Hon Robin Chapple questions the Minister for State Development regarding the inconsistent classification of a black poly pipeline near residential properties, specifically whether it's considered part of a mining operation under different licenses. The Crown Solicitor's Office deems the pipeline operation neither a mining operation nor an interference with land.

AnsweredQoN 252Legislative Council
Asked
27 September 2001
Portfolio
State Development

QuestionView source ↗

I refer to question on notice No. 96 of Tuesday, June 26 2001 and a letter dated May 31 2001 signed by Mr R Burton for L C Ranford, Director General of the Department of Minerals and Energy titled ‘Miscellaneous Licence 26/181’ -
(1) Can the Minister explain how the same black poly pipeline within 100 metres of occupied residential properties can be referred to as being part of an approved mining operation where it is located on Mining Lease 26/353 and then referred to in the letter as not being a mining operation where it is located on L26/181?
(2) If not, why not?

AnswerView source ↗

Answered
20 February 2002
Responded by
Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for State Development
Response time
146 days
(1) – (2) The Crown Solicitor’s Office is of the opinion that the operation of this pipeline is neither a mining operation nor an activity that interferes with the land for the purposes of Section 20(5) of the Mining Act 1978 and in any event even if it was an interference prosecution would be undesirable.

Explore WA Government Data

Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.

Explore more