❓ Hon Paul Llewellyn questions the Minister regarding a dispute between Mr. Peter Shaw and KCGM (Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mines) concerning mining activity near Mr. Shaw's property and the Department's handling of the situation, particularly regarding consent and information requests.
AnsweredQoN 3367Legislative Council
Asked
4 April 2006
Member
Portfolio
Resources and Assisting the Minister for State Development
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to a letter signed by Roy Burton(enquiries Bob Stevens) Department of Industry and Resources dated 8 December 2005, addressed to Mr Peter Shaw (departmental reference 7321/99) titled ‘Mining Activity within 100 metres of 5 Cahill Road, Kalgoorlie’ -
(1) Can the Minister explain why the Department considers it unreasonable that Mr Shaw will not meet with KCGM until the company has provided written answers to his previous questions and the monitoring data that he previously requested?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) Can the Minister explain the relevance of the statement made by the Department in relation to an alleged breach of section 20(5) of the
Mining Act 1978
which states ‘you have, instead, informed KCGM in writing that you will not consider such a meeting to discuss the potential of you giving your written consent until the company has provided answers to your previous questions and the monitoring data that you have previously requested’?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) Can the Minister explain the relevance of the statement made by the Department in relation to an alleged breach of section 20(5) of the
Mining Act 1978
which states ‘KCGM has previously provided information of a similar nature to Ms Diane Mills and others in response to their consecutive requests over the recent years concerning Williamstown related matters, and the company is not willing to again utilise the considerable staff time that would be required to respond to your questions/requests, particularly as the company considers that the most effective way to address these matters with a view to resolving your complaints in a timely manner would be by a face to face meeting with you’?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
(7) Does the Department consider the usage and maintenance of the large conveyor belt (including the fencing and gates surrounding it and within 100 metres of 5 Cahill Road) a breach of section 20(5) of the
Mining Act 1978
?
(8) If no to (9), why not?
(1) Can the Minister explain why the Department considers it unreasonable that Mr Shaw will not meet with KCGM until the company has provided written answers to his previous questions and the monitoring data that he previously requested?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) Can the Minister explain the relevance of the statement made by the Department in relation to an alleged breach of section 20(5) of the
Mining Act 1978
which states ‘you have, instead, informed KCGM in writing that you will not consider such a meeting to discuss the potential of you giving your written consent until the company has provided answers to your previous questions and the monitoring data that you have previously requested’?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) Can the Minister explain the relevance of the statement made by the Department in relation to an alleged breach of section 20(5) of the
Mining Act 1978
which states ‘KCGM has previously provided information of a similar nature to Ms Diane Mills and others in response to their consecutive requests over the recent years concerning Williamstown related matters, and the company is not willing to again utilise the considerable staff time that would be required to respond to your questions/requests, particularly as the company considers that the most effective way to address these matters with a view to resolving your complaints in a timely manner would be by a face to face meeting with you’?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
(7) Does the Department consider the usage and maintenance of the large conveyor belt (including the fencing and gates surrounding it and within 100 metres of 5 Cahill Road) a breach of section 20(5) of the
Mining Act 1978
?
(8) If no to (9), why not?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
2 May 2006
Responded by
Leader of the House representing the Minister for Resources and Assisting the Minister for State Development
Response time
28 days
(1-2) The Minister is informed that the Department of Industry and Resources (DoIR) does not consider it "unreasonable" that Mr Shaw will not meet with KCGM until it provides in writing the information he has requested as referred to in Question (1) and, further, that DoIR considers this to be a matter entirely between Mr Shaw and KCGM. (3-6) DoIR considers that the statements quoted in Questions (3) and (5) are relevant to DoIR's conclusion in this case that an impasse had been reached in which KCGM has to carry out certain activity within 100 metres of Mr Shaw's property as an unavoidable part of its operations despite being unable to obtain Mr Shaw's written consent to that activity, and that it was necessary to resolve this impasse in the public interest. (7) Yes, however, DoIR considers that in all the circumstances of this case and in accordance with DoIR's Prosecution Policy, it would not be in the public interest for a prosecution action to be commenced. In this regard DoIR considers it relevant to note that the conveyor belt (and its supporting infrastructure) had been constructed and had commenced operating before Mr Shaw purchased his property in December 1995. Also, according to DoIR's records, nine years then passed before he made his first official complaint about KCGM's use of the conveyor belt in a letter addressed to the former Minister for State Development dated 5 January 2005. (8) Not applicable.
(3-6) DoIR considers that the statements quoted in Questions (3) and (5) are relevant to DoIR's conclusion in this case that an impasse had been reached in which KCGM has to carry out certain activity within 100 metres of Mr Shaw's property as an unavoidable part of its operations despite being unable to obtain Mr Shaw's written consent to that activity, and that it was necessary to resolve this impasse in the public interest. (7) Yes, however, DoIR considers that in all the circumstances of this case and in accordance with DoIR's Prosecution Policy, it would not be in the public interest for a prosecution action to be commenced. In this regard DoIR considers it relevant to note that the conveyor belt (and its supporting infrastructure) had been constructed and had commenced operating before Mr Shaw purchased his property in December 1995. Also, according to DoIR's records, nine years then passed before he made his first official complaint about KCGM's use of the conveyor belt in a letter addressed to the former Minister for State Development dated 5 January 2005. (8) Not applicable.
(7) Yes, however, DoIR considers that in all the circumstances of this case and in accordance with DoIR's Prosecution Policy, it would not be in the public interest for a prosecution action to be commenced. In this regard DoIR considers it relevant to note that the conveyor belt (and its supporting infrastructure) had been constructed and had commenced operating before Mr Shaw purchased his property in December 1995. Also, according to DoIR's records, nine years then passed before he made his first official complaint about KCGM's use of the conveyor belt in a letter addressed to the former Minister for State Development dated 5 January 2005. (8) Not applicable.
(8) Not applicable.
(3-6) DoIR considers that the statements quoted in Questions (3) and (5) are relevant to DoIR's conclusion in this case that an impasse had been reached in which KCGM has to carry out certain activity within 100 metres of Mr Shaw's property as an unavoidable part of its operations despite being unable to obtain Mr Shaw's written consent to that activity, and that it was necessary to resolve this impasse in the public interest. (7) Yes, however, DoIR considers that in all the circumstances of this case and in accordance with DoIR's Prosecution Policy, it would not be in the public interest for a prosecution action to be commenced. In this regard DoIR considers it relevant to note that the conveyor belt (and its supporting infrastructure) had been constructed and had commenced operating before Mr Shaw purchased his property in December 1995. Also, according to DoIR's records, nine years then passed before he made his first official complaint about KCGM's use of the conveyor belt in a letter addressed to the former Minister for State Development dated 5 January 2005. (8) Not applicable.
(7) Yes, however, DoIR considers that in all the circumstances of this case and in accordance with DoIR's Prosecution Policy, it would not be in the public interest for a prosecution action to be commenced. In this regard DoIR considers it relevant to note that the conveyor belt (and its supporting infrastructure) had been constructed and had commenced operating before Mr Shaw purchased his property in December 1995. Also, according to DoIR's records, nine years then passed before he made his first official complaint about KCGM's use of the conveyor belt in a letter addressed to the former Minister for State Development dated 5 January 2005. (8) Not applicable.
(8) 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.