❓ A Western Australian parliamentary Question on Notice probes the Department of Industry and Resources (DoIR) regarding mining lease 15/133, focusing on rehabilitation bonds, mine closure plans, and the responsibility for past mining work. The Minister's response clarifies the department's policies and expectations for tenement holders.
AnsweredQoN 5969Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
(1) Is it correct that a letter dated 30 May 2007 was sent to the holder of mining lease 15/133?
(2) If no to (1), what is correct date and will the Minister table a copy of the correspondence?
(3) Is it correct that part of the letter dated 30 May 2007 states, ‘The purpose of the unconditional performance bonds is to ensure the state is not exposed to unacceptable cost should mine operators fail to meet the rehabilitation requirements on their tenements. If an acceptable mine closure and rehabilitation plan is developed and implemented for M15/133 the Department will reconsider the bond. An acceptable mine and rehabilitation plan should outline closure and rehabilitation plans and include approximate timeframes and cost for the completion of activities.’?
(4) If no to (3), will the Minister quote the specific text from the letter dated 30 May 2007?
(5) Can the Minister explain why is it important to insist that all holders of mining tenements specifically list and identify the ‘cost for completion of activities’ in a mine closure and rehabilitation plan?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
(7) Is it correct that DoIR has recommended that the Lessee submit a site rehabilitation and closure management plan prepared in accordance with the principles set out in the ANZMECC/MCC strategic framework for mine closure?
(8) If no to (7), what is correct?
(9) Are all tenement holders required to adhere to the principles set out in the ANZMECC/MCC strategic framework for mine closure in the same manner for Mining Lease 15/133?
(10) If yes to (9), why?
(11) If no to (9), why not
(12) Can the Minister explain why DoIR insist the rehabilitation of all the waste dumps must occur throughout the life of the mining operations as opposed to being completed very close to the entire closure of the mining operations?
(13) If no to (12), why not?
(14) Why is DoIR making the current tenement holder responsible for mining work which was carried out in 1988 by HMCAustralasia NL and Belgravia Resources NL given the tenement has changed ownership to these parties?
(2) If no to (1), what is correct date and will the Minister table a copy of the correspondence?
(3) Is it correct that part of the letter dated 30 May 2007 states, ‘The purpose of the unconditional performance bonds is to ensure the state is not exposed to unacceptable cost should mine operators fail to meet the rehabilitation requirements on their tenements. If an acceptable mine closure and rehabilitation plan is developed and implemented for M15/133 the Department will reconsider the bond. An acceptable mine and rehabilitation plan should outline closure and rehabilitation plans and include approximate timeframes and cost for the completion of activities.’?
(4) If no to (3), will the Minister quote the specific text from the letter dated 30 May 2007?
(5) Can the Minister explain why is it important to insist that all holders of mining tenements specifically list and identify the ‘cost for completion of activities’ in a mine closure and rehabilitation plan?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
(7) Is it correct that DoIR has recommended that the Lessee submit a site rehabilitation and closure management plan prepared in accordance with the principles set out in the ANZMECC/MCC strategic framework for mine closure?
(8) If no to (7), what is correct?
(9) Are all tenement holders required to adhere to the principles set out in the ANZMECC/MCC strategic framework for mine closure in the same manner for Mining Lease 15/133?
(10) If yes to (9), why?
(11) If no to (9), why not
(12) Can the Minister explain why DoIR insist the rehabilitation of all the waste dumps must occur throughout the life of the mining operations as opposed to being completed very close to the entire closure of the mining operations?
(13) If no to (12), why not?
(14) Why is DoIR making the current tenement holder responsible for mining work which was carried out in 1988 by HMCAustralasia NL and Belgravia Resources NL given the tenement has changed ownership to these parties?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
1 April 2008
Responded by
Leader of the House representing the Minister for Resources
Response time
34 days
The Minister for Resources has been provided with the following response:
(1) Yes
(2) Not applicable.
(3) Yes
(4) Not applicable.
(5) These costs assist the State in quantifying the financial risks to the State if the rehabilitation is not completed by the tenement holder.
(6) Not applicable.
(7) Yes
(8) Not applicable.
(9) Yes
(10) This document outlines the national guiding principles for preparing a mine closure plan and is available on the DoIR website.
(11) Not applicable.
(12) This policy, known as progressive rehabilitation, is in place to ensure that there is not a large outstanding rehabilitation liability to the State at the end of mining operations. Such a policy also facilitates the correct placement of waste to minimise costs for the tenement holder at the end of the mine life. This progressive rehabilitation policy is consistent with mine rehabilitation policies in other Australian and international jurisdictions.
(13) Not applicable.
(14) It is the responsibility of a tenement holder to keep the tenement in good standing and ensure compliance with tenement conditions. At sale, this responsibility is transferred from the outgoing party to the incoming party.
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
(1) Yes
(2) Not applicable.
(3) Yes
(4) Not applicable.
(5) These costs assist the State in quantifying the financial risks to the State if the rehabilitation is not completed by the tenement holder.
(6) Not applicable.
(7) Yes
(8) Not applicable.
(9) Yes
(10) This document outlines the national guiding principles for preparing a mine closure plan and is available on the DoIR website.
(11) Not applicable.
(12) This policy, known as progressive rehabilitation, is in place to ensure that there is not a large outstanding rehabilitation liability to the State at the end of mining operations. Such a policy also facilitates the correct placement of waste to minimise costs for the tenement holder at the end of the mine life. This progressive rehabilitation policy is consistent with mine rehabilitation policies in other Australian and international jurisdictions.
(13) Not applicable.
(14) It is the responsibility of a tenement holder to keep the tenement in good standing and ensure compliance with tenement conditions. At sale, this responsibility is transferred from the outgoing party to the incoming party.
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.