❓ Hon Robin Chapple questions the Minister for State Development regarding the calculation and application of performance bonds for the Fimiston Super Pit (KCGM) and other mining operations, alleging potential preferential treatment for KCGM. The Minister deflects the questions, deeming them irrelevant to current mining safety.
AnsweredQoN 326Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to a briefing note to the Hon Minister which I understand was signed by D R Kelly, Director General of Mines dated December 18 1991 titled ‘Fimiston Stage 11 - Mine and Waste Dumps’ -
(1) Is it correct that part of the briefing note states, ‘If the Fimiston phase II operation was a ‘greenfields project’, the Unconditional Performance Bond would be calculated on the basis of $5 000 per hectare of ground disturbed during the first year of operation. However as the proposal applies to ground that has been continuously worked for 100 years, that approach is not considered appropriate’?
(2) If yes, has the Department since December 1991 applied this same approach to all prospectors and smaller companies operations who have been working ground which has been virtually continually worked for 100 years throughout the Eastern Goldfields and state of Western Australia?
(3) If no to (1), what does it in part state?
(4) Is it correct that part of the briefing note states, ‘One alternative approach would be to establish a bond on the basis of the total ground to be disturbed during the life of the operation. KCGM’s own figures in the CER indicate that they will disturb a total of 1785.1ha of which 1447.9ha would comprise ground normally considered rehabilitate and therefore included in the calculation of an Unconditional Performance Bond. The only ground not considered rehabilitate would be the pits themselves which comprise 327.2ha. On this basis, at a rate of $5000 per ha, the company would be expected to establish a bond of $7m and we consider that to be an unrealistically large figure’?
(5) If yes to (4), can the Minister explain the reasons why the Department considered it to be an unrealistically large figure?
(6) If no to (4), what does it in part state?
(7) Is it correct that part of the briefing note states, ‘It should be noted that a Bond for $492 000 is currently held for tailings dams associated with KCGM’s operations so that the total bond held for KCGM Super Pit project would then be $1 025 000’?
(8) If yes to (7), how many years was this total figure of $1 025 000 in place?
(9) What is the current total figure of bonds in place for the Super Pit Operations?
(10) Can the Minister state how the Departmental approach for the third option bond figure was derived at?
(11) If no to (9), why not and will the Minister table a copy of this briefing note?
(12) Has the Departmental approach for the third option bond figure been consistently applied to all other mining companies/prospectors operations throughout the state since December 1991?
(13) If no to (11), why not and why has KCGM received this special treatment over and above all other mining companies and prospectors throughout the State?
(14) If yes to (11), can the Minister name five companies and five prospectors who have had this same approach applied?
(1) Is it correct that part of the briefing note states, ‘If the Fimiston phase II operation was a ‘greenfields project’, the Unconditional Performance Bond would be calculated on the basis of $5 000 per hectare of ground disturbed during the first year of operation. However as the proposal applies to ground that has been continuously worked for 100 years, that approach is not considered appropriate’?
(2) If yes, has the Department since December 1991 applied this same approach to all prospectors and smaller companies operations who have been working ground which has been virtually continually worked for 100 years throughout the Eastern Goldfields and state of Western Australia?
(3) If no to (1), what does it in part state?
(4) Is it correct that part of the briefing note states, ‘One alternative approach would be to establish a bond on the basis of the total ground to be disturbed during the life of the operation. KCGM’s own figures in the CER indicate that they will disturb a total of 1785.1ha of which 1447.9ha would comprise ground normally considered rehabilitate and therefore included in the calculation of an Unconditional Performance Bond. The only ground not considered rehabilitate would be the pits themselves which comprise 327.2ha. On this basis, at a rate of $5000 per ha, the company would be expected to establish a bond of $7m and we consider that to be an unrealistically large figure’?
(5) If yes to (4), can the Minister explain the reasons why the Department considered it to be an unrealistically large figure?
(6) If no to (4), what does it in part state?
(7) Is it correct that part of the briefing note states, ‘It should be noted that a Bond for $492 000 is currently held for tailings dams associated with KCGM’s operations so that the total bond held for KCGM Super Pit project would then be $1 025 000’?
(8) If yes to (7), how many years was this total figure of $1 025 000 in place?
(9) What is the current total figure of bonds in place for the Super Pit Operations?
(10) Can the Minister state how the Departmental approach for the third option bond figure was derived at?
(11) If no to (9), why not and will the Minister table a copy of this briefing note?
(12) Has the Departmental approach for the third option bond figure been consistently applied to all other mining companies/prospectors operations throughout the state since December 1991?
(13) If no to (11), why not and why has KCGM received this special treatment over and above all other mining companies and prospectors throughout the State?
(14) If yes to (11), can the Minister name five companies and five prospectors who have had this same approach applied?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
12 December 2002
Responded by
Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for State Development
Response time
15 days
The Minister repeats his earlier answer and asks the Member to indicate how his questions are relevant to the cause of safety in the mining industry today.
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.