❓ Hon Robin Chapple questions the Minister for Mines and Petroleum regarding advice given concerning Hawthorn Resources' compliance with the Mining Act 1978, specifically regarding dust, noise, and damage to Pinjin Station. The Minister acknowledges an error in previous advice but asserts compliance with guidelines and tenement conditions.
AnsweredQoN 1458Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP) specific
advice given to the Appeals Convenor and Minister for the Environment report/
decision, dated January 2016, concerning potential clearing impacts of dust,
noise being generated by Hawthorn Resources and concerns about the proximity of
clearing in relation to the homestead and amenity impacts on Pinjin Station
well before the Mining Proposal was lodged with the department seeking approval
with a document, dated 26 November 2015, and I ask: (a) can the Minister explain why the DMP provided incorrect and misleading
advice to the Appeals Convenor concerning section 20(5) of the Mining Act 1978 indicating that firstly the applicant (Hawthorn) will be required to comply
with section 20(5) of the Mining Act 1978 and secondly that any non compliance will
be deemed a breach of condition which may result in a penalty being imposed or
tenement forfeited given the department has now allowed/permitted on a growing
scale and magnitude hundreds of thousands of dollars of infrastructure and
occupied buildings to be totally obliterated/destroyed and damaged including
bedding, personal items, cooking equipment, lighting, water tanks, and many
other items without taking any action for a deemed breach of condition resulting
in a penalty being imposed or the tenement being forfeited; (b) if no to (a), why not; (c) can
the Minister state the specific measures by the DMP to ensure that both
dust and noise levels were clearly and adequately covered with operating
commitments in the mining proposal, dated 26 November 2015, or recommending and
imposing further tenement conditions to address these matters before giving any
approval to Hawthorn Resources to protect occupied buildings including
the amenity and health of people living on the station; and (d) if no to (c), why not?
advice given to the Appeals Convenor and Minister for the Environment report/
decision, dated January 2016, concerning potential clearing impacts of dust,
noise being generated by Hawthorn Resources and concerns about the proximity of
clearing in relation to the homestead and amenity impacts on Pinjin Station
well before the Mining Proposal was lodged with the department seeking approval
with a document, dated 26 November 2015, and I ask: (a) can the Minister explain why the DMP provided incorrect and misleading
advice to the Appeals Convenor concerning section 20(5) of the Mining Act 1978 indicating that firstly the applicant (Hawthorn) will be required to comply
with section 20(5) of the Mining Act 1978 and secondly that any non compliance will
be deemed a breach of condition which may result in a penalty being imposed or
tenement forfeited given the department has now allowed/permitted on a growing
scale and magnitude hundreds of thousands of dollars of infrastructure and
occupied buildings to be totally obliterated/destroyed and damaged including
bedding, personal items, cooking equipment, lighting, water tanks, and many
other items without taking any action for a deemed breach of condition resulting
in a penalty being imposed or the tenement being forfeited; (b) if no to (a), why not; (c) can
the Minister state the specific measures by the DMP to ensure that both
dust and noise levels were clearly and adequately covered with operating
commitments in the mining proposal, dated 26 November 2015, or recommending and
imposing further tenement conditions to address these matters before giving any
approval to Hawthorn Resources to protect occupied buildings including
the amenity and health of people living on the station; and (d) if no to (c), why not?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
11 September 2018
Responded by
Minister for Regional Development representing the Minister for Mines and Petroleum
Response time
9 days
(a) Firstly, the applicant (Hawthorn) are required to comply with section 20(5) of the Mining Act 1978. Secondly, due to human error, a mistake was made in late 2015 by the then Department of Mines and Petroleum when it indicated that failure to comply with Section 20(5) of the Mining Act would constitute a breach of tenement conditions. Section 20(5) of the Mining Act does not link to the tenement condition breach provisions within the Act, and hence cannot, in itself, be considered a breach of tenement conditions. Failure to comply with section 20(5) may, however, constitute an offence under other sections of the Mining Act, which can result in penalties being imposed.
(b) Not applicable
(c) The Mining Proposal was assessed to meet the requirements of the Guidelines for Mining Proposals in Western Australia (February 2006). Tenement conditions have been imposed, as necessary, and monitored, within the scope of the condition setting powers of the Mining Act 1978.
(d) Not applicable
(b) Not applicable
(c) The Mining Proposal was assessed to meet the requirements of the Guidelines for Mining Proposals in Western Australia (February 2006). Tenement conditions have been imposed, as necessary, and monitored, within the scope of the condition setting powers of the Mining Act 1978.
(d) Not applicable
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.