❓ A parliamentary question regarding a black poly pipeline used in mining operations, specifically questioning the accuracy of departmental advice, approval processes, and the thoroughness of responses to concerns raised by a member of the public.
AnsweredQoN 430Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to a letter dated November 16 2001 signed by Clive Brown MLA, Minister for State Development reference 4023 addressed to Mr Trevor Meyer-Forst -
(1) Can the Minister explain why the Department did not clearly and correctly advise the Minister, in the first instance prior to Mr Meyer-Forst alerting your office in a letter, that the black poly pipeline currently in use had not been in existence for over thirty years?
(2) If not, why not?
(3) Were all the approvals required under section 20(5) of the
Mining Act
obtained when the black poly pipeline was installed about ten yeas ago when the Miscellaneous Licence 26/181 and Mining Lease 26/353 were both applied for and granted?
(4) If not, why not?
(5) If yes, on what specific dates was approval obtained and specifically from whom?
(6) Can the Minister explain why all of the issues and matters raised in the letter of July 6 2001 from Mr Meyer-Forst have not been thoroughly addressed and referred to in the letter of response dated November 16 2001?
(7) If not, why not?
(1) Can the Minister explain why the Department did not clearly and correctly advise the Minister, in the first instance prior to Mr Meyer-Forst alerting your office in a letter, that the black poly pipeline currently in use had not been in existence for over thirty years?
(2) If not, why not?
(3) Were all the approvals required under section 20(5) of the
Mining Act
obtained when the black poly pipeline was installed about ten yeas ago when the Miscellaneous Licence 26/181 and Mining Lease 26/353 were both applied for and granted?
(4) If not, why not?
(5) If yes, on what specific dates was approval obtained and specifically from whom?
(6) Can the Minister explain why all of the issues and matters raised in the letter of July 6 2001 from Mr Meyer-Forst have not been thoroughly addressed and referred to in the letter of response dated November 16 2001?
(7) If not, why not?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
26 March 2002
Responded by
Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for State Development
Response time
28 days
(1-2). I am informed that the Department's intention was to indicate that a pipeline had been in continuous use on the site for 30 years irrespective of its colour or composition. (3, 4 & 5). No additional approvals were required because installation of the black poly pipe was to repair the existing pipeline. (6-7). If Mr Meyer-Frost believes any issue was not addressed he is welcome to raise it with the Minister for State Development who will consider whether a further reply is required.
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.