❓ A WA parliamentary question on notice regarding mining compliance, enforcement, and penalties, specifically targeting non-compliant sites and the rationale behind fines imposed on Hancock Prospecting and Golden West Resources. The Minister's response generally avoids specifics, citing policy and ongoing efforts.
AnsweredQoN 5970Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
(1) Will the Minister state the names of the ten ‘non-compliant sites’, and the rationale/reasons why the Department of Industry and Resources (DoIR) regarded them as being non compliant?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) Will the Minister state the names of the seven non-compliant sites, and the rationale/reasons why DoIR issued verbal instructions to undertake the work?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) Can the Minister explain why DoIR regards the construction of exploration camps without approval as being serious?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
(7) Can the Minister explain why DoIR regards uncapped drill holes as being serious?
(8) If no to (7), why not?
(9) Can the Minister explain what he regards as being excessive clearing for drill pads and access tracks referred to in the media statement dated 13 November 2007?
(10) If no to (9), why not?
(11) Will DoIR be applying the same rigour of inspection, enforcement including fines to all mining operations for non-compliance matters in the State?
(12) If no to (11), why not?
(13) If yes to (10), when will this be taking place?
(14) Can the Minister explain how he intends to do everything within his power to ensure that ‘it does not continue’ at all mining operations throughout the State?
(15) If no to (14), why not?
(16) Can the Minister state the rationale as to how a fine of $20 000 was determined and imposed upon Hancock Prospecting?
(17) If no to (16), why not?
(18) Can the Minister state the rationale as to how a fine of $71 500 was determined and imposed on Golden West Resources for a ‘number of breaches’?
(19) If no to (17), why not?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) Will the Minister state the names of the seven non-compliant sites, and the rationale/reasons why DoIR issued verbal instructions to undertake the work?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) Can the Minister explain why DoIR regards the construction of exploration camps without approval as being serious?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
(7) Can the Minister explain why DoIR regards uncapped drill holes as being serious?
(8) If no to (7), why not?
(9) Can the Minister explain what he regards as being excessive clearing for drill pads and access tracks referred to in the media statement dated 13 November 2007?
(10) If no to (9), why not?
(11) Will DoIR be applying the same rigour of inspection, enforcement including fines to all mining operations for non-compliance matters in the State?
(12) If no to (11), why not?
(13) If yes to (10), when will this be taking place?
(14) Can the Minister explain how he intends to do everything within his power to ensure that ‘it does not continue’ at all mining operations throughout the State?
(15) If no to (14), why not?
(16) Can the Minister state the rationale as to how a fine of $20 000 was determined and imposed upon Hancock Prospecting?
(17) If no to (16), why not?
(18) Can the Minister state the rationale as to how a fine of $71 500 was determined and imposed on Golden West Resources for a ‘number of breaches’?
(19) If no to (17), why not?
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) No.
(2) DoIR acted in accordance with its published Enforcement and Prosecution Policy and no further action through naming those involved is warranted. The enforcement and prosecution policy is available on the DoIR website.
(3) No.
(4) DoIR acted in accordance with its published Enforcement and Prosecution Policy and no further action through naming those involved is warranted.
(5) Ground disturbing activities undertaken without the necessary approvals under the
Mining Act 1978
are considered serious.
(6) Not applicable.
(7) Drill holes that are left uncapped for extended periods are a hazard to wildlife.
(8) Not applicable.
(9) Clearing for drill pads and access tracks that is greater than that originally approved is considered "excessive" clearing.
(10) Not applicable.
(11) Yes.
(12) Not applicable.
(13) DoIR will continue to consistently apply its Enforcement and Prosecution Policies.
(14) I have requested that DoIR work with industry to encourage and strengthen efforts to implement effective codes of practice, and to review its resources devoted to inspections and the levels of fines applying to breaches of tenement conditions.
(15) Not applicable.
(16) The fine was determined following an analysis of the land area disturbed and the environmental impact of the activity.
The fine was imposed under provisions of the
Mining Act 1978
.
(17) Not applicable.
(18) The fine was determined following an analysis of the land area disturbed and the environmental impact of the activity.
The fine was imposed under provisions of the
Mining Act 1978
.
(19) Not applicable.
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) No.
(2) DoIR acted in accordance with its published Enforcement and Prosecution Policy and no further action through naming those involved is warranted. The enforcement and prosecution policy is available on the DoIR website.
(3) No.
(4) DoIR acted in accordance with its published Enforcement and Prosecution Policy and no further action through naming those involved is warranted.
(5) Ground disturbing activities undertaken without the necessary approvals under the
Mining Act 1978
are considered serious.
(6) Not applicable.
(7) Drill holes that are left uncapped for extended periods are a hazard to wildlife.
(8) Not applicable.
(9) Clearing for drill pads and access tracks that is greater than that originally approved is considered "excessive" clearing.
(10) Not applicable.
(11) Yes.
(12) Not applicable.
(13) DoIR will continue to consistently apply its Enforcement and Prosecution Policies.
(14) I have requested that DoIR work with industry to encourage and strengthen efforts to implement effective codes of practice, and to review its resources devoted to inspections and the levels of fines applying to breaches of tenement conditions.
(15) Not applicable.
(16) The fine was determined following an analysis of the land area disturbed and the environmental impact of the activity.
The fine was imposed under provisions of the
Mining Act 1978
.
(17) Not applicable.
(18) The fine was determined following an analysis of the land area disturbed and the environmental impact of the activity.
The fine was imposed under provisions of the
Mining Act 1978
.
(19) Not applicable.
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.