❓ Hon Paul Llewellyn questions the Minister for State Development regarding a 1998 letter from the Department of Minerals and Energy to Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mines (KCGM) concerning safety activities near residences. The Minister declines to answer, citing the age of the letter and the previous government's policies.
AnsweredQoN 2541Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to a letter which I understand is dated September 9 1998, signed by Lee Ranford, Director General, Department of Minerals and Energy, addressed to the Manager, Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mines titled ‘Activities to Make Safe Old Mine Workings - Williamstown Area’, -
(1) Is it correct that part of the letter dated September 9 1998, states ‘Had the action been related to mining operations, section 20(5) provides that the consent of the occupant of any residence situated within 100 metres of the activity must first be obtained’?
(2) If no to (1), will the Minister quote the full text of the letter dated September 9 1998?
(3) Can the Minister explain why the Department was advising KCGM that consent must first be obtained from the occupant of any residence situated within 100 metres of the activity?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) Can the Minister explain the rationale as to how the Department determines whether in fact any action was related to mining operations?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
(7) Is it correct that part of the letter dated September 9 1998 states ‘The results of an investigation carried out by Departmental officers, and a report provided by your company verify that the material was removed from an area approximately 40 metres from the boundary of Mr Francis property, and that he did not receive any prior notification, nor was his consent obtained?
(8) If no to (7), will the Minister quote the full text of the letter dated September 9 1998?
(1) Is it correct that part of the letter dated September 9 1998, states ‘Had the action been related to mining operations, section 20(5) provides that the consent of the occupant of any residence situated within 100 metres of the activity must first be obtained’?
(2) If no to (1), will the Minister quote the full text of the letter dated September 9 1998?
(3) Can the Minister explain why the Department was advising KCGM that consent must first be obtained from the occupant of any residence situated within 100 metres of the activity?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) Can the Minister explain the rationale as to how the Department determines whether in fact any action was related to mining operations?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
(7) Is it correct that part of the letter dated September 9 1998 states ‘The results of an investigation carried out by Departmental officers, and a report provided by your company verify that the material was removed from an area approximately 40 metres from the boundary of Mr Francis property, and that he did not receive any prior notification, nor was his consent obtained?
(8) If no to (7), will the Minister quote the full text of the letter dated September 9 1998?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
21 September 2005
Responded by
Leader of the House representing the Minister for State Development
Response time
27 days
(1) - (8) The Hon Member's question refers to a letter that was written over seven years ago concerning events that occurred during the term of the previous State Government. Given that the advice contained in this letter was, presumably, consistent with the policies of the previous Government, I see little point in now attempting to comment on that advice or speculate on the possible reasons why the then Department of Minerals and Energy chose to advise KCGM in that manner.
The Hon Member's question refers to a letter that was written over seven years ago concerning events that occurred during the term of the previous State Government. Given that the advice contained in this letter was, presumably, consistent with the policies of the previous Government, I see little point in now attempting to comment on that advice or speculate on the possible reasons why the then Department of Minerals and Energy chose to advise KCGM in that manner.
Given that the advice contained in this letter was, presumably, consistent with the policies of the previous Government, I see little point in now attempting to comment on that advice or speculate on the possible reasons why the then Department of Minerals and Energy chose to advise KCGM in that manner.
The Hon Member's question refers to a letter that was written over seven years ago concerning events that occurred during the term of the previous State Government. Given that the advice contained in this letter was, presumably, consistent with the policies of the previous Government, I see little point in now attempting to comment on that advice or speculate on the possible reasons why the then Department of Minerals and Energy chose to advise KCGM in that manner.
Given that the advice contained in this letter was, presumably, consistent with the policies of the previous Government, I see little point in now attempting to comment on that advice or speculate on the possible reasons why the then Department of Minerals and Energy chose to advise KCGM in that manner.
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.