❓ A WA parliamentary question on notice addresses concerns about a works approval issued to Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mine (KCGM) and its potential environmental impact, specifically regarding emissions and pollution on nearby prospecting and mining leases. The Minister's response defends the Department's actions, citing EPA assessment and adherence to the Environmental Protection Act 1986.
AnsweredQoN 2546Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to a letter signed by Mr Laurie Mills dated August 11 2005, addressed to the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Environment which I understand was faxed on August 11 2005, and also sent by mail to the Department -
(1) Is it correct that the Guide to EIA Environmental Principles, Factors and Objectives dated November 1 2004, under the heading of ‘Factor Pollution Management’ and ‘Environmental Objective’, states ‘To ensure that emissions do not adversely affect environment values or the health, welfare and amenity of people and land uses by meeting statutory requirements and acceptable standards’?
(2) If no to (1), what specifically does it state in the document dated November 1 2004?
(3) Can the Minister explain why the Department has not met its environmental objective in issuing the works approval with conditions to ensure that emissions as defined under the
Environmental Protection Act 1986
do not adversely effect the health, welfare, amenity and land uses including the environment on Prospecting Licence 26/3126 owned by Mr L Mills?
(4) Can the Minister explain why the Department has not imposed works approval conditions which clearly prevent, control or abate pollution or the likelihood of pollution within the confines and tenement boundaries of Mining Lease 26/383?
(5) If no to (4), why not?
(6) Can the Minister explain why does the Department even bother to require proponents to even bother to state ownership details of the proposed premises, including whether or not they are the owner, given that the Department seems to regard these matters as insignificant?
(7) If no to (6), why not?
(8) Can the Minister explain why does the Department even bother to require proponents to provide diagrams showing ownership and the boundaries of proposed premises, given that the Department seems to regard these matters as insignificant?
(9) If no to (8), why not?
(1) Is it correct that the Guide to EIA Environmental Principles, Factors and Objectives dated November 1 2004, under the heading of ‘Factor Pollution Management’ and ‘Environmental Objective’, states ‘To ensure that emissions do not adversely affect environment values or the health, welfare and amenity of people and land uses by meeting statutory requirements and acceptable standards’?
(2) If no to (1), what specifically does it state in the document dated November 1 2004?
(3) Can the Minister explain why the Department has not met its environmental objective in issuing the works approval with conditions to ensure that emissions as defined under the
Environmental Protection Act 1986
do not adversely effect the health, welfare, amenity and land uses including the environment on Prospecting Licence 26/3126 owned by Mr L Mills?
(4) Can the Minister explain why the Department has not imposed works approval conditions which clearly prevent, control or abate pollution or the likelihood of pollution within the confines and tenement boundaries of Mining Lease 26/383?
(5) If no to (4), why not?
(6) Can the Minister explain why does the Department even bother to require proponents to even bother to state ownership details of the proposed premises, including whether or not they are the owner, given that the Department seems to regard these matters as insignificant?
(7) If no to (6), why not?
(8) Can the Minister explain why does the Department even bother to require proponents to provide diagrams showing ownership and the boundaries of proposed premises, given that the Department seems to regard these matters as insignificant?
(9) If no to (8), why not?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
15 September 2005
Responded by
Minister for Education and Training representing the Minister for the Environment
Response time
21 days
The Minister for the Environment; Science has provided the following response: (1) Yes. (2) Not applicable. (3) The Department of Environment (DoE) considers that the licence issued to Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mine (KCGM) does ensure that emissions are not causing pollution or environmental harm. It is important to recognise the KCGM proposal to raise the Fimiston I Tailing Storage Facility (TSF) was referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) in 2003. The EPA decided that the proposal was not likely to significantly impact on the environment and therefore a formal assessment was not required. A number of appeals were lodged in regard to that decision (Appeals 276 to 288 of 2003). The Minister for the Environment dismissed these appeals, subject to a number of recommendations. One of these recommendations was the issuing of a works approval, limiting the lifts to 2.5 metre increments, with KCGM having to demonstrate achievement of approved reduction in water levels with the granting of each lift beyond the initial 2.5 metre lift. The Works approval to increase the height of Fimiston I TSF by 2.5 metres has been issued by the DoE in accordance with the Minister for the Environment's decision. (4) Not applicable. See answer to question 3. (5) Not applicable. (6) The Environmental Protection Act 1986 requires occupiers of land, rather than owners, to hold works approval and licences under particular circumstances. Therefore identification of the occupier rather than the ownership of land is the relevant matter under the Act and must therefore be the legal consideration of the DoE. (7) Not applicable. (8) Given the numbers of licenced premises across the State of Western Australia, DoE Officers need an understanding of where a site fits into a local context, so that the local context can be considered in the drafting of appropriate conditions. (9) Not applicable.
(1) Yes. (2) Not applicable. (3) The Department of Environment (DoE) considers that the licence issued to Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mine (KCGM) does ensure that emissions are not causing pollution or environmental harm. It is important to recognise the KCGM proposal to raise the Fimiston I Tailing Storage Facility (TSF) was referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) in 2003. The EPA decided that the proposal was not likely to significantly impact on the environment and therefore a formal assessment was not required. A number of appeals were lodged in regard to that decision (Appeals 276 to 288 of 2003). The Minister for the Environment dismissed these appeals, subject to a number of recommendations. One of these recommendations was the issuing of a works approval, limiting the lifts to 2.5 metre increments, with KCGM having to demonstrate achievement of approved reduction in water levels with the granting of each lift beyond the initial 2.5 metre lift. The Works approval to increase the height of Fimiston I TSF by 2.5 metres has been issued by the DoE in accordance with the Minister for the Environment's decision. (4) Not applicable. See answer to question 3. (5) Not applicable. (6) The Environmental Protection Act 1986 requires occupiers of land, rather than owners, to hold works approval and licences under particular circumstances. Therefore identification of the occupier rather than the ownership of land is the relevant matter under the Act and must therefore be the legal consideration of the DoE. (7) Not applicable. (8) Given the numbers of licenced premises across the State of Western Australia, DoE Officers need an understanding of where a site fits into a local context, so that the local context can be considered in the drafting of appropriate conditions. (9) Not applicable.
(2) Not applicable. (3) The Department of Environment (DoE) considers that the licence issued to Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mine (KCGM) does ensure that emissions are not causing pollution or environmental harm. It is important to recognise the KCGM proposal to raise the Fimiston I Tailing Storage Facility (TSF) was referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) in 2003. The EPA decided that the proposal was not likely to significantly impact on the environment and therefore a formal assessment was not required. A number of appeals were lodged in regard to that decision (Appeals 276 to 288 of 2003). The Minister for the Environment dismissed these appeals, subject to a number of recommendations. One of these recommendations was the issuing of a works approval, limiting the lifts to 2.5 metre increments, with KCGM having to demonstrate achievement of approved reduction in water levels with the granting of each lift beyond the initial 2.5 metre lift. The Works approval to increase the height of Fimiston I TSF by 2.5 metres has been issued by the DoE in accordance with the Minister for the Environment's decision. (4) Not applicable. See answer to question 3. (5) Not applicable. (6) The Environmental Protection Act 1986 requires occupiers of land, rather than owners, to hold works approval and licences under particular circumstances. Therefore identification of the occupier rather than the ownership of land is the relevant matter under the Act and must therefore be the legal consideration of the DoE. (7) Not applicable. (8) Given the numbers of licenced premises across the State of Western Australia, DoE Officers need an understanding of where a site fits into a local context, so that the local context can be considered in the drafting of appropriate conditions. (9) Not applicable.
(3) The Department of Environment (DoE) considers that the licence issued to Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mine (KCGM) does ensure that emissions are not causing pollution or environmental harm. It is important to recognise the KCGM proposal to raise the Fimiston I Tailing Storage Facility (TSF) was referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) in 2003. The EPA decided that the proposal was not likely to significantly impact on the environment and therefore a formal assessment was not required. A number of appeals were lodged in regard to that decision (Appeals 276 to 288 of 2003). The Minister for the Environment dismissed these appeals, subject to a number of recommendations. One of these recommendations was the issuing of a works approval, limiting the lifts to 2.5 metre increments, with KCGM having to demonstrate achievement of approved reduction in water levels with the granting of each lift beyond the initial 2.5 metre lift. The Works approval to increase the height of Fimiston I TSF by 2.5 metres has been issued by the DoE in accordance with the Minister for the Environment's decision. (4) Not applicable. See answer to question 3. (5) Not applicable. (6) The Environmental Protection Act 1986 requires occupiers of land, rather than owners, to hold works approval and licences under particular circumstances. Therefore identification of the occupier rather than the ownership of land is the relevant matter under the Act and must therefore be the legal consideration of the DoE. (7) Not applicable. (8) Given the numbers of licenced premises across the State of Western Australia, DoE Officers need an understanding of where a site fits into a local context, so that the local context can be considered in the drafting of appropriate conditions. (9) Not applicable.
The Minister for the Environment dismissed these appeals, subject to a number of recommendations. One of these recommendations was the issuing of a works approval, limiting the lifts to 2.5 metre increments, with KCGM having to demonstrate achievement of approved reduction in water levels with the granting of each lift beyond the initial 2.5 metre lift. The Works approval to increase the height of Fimiston I TSF by 2.5 metres has been issued by the DoE in accordance with the Minister for the Environment's decision. (4) Not applicable. See answer to question 3. (5) Not applicable. (6) The Environmental Protection Act 1986 requires occupiers of land, rather than owners, to hold works approval and licences under particular circumstances. Therefore identification of the occupier rather than the ownership of land is the relevant matter under the Act and must therefore be the legal consideration of the DoE. (7) Not applicable. (8) Given the numbers of licenced premises across the State of Western Australia, DoE Officers need an understanding of where a site fits into a local context, so that the local context can be considered in the drafting of appropriate conditions. (9) Not applicable.
The Works approval to increase the height of Fimiston I TSF by 2.5 metres has been issued by the DoE in accordance with the Minister for the Environment's decision. (4) Not applicable. See answer to question 3. (5) Not applicable. (6) The Environmental Protection Act 1986 requires occupiers of land, rather than owners, to hold works approval and licences under particular circumstances. Therefore identification of the occupier rather than the ownership of land is the relevant matter under the Act and must therefore be the legal consideration of the DoE. (7) Not applicable. (8) Given the numbers of licenced premises across the State of Western Australia, DoE Officers need an understanding of where a site fits into a local context, so that the local context can be considered in the drafting of appropriate conditions. (9) Not applicable.
(4) Not applicable. See answer to question 3. (5) Not applicable. (6) The Environmental Protection Act 1986 requires occupiers of land, rather than owners, to hold works approval and licences under particular circumstances. Therefore identification of the occupier rather than the ownership of land is the relevant matter under the Act and must therefore be the legal consideration of the DoE. (7) Not applicable. (8) Given the numbers of licenced premises across the State of Western Australia, DoE Officers need an understanding of where a site fits into a local context, so that the local context can be considered in the drafting of appropriate conditions. (9) Not applicable.
(5) Not applicable. (6) The Environmental Protection Act 1986 requires occupiers of land, rather than owners, to hold works approval and licences under particular circumstances. Therefore identification of the occupier rather than the ownership of land is the relevant matter under the Act and must therefore be the legal consideration of the DoE. (7) Not applicable. (8) Given the numbers of licenced premises across the State of Western Australia, DoE Officers need an understanding of where a site fits into a local context, so that the local context can be considered in the drafting of appropriate conditions. (9) Not applicable.
(6) The Environmental Protection Act 1986 requires occupiers of land, rather than owners, to hold works approval and licences under particular circumstances. Therefore identification of the occupier rather than the ownership of land is the relevant matter under the Act and must therefore be the legal consideration of the DoE. (7) Not applicable. (8) Given the numbers of licenced premises across the State of Western Australia, DoE Officers need an understanding of where a site fits into a local context, so that the local context can be considered in the drafting of appropriate conditions. (9) Not applicable.
(7) Not applicable. (8) Given the numbers of licenced premises across the State of Western Australia, DoE Officers need an understanding of where a site fits into a local context, so that the local context can be considered in the drafting of appropriate conditions. (9) Not applicable.
(8) Given the numbers of licenced premises across the State of Western Australia, DoE Officers need an understanding of where a site fits into a local context, so that the local context can be considered in the drafting of appropriate conditions. (9) Not applicable.
(9) Not applicable.
(1) Yes. (2) Not applicable. (3) The Department of Environment (DoE) considers that the licence issued to Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mine (KCGM) does ensure that emissions are not causing pollution or environmental harm. It is important to recognise the KCGM proposal to raise the Fimiston I Tailing Storage Facility (TSF) was referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) in 2003. The EPA decided that the proposal was not likely to significantly impact on the environment and therefore a formal assessment was not required. A number of appeals were lodged in regard to that decision (Appeals 276 to 288 of 2003). The Minister for the Environment dismissed these appeals, subject to a number of recommendations. One of these recommendations was the issuing of a works approval, limiting the lifts to 2.5 metre increments, with KCGM having to demonstrate achievement of approved reduction in water levels with the granting of each lift beyond the initial 2.5 metre lift. The Works approval to increase the height of Fimiston I TSF by 2.5 metres has been issued by the DoE in accordance with the Minister for the Environment's decision. (4) Not applicable. See answer to question 3. (5) Not applicable. (6) The Environmental Protection Act 1986 requires occupiers of land, rather than owners, to hold works approval and licences under particular circumstances. Therefore identification of the occupier rather than the ownership of land is the relevant matter under the Act and must therefore be the legal consideration of the DoE. (7) Not applicable. (8) Given the numbers of licenced premises across the State of Western Australia, DoE Officers need an understanding of where a site fits into a local context, so that the local context can be considered in the drafting of appropriate conditions. (9) Not applicable.
(2) Not applicable. (3) The Department of Environment (DoE) considers that the licence issued to Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mine (KCGM) does ensure that emissions are not causing pollution or environmental harm. It is important to recognise the KCGM proposal to raise the Fimiston I Tailing Storage Facility (TSF) was referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) in 2003. The EPA decided that the proposal was not likely to significantly impact on the environment and therefore a formal assessment was not required. A number of appeals were lodged in regard to that decision (Appeals 276 to 288 of 2003). The Minister for the Environment dismissed these appeals, subject to a number of recommendations. One of these recommendations was the issuing of a works approval, limiting the lifts to 2.5 metre increments, with KCGM having to demonstrate achievement of approved reduction in water levels with the granting of each lift beyond the initial 2.5 metre lift. The Works approval to increase the height of Fimiston I TSF by 2.5 metres has been issued by the DoE in accordance with the Minister for the Environment's decision. (4) Not applicable. See answer to question 3. (5) Not applicable. (6) The Environmental Protection Act 1986 requires occupiers of land, rather than owners, to hold works approval and licences under particular circumstances. Therefore identification of the occupier rather than the ownership of land is the relevant matter under the Act and must therefore be the legal consideration of the DoE. (7) Not applicable. (8) Given the numbers of licenced premises across the State of Western Australia, DoE Officers need an understanding of where a site fits into a local context, so that the local context can be considered in the drafting of appropriate conditions. (9) Not applicable.
(3) The Department of Environment (DoE) considers that the licence issued to Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mine (KCGM) does ensure that emissions are not causing pollution or environmental harm. It is important to recognise the KCGM proposal to raise the Fimiston I Tailing Storage Facility (TSF) was referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) in 2003. The EPA decided that the proposal was not likely to significantly impact on the environment and therefore a formal assessment was not required. A number of appeals were lodged in regard to that decision (Appeals 276 to 288 of 2003). The Minister for the Environment dismissed these appeals, subject to a number of recommendations. One of these recommendations was the issuing of a works approval, limiting the lifts to 2.5 metre increments, with KCGM having to demonstrate achievement of approved reduction in water levels with the granting of each lift beyond the initial 2.5 metre lift. The Works approval to increase the height of Fimiston I TSF by 2.5 metres has been issued by the DoE in accordance with the Minister for the Environment's decision. (4) Not applicable. See answer to question 3. (5) Not applicable. (6) The Environmental Protection Act 1986 requires occupiers of land, rather than owners, to hold works approval and licences under particular circumstances. Therefore identification of the occupier rather than the ownership of land is the relevant matter under the Act and must therefore be the legal consideration of the DoE. (7) Not applicable. (8) Given the numbers of licenced premises across the State of Western Australia, DoE Officers need an understanding of where a site fits into a local context, so that the local context can be considered in the drafting of appropriate conditions. (9) Not applicable.
The Minister for the Environment dismissed these appeals, subject to a number of recommendations. One of these recommendations was the issuing of a works approval, limiting the lifts to 2.5 metre increments, with KCGM having to demonstrate achievement of approved reduction in water levels with the granting of each lift beyond the initial 2.5 metre lift. The Works approval to increase the height of Fimiston I TSF by 2.5 metres has been issued by the DoE in accordance with the Minister for the Environment's decision. (4) Not applicable. See answer to question 3. (5) Not applicable. (6) The Environmental Protection Act 1986 requires occupiers of land, rather than owners, to hold works approval and licences under particular circumstances. Therefore identification of the occupier rather than the ownership of land is the relevant matter under the Act and must therefore be the legal consideration of the DoE. (7) Not applicable. (8) Given the numbers of licenced premises across the State of Western Australia, DoE Officers need an understanding of where a site fits into a local context, so that the local context can be considered in the drafting of appropriate conditions. (9) Not applicable.
The Works approval to increase the height of Fimiston I TSF by 2.5 metres has been issued by the DoE in accordance with the Minister for the Environment's decision. (4) Not applicable. See answer to question 3. (5) Not applicable. (6) The Environmental Protection Act 1986 requires occupiers of land, rather than owners, to hold works approval and licences under particular circumstances. Therefore identification of the occupier rather than the ownership of land is the relevant matter under the Act and must therefore be the legal consideration of the DoE. (7) Not applicable. (8) Given the numbers of licenced premises across the State of Western Australia, DoE Officers need an understanding of where a site fits into a local context, so that the local context can be considered in the drafting of appropriate conditions. (9) Not applicable.
(4) Not applicable. See answer to question 3. (5) Not applicable. (6) The Environmental Protection Act 1986 requires occupiers of land, rather than owners, to hold works approval and licences under particular circumstances. Therefore identification of the occupier rather than the ownership of land is the relevant matter under the Act and must therefore be the legal consideration of the DoE. (7) Not applicable. (8) Given the numbers of licenced premises across the State of Western Australia, DoE Officers need an understanding of where a site fits into a local context, so that the local context can be considered in the drafting of appropriate conditions. (9) Not applicable.
(5) Not applicable. (6) The Environmental Protection Act 1986 requires occupiers of land, rather than owners, to hold works approval and licences under particular circumstances. Therefore identification of the occupier rather than the ownership of land is the relevant matter under the Act and must therefore be the legal consideration of the DoE. (7) Not applicable. (8) Given the numbers of licenced premises across the State of Western Australia, DoE Officers need an understanding of where a site fits into a local context, so that the local context can be considered in the drafting of appropriate conditions. (9) Not applicable.
(6) The Environmental Protection Act 1986 requires occupiers of land, rather than owners, to hold works approval and licences under particular circumstances. Therefore identification of the occupier rather than the ownership of land is the relevant matter under the Act and must therefore be the legal consideration of the DoE. (7) Not applicable. (8) Given the numbers of licenced premises across the State of Western Australia, DoE Officers need an understanding of where a site fits into a local context, so that the local context can be considered in the drafting of appropriate conditions. (9) Not applicable.
(7) Not applicable. (8) Given the numbers of licenced premises across the State of Western Australia, DoE Officers need an understanding of where a site fits into a local context, so that the local context can be considered in the drafting of appropriate conditions. (9) Not applicable.
(8) Given the numbers of licenced premises across the State of Western Australia, DoE Officers need an understanding of where a site fits into a local context, so that the local context can be considered in the drafting of appropriate conditions. (9) Not applicable.
(9) 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.