. Through a number of reforms, the Department has been successful in reducing the time taken for the assessment of applications. It has been able to achieve this without compromising the environmental outcomes. It is incumbent on proponents to submit a complete application for assessment, undertake the necessary due diligence prior to submitting an application, and where required, respond to requests for further information in a timely manner.
(i) See answer to (h).
(j) The Department, as a matter of practice, will continue to work with proponents to ensure the completeness of their application, for assessment consideration. Online technologies are also supporting proponents to have more streamlined and timely assessments undertaken. For example the Programme of Works spatial system introduced early in 2017.