Hon Paul Llewellyn questions the Minister for the Environment regarding KCGM's tailings dams, specifically concerning the interplay between the Environmental Protection Act 1986 and the Mining Act 1978, and the Department of Environment's licensing of seepage emissions. The Minister provided a list of other questions on notice.

AnsweredQoN 3753Legislative Council
Asked
29 June 2006
Portfolio
the Environment

QuestionView source ↗

I refer to Fimiston 1 and Fimiston 2 tailings dams operated by Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mines Pty Ltd (KCGM) owned by Barrick Gold of Australia and Newmont Mining, answer to question on notice number 3542 of 25 May 2006, and two policy statements from the Department of Environment titled ‘Works approvals, license conditions for prescribed premises’ and ‘Limits and targets for prescribed premises’, dated 11 April 2006 -
(1) Is it correct that the policy statement titled ‘Works approvals, license and conditions for prescribed premises’ dated 11 April 2006 in part states ‘Furthermore a works approval...is a defence against pollution or environmental harm’?
(2) If no to (1), can the Minister quote the full text from this document dated 11 April 2006?
(3) Is it correct that the policy statement titled ‘Works approvals, license and conditions for prescribed premises’ dated 11 April 2006 in part states ‘Furthermore an industry license is… a defence against pollution or environmental harm’?
(4) Given that the
Environmental Protection Act 1986
overrides all other Acts including the
Mining Act 1978
except Agreements Acts created prior to 1972, and a license is issued under the
Environmental Protection Act 1986
because an emission is occurring (or likely to occur) and the purpose of the license is to put measures in place to prevent this emission from causing pollution, can the Minister explain how can this issue of any potential inconvenience caused by seepage emissions from KCGM’s operations be addressed under the
Mining Act 1978
when it is clear the
Environmental Protection Act 1986
overrides this legislation?
(5) If no to (4), why not?
(6) Given that an industry license and works approval issued under the
Environmental Protection Act 1986
is a defence against pollution and environmental harm and KCGM’s licence with the current seepage and groundwater plan permits toxic seepage emissions to leave the premises providing they are four metres below ground level from the surface, can the Minister explain why the Department of Environment (DoE) has endorsed the current license which overrides the
Mining Act 1978
and clearly permits pollution or environmental harm to occur with toxic emissions as long as those emissions remain four metres below ground level?
(7) If not to (6), why not?
(8) Can the Minister state what is the precautionary principle and how is this then applied by the DoE in the issuing of the license with conditions for the protection of native vegetation to deal with the impacts of seepage emissions?
(9) If no to (8), why not?

AnswerView source ↗

Answered
14 September 2006
Responded by
Minister for Education and Training representing the Minister for the Environment
Response time
77 days
(1-11) Refer to questions on notice 3756; 3645; 3639; 3638; 3637; 3636; 3635; 3544; 3543; 3542; 3540; 3510; 3410; 3409; 3408; 3407; 3406; 3376; 3373; 3372; 3371; 3358; 3223; 3222; 3221; 3215; 3214; 3213; 3212; 3211; 3208; 3207; 3206; 3205; 3202; 3201; 3200; 2956; 2955; 2954; 2953; 2952; 2951; 2895; 2894; 2891; 2890; 2887; 2886; 2885; 2884; 2883; 2879; 2877; 2876; 2875; 2761; 2893; 2889; 2888; 2878; 2616; 2615; 2614; 2613; 2612; 2611; 2610; 2609; 2608; 2598; 2585; 2584; 2583; 2582; 2543; 2546; 2545; 1269; 1262; 1129; 1128; 1120; 1039; 956; 943; 939; 805; 795; 786; 664; 657; 667; 665; 576; 532; 393; 112; 111; 110.

Explore WA Government Data

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

Explore more