❓ Hon Robin Chapple questions the Minister for State Development regarding concerns about mine safety on specific tenements and alleged inaction regarding environmental and safety issues at KCGM, contrasting the Department's responses.
AnsweredQoN 1131Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to letters dated April 9 2003 and April 28 2003 reference JL-at 221/03 signed by Mr Jim Limerick, Director General, Department of Industry and Resources addressed to Mr S. Kean -
(1) Can the Minister explain why the Director General is ‘concerned’ at the assertion of dangerous and unsafe working conditions prevailing on P26/1848 and P26/1858 ‘contrary to the laws of protection’?
(2) If no to (1) why not?
(3) Can the Minister explain the reasons why the Director General asked the ‘State Mining Engineer to personally ensure that there is no risk to any person on those tenements’ P26/1848 and P26/1858?
(4) If no to (3) why not?
(5) Does the Department have obligations, responsibilities to investigate and enforce the
Mines Safety and Inspection Act
and Regulations?
(6) If no to (5) why not?
(7) If yes to (5) can the Minister explain the reasons why?
(8) Does the Department have obligations, responsibilities to investigate and enforce the
Mining Act 1978
and Regulations?
(9) If no to (8) why not?
(10) If yes to (8) can the Minister explain the reasons why?
(11) Can the Minister explain why the Director General is concerned with dangerous and unsafe working conditions prevailing on P26/1848 and P26/1858 ‘contrary to the laws of protection’ under the
Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1994
, yet is not concerned and will not investigate KCGM Pty Ltd (operator for Barrick Mines and Newmont Ltd) with seepage of mine water and pollutants from their Fimiston I and Fimiston II tailings dams causing dangerous and unsafe working conditions, significant adverse environmental impacts including contamination of soil/topsoil and damage/death to hundreds of trees/vegetation contrary to the laws of protection under the
Mining Act
and Regulations?
(12) If no to (11) why not?
(1) Can the Minister explain why the Director General is ‘concerned’ at the assertion of dangerous and unsafe working conditions prevailing on P26/1848 and P26/1858 ‘contrary to the laws of protection’?
(2) If no to (1) why not?
(3) Can the Minister explain the reasons why the Director General asked the ‘State Mining Engineer to personally ensure that there is no risk to any person on those tenements’ P26/1848 and P26/1858?
(4) If no to (3) why not?
(5) Does the Department have obligations, responsibilities to investigate and enforce the
Mines Safety and Inspection Act
and Regulations?
(6) If no to (5) why not?
(7) If yes to (5) can the Minister explain the reasons why?
(8) Does the Department have obligations, responsibilities to investigate and enforce the
Mining Act 1978
and Regulations?
(9) If no to (8) why not?
(10) If yes to (8) can the Minister explain the reasons why?
(11) Can the Minister explain why the Director General is concerned with dangerous and unsafe working conditions prevailing on P26/1848 and P26/1858 ‘contrary to the laws of protection’ under the
Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1994
, yet is not concerned and will not investigate KCGM Pty Ltd (operator for Barrick Mines and Newmont Ltd) with seepage of mine water and pollutants from their Fimiston I and Fimiston II tailings dams causing dangerous and unsafe working conditions, significant adverse environmental impacts including contamination of soil/topsoil and damage/death to hundreds of trees/vegetation contrary to the laws of protection under the
Mining Act
and Regulations?
(12) If no to (11) why not?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
16 September 2003
Responded by
Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for State Development
Response time
32 days
(1)-(4) These matters are explained in the full text of the letter to Mr Kean which reads as follows:- “I refer to your letter of 13 March 2003. The issues you raise relate primarily to a case study contained in the draft Report of the Cooke Review. You allege that on many occasions over the past ten years the Department has provided incorrect and/or misleading information to both the previous Director General of Mines and the Minister for Mines. These are very serious allegations and should appropriately be dealt with as part of the Cooke Review. In light of the decade or so of disputation between the Department and yourself, I believe the validity or otherwise of your allegations can be best established as part of that process. I note that you have discussed this matter with Mr Cooke and I have informed him of my view. However, I am concerned at your assertion in the letter there are ‘dangerous and unsafe working conditions’ prevailing on P26/1848 and P26/1858 ‘contrary to the laws of protection’. I have asked the State Mining Engineer to personally ensure that there is no risk to any person on those tenements. I will not ask him, though, to investigate the wider issues which Mr Cooke is considering,” (5)-(7) Yes. This is required as part of the administration of the legislation. (8)-(10) Yes. This is required as part of the administration of the legislation. (11)-(12) These matters are explained in (1) to (4) above.
“I refer to your letter of 13 March 2003. The issues you raise relate primarily to a case study contained in the draft Report of the Cooke Review. You allege that on many occasions over the past ten years the Department has provided incorrect and/or misleading information to both the previous Director General of Mines and the Minister for Mines. These are very serious allegations and should appropriately be dealt with as part of the Cooke Review. In light of the decade or so of disputation between the Department and yourself, I believe the validity or otherwise of your allegations can be best established as part of that process. I note that you have discussed this matter with Mr Cooke and I have informed him of my view. However, I am concerned at your assertion in the letter there are ‘dangerous and unsafe working conditions’ prevailing on P26/1848 and P26/1858 ‘contrary to the laws of protection’. I have asked the State Mining Engineer to personally ensure that there is no risk to any person on those tenements. I will not ask him, though, to investigate the wider issues which Mr Cooke is considering,” (5)-(7) Yes. This is required as part of the administration of the legislation. (8)-(10) Yes. This is required as part of the administration of the legislation. (11)-(12) These matters are explained in (1) to (4) above.
The issues you raise relate primarily to a case study contained in the draft Report of the Cooke Review. You allege that on many occasions over the past ten years the Department has provided incorrect and/or misleading information to both the previous Director General of Mines and the Minister for Mines. These are very serious allegations and should appropriately be dealt with as part of the Cooke Review. In light of the decade or so of disputation between the Department and yourself, I believe the validity or otherwise of your allegations can be best established as part of that process. I note that you have discussed this matter with Mr Cooke and I have informed him of my view. However, I am concerned at your assertion in the letter there are ‘dangerous and unsafe working conditions’ prevailing on P26/1848 and P26/1858 ‘contrary to the laws of protection’. I have asked the State Mining Engineer to personally ensure that there is no risk to any person on those tenements. I will not ask him, though, to investigate the wider issues which Mr Cooke is considering,” (5)-(7) Yes. This is required as part of the administration of the legislation. (8)-(10) Yes. This is required as part of the administration of the legislation. (11)-(12) These matters are explained in (1) to (4) above.
You allege that on many occasions over the past ten years the Department has provided incorrect and/or misleading information to both the previous Director General of Mines and the Minister for Mines. These are very serious allegations and should appropriately be dealt with as part of the Cooke Review. In light of the decade or so of disputation between the Department and yourself, I believe the validity or otherwise of your allegations can be best established as part of that process. I note that you have discussed this matter with Mr Cooke and I have informed him of my view. However, I am concerned at your assertion in the letter there are ‘dangerous and unsafe working conditions’ prevailing on P26/1848 and P26/1858 ‘contrary to the laws of protection’. I have asked the State Mining Engineer to personally ensure that there is no risk to any person on those tenements. I will not ask him, though, to investigate the wider issues which Mr Cooke is considering,” (5)-(7) Yes. This is required as part of the administration of the legislation. (8)-(10) Yes. This is required as part of the administration of the legislation. (11)-(12) These matters are explained in (1) to (4) above.
These are very serious allegations and should appropriately be dealt with as part of the Cooke Review. In light of the decade or so of disputation between the Department and yourself, I believe the validity or otherwise of your allegations can be best established as part of that process. I note that you have discussed this matter with Mr Cooke and I have informed him of my view. However, I am concerned at your assertion in the letter there are ‘dangerous and unsafe working conditions’ prevailing on P26/1848 and P26/1858 ‘contrary to the laws of protection’. I have asked the State Mining Engineer to personally ensure that there is no risk to any person on those tenements. I will not ask him, though, to investigate the wider issues which Mr Cooke is considering,” (5)-(7) Yes. This is required as part of the administration of the legislation. (8)-(10) Yes. This is required as part of the administration of the legislation. (11)-(12) These matters are explained in (1) to (4) above.
I note that you have discussed this matter with Mr Cooke and I have informed him of my view. However, I am concerned at your assertion in the letter there are ‘dangerous and unsafe working conditions’ prevailing on P26/1848 and P26/1858 ‘contrary to the laws of protection’. I have asked the State Mining Engineer to personally ensure that there is no risk to any person on those tenements. I will not ask him, though, to investigate the wider issues which Mr Cooke is considering,” (5)-(7) Yes. This is required as part of the administration of the legislation. (8)-(10) Yes. This is required as part of the administration of the legislation. (11)-(12) These matters are explained in (1) to (4) above.
However, I am concerned at your assertion in the letter there are ‘dangerous and unsafe working conditions’ prevailing on P26/1848 and P26/1858 ‘contrary to the laws of protection’. I have asked the State Mining Engineer to personally ensure that there is no risk to any person on those tenements. I will not ask him, though, to investigate the wider issues which Mr Cooke is considering,” (5)-(7) Yes. This is required as part of the administration of the legislation. (8)-(10) Yes. This is required as part of the administration of the legislation. (11)-(12) These matters are explained in (1) to (4) above.
(5)-(7) Yes. This is required as part of the administration of the legislation. (8)-(10) Yes. This is required as part of the administration of the legislation. (11)-(12) These matters are explained in (1) to (4) above.
(8)-(10) Yes. This is required as part of the administration of the legislation. (11)-(12) These matters are explained in (1) to (4) above.
(11)-(12) These matters are explained in (1) to (4) above.
“I refer to your letter of 13 March 2003. The issues you raise relate primarily to a case study contained in the draft Report of the Cooke Review. You allege that on many occasions over the past ten years the Department has provided incorrect and/or misleading information to both the previous Director General of Mines and the Minister for Mines. These are very serious allegations and should appropriately be dealt with as part of the Cooke Review. In light of the decade or so of disputation between the Department and yourself, I believe the validity or otherwise of your allegations can be best established as part of that process. I note that you have discussed this matter with Mr Cooke and I have informed him of my view. However, I am concerned at your assertion in the letter there are ‘dangerous and unsafe working conditions’ prevailing on P26/1848 and P26/1858 ‘contrary to the laws of protection’. I have asked the State Mining Engineer to personally ensure that there is no risk to any person on those tenements. I will not ask him, though, to investigate the wider issues which Mr Cooke is considering,” (5)-(7) Yes. This is required as part of the administration of the legislation. (8)-(10) Yes. This is required as part of the administration of the legislation. (11)-(12) These matters are explained in (1) to (4) above.
The issues you raise relate primarily to a case study contained in the draft Report of the Cooke Review. You allege that on many occasions over the past ten years the Department has provided incorrect and/or misleading information to both the previous Director General of Mines and the Minister for Mines. These are very serious allegations and should appropriately be dealt with as part of the Cooke Review. In light of the decade or so of disputation between the Department and yourself, I believe the validity or otherwise of your allegations can be best established as part of that process. I note that you have discussed this matter with Mr Cooke and I have informed him of my view. However, I am concerned at your assertion in the letter there are ‘dangerous and unsafe working conditions’ prevailing on P26/1848 and P26/1858 ‘contrary to the laws of protection’. I have asked the State Mining Engineer to personally ensure that there is no risk to any person on those tenements. I will not ask him, though, to investigate the wider issues which Mr Cooke is considering,” (5)-(7) Yes. This is required as part of the administration of the legislation. (8)-(10) Yes. This is required as part of the administration of the legislation. (11)-(12) These matters are explained in (1) to (4) above.
You allege that on many occasions over the past ten years the Department has provided incorrect and/or misleading information to both the previous Director General of Mines and the Minister for Mines. These are very serious allegations and should appropriately be dealt with as part of the Cooke Review. In light of the decade or so of disputation between the Department and yourself, I believe the validity or otherwise of your allegations can be best established as part of that process. I note that you have discussed this matter with Mr Cooke and I have informed him of my view. However, I am concerned at your assertion in the letter there are ‘dangerous and unsafe working conditions’ prevailing on P26/1848 and P26/1858 ‘contrary to the laws of protection’. I have asked the State Mining Engineer to personally ensure that there is no risk to any person on those tenements. I will not ask him, though, to investigate the wider issues which Mr Cooke is considering,” (5)-(7) Yes. This is required as part of the administration of the legislation. (8)-(10) Yes. This is required as part of the administration of the legislation. (11)-(12) These matters are explained in (1) to (4) above.
These are very serious allegations and should appropriately be dealt with as part of the Cooke Review. In light of the decade or so of disputation between the Department and yourself, I believe the validity or otherwise of your allegations can be best established as part of that process. I note that you have discussed this matter with Mr Cooke and I have informed him of my view. However, I am concerned at your assertion in the letter there are ‘dangerous and unsafe working conditions’ prevailing on P26/1848 and P26/1858 ‘contrary to the laws of protection’. I have asked the State Mining Engineer to personally ensure that there is no risk to any person on those tenements. I will not ask him, though, to investigate the wider issues which Mr Cooke is considering,” (5)-(7) Yes. This is required as part of the administration of the legislation. (8)-(10) Yes. This is required as part of the administration of the legislation. (11)-(12) These matters are explained in (1) to (4) above.
I note that you have discussed this matter with Mr Cooke and I have informed him of my view. However, I am concerned at your assertion in the letter there are ‘dangerous and unsafe working conditions’ prevailing on P26/1848 and P26/1858 ‘contrary to the laws of protection’. I have asked the State Mining Engineer to personally ensure that there is no risk to any person on those tenements. I will not ask him, though, to investigate the wider issues which Mr Cooke is considering,” (5)-(7) Yes. This is required as part of the administration of the legislation. (8)-(10) Yes. This is required as part of the administration of the legislation. (11)-(12) These matters are explained in (1) to (4) above.
However, I am concerned at your assertion in the letter there are ‘dangerous and unsafe working conditions’ prevailing on P26/1848 and P26/1858 ‘contrary to the laws of protection’. I have asked the State Mining Engineer to personally ensure that there is no risk to any person on those tenements. I will not ask him, though, to investigate the wider issues which Mr Cooke is considering,” (5)-(7) Yes. This is required as part of the administration of the legislation. (8)-(10) Yes. This is required as part of the administration of the legislation. (11)-(12) These matters are explained in (1) to (4) above.
(5)-(7) Yes. This is required as part of the administration of the legislation. (8)-(10) Yes. This is required as part of the administration of the legislation. (11)-(12) These matters are explained in (1) to (4) above.
(8)-(10) Yes. This is required as part of the administration of the legislation. (11)-(12) These matters are explained in (1) to (4) above.
(11)-(12) These matters are explained in (1) to (4) above.
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.