❓ A WA parliamentary question on notice regarding KCGM's alleged breaches of tenement conditions and the penalties applied, compared to Holcim Australia. The Minister provides limited information, citing ongoing investigations and resource constraints.
AnsweredQoN 2800Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
With reference to photographs taken on 21 January 2010, of 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 titled, ‘KCGM Mining Proposal and Works Approval Application’, questions on notice No. 2005 of 23 March 2010, No. 2589 of 30 June 2010, and No. 5970 of 27 February 2008, a media statement dated 13 November 2007 titled ‘Minister tells mining companies to clean up their act’, and a media statement dated 13 July 2010 titled ‘environmental enforcement and compliance penalties reviewed’, I ask -
(1) With reference to question on notice No. 2005 of 23 March 2010, is it correct that when the Minister or Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP) initiated forfeiture action in 1995, KCGM made a written submission which basically stated that ‘In an effort to prevent such mistakes re-occurring, KCGM has introduced procedures to ensure all works which may require governmental approval being referred to the tenements and environmental departments of KCGM for advice’?
(2) If no to (1), can the minister quote the specific text of what KCGM stated in its submission to the DMP or Minister when they were found to be in breach of tenement conditions?
(3) Can the Minister explain the rationale as to why KCGM the operator for Barrick Gold of Australia, and Newmont Mining cannot have the maximum penalty imposed and applied for breaches of tenement conditions on General Purpose Leases G 26/165 and G26/166, given that this company has a long history of breaching tenement conditions including but not limited to, not obtaining the prior written approval of the DMP for its operations spanning right back as far as 1990?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) Can the Minister state all the breaches (regardless of the type of breach) of tenement conditions, the specific text of the condition breached for each tenement number, including any penalties that KCGM as operators for all tenements owned by Barrick Gold and Newmont Mining have incurred from 1990 through till 2010?
(6) With reference to the media release dated 13 July 2010 referred to above, in relation to the monetary penalty of $10 000 imposed on Holcim Australia, did the company have a prior history of breaching tenement conditions as in the case of KCGM of not seeking the prior written permission to clear land from the DMP ?
(7) If no to (6), can the Minister explain the rationale as to how the fine of $10 000 was calculated and determined?
(8) If yes to (7), can the minister quote the tenement number and specific text of the conditions that were previously breached by Holcim Australia?
(1) With reference to question on notice No. 2005 of 23 March 2010, is it correct that when the Minister or Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP) initiated forfeiture action in 1995, KCGM made a written submission which basically stated that ‘In an effort to prevent such mistakes re-occurring, KCGM has introduced procedures to ensure all works which may require governmental approval being referred to the tenements and environmental departments of KCGM for advice’?
(2) If no to (1), can the minister quote the specific text of what KCGM stated in its submission to the DMP or Minister when they were found to be in breach of tenement conditions?
(3) Can the Minister explain the rationale as to why KCGM the operator for Barrick Gold of Australia, and Newmont Mining cannot have the maximum penalty imposed and applied for breaches of tenement conditions on General Purpose Leases G 26/165 and G26/166, given that this company has a long history of breaching tenement conditions including but not limited to, not obtaining the prior written approval of the DMP for its operations spanning right back as far as 1990?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) Can the Minister state all the breaches (regardless of the type of breach) of tenement conditions, the specific text of the condition breached for each tenement number, including any penalties that KCGM as operators for all tenements owned by Barrick Gold and Newmont Mining have incurred from 1990 through till 2010?
(6) With reference to the media release dated 13 July 2010 referred to above, in relation to the monetary penalty of $10 000 imposed on Holcim Australia, did the company have a prior history of breaching tenement conditions as in the case of KCGM of not seeking the prior written permission to clear land from the DMP ?
(7) If no to (6), can the Minister explain the rationale as to how the fine of $10 000 was calculated and determined?
(8) If yes to (7), can the minister quote the tenement number and specific text of the conditions that were previously breached by Holcim Australia?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
9 November 2010
Responded by
Minister for Mines and Petroleum
Response time
48 days
(1) Yes
(2) Not applicable
(3) This question relates to an investigation by the Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP). I am informed that DMP has completed its investigation and is now considering whether the circumstances of this case warrant any action being initiated in accordance with DMP's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy. I will not be making any comment regarding the allegations of breaches by KCGM until the completion of the review of the investigation by DMP.
(4) Not applicable
(5) The Department of Mines and Petroleum maintains historical records of tenements in hardcopy form and to review these records would require significant resources which are currently unavailable.
(6) In 2008 Holcim Australia contravened a condition of tenement at a different site.
(7) The determination of the penalty for Holcim Australia was in accordance with the Department of Mines and Petroleum's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy.
(8) Tenement M47/306
Condition 20:
"No mining (quarrying) activities are to be undertaken in the areas which have been deemed to have high environmental significance as shown in figure 1 in the letter titled "Re: Western Extension to Nickol Bay Quarry - M47/333" dated 15 February 2005 and signed by Sharron Sylvester and retained on Department of Industry and Resources File No. 2501-99".
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
(2) Not applicable
(3) This question relates to an investigation by the Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP). I am informed that DMP has completed its investigation and is now considering whether the circumstances of this case warrant any action being initiated in accordance with DMP's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy. I will not be making any comment regarding the allegations of breaches by KCGM until the completion of the review of the investigation by DMP.
(4) Not applicable
(5) The Department of Mines and Petroleum maintains historical records of tenements in hardcopy form and to review these records would require significant resources which are currently unavailable.
(6) In 2008 Holcim Australia contravened a condition of tenement at a different site.
(7) The determination of the penalty for Holcim Australia was in accordance with the Department of Mines and Petroleum's Enforcement and Prosecution Policy.
(8) Tenement M47/306
Condition 20:
"No mining (quarrying) activities are to be undertaken in the areas which have been deemed to have high environmental significance as shown in figure 1 in the letter titled "Re: Western Extension to Nickol Bay Quarry - M47/333" dated 15 February 2005 and signed by Sharron Sylvester and retained on Department of Industry and Resources File No. 2501-99".
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.