Home›Questions on Notice›QoN 2457

❓ A WA parliamentary question probes the mining activities of Piper Preston/Salt Lake Potash at Lake Wells (Marlutja) regarding heritage approvals, consultation with native title holders and knowledge holders, and environmental impacts. The response reveals a lack of registered native title claims at the time of tenement grants and confirms the proponent will be required to remove rubbish from the site.

AnsweredQoN 2457Legislative Council

Asked

4 September 2019

Member

Hon Robin Chapple

Portfolio

Mines and Petroleum

QuestionView source ↗

I refer to Lake Wells, or Marlutja and the mining and exploration leases M38/1278 and E38/282 owned by Piper Preston Pty Ltd or Salt Lake Potash, and heritage area identified in Survey Report ID 106717 Ethnographic report on the Mantjiltjara and photos of the site available here, https://robinchapple.com/lake-wells-marlutja, and ask: (a) with reference to any of the tenements held by Piper Preston Pty Ltd or Salt Lake Potash over Lake Wells, were section 18 approvals sought; (b) if yes to (a), when was approval sought and was approval granted; (c) if no to (a), why not; (d) with reference to any of the tenements held by Piper Preston Pty Ltd or Salt Lake Potash over Lake Wells, were the native title parties consulted and, if so, who was consulted and when did consultations occur; (e) if no to (d), why not; (f) with reference to any of the tenements held by Piper Preston Pty Ltd or Salt Lake Potash over Lake Wells, were the knowledge holders consulted and, if so, who was consulted and when; (g) if no to (f), why not; (h) with reference to any of the tenements held by Piper Preston Pty Ltd or Salt Lake Potash over Lake Wells, were heritage surveys carried out and, if so, by whom; (i) if no to (h), why not; (j) if yes to (h), were the knowledge holders in attendance; (k) was the Department of Mines advised during the POW processes, over any of the tenements held by Piper Preston Pty Ltd or Salt Lake Potash over Lake Wells, under the Mining Act 1978 of the fact that this area had or had not been subject to a section 18 or heritage surveys; (l) if no to (k), why not; (m) did authorised officers approve the POW applications under the Mining Act 1978 ; (n) with reference to (m), did the POW by Piper Preston Pty Ltd or Salt Lake Potash over Lake Wells applications under the Mining Act 1978 address whether the activity would cause environmental impacts including impacts to Aboriginal heritage sites; (o) if yes or no to (n), will the Minister table the POW by Piper Preston Pty Ltd or Salt Lake Potash over Lake Wells; (p) if no to (o), why not; and (q) with reference to the photos of material left scattered on site at approximately 544864.13 m E, 6993603.20 m, will N Piper Preston Pty Ltd or Salt Lake Potash be required to remove this material and, if so, when?

AnswerView source ↗

Answered

15 October 2019

Responded by

Minister for Regional Development representing the Minister for Mines and Petroleum

Response time

8 days

(a)       This question should be referred to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs.
(b)      See (a)
(c)       See (a)
(d)      There were no registered native title claims when the tenements were granted.
(e)       See (d)
(f)       This question should be directed to the tenement holder.
(g)      See (f)
(h)      The Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety does not have records of any heritage surveys.
(i)       See (h)
(j)       See (h)
(k)      No
(l)       The programmes of work did not intersect a boundary of any registered Aboriginal Site.
(m)     Yes
(n)      Yes
(o)      No
(p)      Programmes of work are not made available due to sensitivities relating to exploration.
(q)      The proponent will be required to remove all rubbish from the site prior to or at the termination of the exploration program.

View on Parliament of WA