❓ Hon Paul Llewellyn questions the Department of Environment (DoE) regarding the KCGM Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan, specifically why verbal requests for historical groundwater level data weren't documented or acted upon. The DoE responded that written submissions were requested but not received.
AnsweredQoN 2953Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the final KCGM Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan dated September 29 2005, and the Department of Environment (DoE) file note titled ‘Note on Reissue of Licence 6420’ dated September 29 2005 -
(1) Is it correct that stakeholders verbally requested in the public comment period to Mr Tim Marelich from the DoE to ask KCGM to identify the historical groundwater levels before the final seepage and Groundwater management plan was produced on September 29 2005, even if an extension of time was given to KCGM so that this plan would incorporate historical ground water levels?
(2) If yes to (1), then why didn’t the DoE do this and why isn’t this documented in the file note titled ‘Note on Reissue of Licence 6420’ dated September 29 2005, for the reissue of the licence?
(3) If no to (1), then specifically what was verbally requested?
(1) Is it correct that stakeholders verbally requested in the public comment period to Mr Tim Marelich from the DoE to ask KCGM to identify the historical groundwater levels before the final seepage and Groundwater management plan was produced on September 29 2005, even if an extension of time was given to KCGM so that this plan would incorporate historical ground water levels?
(2) If yes to (1), then why didn’t the DoE do this and why isn’t this documented in the file note titled ‘Note on Reissue of Licence 6420’ dated September 29 2005, for the reissue of the licence?
(3) If no to (1), then specifically what was verbally requested?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
14 March 2006
Responded by
Minister for Education and Training representing the Minister for the Environment
Response time
117 days
The following information is correct as at 20 December 2005. (1) Yes. (2) This was one of many verbal comments made to the Department of Environment (DoE) by a particular member of the public regarding the draft Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan. The DoE responded by asking this person to provide comments on the plan in writing, so that all of their comments could be considered. At the request of some community members, the DoE contacted KCGM to organise an extension to the public comment period on the plan, so that written comments on the plan could be submitted. As a result of this, the DoE presumed that a written submission would be made and so did not document verbatim every telephone conversation regarding the draft Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan. The DoE reiterated during every one of these telephone conversations that comments on the plan should be made in writing. The DoE made it very clear to the concerned parties, that it was impracticable for DoE to raise all of their concerns if they were not prepared to provide them in writing. Given that no written comments were received during the comment period the DoE considered, as far as practicable, the verbal comments received and provided those to KCGM in the correspondence attached, as part of answer to Question on Notice 2884 part (12). A copy of this correspondence is attached. (See tabled paper no and tabled paper no ). (3) Not applicable.
(1) Yes. (2) This was one of many verbal comments made to the Department of Environment (DoE) by a particular member of the public regarding the draft Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan. The DoE responded by asking this person to provide comments on the plan in writing, so that all of their comments could be considered. At the request of some community members, the DoE contacted KCGM to organise an extension to the public comment period on the plan, so that written comments on the plan could be submitted. As a result of this, the DoE presumed that a written submission would be made and so did not document verbatim every telephone conversation regarding the draft Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan. The DoE reiterated during every one of these telephone conversations that comments on the plan should be made in writing. The DoE made it very clear to the concerned parties, that it was impracticable for DoE to raise all of their concerns if they were not prepared to provide them in writing. Given that no written comments were received during the comment period the DoE considered, as far as practicable, the verbal comments received and provided those to KCGM in the correspondence attached, as part of answer to Question on Notice 2884 part (12). A copy of this correspondence is attached. (See tabled paper no and tabled paper no ). (3) Not applicable.
(2) This was one of many verbal comments made to the Department of Environment (DoE) by a particular member of the public regarding the draft Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan. The DoE responded by asking this person to provide comments on the plan in writing, so that all of their comments could be considered. At the request of some community members, the DoE contacted KCGM to organise an extension to the public comment period on the plan, so that written comments on the plan could be submitted. As a result of this, the DoE presumed that a written submission would be made and so did not document verbatim every telephone conversation regarding the draft Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan. The DoE reiterated during every one of these telephone conversations that comments on the plan should be made in writing. The DoE made it very clear to the concerned parties, that it was impracticable for DoE to raise all of their concerns if they were not prepared to provide them in writing. Given that no written comments were received during the comment period the DoE considered, as far as practicable, the verbal comments received and provided those to KCGM in the correspondence attached, as part of answer to Question on Notice 2884 part (12). A copy of this correspondence is attached. (See tabled paper no and tabled paper no ). (3) Not applicable.
The DoE made it very clear to the concerned parties, that it was impracticable for DoE to raise all of their concerns if they were not prepared to provide them in writing. Given that no written comments were received during the comment period the DoE considered, as far as practicable, the verbal comments received and provided those to KCGM in the correspondence attached, as part of answer to Question on Notice 2884 part (12). A copy of this correspondence is attached. (See tabled paper no and tabled paper no ). (3) Not applicable.
(3) Not applicable.
(1) Yes. (2) This was one of many verbal comments made to the Department of Environment (DoE) by a particular member of the public regarding the draft Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan. The DoE responded by asking this person to provide comments on the plan in writing, so that all of their comments could be considered. At the request of some community members, the DoE contacted KCGM to organise an extension to the public comment period on the plan, so that written comments on the plan could be submitted. As a result of this, the DoE presumed that a written submission would be made and so did not document verbatim every telephone conversation regarding the draft Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan. The DoE reiterated during every one of these telephone conversations that comments on the plan should be made in writing. The DoE made it very clear to the concerned parties, that it was impracticable for DoE to raise all of their concerns if they were not prepared to provide them in writing. Given that no written comments were received during the comment period the DoE considered, as far as practicable, the verbal comments received and provided those to KCGM in the correspondence attached, as part of answer to Question on Notice 2884 part (12). A copy of this correspondence is attached. (See tabled paper no and tabled paper no ). (3) Not applicable.
(2) This was one of many verbal comments made to the Department of Environment (DoE) by a particular member of the public regarding the draft Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan. The DoE responded by asking this person to provide comments on the plan in writing, so that all of their comments could be considered. At the request of some community members, the DoE contacted KCGM to organise an extension to the public comment period on the plan, so that written comments on the plan could be submitted. As a result of this, the DoE presumed that a written submission would be made and so did not document verbatim every telephone conversation regarding the draft Seepage and Groundwater Management Plan. The DoE reiterated during every one of these telephone conversations that comments on the plan should be made in writing. The DoE made it very clear to the concerned parties, that it was impracticable for DoE to raise all of their concerns if they were not prepared to provide them in writing. Given that no written comments were received during the comment period the DoE considered, as far as practicable, the verbal comments received and provided those to KCGM in the correspondence attached, as part of answer to Question on Notice 2884 part (12). A copy of this correspondence is attached. (See tabled paper no and tabled paper no ). (3) Not applicable.
The DoE made it very clear to the concerned parties, that it was impracticable for DoE to raise all of their concerns if they were not prepared to provide them in writing. Given that no written comments were received during the comment period the DoE considered, as far as practicable, the verbal comments received and provided those to KCGM in the correspondence attached, as part of answer to Question on Notice 2884 part (12). A copy of this correspondence is attached. (See tabled paper no and tabled paper no ). (3) Not applicable.
(3) Not applicable.
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.