❓ A parliamentary question regarding an environmental bond for Mineralogy Pty Ltd's mining project. The Minister clarifies the situation, stating an environmental bond will be imposed by the Department of Mines and Petroleum under the Mining Act, addressing concerns about potential discriminatory taxes.
AnsweredQoN 595Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
MINERALOGY PTY LTD PROJECT — ENVIRONMENTAL BOND
I refer the minister to an article that appeared in today’s The West Australian , titled “Mining boss avoids $45m EPA bond”, in which the member is quoted as saying that it was the intention of the Department of Mines and Petroleum to set and apply a bond “once substantial works” had started at the mine site. (1) Is the minister committed to imposing an environmental bond; and, if so, when will it be announced? (2) Did the minister have any discussion with the Minister for Regional Development about the environmental bond; and, if so, when, where and what was discussed? (3) Did the minister have any discussions with the Minister for Environment to try to persuade her to remove the requirement for the environmental bond? Hon NORMAN MOORE
I refer the minister to an article that appeared in today’s The West Australian , titled “Mining boss avoids $45m EPA bond”, in which the member is quoted as saying that it was the intention of the Department of Mines and Petroleum to set and apply a bond “once substantial works” had started at the mine site. (1) Is the minister committed to imposing an environmental bond; and, if so, when will it be announced? (2) Did the minister have any discussion with the Minister for Regional Development about the environmental bond; and, if so, when, where and what was discussed? (3) Did the minister have any discussions with the Minister for Environment to try to persuade her to remove the requirement for the environmental bond? Hon NORMAN MOORE
AnswerView source ↗
(1)–(3) Is it not interesting that the Labor Party should get onto an issue like this and think that there is some significance to it? What is actually happening is what has always happened in respect of mining in Western Australia. There will be an environmental bond on this project, and it will be set and administered by the Department of Mines and Petroleum, as it always has been, including during the entire term of the previous government. For reasons that have been explained to the house by the Minister for Environment, the EPA made the decision in respect of its assessment that the state agreement act signed, sealed and delivered by the member’s government did not provide for an environmental bond. The EPA therefore decided that it would impose an environmental bond using its own powers in respect of the environment. We subsequently found that that particular interpretation of the state agreement act was not correct and that, indeed, there could be an environmental bond imposed under the Mining Act. That was a decision that the government took, so there will be an environmental bond on this project, imposed by the Department of Mines and Petroleum, which is what always happens. Let me explain why Mr Palmer had some issues about this. I draw members’ attention to section 26 of the Iron Ore Processing (Mineralogy Pty Ltd) Agreement Act 2002. The legislation was brought into this Parliament by the previous Labor government under the ministerial responsibility of Hon Clive Brown. Section 26 is headed “No discriminatory rates”. I will not read it in its entirety, but it states in part — Except as provided in this Agreement the State shall not impose, nor shall it permit or authorise any of its agencies or instrumentalities or any local or other authority of the State to impose discriminatory taxes rates or charges of any nature whatsoever on or in respect of the titles property or other assets products materials or services used or produced by or through the activities of Project Proponents … This is the Labor Party’s agreement. It was part of the agreement that there would be no additional taxes. Hon Ken Travers : No discriminatory taxes. Get it right. Hon NORMAN MOORE : The member can please himself how he wants to interpret that, but that was what Mr Palmer believed to be the section of his agreement that meant that he was not required to pay an environmental bond. It was initially the view of the EPA that this particular section did not require a bond to be paid under the Mining Act. However, subsequent reassessment of that section—an extraordinary clause brought in by the previous Labor government—found that it did not prohibit an environmental bond under the Mining Act, so it will be implemented under the Mining Act, as has always been the case. I did not speak to the Minister for Regional Development at all about this, and I do not recall speaking to the Minister for Environment about it at any time. But as soon as I heard the EPA’s recommendation in respect of environmental bonds on mining proposals, my initial response was that it was the responsibility of the Minister for Mines and Petroleum under the Mining Act. Why would two agencies impose bonds on companies? Hon Adele Farina : Then why did the EPA do it? Hon NORMAN MOORE : I just explained to the house that its interpretation of the agreement was that it could not be applied under the Mining Act, so it determined that there should be a bond and did that under its powers in respect of the Environmental Protection Act. What are we going to do? We are going to do what we always do. When the project proposal, which the company has to prepare, is provided to the government, as has always been the case, the Department of Mines and Petroleum will work out how the bond is to be implemented. It will be implemented, but will not necessarily be a $45 million up-front bond, as recommended by the EPA. It may well be a staged bond, which is the way in which these long-term projects have been bonded in the past, so that we do not frighten proponents away by having a bond of such magnitude that they do not proceed with a project. If the Labor Party wants to impose a $45 million bond right now so that this project will stop, it should just say so, because the consequences of that sort of nonsense should be obvious even to the Labor Party. The rubbish we have heard today from the Labor Party, with absolutely nothing to go on at all, has demonstrated that the proper processes have been implemented across the board by all the ministers involved. There will be an environmental bond on this project and it will be administered by the Department of Mines and Petroleum, as was the case with every project that operated under the previous Labor government.
(1) Is the minister committed to imposing an environmental bond; and, if so, when will it be announced? (2) Did the minister have any discussion with the Minister for Regional Development about the environmental bond; and, if so, when, where and what was discussed? (3) Did the minister have any discussions with the Minister for Environment to try to persuade her to remove the requirement for the environmental bond? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: (1)–(3) Is it not interesting that the Labor Party should get onto an issue like this and think that there is some significance to it? What is actually happening is what has always happened in respect of mining in Western Australia. There will be an environmental bond on this project, and it will be set and administered by the Department of Mines and Petroleum, as it always has been, including during the entire term of the previous government. For reasons that have been explained to the house by the Minister for Environment, the EPA made the decision in respect of its assessment that the state agreement act signed, sealed and delivered by the member’s government did not provide for an environmental bond. The EPA therefore decided that it would impose an environmental bond using its own powers in respect of the environment. We subsequently found that that particular interpretation of the state agreement act was not correct and that, indeed, there could be an environmental bond imposed under the Mining Act. That was a decision that the government took, so there will be an environmental bond on this project, imposed by the Department of Mines and Petroleum, which is what always happens. Let me explain why Mr Palmer had some issues about this. I draw members’ attention to section 26 of the Iron Ore Processing (Mineralogy Pty Ltd) Agreement Act 2002. The legislation was brought into this Parliament by the previous Labor government under the ministerial responsibility of Hon Clive Brown. Section 26 is headed “No discriminatory rates”. I will not read it in its entirety, but it states in part — Except as provided in this Agreement the State shall not impose, nor shall it permit or authorise any of its agencies or instrumentalities or any local or other authority of the State to impose discriminatory taxes rates or charges of any nature whatsoever on or in respect of the titles property or other assets products materials or services used or produced by or through the activities of Project Proponents … This is the Labor Party’s agreement. It was part of the agreement that there would be no additional taxes. Hon Ken Travers : No discriminatory taxes. Get it right. Hon NORMAN MOORE : The member can please himself how he wants to interpret that, but that was what Mr Palmer believed to be the section of his agreement that meant that he was not required to pay an environmental bond. It was initially the view of the EPA that this particular section did not require a bond to be paid under the Mining Act. However, subsequent reassessment of that section—an extraordinary clause brought in by the previous Labor government—found that it did not prohibit an environmental bond under the Mining Act, so it will be implemented under the Mining Act, as has always been the case. I did not speak to the Minister for Regional Development at all about this, and I do not recall speaking to the Minister for Environment about it at any time. But as soon as I heard the EPA’s recommendation in respect of environmental bonds on mining proposals, my initial response was that it was the responsibility of the Minister for Mines and Petroleum under the Mining Act. Why would two agencies impose bonds on companies? Hon Adele Farina : Then why did the EPA do it? Hon NORMAN MOORE : I just explained to the house that its interpretation of the agreement was that it could not be applied under the Mining Act, so it determined that there should be a bond and did that under its powers in respect of the Environmental Protection Act. What are we going to do? We are going to do what we always do. When the project proposal, which the company has to prepare, is provided to the government, as has always been the case, the Department of Mines and Petroleum will work out how the bond is to be implemented. It will be implemented, but will not necessarily be a $45 million up-front bond, as recommended by the EPA. It may well be a staged bond, which is the way in which these long-term projects have been bonded in the past, so that we do not frighten proponents away by having a bond of such magnitude that they do not proceed with a project. If the Labor Party wants to impose a $45 million bond right now so that this project will stop, it should just say so, because the consequences of that sort of nonsense should be obvious even to the Labor Party. The rubbish we have heard today from the Labor Party, with absolutely nothing to go on at all, has demonstrated that the proper processes have been implemented across the board by all the ministers involved. There will be an environmental bond on this project and it will be administered by the Department of Mines and Petroleum, as was the case with every project that operated under the previous Labor government.
(2) Did the minister have any discussion with the Minister for Regional Development about the environmental bond; and, if so, when, where and what was discussed? (3) Did the minister have any discussions with the Minister for Environment to try to persuade her to remove the requirement for the environmental bond? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: (1)–(3) Is it not interesting that the Labor Party should get onto an issue like this and think that there is some significance to it? What is actually happening is what has always happened in respect of mining in Western Australia. There will be an environmental bond on this project, and it will be set and administered by the Department of Mines and Petroleum, as it always has been, including during the entire term of the previous government. For reasons that have been explained to the house by the Minister for Environment, the EPA made the decision in respect of its assessment that the state agreement act signed, sealed and delivered by the member’s government did not provide for an environmental bond. The EPA therefore decided that it would impose an environmental bond using its own powers in respect of the environment. We subsequently found that that particular interpretation of the state agreement act was not correct and that, indeed, there could be an environmental bond imposed under the Mining Act. That was a decision that the government took, so there will be an environmental bond on this project, imposed by the Department of Mines and Petroleum, which is what always happens. Let me explain why Mr Palmer had some issues about this. I draw members’ attention to section 26 of the Iron Ore Processing (Mineralogy Pty Ltd) Agreement Act 2002. The legislation was brought into this Parliament by the previous Labor government under the ministerial responsibility of Hon Clive Brown. Section 26 is headed “No discriminatory rates”. I will not read it in its entirety, but it states in part — Except as provided in this Agreement the State shall not impose, nor shall it permit or authorise any of its agencies or instrumentalities or any local or other authority of the State to impose discriminatory taxes rates or charges of any nature whatsoever on or in respect of the titles property or other assets products materials or services used or produced by or through the activities of Project Proponents … This is the Labor Party’s agreement. It was part of the agreement that there would be no additional taxes. Hon Ken Travers : No discriminatory taxes. Get it right. Hon NORMAN MOORE : The member can please himself how he wants to interpret that, but that was what Mr Palmer believed to be the section of his agreement that meant that he was not required to pay an environmental bond. It was initially the view of the EPA that this particular section did not require a bond to be paid under the Mining Act. However, subsequent reassessment of that section—an extraordinary clause brought in by the previous Labor government—found that it did not prohibit an environmental bond under the Mining Act, so it will be implemented under the Mining Act, as has always been the case. I did not speak to the Minister for Regional Development at all about this, and I do not recall speaking to the Minister for Environment about it at any time. But as soon as I heard the EPA’s recommendation in respect of environmental bonds on mining proposals, my initial response was that it was the responsibility of the Minister for Mines and Petroleum under the Mining Act. Why would two agencies impose bonds on companies? Hon Adele Farina : Then why did the EPA do it? Hon NORMAN MOORE : I just explained to the house that its interpretation of the agreement was that it could not be applied under the Mining Act, so it determined that there should be a bond and did that under its powers in respect of the Environmental Protection Act. What are we going to do? We are going to do what we always do. When the project proposal, which the company has to prepare, is provided to the government, as has always been the case, the Department of Mines and Petroleum will work out how the bond is to be implemented. It will be implemented, but will not necessarily be a $45 million up-front bond, as recommended by the EPA. It may well be a staged bond, which is the way in which these long-term projects have been bonded in the past, so that we do not frighten proponents away by having a bond of such magnitude that they do not proceed with a project. If the Labor Party wants to impose a $45 million bond right now so that this project will stop, it should just say so, because the consequences of that sort of nonsense should be obvious even to the Labor Party. The rubbish we have heard today from the Labor Party, with absolutely nothing to go on at all, has demonstrated that the proper processes have been implemented across the board by all the ministers involved. There will be an environmental bond on this project and it will be administered by the Department of Mines and Petroleum, as was the case with every project that operated under the previous Labor government.
(3) Did the minister have any discussions with the Minister for Environment to try to persuade her to remove the requirement for the environmental bond? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: (1)–(3) Is it not interesting that the Labor Party should get onto an issue like this and think that there is some significance to it? What is actually happening is what has always happened in respect of mining in Western Australia. There will be an environmental bond on this project, and it will be set and administered by the Department of Mines and Petroleum, as it always has been, including during the entire term of the previous government. For reasons that have been explained to the house by the Minister for Environment, the EPA made the decision in respect of its assessment that the state agreement act signed, sealed and delivered by the member’s government did not provide for an environmental bond. The EPA therefore decided that it would impose an environmental bond using its own powers in respect of the environment. We subsequently found that that particular interpretation of the state agreement act was not correct and that, indeed, there could be an environmental bond imposed under the Mining Act. That was a decision that the government took, so there will be an environmental bond on this project, imposed by the Department of Mines and Petroleum, which is what always happens. Let me explain why Mr Palmer had some issues about this. I draw members’ attention to section 26 of the Iron Ore Processing (Mineralogy Pty Ltd) Agreement Act 2002. The legislation was brought into this Parliament by the previous Labor government under the ministerial responsibility of Hon Clive Brown. Section 26 is headed “No discriminatory rates”. I will not read it in its entirety, but it states in part — Except as provided in this Agreement the State shall not impose, nor shall it permit or authorise any of its agencies or instrumentalities or any local or other authority of the State to impose discriminatory taxes rates or charges of any nature whatsoever on or in respect of the titles property or other assets products materials or services used or produced by or through the activities of Project Proponents … This is the Labor Party’s agreement. It was part of the agreement that there would be no additional taxes. Hon Ken Travers : No discriminatory taxes. Get it right. Hon NORMAN MOORE : The member can please himself how he wants to interpret that, but that was what Mr Palmer believed to be the section of his agreement that meant that he was not required to pay an environmental bond. It was initially the view of the EPA that this particular section did not require a bond to be paid under the Mining Act. However, subsequent reassessment of that section—an extraordinary clause brought in by the previous Labor government—found that it did not prohibit an environmental bond under the Mining Act, so it will be implemented under the Mining Act, as has always been the case. I did not speak to the Minister for Regional Development at all about this, and I do not recall speaking to the Minister for Environment about it at any time. But as soon as I heard the EPA’s recommendation in respect of environmental bonds on mining proposals, my initial response was that it was the responsibility of the Minister for Mines and Petroleum under the Mining Act. Why would two agencies impose bonds on companies? Hon Adele Farina : Then why did the EPA do it? Hon NORMAN MOORE : I just explained to the house that its interpretation of the agreement was that it could not be applied under the Mining Act, so it determined that there should be a bond and did that under its powers in respect of the Environmental Protection Act. What are we going to do? We are going to do what we always do. When the project proposal, which the company has to prepare, is provided to the government, as has always been the case, the Department of Mines and Petroleum will work out how the bond is to be implemented. It will be implemented, but will not necessarily be a $45 million up-front bond, as recommended by the EPA. It may well be a staged bond, which is the way in which these long-term projects have been bonded in the past, so that we do not frighten proponents away by having a bond of such magnitude that they do not proceed with a project. If the Labor Party wants to impose a $45 million bond right now so that this project will stop, it should just say so, because the consequences of that sort of nonsense should be obvious even to the Labor Party. The rubbish we have heard today from the Labor Party, with absolutely nothing to go on at all, has demonstrated that the proper processes have been implemented across the board by all the ministers involved. There will be an environmental bond on this project and it will be administered by the Department of Mines and Petroleum, as was the case with every project that operated under the previous Labor government.
Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: (1)–(3) Is it not interesting that the Labor Party should get onto an issue like this and think that there is some significance to it? What is actually happening is what has always happened in respect of mining in Western Australia. There will be an environmental bond on this project, and it will be set and administered by the Department of Mines and Petroleum, as it always has been, including during the entire term of the previous government. For reasons that have been explained to the house by the Minister for Environment, the EPA made the decision in respect of its assessment that the state agreement act signed, sealed and delivered by the member’s government did not provide for an environmental bond. The EPA therefore decided that it would impose an environmental bond using its own powers in respect of the environment. We subsequently found that that particular interpretation of the state agreement act was not correct and that, indeed, there could be an environmental bond imposed under the Mining Act. That was a decision that the government took, so there will be an environmental bond on this project, imposed by the Department of Mines and Petroleum, which is what always happens. Let me explain why Mr Palmer had some issues about this. I draw members’ attention to section 26 of the Iron Ore Processing (Mineralogy Pty Ltd) Agreement Act 2002. The legislation was brought into this Parliament by the previous Labor government under the ministerial responsibility of Hon Clive Brown. Section 26 is headed “No discriminatory rates”. I will not read it in its entirety, but it states in part — Except as provided in this Agreement the State shall not impose, nor shall it permit or authorise any of its agencies or instrumentalities or any local or other authority of the State to impose discriminatory taxes rates or charges of any nature whatsoever on or in respect of the titles property or other assets products materials or services used or produced by or through the activities of Project Proponents … This is the Labor Party’s agreement. It was part of the agreement that there would be no additional taxes. Hon Ken Travers : No discriminatory taxes. Get it right. Hon NORMAN MOORE : The member can please himself how he wants to interpret that, but that was what Mr Palmer believed to be the section of his agreement that meant that he was not required to pay an environmental bond. It was initially the view of the EPA that this particular section did not require a bond to be paid under the Mining Act. However, subsequent reassessment of that section—an extraordinary clause brought in by the previous Labor government—found that it did not prohibit an environmental bond under the Mining Act, so it will be implemented under the Mining Act, as has always been the case. I did not speak to the Minister for Regional Development at all about this, and I do not recall speaking to the Minister for Environment about it at any time. But as soon as I heard the EPA’s recommendation in respect of environmental bonds on mining proposals, my initial response was that it was the responsibility of the Minister for Mines and Petroleum under the Mining Act. Why would two agencies impose bonds on companies? Hon Adele Farina : Then why did the EPA do it? Hon NORMAN MOORE : I just explained to the house that its interpretation of the agreement was that it could not be applied under the Mining Act, so it determined that there should be a bond and did that under its powers in respect of the Environmental Protection Act. What are we going to do? We are going to do what we always do. When the project proposal, which the company has to prepare, is provided to the government, as has always been the case, the Department of Mines and Petroleum will work out how the bond is to be implemented. It will be implemented, but will not necessarily be a $45 million up-front bond, as recommended by the EPA. It may well be a staged bond, which is the way in which these long-term projects have been bonded in the past, so that we do not frighten proponents away by having a bond of such magnitude that they do not proceed with a project. If the Labor Party wants to impose a $45 million bond right now so that this project will stop, it should just say so, because the consequences of that sort of nonsense should be obvious even to the Labor Party. The rubbish we have heard today from the Labor Party, with absolutely nothing to go on at all, has demonstrated that the proper processes have been implemented across the board by all the ministers involved. There will be an environmental bond on this project and it will be administered by the Department of Mines and Petroleum, as was the case with every project that operated under the previous Labor government.
(1)–(3) Is it not interesting that the Labor Party should get onto an issue like this and think that there is some significance to it? What is actually happening is what has always happened in respect of mining in Western Australia. There will be an environmental bond on this project, and it will be set and administered by the Department of Mines and Petroleum, as it always has been, including during the entire term of the previous government. For reasons that have been explained to the house by the Minister for Environment, the EPA made the decision in respect of its assessment that the state agreement act signed, sealed and delivered by the member’s government did not provide for an environmental bond. The EPA therefore decided that it would impose an environmental bond using its own powers in respect of the environment. We subsequently found that that particular interpretation of the state agreement act was not correct and that, indeed, there could be an environmental bond imposed under the Mining Act. That was a decision that the government took, so there will be an environmental bond on this project, imposed by the Department of Mines and Petroleum, which is what always happens. Let me explain why Mr Palmer had some issues about this. I draw members’ attention to section 26 of the Iron Ore Processing (Mineralogy Pty Ltd) Agreement Act 2002. The legislation was brought into this Parliament by the previous Labor government under the ministerial responsibility of Hon Clive Brown. Section 26 is headed “No discriminatory rates”. I will not read it in its entirety, but it states in part — Except as provided in this Agreement the State shall not impose, nor shall it permit or authorise any of its agencies or instrumentalities or any local or other authority of the State to impose discriminatory taxes rates or charges of any nature whatsoever on or in respect of the titles property or other assets products materials or services used or produced by or through the activities of Project Proponents … This is the Labor Party’s agreement. It was part of the agreement that there would be no additional taxes. Hon Ken Travers : No discriminatory taxes. Get it right. Hon NORMAN MOORE : The member can please himself how he wants to interpret that, but that was what Mr Palmer believed to be the section of his agreement that meant that he was not required to pay an environmental bond. It was initially the view of the EPA that this particular section did not require a bond to be paid under the Mining Act. However, subsequent reassessment of that section—an extraordinary clause brought in by the previous Labor government—found that it did not prohibit an environmental bond under the Mining Act, so it will be implemented under the Mining Act, as has always been the case. I did not speak to the Minister for Regional Development at all about this, and I do not recall speaking to the Minister for Environment about it at any time. But as soon as I heard the EPA’s recommendation in respect of environmental bonds on mining proposals, my initial response was that it was the responsibility of the Minister for Mines and Petroleum under the Mining Act. Why would two agencies impose bonds on companies? Hon Adele Farina : Then why did the EPA do it? Hon NORMAN MOORE : I just explained to the house that its interpretation of the agreement was that it could not be applied under the Mining Act, so it determined that there should be a bond and did that under its powers in respect of the Environmental Protection Act. What are we going to do? We are going to do what we always do. When the project proposal, which the company has to prepare, is provided to the government, as has always been the case, the Department of Mines and Petroleum will work out how the bond is to be implemented. It will be implemented, but will not necessarily be a $45 million up-front bond, as recommended by the EPA. It may well be a staged bond, which is the way in which these long-term projects have been bonded in the past, so that we do not frighten proponents away by having a bond of such magnitude that they do not proceed with a project. If the Labor Party wants to impose a $45 million bond right now so that this project will stop, it should just say so, because the consequences of that sort of nonsense should be obvious even to the Labor Party. The rubbish we have heard today from the Labor Party, with absolutely nothing to go on at all, has demonstrated that the proper processes have been implemented across the board by all the ministers involved. There will be an environmental bond on this project and it will be administered by the Department of Mines and Petroleum, as was the case with every project that operated under the previous Labor government.
Hon NORMAN MOORE : The member can please himself how he wants to interpret that, but that was what Mr Palmer believed to be the section of his agreement that meant that he was not required to pay an environmental bond. It was initially the view of the EPA that this particular section did not require a bond to be paid under the Mining Act. However, subsequent reassessment of that section—an extraordinary clause brought in by the previous Labor government—found that it did not prohibit an environmental bond under the Mining Act, so it will be implemented under the Mining Act, as has always been the case. I did not speak to the Minister for Regional Development at all about this, and I do not recall speaking to the Minister for Environment about it at any time. But as soon as I heard the EPA’s recommendation in respect of environmental bonds on mining proposals, my initial response was that it was the responsibility of the Minister for Mines and Petroleum under the Mining Act. Why would two agencies impose bonds on companies? Hon Adele Farina : Then why did the EPA do it? Hon NORMAN MOORE : I just explained to the house that its interpretation of the agreement was that it could not be applied under the Mining Act, so it determined that there should be a bond and did that under its powers in respect of the Environmental Protection Act. What are we going to do? We are going to do what we always do. When the project proposal, which the company has to prepare, is provided to the government, as has always been the case, the Department of Mines and Petroleum will work out how the bond is to be implemented. It will be implemented, but will not necessarily be a $45 million up-front bond, as recommended by the EPA. It may well be a staged bond, which is the way in which these long-term projects have been bonded in the past, so that we do not frighten proponents away by having a bond of such magnitude that they do not proceed with a project. If the Labor Party wants to impose a $45 million bond right now so that this project will stop, it should just say so, because the consequences of that sort of nonsense should be obvious even to the Labor Party. The rubbish we have heard today from the Labor Party, with absolutely nothing to go on at all, has demonstrated that the proper processes have been implemented across the board by all the ministers involved. There will be an environmental bond on this project and it will be administered by the Department of Mines and Petroleum, as was the case with every project that operated under the previous Labor government.
Hon Adele Farina : Then why did the EPA do it? Hon NORMAN MOORE : I just explained to the house that its interpretation of the agreement was that it could not be applied under the Mining Act, so it determined that there should be a bond and did that under its powers in respect of the Environmental Protection Act. What are we going to do? We are going to do what we always do. When the project proposal, which the company has to prepare, is provided to the government, as has always been the case, the Department of Mines and Petroleum will work out how the bond is to be implemented. It will be implemented, but will not necessarily be a $45 million up-front bond, as recommended by the EPA. It may well be a staged bond, which is the way in which these long-term projects have been bonded in the past, so that we do not frighten proponents away by having a bond of such magnitude that they do not proceed with a project. If the Labor Party wants to impose a $45 million bond right now so that this project will stop, it should just say so, because the consequences of that sort of nonsense should be obvious even to the Labor Party. The rubbish we have heard today from the Labor Party, with absolutely nothing to go on at all, has demonstrated that the proper processes have been implemented across the board by all the ministers involved. There will be an environmental bond on this project and it will be administered by the Department of Mines and Petroleum, as was the case with every project that operated under the previous Labor government.
Hon NORMAN MOORE : I just explained to the house that its interpretation of the agreement was that it could not be applied under the Mining Act, so it determined that there should be a bond and did that under its powers in respect of the Environmental Protection Act. What are we going to do? We are going to do what we always do. When the project proposal, which the company has to prepare, is provided to the government, as has always been the case, the Department of Mines and Petroleum will work out how the bond is to be implemented. It will be implemented, but will not necessarily be a $45 million up-front bond, as recommended by the EPA. It may well be a staged bond, which is the way in which these long-term projects have been bonded in the past, so that we do not frighten proponents away by having a bond of such magnitude that they do not proceed with a project. If the Labor Party wants to impose a $45 million bond right now so that this project will stop, it should just say so, because the consequences of that sort of nonsense should be obvious even to the Labor Party. The rubbish we have heard today from the Labor Party, with absolutely nothing to go on at all, has demonstrated that the proper processes have been implemented across the board by all the ministers involved. There will be an environmental bond on this project and it will be administered by the Department of Mines and Petroleum, as was the case with every project that operated under the previous Labor government.
(1) Is the minister committed to imposing an environmental bond; and, if so, when will it be announced? (2) Did the minister have any discussion with the Minister for Regional Development about the environmental bond; and, if so, when, where and what was discussed? (3) Did the minister have any discussions with the Minister for Environment to try to persuade her to remove the requirement for the environmental bond? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: (1)–(3) Is it not interesting that the Labor Party should get onto an issue like this and think that there is some significance to it? What is actually happening is what has always happened in respect of mining in Western Australia. There will be an environmental bond on this project, and it will be set and administered by the Department of Mines and Petroleum, as it always has been, including during the entire term of the previous government. For reasons that have been explained to the house by the Minister for Environment, the EPA made the decision in respect of its assessment that the state agreement act signed, sealed and delivered by the member’s government did not provide for an environmental bond. The EPA therefore decided that it would impose an environmental bond using its own powers in respect of the environment. We subsequently found that that particular interpretation of the state agreement act was not correct and that, indeed, there could be an environmental bond imposed under the Mining Act. That was a decision that the government took, so there will be an environmental bond on this project, imposed by the Department of Mines and Petroleum, which is what always happens. Let me explain why Mr Palmer had some issues about this. I draw members’ attention to section 26 of the Iron Ore Processing (Mineralogy Pty Ltd) Agreement Act 2002. The legislation was brought into this Parliament by the previous Labor government under the ministerial responsibility of Hon Clive Brown. Section 26 is headed “No discriminatory rates”. I will not read it in its entirety, but it states in part — Except as provided in this Agreement the State shall not impose, nor shall it permit or authorise any of its agencies or instrumentalities or any local or other authority of the State to impose discriminatory taxes rates or charges of any nature whatsoever on or in respect of the titles property or other assets products materials or services used or produced by or through the activities of Project Proponents … This is the Labor Party’s agreement. It was part of the agreement that there would be no additional taxes. Hon Ken Travers : No discriminatory taxes. Get it right. Hon NORMAN MOORE : The member can please himself how he wants to interpret that, but that was what Mr Palmer believed to be the section of his agreement that meant that he was not required to pay an environmental bond. It was initially the view of the EPA that this particular section did not require a bond to be paid under the Mining Act. However, subsequent reassessment of that section—an extraordinary clause brought in by the previous Labor government—found that it did not prohibit an environmental bond under the Mining Act, so it will be implemented under the Mining Act, as has always been the case. I did not speak to the Minister for Regional Development at all about this, and I do not recall speaking to the Minister for Environment about it at any time. But as soon as I heard the EPA’s recommendation in respect of environmental bonds on mining proposals, my initial response was that it was the responsibility of the Minister for Mines and Petroleum under the Mining Act. Why would two agencies impose bonds on companies? Hon Adele Farina : Then why did the EPA do it? Hon NORMAN MOORE : I just explained to the house that its interpretation of the agreement was that it could not be applied under the Mining Act, so it determined that there should be a bond and did that under its powers in respect of the Environmental Protection Act. What are we going to do? We are going to do what we always do. When the project proposal, which the company has to prepare, is provided to the government, as has always been the case, the Department of Mines and Petroleum will work out how the bond is to be implemented. It will be implemented, but will not necessarily be a $45 million up-front bond, as recommended by the EPA. It may well be a staged bond, which is the way in which these long-term projects have been bonded in the past, so that we do not frighten proponents away by having a bond of such magnitude that they do not proceed with a project. If the Labor Party wants to impose a $45 million bond right now so that this project will stop, it should just say so, because the consequences of that sort of nonsense should be obvious even to the Labor Party. The rubbish we have heard today from the Labor Party, with absolutely nothing to go on at all, has demonstrated that the proper processes have been implemented across the board by all the ministers involved. There will be an environmental bond on this project and it will be administered by the Department of Mines and Petroleum, as was the case with every project that operated under the previous Labor government.
(2) Did the minister have any discussion with the Minister for Regional Development about the environmental bond; and, if so, when, where and what was discussed? (3) Did the minister have any discussions with the Minister for Environment to try to persuade her to remove the requirement for the environmental bond? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: (1)–(3) Is it not interesting that the Labor Party should get onto an issue like this and think that there is some significance to it? What is actually happening is what has always happened in respect of mining in Western Australia. There will be an environmental bond on this project, and it will be set and administered by the Department of Mines and Petroleum, as it always has been, including during the entire term of the previous government. For reasons that have been explained to the house by the Minister for Environment, the EPA made the decision in respect of its assessment that the state agreement act signed, sealed and delivered by the member’s government did not provide for an environmental bond. The EPA therefore decided that it would impose an environmental bond using its own powers in respect of the environment. We subsequently found that that particular interpretation of the state agreement act was not correct and that, indeed, there could be an environmental bond imposed under the Mining Act. That was a decision that the government took, so there will be an environmental bond on this project, imposed by the Department of Mines and Petroleum, which is what always happens. Let me explain why Mr Palmer had some issues about this. I draw members’ attention to section 26 of the Iron Ore Processing (Mineralogy Pty Ltd) Agreement Act 2002. The legislation was brought into this Parliament by the previous Labor government under the ministerial responsibility of Hon Clive Brown. Section 26 is headed “No discriminatory rates”. I will not read it in its entirety, but it states in part — Except as provided in this Agreement the State shall not impose, nor shall it permit or authorise any of its agencies or instrumentalities or any local or other authority of the State to impose discriminatory taxes rates or charges of any nature whatsoever on or in respect of the titles property or other assets products materials or services used or produced by or through the activities of Project Proponents … This is the Labor Party’s agreement. It was part of the agreement that there would be no additional taxes. Hon Ken Travers : No discriminatory taxes. Get it right. Hon NORMAN MOORE : The member can please himself how he wants to interpret that, but that was what Mr Palmer believed to be the section of his agreement that meant that he was not required to pay an environmental bond. It was initially the view of the EPA that this particular section did not require a bond to be paid under the Mining Act. However, subsequent reassessment of that section—an extraordinary clause brought in by the previous Labor government—found that it did not prohibit an environmental bond under the Mining Act, so it will be implemented under the Mining Act, as has always been the case. I did not speak to the Minister for Regional Development at all about this, and I do not recall speaking to the Minister for Environment about it at any time. But as soon as I heard the EPA’s recommendation in respect of environmental bonds on mining proposals, my initial response was that it was the responsibility of the Minister for Mines and Petroleum under the Mining Act. Why would two agencies impose bonds on companies? Hon Adele Farina : Then why did the EPA do it? Hon NORMAN MOORE : I just explained to the house that its interpretation of the agreement was that it could not be applied under the Mining Act, so it determined that there should be a bond and did that under its powers in respect of the Environmental Protection Act. What are we going to do? We are going to do what we always do. When the project proposal, which the company has to prepare, is provided to the government, as has always been the case, the Department of Mines and Petroleum will work out how the bond is to be implemented. It will be implemented, but will not necessarily be a $45 million up-front bond, as recommended by the EPA. It may well be a staged bond, which is the way in which these long-term projects have been bonded in the past, so that we do not frighten proponents away by having a bond of such magnitude that they do not proceed with a project. If the Labor Party wants to impose a $45 million bond right now so that this project will stop, it should just say so, because the consequences of that sort of nonsense should be obvious even to the Labor Party. The rubbish we have heard today from the Labor Party, with absolutely nothing to go on at all, has demonstrated that the proper processes have been implemented across the board by all the ministers involved. There will be an environmental bond on this project and it will be administered by the Department of Mines and Petroleum, as was the case with every project that operated under the previous Labor government.
(3) Did the minister have any discussions with the Minister for Environment to try to persuade her to remove the requirement for the environmental bond? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: (1)–(3) Is it not interesting that the Labor Party should get onto an issue like this and think that there is some significance to it? What is actually happening is what has always happened in respect of mining in Western Australia. There will be an environmental bond on this project, and it will be set and administered by the Department of Mines and Petroleum, as it always has been, including during the entire term of the previous government. For reasons that have been explained to the house by the Minister for Environment, the EPA made the decision in respect of its assessment that the state agreement act signed, sealed and delivered by the member’s government did not provide for an environmental bond. The EPA therefore decided that it would impose an environmental bond using its own powers in respect of the environment. We subsequently found that that particular interpretation of the state agreement act was not correct and that, indeed, there could be an environmental bond imposed under the Mining Act. That was a decision that the government took, so there will be an environmental bond on this project, imposed by the Department of Mines and Petroleum, which is what always happens. Let me explain why Mr Palmer had some issues about this. I draw members’ attention to section 26 of the Iron Ore Processing (Mineralogy Pty Ltd) Agreement Act 2002. The legislation was brought into this Parliament by the previous Labor government under the ministerial responsibility of Hon Clive Brown. Section 26 is headed “No discriminatory rates”. I will not read it in its entirety, but it states in part — Except as provided in this Agreement the State shall not impose, nor shall it permit or authorise any of its agencies or instrumentalities or any local or other authority of the State to impose discriminatory taxes rates or charges of any nature whatsoever on or in respect of the titles property or other assets products materials or services used or produced by or through the activities of Project Proponents … This is the Labor Party’s agreement. It was part of the agreement that there would be no additional taxes. Hon Ken Travers : No discriminatory taxes. Get it right. Hon NORMAN MOORE : The member can please himself how he wants to interpret that, but that was what Mr Palmer believed to be the section of his agreement that meant that he was not required to pay an environmental bond. It was initially the view of the EPA that this particular section did not require a bond to be paid under the Mining Act. However, subsequent reassessment of that section—an extraordinary clause brought in by the previous Labor government—found that it did not prohibit an environmental bond under the Mining Act, so it will be implemented under the Mining Act, as has always been the case. I did not speak to the Minister for Regional Development at all about this, and I do not recall speaking to the Minister for Environment about it at any time. But as soon as I heard the EPA’s recommendation in respect of environmental bonds on mining proposals, my initial response was that it was the responsibility of the Minister for Mines and Petroleum under the Mining Act. Why would two agencies impose bonds on companies? Hon Adele Farina : Then why did the EPA do it? Hon NORMAN MOORE : I just explained to the house that its interpretation of the agreement was that it could not be applied under the Mining Act, so it determined that there should be a bond and did that under its powers in respect of the Environmental Protection Act. What are we going to do? We are going to do what we always do. When the project proposal, which the company has to prepare, is provided to the government, as has always been the case, the Department of Mines and Petroleum will work out how the bond is to be implemented. It will be implemented, but will not necessarily be a $45 million up-front bond, as recommended by the EPA. It may well be a staged bond, which is the way in which these long-term projects have been bonded in the past, so that we do not frighten proponents away by having a bond of such magnitude that they do not proceed with a project. If the Labor Party wants to impose a $45 million bond right now so that this project will stop, it should just say so, because the consequences of that sort of nonsense should be obvious even to the Labor Party. The rubbish we have heard today from the Labor Party, with absolutely nothing to go on at all, has demonstrated that the proper processes have been implemented across the board by all the ministers involved. There will be an environmental bond on this project and it will be administered by the Department of Mines and Petroleum, as was the case with every project that operated under the previous Labor government.
Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: (1)–(3) Is it not interesting that the Labor Party should get onto an issue like this and think that there is some significance to it? What is actually happening is what has always happened in respect of mining in Western Australia. There will be an environmental bond on this project, and it will be set and administered by the Department of Mines and Petroleum, as it always has been, including during the entire term of the previous government. For reasons that have been explained to the house by the Minister for Environment, the EPA made the decision in respect of its assessment that the state agreement act signed, sealed and delivered by the member’s government did not provide for an environmental bond. The EPA therefore decided that it would impose an environmental bond using its own powers in respect of the environment. We subsequently found that that particular interpretation of the state agreement act was not correct and that, indeed, there could be an environmental bond imposed under the Mining Act. That was a decision that the government took, so there will be an environmental bond on this project, imposed by the Department of Mines and Petroleum, which is what always happens. Let me explain why Mr Palmer had some issues about this. I draw members’ attention to section 26 of the Iron Ore Processing (Mineralogy Pty Ltd) Agreement Act 2002. The legislation was brought into this Parliament by the previous Labor government under the ministerial responsibility of Hon Clive Brown. Section 26 is headed “No discriminatory rates”. I will not read it in its entirety, but it states in part — Except as provided in this Agreement the State shall not impose, nor shall it permit or authorise any of its agencies or instrumentalities or any local or other authority of the State to impose discriminatory taxes rates or charges of any nature whatsoever on or in respect of the titles property or other assets products materials or services used or produced by or through the activities of Project Proponents … This is the Labor Party’s agreement. It was part of the agreement that there would be no additional taxes. Hon Ken Travers : No discriminatory taxes. Get it right. Hon NORMAN MOORE : The member can please himself how he wants to interpret that, but that was what Mr Palmer believed to be the section of his agreement that meant that he was not required to pay an environmental bond. It was initially the view of the EPA that this particular section did not require a bond to be paid under the Mining Act. However, subsequent reassessment of that section—an extraordinary clause brought in by the previous Labor government—found that it did not prohibit an environmental bond under the Mining Act, so it will be implemented under the Mining Act, as has always been the case. I did not speak to the Minister for Regional Development at all about this, and I do not recall speaking to the Minister for Environment about it at any time. But as soon as I heard the EPA’s recommendation in respect of environmental bonds on mining proposals, my initial response was that it was the responsibility of the Minister for Mines and Petroleum under the Mining Act. Why would two agencies impose bonds on companies? Hon Adele Farina : Then why did the EPA do it? Hon NORMAN MOORE : I just explained to the house that its interpretation of the agreement was that it could not be applied under the Mining Act, so it determined that there should be a bond and did that under its powers in respect of the Environmental Protection Act. What are we going to do? We are going to do what we always do. When the project proposal, which the company has to prepare, is provided to the government, as has always been the case, the Department of Mines and Petroleum will work out how the bond is to be implemented. It will be implemented, but will not necessarily be a $45 million up-front bond, as recommended by the EPA. It may well be a staged bond, which is the way in which these long-term projects have been bonded in the past, so that we do not frighten proponents away by having a bond of such magnitude that they do not proceed with a project. If the Labor Party wants to impose a $45 million bond right now so that this project will stop, it should just say so, because the consequences of that sort of nonsense should be obvious even to the Labor Party. The rubbish we have heard today from the Labor Party, with absolutely nothing to go on at all, has demonstrated that the proper processes have been implemented across the board by all the ministers involved. There will be an environmental bond on this project and it will be administered by the Department of Mines and Petroleum, as was the case with every project that operated under the previous Labor government.
(1)–(3) Is it not interesting that the Labor Party should get onto an issue like this and think that there is some significance to it? What is actually happening is what has always happened in respect of mining in Western Australia. There will be an environmental bond on this project, and it will be set and administered by the Department of Mines and Petroleum, as it always has been, including during the entire term of the previous government. For reasons that have been explained to the house by the Minister for Environment, the EPA made the decision in respect of its assessment that the state agreement act signed, sealed and delivered by the member’s government did not provide for an environmental bond. The EPA therefore decided that it would impose an environmental bond using its own powers in respect of the environment. We subsequently found that that particular interpretation of the state agreement act was not correct and that, indeed, there could be an environmental bond imposed under the Mining Act. That was a decision that the government took, so there will be an environmental bond on this project, imposed by the Department of Mines and Petroleum, which is what always happens. Let me explain why Mr Palmer had some issues about this. I draw members’ attention to section 26 of the Iron Ore Processing (Mineralogy Pty Ltd) Agreement Act 2002. The legislation was brought into this Parliament by the previous Labor government under the ministerial responsibility of Hon Clive Brown. Section 26 is headed “No discriminatory rates”. I will not read it in its entirety, but it states in part — Except as provided in this Agreement the State shall not impose, nor shall it permit or authorise any of its agencies or instrumentalities or any local or other authority of the State to impose discriminatory taxes rates or charges of any nature whatsoever on or in respect of the titles property or other assets products materials or services used or produced by or through the activities of Project Proponents … This is the Labor Party’s agreement. It was part of the agreement that there would be no additional taxes. Hon Ken Travers : No discriminatory taxes. Get it right. Hon NORMAN MOORE : The member can please himself how he wants to interpret that, but that was what Mr Palmer believed to be the section of his agreement that meant that he was not required to pay an environmental bond. It was initially the view of the EPA that this particular section did not require a bond to be paid under the Mining Act. However, subsequent reassessment of that section—an extraordinary clause brought in by the previous Labor government—found that it did not prohibit an environmental bond under the Mining Act, so it will be implemented under the Mining Act, as has always been the case. I did not speak to the Minister for Regional Development at all about this, and I do not recall speaking to the Minister for Environment about it at any time. But as soon as I heard the EPA’s recommendation in respect of environmental bonds on mining proposals, my initial response was that it was the responsibility of the Minister for Mines and Petroleum under the Mining Act. Why would two agencies impose bonds on companies? Hon Adele Farina : Then why did the EPA do it? Hon NORMAN MOORE : I just explained to the house that its interpretation of the agreement was that it could not be applied under the Mining Act, so it determined that there should be a bond and did that under its powers in respect of the Environmental Protection Act. What are we going to do? We are going to do what we always do. When the project proposal, which the company has to prepare, is provided to the government, as has always been the case, the Department of Mines and Petroleum will work out how the bond is to be implemented. It will be implemented, but will not necessarily be a $45 million up-front bond, as recommended by the EPA. It may well be a staged bond, which is the way in which these long-term projects have been bonded in the past, so that we do not frighten proponents away by having a bond of such magnitude that they do not proceed with a project. If the Labor Party wants to impose a $45 million bond right now so that this project will stop, it should just say so, because the consequences of that sort of nonsense should be obvious even to the Labor Party. The rubbish we have heard today from the Labor Party, with absolutely nothing to go on at all, has demonstrated that the proper processes have been implemented across the board by all the ministers involved. There will be an environmental bond on this project and it will be administered by the Department of Mines and Petroleum, as was the case with every project that operated under the previous Labor government.
Hon NORMAN MOORE : The member can please himself how he wants to interpret that, but that was what Mr Palmer believed to be the section of his agreement that meant that he was not required to pay an environmental bond. It was initially the view of the EPA that this particular section did not require a bond to be paid under the Mining Act. However, subsequent reassessment of that section—an extraordinary clause brought in by the previous Labor government—found that it did not prohibit an environmental bond under the Mining Act, so it will be implemented under the Mining Act, as has always been the case. I did not speak to the Minister for Regional Development at all about this, and I do not recall speaking to the Minister for Environment about it at any time. But as soon as I heard the EPA’s recommendation in respect of environmental bonds on mining proposals, my initial response was that it was the responsibility of the Minister for Mines and Petroleum under the Mining Act. Why would two agencies impose bonds on companies? Hon Adele Farina : Then why did the EPA do it? Hon NORMAN MOORE : I just explained to the house that its interpretation of the agreement was that it could not be applied under the Mining Act, so it determined that there should be a bond and did that under its powers in respect of the Environmental Protection Act. What are we going to do? We are going to do what we always do. When the project proposal, which the company has to prepare, is provided to the government, as has always been the case, the Department of Mines and Petroleum will work out how the bond is to be implemented. It will be implemented, but will not necessarily be a $45 million up-front bond, as recommended by the EPA. It may well be a staged bond, which is the way in which these long-term projects have been bonded in the past, so that we do not frighten proponents away by having a bond of such magnitude that they do not proceed with a project. If the Labor Party wants to impose a $45 million bond right now so that this project will stop, it should just say so, because the consequences of that sort of nonsense should be obvious even to the Labor Party. The rubbish we have heard today from the Labor Party, with absolutely nothing to go on at all, has demonstrated that the proper processes have been implemented across the board by all the ministers involved. There will be an environmental bond on this project and it will be administered by the Department of Mines and Petroleum, as was the case with every project that operated under the previous Labor government.
Hon Adele Farina : Then why did the EPA do it? Hon NORMAN MOORE : I just explained to the house that its interpretation of the agreement was that it could not be applied under the Mining Act, so it determined that there should be a bond and did that under its powers in respect of the Environmental Protection Act. What are we going to do? We are going to do what we always do. When the project proposal, which the company has to prepare, is provided to the government, as has always been the case, the Department of Mines and Petroleum will work out how the bond is to be implemented. It will be implemented, but will not necessarily be a $45 million up-front bond, as recommended by the EPA. It may well be a staged bond, which is the way in which these long-term projects have been bonded in the past, so that we do not frighten proponents away by having a bond of such magnitude that they do not proceed with a project. If the Labor Party wants to impose a $45 million bond right now so that this project will stop, it should just say so, because the consequences of that sort of nonsense should be obvious even to the Labor Party. The rubbish we have heard today from the Labor Party, with absolutely nothing to go on at all, has demonstrated that the proper processes have been implemented across the board by all the ministers involved. There will be an environmental bond on this project and it will be administered by the Department of Mines and Petroleum, as was the case with every project that operated under the previous Labor government.
Hon NORMAN MOORE : I just explained to the house that its interpretation of the agreement was that it could not be applied under the Mining Act, so it determined that there should be a bond and did that under its powers in respect of the Environmental Protection Act. What are we going to do? We are going to do what we always do. When the project proposal, which the company has to prepare, is provided to the government, as has always been the case, the Department of Mines and Petroleum will work out how the bond is to be implemented. It will be implemented, but will not necessarily be a $45 million up-front bond, as recommended by the EPA. It may well be a staged bond, which is the way in which these long-term projects have been bonded in the past, so that we do not frighten proponents away by having a bond of such magnitude that they do not proceed with a project. If the Labor Party wants to impose a $45 million bond right now so that this project will stop, it should just say so, because the consequences of that sort of nonsense should be obvious even to the Labor Party. The rubbish we have heard today from the Labor Party, with absolutely nothing to go on at all, has demonstrated that the proper processes have been implemented across the board by all the ministers involved. There will be an environmental bond on this project and it will be administered by the Department of Mines and Petroleum, as was the case with every project that operated under the previous Labor government.
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.