❓ A WA parliamentary question on notice regarding the Department of Environment and Conservation's (DEC) prosecution decisions, specifically questioning the consistency of enforcement actions against different entities for environmental breaches, including Sakeoc Pty Ltd, a Munglinup farmer, and KCGM.
AnsweredQoN 3250Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to a newspaper article titled ‘Carrier fined $8000’, which appeared in the
Kalgoorlie Miner
on 17 November 2010, a newspaper article titled ‘Property Rights taken to parliament’, which appeared in the
Narrogin Observer
on 27 October 2010, photographs taken on 21 January 2010, depicting clearing of vegetation and construction of bores undertaken with exploration equipment available for viewing at www.mp.wa.gov.au/rchapple/Kaltails, a document dated 3 December 2009 entitled, ‘KCGM Mining Proposal and Works Approval Application’, a media statement dated 1 May 2005 entitled, ‘Unauthorised native vegetation clearing conviction’, and another dated 30 November 2009 entitled ‘illegal land clearers fined $10000 each’, and I ask -
(1) Can the Minister explain why the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) decided to prosecute Sakeoc Pty Ltd trading as Kalgoorlie Industrial Services?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) Is it correct that there was no evidence Sakeoc was illegally dumping, but there was evidence to confirm the company was transporting waste without a licence?
(4) If no to (3), what is specifically correct?
(5) Can the Minister explain why DEC was so insistent on prosecuting Sakeoc for failing to obtain a licence when the company was transporting waste rather than issuing a warning to the company to comply with the legislation?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
(7) With reference to the newspaper article dated 27 October 2010 referred to above, can the Minister explain why DEC was prepared to spend significant resources and effort to prosecute a Munglinup farmer who cleared native vegetation on his property which resulted in him spending 90 days in jail, for breaching a court order preventing him from clearing land?
(8) If no to (7), why not?
(9) Can the Minister explain why DEC is not prepared to spend significant resources in a similar consistent manner as to how other persons referred to above in the media statements have been prosecuted, and at the very least prosecute a large corporation KCGM employees/contractors who have cleared native vegetation as part of exploration/construction activities without obtaining a native vegetation clearing permit under the
Environmental Protection Act 1986
?
(10) If no to (9), why not?
Kalgoorlie Miner
on 17 November 2010, a newspaper article titled ‘Property Rights taken to parliament’, which appeared in the
Narrogin Observer
on 27 October 2010, photographs taken on 21 January 2010, depicting clearing of vegetation and construction of bores undertaken with exploration equipment available for viewing at www.mp.wa.gov.au/rchapple/Kaltails, a document dated 3 December 2009 entitled, ‘KCGM Mining Proposal and Works Approval Application’, a media statement dated 1 May 2005 entitled, ‘Unauthorised native vegetation clearing conviction’, and another dated 30 November 2009 entitled ‘illegal land clearers fined $10000 each’, and I ask -
(1) Can the Minister explain why the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) decided to prosecute Sakeoc Pty Ltd trading as Kalgoorlie Industrial Services?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) Is it correct that there was no evidence Sakeoc was illegally dumping, but there was evidence to confirm the company was transporting waste without a licence?
(4) If no to (3), what is specifically correct?
(5) Can the Minister explain why DEC was so insistent on prosecuting Sakeoc for failing to obtain a licence when the company was transporting waste rather than issuing a warning to the company to comply with the legislation?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
(7) With reference to the newspaper article dated 27 October 2010 referred to above, can the Minister explain why DEC was prepared to spend significant resources and effort to prosecute a Munglinup farmer who cleared native vegetation on his property which resulted in him spending 90 days in jail, for breaching a court order preventing him from clearing land?
(8) If no to (7), why not?
(9) Can the Minister explain why DEC is not prepared to spend significant resources in a similar consistent manner as to how other persons referred to above in the media statements have been prosecuted, and at the very least prosecute a large corporation KCGM employees/contractors who have cleared native vegetation as part of exploration/construction activities without obtaining a native vegetation clearing permit under the
Environmental Protection Act 1986
?
(10) If no to (9), why not?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
16 March 2011
Responded by
Minister for Child Protection representing the Minister for Environment
Response time
104 days
(1) - (2) The Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) conducted an investigation which established a
prima facie
case. A prosecution was commenced in accordance with DEC's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy (May 2008).
(3) - (4) The evidence only established
prima facie
cases for four offences of transporting controlled waste without a licence. There was not
prima facie
evidence of illegal disposal of that material.
(5) - (6) DEC has a range of enforcement sanctions available to it, and each case is dealt with on its merits. Sakeoc Pty Ltd, trading as Kalgoorlie Industrial Services, was issued a warning on 17 February 2009. After that warning Sakeoc Pty Ltd continued to operate without a licence and provided false records to some of its customers. DEC considered that it was in the public interest for the matter to be pursued through the courts and prosecution was deemed appropriate in accordance with the Enforcement and Prosecution Policy. The company pleaded guilty and was fined a total of $8,000 for the offences.
(7) - (8) DEC's investigation into the unlawful clearing of native vegetation on Mr Szulc's property is continuing, in accordance with its Enforcement and Prosecution Policy. It is not appropriate for me to comment further on matters which are under investigation.
(9)-(10) Under section 20 of the Environmental Protection Act
,
a delegation of the DEC CEO's powers in respect of the clearing provisions has been made to the Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP) for mining or petroleum related activities. Under the delegation, DMP administers the clearing provisions in accordance with the requirements of the Act and investigates reports of alleged unauthorised clearing.
The DEC advised the alleged unauthorised clearing of native vegetation by Kalgoorlie Consolidated Goldmines remains under investigation by DMP and will be referred to DEC for consideration once the investigation has been completed, in accordance with the delegation.
Notice: This document is created or edited using unregistered or evaluation copy of rtLib valid for testing or development purposes only. To use it for productive or any other purposes please register it. You may purchase the license on
http://www.rtlib.com
prima facie
case. A prosecution was commenced in accordance with DEC's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy (May 2008).
(3) - (4) The evidence only established
prima facie
cases for four offences of transporting controlled waste without a licence. There was not
prima facie
evidence of illegal disposal of that material.
(5) - (6) DEC has a range of enforcement sanctions available to it, and each case is dealt with on its merits. Sakeoc Pty Ltd, trading as Kalgoorlie Industrial Services, was issued a warning on 17 February 2009. After that warning Sakeoc Pty Ltd continued to operate without a licence and provided false records to some of its customers. DEC considered that it was in the public interest for the matter to be pursued through the courts and prosecution was deemed appropriate in accordance with the Enforcement and Prosecution Policy. The company pleaded guilty and was fined a total of $8,000 for the offences.
(7) - (8) DEC's investigation into the unlawful clearing of native vegetation on Mr Szulc's property is continuing, in accordance with its Enforcement and Prosecution Policy. It is not appropriate for me to comment further on matters which are under investigation.
(9)-(10) Under section 20 of the Environmental Protection Act
,
a delegation of the DEC CEO's powers in respect of the clearing provisions has been made to the Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP) for mining or petroleum related activities. Under the delegation, DMP administers the clearing provisions in accordance with the requirements of the Act and investigates reports of alleged unauthorised clearing.
The DEC advised the alleged unauthorised clearing of native vegetation by Kalgoorlie Consolidated Goldmines remains under investigation by DMP and will be referred to DEC for consideration once the investigation has been completed, in accordance with the delegation.
Notice: This document is created or edited using unregistered or evaluation copy of rtLib valid for testing or development purposes only. To use it for productive or any other purposes please register it. You may purchase the license on
http://www.rtlib.com
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.