❓ Hon Paul Llewellyn questions the Department of Industry and Resources' (DoIR) handling of a dispute between Mr. Peter Shaw and KCGM regarding mining activity near Mr. Shaw's property, specifically concerning communication and consent under the Mining Act 1978.
AnsweredQoN 3366Legislative Council
Asked
4 April 2006
Member
Portfolio
Resources and Assisting the Minister for State Development
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to a letter signed by Roy Burton (enquiries Bob Stevens) Department of Industry and Resources dated 8 December 2005, addressed to Mr Peter Shaw (departmental reference 7321/99) titled ‘Mining Activity within 100 metres of 5 Cahill Road, Kalgoorlie’ -
(1) Can the Minister explain why the Department stated ‘you have declined KCGM’s invitation to meet with its representatives in order to discuss the true nature of the issues you have raised and to determine if it is possible to negotiate a way forward’?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) Can the Minister explain the specific relevance of the statement made by the Department and referred to in question (1) above in relation to an alleged breach of section 20(5) of the
Mining Act 1978
?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) Can the Minister identify and state what the Department regards as being the true nature of the issues raised by Mr Peter Shaw?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
(7) Can the Minister identify and state what the Department regards as being the true nature of the issues raised by KCGM?
(8) If no to (7), why not?
(9) Can the Minister explain why the Department will not accept Mr Peter Shaw requesting all matters to be put in writing from KCGM in relation to possibly negotiating a way forward?
(10) If no to (9), why not?
(1) Can the Minister explain why the Department stated ‘you have declined KCGM’s invitation to meet with its representatives in order to discuss the true nature of the issues you have raised and to determine if it is possible to negotiate a way forward’?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) Can the Minister explain the specific relevance of the statement made by the Department and referred to in question (1) above in relation to an alleged breach of section 20(5) of the
Mining Act 1978
?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) Can the Minister identify and state what the Department regards as being the true nature of the issues raised by Mr Peter Shaw?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
(7) Can the Minister identify and state what the Department regards as being the true nature of the issues raised by KCGM?
(8) If no to (7), why not?
(9) Can the Minister explain why the Department will not accept Mr Peter Shaw requesting all matters to be put in writing from KCGM in relation to possibly negotiating a way forward?
(10) If no to (9), why not?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
2 May 2006
Responded by
Leader of the House representing the Minister for Resources and Assisting the Minister for State Development
Response time
28 days
(1-4) The Minister is informed that the Department of Industry and Resources (DoIR) considers that the statement quoted in Question (1) is relevant to DoIR's conclusion in this case that an impasse had been reached in which KCGM has to carry out certain activity within 100 metres of Mr Shaw's property as an unavoidable part of its operations despite being unable to obtain Mr Shaw's written consent to that activity, and that it was necessary to resolve this impasse in the public interest. (5-6) DoIR considers that the issues raised by Mr Shaw concern the carrying out by KCGM of certain mining activities within 100 metres of his property without the company having obtained his written consent to those activities. (7-8) The issues at the centre of this case were not raised by KCGM but, rather, by Mr Shaw. (9-10) Whilst DoIR has noted Mr Shaw's request that KCGM communicate with him in writing concerning all matters relevant to this case, DoIR has no view on the appropriateness or otherwise of this request, which is considered by DoIR to be a matter entirely between Mr Shaw and KCGM.
(5-6) DoIR considers that the issues raised by Mr Shaw concern the carrying out by KCGM of certain mining activities within 100 metres of his property without the company having obtained his written consent to those activities. (7-8) The issues at the centre of this case were not raised by KCGM but, rather, by Mr Shaw. (9-10) Whilst DoIR has noted Mr Shaw's request that KCGM communicate with him in writing concerning all matters relevant to this case, DoIR has no view on the appropriateness or otherwise of this request, which is considered by DoIR to be a matter entirely between Mr Shaw and KCGM.
(7-8) The issues at the centre of this case were not raised by KCGM but, rather, by Mr Shaw. (9-10) Whilst DoIR has noted Mr Shaw's request that KCGM communicate with him in writing concerning all matters relevant to this case, DoIR has no view on the appropriateness or otherwise of this request, which is considered by DoIR to be a matter entirely between Mr Shaw and KCGM.
(9-10) Whilst DoIR has noted Mr Shaw's request that KCGM communicate with him in writing concerning all matters relevant to this case, DoIR has no view on the appropriateness or otherwise of this request, which is considered by DoIR to be a matter entirely between Mr Shaw and KCGM.
(5-6) DoIR considers that the issues raised by Mr Shaw concern the carrying out by KCGM of certain mining activities within 100 metres of his property without the company having obtained his written consent to those activities. (7-8) The issues at the centre of this case were not raised by KCGM but, rather, by Mr Shaw. (9-10) Whilst DoIR has noted Mr Shaw's request that KCGM communicate with him in writing concerning all matters relevant to this case, DoIR has no view on the appropriateness or otherwise of this request, which is considered by DoIR to be a matter entirely between Mr Shaw and KCGM.
(7-8) The issues at the centre of this case were not raised by KCGM but, rather, by Mr Shaw. (9-10) Whilst DoIR has noted Mr Shaw's request that KCGM communicate with him in writing concerning all matters relevant to this case, DoIR has no view on the appropriateness or otherwise of this request, which is considered by DoIR to be a matter entirely between Mr Shaw and KCGM.
(9-10) Whilst DoIR has noted Mr Shaw's request that KCGM communicate with him in writing concerning all matters relevant to this case, DoIR has no view on the appropriateness or otherwise of this request, which is considered by DoIR to be a matter entirely between Mr Shaw and KCGM.
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.