A parliamentary question regarding a breach of tenement conditions on Prospecting Licence P29/1338 (incorrectly referred to as P29/1318) involving unauthorized excavation and subsequent forfeiture proceedings. The question seeks clarification on accountability and associated costs.

AnsweredQoN 528Legislative Council
Asked
21 March 2002
Portfolio
State Development

QuestionView source ↗

I refer to Prospecting Licence P29/1318 -
(1) Is it correct that when a substantial excavation was made using a bulldozer in breach of a tenement condition, that it was carried out by a small company/prospector(s) other than the holder of the tenement?
(2) If yes, can the Minister state the name or names of the person(s) and explain why the Department still carried out forfeiture proceedings in accordance with section 96(1) and Regulation 49 of the
Mining Act
and Regulations when the excavation was made by person(s) other than the holder?
(3) Were any costs imposed as a result of the forfeiture proceedings other than a fine upon the holder of P29/1318?
(4) If yes, what was this amount?

AnswerView source ↗

Answered
17 April 2002
Responded by
Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for State Development
Response time
27 days
(1) The correct tenement number is P29/1338. This licence has been previously incorrectly referred to as P26/1338 and P29/1318. The excavation was carried out by Messrs Salkanovic and Mackie under a tribute agreement with the holder Goongarrie Gold Pty Ltd. (2) Under the Mining Act the holder of a mining tenement is accountable for compliance with obligations. (3) & (4) Yes. Costs of $650 were also ordered by the Warden.
(2) Under the Mining Act the holder of a mining tenement is accountable for compliance with obligations. (3) & (4) Yes. Costs of $650 were also ordered by the Warden.
(3) & (4) Yes. Costs of $650 were also ordered by the Warden.

Explore WA Government Data

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

Explore more