❓ A WA parliamentary question probes the Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP) regarding changes to the validity periods for Low Impact Mining Proposal (LIMO) and Programmes of Work (POW) approvals, seeking justification for these adjustments. The answer details the reasons behind the changes, citing compliance issues, industry feedback, and efficiency gains.
AnsweredQoN 152Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to all Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP) Low Impact Mining Proposal (LIMO) forms for various activities stated on the form and programs of work (POW) and similar type forms for exploration drilling and various other activities, specifically excluding all mining proposals, and ask:
(a) well prior to 2008, can the Minister explain why the DMP environmental division specifically changed and reduced the length of validity for approval timeframes without no extensive consultation with industry for a LIMO and POW forms from four years and greater back to one year;
(b) if no to (a), why not;
(c) can the Minister explain the justification for the DMP environmental division choosing to increase the validity of approval timeframe for a POW from one year to two years and on what specific date and year did this occur;
(d) if no to (c), why not;
(e) can the Minster state on what specific date and year did the DMP choose to increase the validity of approval timeframes from two years to four years for a POW and the justification as to why it was increased accordingly; and
(f) if no to (e), why not?
(a) well prior to 2008, can the Minister explain why the DMP environmental division specifically changed and reduced the length of validity for approval timeframes without no extensive consultation with industry for a LIMO and POW forms from four years and greater back to one year;
(b) if no to (a), why not;
(c) can the Minister explain the justification for the DMP environmental division choosing to increase the validity of approval timeframe for a POW from one year to two years and on what specific date and year did this occur;
(d) if no to (c), why not;
(e) can the Minster state on what specific date and year did the DMP choose to increase the validity of approval timeframes from two years to four years for a POW and the justification as to why it was increased accordingly; and
(f) if no to (e), why not?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
12 September 2017
Responded by
Minister for Regional Development representing the Minister for Mines and Petroleum
Response time
9 days
(a) No (b) Low Impact Mining Proposal (LIMO) forms were never included to a standard validity period with the period being specified by proponents within the application form. Programmes of Work (PoW) standard validity period was reduced to one year following a noticeable increase in observations of non-compliance with tenement conditions from inspections of exploration activities. At that time the reduced validity period enhanced the Department’s ability to effectively regulate mineral exploration, particularly with respect to post-exploration rehabilitation. (c) PoW approval validity was increased from one year to two years in recognition of industry’s view that greater flexibility was required to manage exploration work around unforeseen events such as weather, drilling crew availability and funding. The decision was made in December 2012 as a result of the Ministerial Advisory Panel on Reforming Environmental Regulation. (d) Not applicable (e) The decision was based on a variety of factors. These included reducing the number of PoW applications required to be assessed on an annual basis which would deliver efficiencies and enable the Department to allocate resources to other core areas of service delivery. The decision also provided further flexibility to industry to manage exploration programs more efficiently. The decision to increase the PoW period of validity from two years to four was made in December 2013. As well as the Ministerial Advisory Panel on Reforming Environmental Regulation recommendations to increase the life of Programme of Works approval in December 2012, the decision was also referred to the Reforming Environmental Regulation advisory panel, which consisted of peak industry representative bodies and relevant environmental regulatory authorities across Government. (f) Not applicable
(b) Low Impact Mining Proposal (LIMO) forms were never included to a standard validity period with the period being specified by proponents within the application form. Programmes of Work (PoW) standard validity period was reduced to one year following a noticeable increase in observations of non-compliance with tenement conditions from inspections of exploration activities. At that time the reduced validity period enhanced the Department’s ability to effectively regulate mineral exploration, particularly with respect to post-exploration rehabilitation. (c) PoW approval validity was increased from one year to two years in recognition of industry’s view that greater flexibility was required to manage exploration work around unforeseen events such as weather, drilling crew availability and funding. The decision was made in December 2012 as a result of the Ministerial Advisory Panel on Reforming Environmental Regulation. (d) Not applicable (e) The decision was based on a variety of factors. These included reducing the number of PoW applications required to be assessed on an annual basis which would deliver efficiencies and enable the Department to allocate resources to other core areas of service delivery. The decision also provided further flexibility to industry to manage exploration programs more efficiently. The decision to increase the PoW period of validity from two years to four was made in December 2013. As well as the Ministerial Advisory Panel on Reforming Environmental Regulation recommendations to increase the life of Programme of Works approval in December 2012, the decision was also referred to the Reforming Environmental Regulation advisory panel, which consisted of peak industry representative bodies and relevant environmental regulatory authorities across Government. (f) Not applicable
Programmes of Work (PoW) standard validity period was reduced to one year following a noticeable increase in observations of non-compliance with tenement conditions from inspections of exploration activities. At that time the reduced validity period enhanced the Department’s ability to effectively regulate mineral exploration, particularly with respect to post-exploration rehabilitation. (c) PoW approval validity was increased from one year to two years in recognition of industry’s view that greater flexibility was required to manage exploration work around unforeseen events such as weather, drilling crew availability and funding. The decision was made in December 2012 as a result of the Ministerial Advisory Panel on Reforming Environmental Regulation. (d) Not applicable (e) The decision was based on a variety of factors. These included reducing the number of PoW applications required to be assessed on an annual basis which would deliver efficiencies and enable the Department to allocate resources to other core areas of service delivery. The decision also provided further flexibility to industry to manage exploration programs more efficiently. The decision to increase the PoW period of validity from two years to four was made in December 2013. As well as the Ministerial Advisory Panel on Reforming Environmental Regulation recommendations to increase the life of Programme of Works approval in December 2012, the decision was also referred to the Reforming Environmental Regulation advisory panel, which consisted of peak industry representative bodies and relevant environmental regulatory authorities across Government. (f) Not applicable
(c) PoW approval validity was increased from one year to two years in recognition of industry’s view that greater flexibility was required to manage exploration work around unforeseen events such as weather, drilling crew availability and funding. The decision was made in December 2012 as a result of the Ministerial Advisory Panel on Reforming Environmental Regulation. (d) Not applicable (e) The decision was based on a variety of factors. These included reducing the number of PoW applications required to be assessed on an annual basis which would deliver efficiencies and enable the Department to allocate resources to other core areas of service delivery. The decision also provided further flexibility to industry to manage exploration programs more efficiently. The decision to increase the PoW period of validity from two years to four was made in December 2013. As well as the Ministerial Advisory Panel on Reforming Environmental Regulation recommendations to increase the life of Programme of Works approval in December 2012, the decision was also referred to the Reforming Environmental Regulation advisory panel, which consisted of peak industry representative bodies and relevant environmental regulatory authorities across Government. (f) Not applicable
(d) Not applicable (e) The decision was based on a variety of factors. These included reducing the number of PoW applications required to be assessed on an annual basis which would deliver efficiencies and enable the Department to allocate resources to other core areas of service delivery. The decision also provided further flexibility to industry to manage exploration programs more efficiently. The decision to increase the PoW period of validity from two years to four was made in December 2013. As well as the Ministerial Advisory Panel on Reforming Environmental Regulation recommendations to increase the life of Programme of Works approval in December 2012, the decision was also referred to the Reforming Environmental Regulation advisory panel, which consisted of peak industry representative bodies and relevant environmental regulatory authorities across Government. (f) Not applicable
(e) The decision was based on a variety of factors. These included reducing the number of PoW applications required to be assessed on an annual basis which would deliver efficiencies and enable the Department to allocate resources to other core areas of service delivery. The decision also provided further flexibility to industry to manage exploration programs more efficiently. The decision to increase the PoW period of validity from two years to four was made in December 2013. As well as the Ministerial Advisory Panel on Reforming Environmental Regulation recommendations to increase the life of Programme of Works approval in December 2012, the decision was also referred to the Reforming Environmental Regulation advisory panel, which consisted of peak industry representative bodies and relevant environmental regulatory authorities across Government. (f) Not applicable
The decision to increase the PoW period of validity from two years to four was made in December 2013. As well as the Ministerial Advisory Panel on Reforming Environmental Regulation recommendations to increase the life of Programme of Works approval in December 2012, the decision was also referred to the Reforming Environmental Regulation advisory panel, which consisted of peak industry representative bodies and relevant environmental regulatory authorities across Government. (f) Not applicable
As well as the Ministerial Advisory Panel on Reforming Environmental Regulation recommendations to increase the life of Programme of Works approval in December 2012, the decision was also referred to the Reforming Environmental Regulation advisory panel, which consisted of peak industry representative bodies and relevant environmental regulatory authorities across Government. (f) Not applicable
(f) Not applicable
(b) Low Impact Mining Proposal (LIMO) forms were never included to a standard validity period with the period being specified by proponents within the application form. Programmes of Work (PoW) standard validity period was reduced to one year following a noticeable increase in observations of non-compliance with tenement conditions from inspections of exploration activities. At that time the reduced validity period enhanced the Department’s ability to effectively regulate mineral exploration, particularly with respect to post-exploration rehabilitation. (c) PoW approval validity was increased from one year to two years in recognition of industry’s view that greater flexibility was required to manage exploration work around unforeseen events such as weather, drilling crew availability and funding. The decision was made in December 2012 as a result of the Ministerial Advisory Panel on Reforming Environmental Regulation. (d) Not applicable (e) The decision was based on a variety of factors. These included reducing the number of PoW applications required to be assessed on an annual basis which would deliver efficiencies and enable the Department to allocate resources to other core areas of service delivery. The decision also provided further flexibility to industry to manage exploration programs more efficiently. The decision to increase the PoW period of validity from two years to four was made in December 2013. As well as the Ministerial Advisory Panel on Reforming Environmental Regulation recommendations to increase the life of Programme of Works approval in December 2012, the decision was also referred to the Reforming Environmental Regulation advisory panel, which consisted of peak industry representative bodies and relevant environmental regulatory authorities across Government. (f) Not applicable
Programmes of Work (PoW) standard validity period was reduced to one year following a noticeable increase in observations of non-compliance with tenement conditions from inspections of exploration activities. At that time the reduced validity period enhanced the Department’s ability to effectively regulate mineral exploration, particularly with respect to post-exploration rehabilitation. (c) PoW approval validity was increased from one year to two years in recognition of industry’s view that greater flexibility was required to manage exploration work around unforeseen events such as weather, drilling crew availability and funding. The decision was made in December 2012 as a result of the Ministerial Advisory Panel on Reforming Environmental Regulation. (d) Not applicable (e) The decision was based on a variety of factors. These included reducing the number of PoW applications required to be assessed on an annual basis which would deliver efficiencies and enable the Department to allocate resources to other core areas of service delivery. The decision also provided further flexibility to industry to manage exploration programs more efficiently. The decision to increase the PoW period of validity from two years to four was made in December 2013. As well as the Ministerial Advisory Panel on Reforming Environmental Regulation recommendations to increase the life of Programme of Works approval in December 2012, the decision was also referred to the Reforming Environmental Regulation advisory panel, which consisted of peak industry representative bodies and relevant environmental regulatory authorities across Government. (f) Not applicable
(c) PoW approval validity was increased from one year to two years in recognition of industry’s view that greater flexibility was required to manage exploration work around unforeseen events such as weather, drilling crew availability and funding. The decision was made in December 2012 as a result of the Ministerial Advisory Panel on Reforming Environmental Regulation. (d) Not applicable (e) The decision was based on a variety of factors. These included reducing the number of PoW applications required to be assessed on an annual basis which would deliver efficiencies and enable the Department to allocate resources to other core areas of service delivery. The decision also provided further flexibility to industry to manage exploration programs more efficiently. The decision to increase the PoW period of validity from two years to four was made in December 2013. As well as the Ministerial Advisory Panel on Reforming Environmental Regulation recommendations to increase the life of Programme of Works approval in December 2012, the decision was also referred to the Reforming Environmental Regulation advisory panel, which consisted of peak industry representative bodies and relevant environmental regulatory authorities across Government. (f) Not applicable
(d) Not applicable (e) The decision was based on a variety of factors. These included reducing the number of PoW applications required to be assessed on an annual basis which would deliver efficiencies and enable the Department to allocate resources to other core areas of service delivery. The decision also provided further flexibility to industry to manage exploration programs more efficiently. The decision to increase the PoW period of validity from two years to four was made in December 2013. As well as the Ministerial Advisory Panel on Reforming Environmental Regulation recommendations to increase the life of Programme of Works approval in December 2012, the decision was also referred to the Reforming Environmental Regulation advisory panel, which consisted of peak industry representative bodies and relevant environmental regulatory authorities across Government. (f) Not applicable
(e) The decision was based on a variety of factors. These included reducing the number of PoW applications required to be assessed on an annual basis which would deliver efficiencies and enable the Department to allocate resources to other core areas of service delivery. The decision also provided further flexibility to industry to manage exploration programs more efficiently. The decision to increase the PoW period of validity from two years to four was made in December 2013. As well as the Ministerial Advisory Panel on Reforming Environmental Regulation recommendations to increase the life of Programme of Works approval in December 2012, the decision was also referred to the Reforming Environmental Regulation advisory panel, which consisted of peak industry representative bodies and relevant environmental regulatory authorities across Government. (f) Not applicable
The decision to increase the PoW period of validity from two years to four was made in December 2013. As well as the Ministerial Advisory Panel on Reforming Environmental Regulation recommendations to increase the life of Programme of Works approval in December 2012, the decision was also referred to the Reforming Environmental Regulation advisory panel, which consisted of peak industry representative bodies and relevant environmental regulatory authorities across Government. (f) Not applicable
As well as the Ministerial Advisory Panel on Reforming Environmental Regulation recommendations to increase the life of Programme of Works approval in December 2012, the decision was also referred to the Reforming Environmental Regulation advisory panel, which consisted of peak industry representative bodies and relevant environmental regulatory authorities across Government. (f) Not applicable
(f) 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.