❓ Hon Robin Chapple questions the Minister for State Development regarding KCGM's handling of complaints from Mr. Meyer Forst concerning Mining Lease 26/353, seeking clarification on the rationale behind the department's assessment of the incidents and the follow-up actions taken.
AnsweredQoN 1167Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to a file note which I understand is dated September 14 2001 signed by Mr Biggs, General Manger Environment, Health, Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources concerning Mr Meyer Forsts’ complaints about Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mines Pty Ltd (KCGM) operator for Barrick Mines and Newmont Australia Ltd on Mining Lease 26/353 -
(1) Is it correct that part of the file note states ‘Overall these incidents are relatively minor in their impacts. Nevertheless they are important to the landholder. KCGM lack clear direction and procedures in how they deal with these issues and this has contributed to these situations arising. During my visit I requested KCGM develop procedures in how they deal with these issues and this has contributed to these situations arising. During my visit I requested KCGM develop procedures to identify lines of responsibility to ensure that these issues do not arise in the future and that satisfactory prior consultation takes place with any parties likely to be affected by KCGM’s activities’?
(2) If not, what specifically does the file note state?
(3) Can the Minister state the rationale and justification for each of the incidents involved in the complaints made, why Mr Biggs regards the ‘incidents’ as ‘relatively minor’?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) Can the Minister state why Mr Biggs regards the ‘incidents’ as being nevertheless ‘important to the land holder’?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
(7) Is it correct that part of the file note dated September 14 2001 referred to above also has a hand written note signed by Mr Bob Stevens which states ‘I today spoke to Gary Lye and Mr Neil Rankine of KCGM and reiterated Mr Biggs request. I received their assurance that KCGM would comply.’?
(8) If no to (7), will the Minister table a copy of the file note?
(9) Given that their has been previous complaints on Mining Lease 26/353 concerning KCGM from Mr Meyer Forst and others can the Minister explain why Mr Bob Stevens did not diligently seek KCGM’s written assurance that they would comply with section 20(5) of the
Mining Act
?
(10) Has the Department checked to see if in fact KCGM developed procedures in how they ‘deal with these issues’ concerning working within 100 metres of peoples residences and also ‘lines of responsibility to ensure that these issues do not arise in the future’?
(11) If no to (10), why not?
(12) If yes to (10), on what date did the Department follow up and check to ensure that the procedures and lines of responsibility were in fact in operation to ensure that the same/similar issues do not arise in the future?
(1) Is it correct that part of the file note states ‘Overall these incidents are relatively minor in their impacts. Nevertheless they are important to the landholder. KCGM lack clear direction and procedures in how they deal with these issues and this has contributed to these situations arising. During my visit I requested KCGM develop procedures in how they deal with these issues and this has contributed to these situations arising. During my visit I requested KCGM develop procedures to identify lines of responsibility to ensure that these issues do not arise in the future and that satisfactory prior consultation takes place with any parties likely to be affected by KCGM’s activities’?
(2) If not, what specifically does the file note state?
(3) Can the Minister state the rationale and justification for each of the incidents involved in the complaints made, why Mr Biggs regards the ‘incidents’ as ‘relatively minor’?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) Can the Minister state why Mr Biggs regards the ‘incidents’ as being nevertheless ‘important to the land holder’?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
(7) Is it correct that part of the file note dated September 14 2001 referred to above also has a hand written note signed by Mr Bob Stevens which states ‘I today spoke to Gary Lye and Mr Neil Rankine of KCGM and reiterated Mr Biggs request. I received their assurance that KCGM would comply.’?
(8) If no to (7), will the Minister table a copy of the file note?
(9) Given that their has been previous complaints on Mining Lease 26/353 concerning KCGM from Mr Meyer Forst and others can the Minister explain why Mr Bob Stevens did not diligently seek KCGM’s written assurance that they would comply with section 20(5) of the
Mining Act
?
(10) Has the Department checked to see if in fact KCGM developed procedures in how they ‘deal with these issues’ concerning working within 100 metres of peoples residences and also ‘lines of responsibility to ensure that these issues do not arise in the future’?
(11) If no to (10), why not?
(12) If yes to (10), on what date did the Department follow up and check to ensure that the procedures and lines of responsibility were in fact in operation to ensure that the same/similar issues do not arise in the future?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
15 October 2003
Responded by
Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for State Development
Response time
54 days
(1) Yes. (2) Not applicable. (3) The Minister is advised that following a site visit on 11 September 2001, Mr Biggs’ personal, professional view was that the impacts were relatively minor. (4) Not applicable. (5) In the file note referred to, Mr Biggs made note of the fact that the landowner considered the incidents to be important, evidenced by the earlier correspondence from the landowner. (6) Not applicable. (7) Yes. (8) Not applicable. (9) The Minister is advised that the company gave assurances that procedures would be developed and consultation would take place with parties likely to be affected by their activities. (10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) 27 August 2003.
(1) Yes. (2) Not applicable. (3) The Minister is advised that following a site visit on 11 September 2001, Mr Biggs’ personal, professional view was that the impacts were relatively minor. (4) Not applicable. (5) In the file note referred to, Mr Biggs made note of the fact that the landowner considered the incidents to be important, evidenced by the earlier correspondence from the landowner. (6) Not applicable. (7) Yes. (8) Not applicable. (9) The Minister is advised that the company gave assurances that procedures would be developed and consultation would take place with parties likely to be affected by their activities. (10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) 27 August 2003.
(2) Not applicable. (3) The Minister is advised that following a site visit on 11 September 2001, Mr Biggs’ personal, professional view was that the impacts were relatively minor. (4) Not applicable. (5) In the file note referred to, Mr Biggs made note of the fact that the landowner considered the incidents to be important, evidenced by the earlier correspondence from the landowner. (6) Not applicable. (7) Yes. (8) Not applicable. (9) The Minister is advised that the company gave assurances that procedures would be developed and consultation would take place with parties likely to be affected by their activities. (10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) 27 August 2003.
(2) Not applicable. (3) The Minister is advised that following a site visit on 11 September 2001, Mr Biggs’ personal, professional view was that the impacts were relatively minor. (4) Not applicable. (5) In the file note referred to, Mr Biggs made note of the fact that the landowner considered the incidents to be important, evidenced by the earlier correspondence from the landowner. (6) Not applicable. (7) Yes. (8) Not applicable. (9) The Minister is advised that the company gave assurances that procedures would be developed and consultation would take place with parties likely to be affected by their activities. (10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) 27 August 2003.
(3) The Minister is advised that following a site visit on 11 September 2001, Mr Biggs’ personal, professional view was that the impacts were relatively minor. (4) Not applicable. (5) In the file note referred to, Mr Biggs made note of the fact that the landowner considered the incidents to be important, evidenced by the earlier correspondence from the landowner. (6) Not applicable. (7) Yes. (8) Not applicable. (9) The Minister is advised that the company gave assurances that procedures would be developed and consultation would take place with parties likely to be affected by their activities. (10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) 27 August 2003.
(3) The Minister is advised that following a site visit on 11 September 2001, Mr Biggs’ personal, professional view was that the impacts were relatively minor. (4) Not applicable. (5) In the file note referred to, Mr Biggs made note of the fact that the landowner considered the incidents to be important, evidenced by the earlier correspondence from the landowner. (6) Not applicable. (7) Yes. (8) Not applicable. (9) The Minister is advised that the company gave assurances that procedures would be developed and consultation would take place with parties likely to be affected by their activities. (10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) 27 August 2003.
(4) Not applicable. (5) In the file note referred to, Mr Biggs made note of the fact that the landowner considered the incidents to be important, evidenced by the earlier correspondence from the landowner. (6) Not applicable. (7) Yes. (8) Not applicable. (9) The Minister is advised that the company gave assurances that procedures would be developed and consultation would take place with parties likely to be affected by their activities. (10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) 27 August 2003.
(4) Not applicable. (5) In the file note referred to, Mr Biggs made note of the fact that the landowner considered the incidents to be important, evidenced by the earlier correspondence from the landowner. (6) Not applicable. (7) Yes. (8) Not applicable. (9) The Minister is advised that the company gave assurances that procedures would be developed and consultation would take place with parties likely to be affected by their activities. (10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) 27 August 2003.
(5) In the file note referred to, Mr Biggs made note of the fact that the landowner considered the incidents to be important, evidenced by the earlier correspondence from the landowner. (6) Not applicable. (7) Yes. (8) Not applicable. (9) The Minister is advised that the company gave assurances that procedures would be developed and consultation would take place with parties likely to be affected by their activities. (10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) 27 August 2003.
(5) In the file note referred to, Mr Biggs made note of the fact that the landowner considered the incidents to be important, evidenced by the earlier correspondence from the landowner. (6) Not applicable. (7) Yes. (8) Not applicable. (9) The Minister is advised that the company gave assurances that procedures would be developed and consultation would take place with parties likely to be affected by their activities. (10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) 27 August 2003.
(6) Not applicable. (7) Yes. (8) Not applicable. (9) The Minister is advised that the company gave assurances that procedures would be developed and consultation would take place with parties likely to be affected by their activities. (10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) 27 August 2003.
(6) Not applicable. (7) Yes. (8) Not applicable. (9) The Minister is advised that the company gave assurances that procedures would be developed and consultation would take place with parties likely to be affected by their activities. (10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) 27 August 2003.
(7) Yes. (8) Not applicable. (9) The Minister is advised that the company gave assurances that procedures would be developed and consultation would take place with parties likely to be affected by their activities. (10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) 27 August 2003.
(7) Yes. (8) Not applicable. (9) The Minister is advised that the company gave assurances that procedures would be developed and consultation would take place with parties likely to be affected by their activities. (10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) 27 August 2003.
(8) Not applicable. (9) The Minister is advised that the company gave assurances that procedures would be developed and consultation would take place with parties likely to be affected by their activities. (10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) 27 August 2003.
(8) Not applicable. (9) The Minister is advised that the company gave assurances that procedures would be developed and consultation would take place with parties likely to be affected by their activities. (10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) 27 August 2003.
(9) The Minister is advised that the company gave assurances that procedures would be developed and consultation would take place with parties likely to be affected by their activities. (10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) 27 August 2003.
(9) The Minister is advised that the company gave assurances that procedures would be developed and consultation would take place with parties likely to be affected by their activities. (10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) 27 August 2003.
(10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) 27 August 2003.
(10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) 27 August 2003.
(11) Not applicable. (12) 27 August 2003.
(11) Not applicable. (12) 27 August 2003.
(12) 27 August 2003.
(12) 27 August 2003.
(1) Yes. (2) Not applicable. (3) The Minister is advised that following a site visit on 11 September 2001, Mr Biggs’ personal, professional view was that the impacts were relatively minor. (4) Not applicable. (5) In the file note referred to, Mr Biggs made note of the fact that the landowner considered the incidents to be important, evidenced by the earlier correspondence from the landowner. (6) Not applicable. (7) Yes. (8) Not applicable. (9) The Minister is advised that the company gave assurances that procedures would be developed and consultation would take place with parties likely to be affected by their activities. (10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) 27 August 2003.
(2) Not applicable. (3) The Minister is advised that following a site visit on 11 September 2001, Mr Biggs’ personal, professional view was that the impacts were relatively minor. (4) Not applicable. (5) In the file note referred to, Mr Biggs made note of the fact that the landowner considered the incidents to be important, evidenced by the earlier correspondence from the landowner. (6) Not applicable. (7) Yes. (8) Not applicable. (9) The Minister is advised that the company gave assurances that procedures would be developed and consultation would take place with parties likely to be affected by their activities. (10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) 27 August 2003.
(2) Not applicable. (3) The Minister is advised that following a site visit on 11 September 2001, Mr Biggs’ personal, professional view was that the impacts were relatively minor. (4) Not applicable. (5) In the file note referred to, Mr Biggs made note of the fact that the landowner considered the incidents to be important, evidenced by the earlier correspondence from the landowner. (6) Not applicable. (7) Yes. (8) Not applicable. (9) The Minister is advised that the company gave assurances that procedures would be developed and consultation would take place with parties likely to be affected by their activities. (10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) 27 August 2003.
(3) The Minister is advised that following a site visit on 11 September 2001, Mr Biggs’ personal, professional view was that the impacts were relatively minor. (4) Not applicable. (5) In the file note referred to, Mr Biggs made note of the fact that the landowner considered the incidents to be important, evidenced by the earlier correspondence from the landowner. (6) Not applicable. (7) Yes. (8) Not applicable. (9) The Minister is advised that the company gave assurances that procedures would be developed and consultation would take place with parties likely to be affected by their activities. (10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) 27 August 2003.
(3) The Minister is advised that following a site visit on 11 September 2001, Mr Biggs’ personal, professional view was that the impacts were relatively minor. (4) Not applicable. (5) In the file note referred to, Mr Biggs made note of the fact that the landowner considered the incidents to be important, evidenced by the earlier correspondence from the landowner. (6) Not applicable. (7) Yes. (8) Not applicable. (9) The Minister is advised that the company gave assurances that procedures would be developed and consultation would take place with parties likely to be affected by their activities. (10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) 27 August 2003.
(4) Not applicable. (5) In the file note referred to, Mr Biggs made note of the fact that the landowner considered the incidents to be important, evidenced by the earlier correspondence from the landowner. (6) Not applicable. (7) Yes. (8) Not applicable. (9) The Minister is advised that the company gave assurances that procedures would be developed and consultation would take place with parties likely to be affected by their activities. (10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) 27 August 2003.
(4) Not applicable. (5) In the file note referred to, Mr Biggs made note of the fact that the landowner considered the incidents to be important, evidenced by the earlier correspondence from the landowner. (6) Not applicable. (7) Yes. (8) Not applicable. (9) The Minister is advised that the company gave assurances that procedures would be developed and consultation would take place with parties likely to be affected by their activities. (10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) 27 August 2003.
(5) In the file note referred to, Mr Biggs made note of the fact that the landowner considered the incidents to be important, evidenced by the earlier correspondence from the landowner. (6) Not applicable. (7) Yes. (8) Not applicable. (9) The Minister is advised that the company gave assurances that procedures would be developed and consultation would take place with parties likely to be affected by their activities. (10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) 27 August 2003.
(5) In the file note referred to, Mr Biggs made note of the fact that the landowner considered the incidents to be important, evidenced by the earlier correspondence from the landowner. (6) Not applicable. (7) Yes. (8) Not applicable. (9) The Minister is advised that the company gave assurances that procedures would be developed and consultation would take place with parties likely to be affected by their activities. (10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) 27 August 2003.
(6) Not applicable. (7) Yes. (8) Not applicable. (9) The Minister is advised that the company gave assurances that procedures would be developed and consultation would take place with parties likely to be affected by their activities. (10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) 27 August 2003.
(6) Not applicable. (7) Yes. (8) Not applicable. (9) The Minister is advised that the company gave assurances that procedures would be developed and consultation would take place with parties likely to be affected by their activities. (10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) 27 August 2003.
(7) Yes. (8) Not applicable. (9) The Minister is advised that the company gave assurances that procedures would be developed and consultation would take place with parties likely to be affected by their activities. (10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) 27 August 2003.
(7) Yes. (8) Not applicable. (9) The Minister is advised that the company gave assurances that procedures would be developed and consultation would take place with parties likely to be affected by their activities. (10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) 27 August 2003.
(8) Not applicable. (9) The Minister is advised that the company gave assurances that procedures would be developed and consultation would take place with parties likely to be affected by their activities. (10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) 27 August 2003.
(8) Not applicable. (9) The Minister is advised that the company gave assurances that procedures would be developed and consultation would take place with parties likely to be affected by their activities. (10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) 27 August 2003.
(9) The Minister is advised that the company gave assurances that procedures would be developed and consultation would take place with parties likely to be affected by their activities. (10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) 27 August 2003.
(9) The Minister is advised that the company gave assurances that procedures would be developed and consultation would take place with parties likely to be affected by their activities. (10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) 27 August 2003.
(10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) 27 August 2003.
(10) Yes. (11) Not applicable. (12) 27 August 2003.
(11) Not applicable. (12) 27 August 2003.
(11) Not applicable. (12) 27 August 2003.
(12) 27 August 2003.
(12) 27 August 2003.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.