❓ Hon Robin Chapple questions the Minister for Environment regarding alleged preferential treatment given to KCGM, Barrick, and Newmont concerning illegal land clearing, contrasting it with the prosecution of smaller farmers. The Minister avoids direct answers, offering a briefing instead.
AnsweredQoN 5105Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the answers provided for question on notice No. 3822, dated 12 April 2011, a newspaper article entitled, 'Property Rights taken to Parliament', which appeared in the
Narrogin Observer
on 27 October 2010, photographs taken on 21 January 2010, depicting clearing of vegetation and construction of bores undertaken with exploration equipment available for viewing at www.mp.wa.gov.au/rchapple/Kaltails, a document, dated 3 December 2009, entitled, 'KCGM Mining Proposal and Works Approval Application', a media statement, dated 1 May 2005, entitled, 'Unauthorised native vegetation clearing conviction', and another, dated 30 November 2009, entitled 'Illegal land clearers fined $10,000 each', and I ask -
(1) Can the Minister explain why KCGM, Barrick, Newmont have been given special dispensation and let off in not being prosecuted in 2011, given that KCGM previously cleared a large amount of land on the Fimiston 2 tailings dam in 1995 and made a written submission which basically stated 'In an effort to prevent such mistakes re-occurring, KCGM has introduced procedures to ensure all works which may require government approval being referred to the tenements and environmental departments of KCGM for advice' referred to in question on notice No. 2800 to the Minister for Mines, dated 22 September 2011?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) Can the Minister explain, how does the answer and written submissions from KCGM provided in question on notice No. 3822, dated 12 April 2011, referring to 'that KCGM had reviewed the incident and implemented new procedures to ensure there would be no reoccurrence in the future' largely differ from the new procedures they claimed they implemented in 1995 referred to in (1) above to ensure there would be no reoccurrence in the future?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) Can the Minister explain how the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) can justify issuing a letter of warning in the year 2011 for illegal clearing to KCGM on the basis that they had reviewed the incident and implemented 'new procedures' given that KCGM reviewed the incident of illegal clearing in 1995 and implemented new procedures to ensure there would be no reoccurrence in the future?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
(7) Can the Minister explain why the DEC has deliberately targeted smaller individual farmers and other persons for illegal clearing with prosecutions and the larger companies such as KCGM, Barrick and Newmont have been let off simply by providing almost repetitious weak excuses by indicating they have reviewed the incident and implemented new procedures to ensure there would be no reoccurrence in the future?
(8) If no to (7), why not?
Narrogin Observer
on 27 October 2010, photographs taken on 21 January 2010, depicting clearing of vegetation and construction of bores undertaken with exploration equipment available for viewing at www.mp.wa.gov.au/rchapple/Kaltails, a document, dated 3 December 2009, entitled, 'KCGM Mining Proposal and Works Approval Application', a media statement, dated 1 May 2005, entitled, 'Unauthorised native vegetation clearing conviction', and another, dated 30 November 2009, entitled 'Illegal land clearers fined $10,000 each', and I ask -
(1) Can the Minister explain why KCGM, Barrick, Newmont have been given special dispensation and let off in not being prosecuted in 2011, given that KCGM previously cleared a large amount of land on the Fimiston 2 tailings dam in 1995 and made a written submission which basically stated 'In an effort to prevent such mistakes re-occurring, KCGM has introduced procedures to ensure all works which may require government approval being referred to the tenements and environmental departments of KCGM for advice' referred to in question on notice No. 2800 to the Minister for Mines, dated 22 September 2011?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) Can the Minister explain, how does the answer and written submissions from KCGM provided in question on notice No. 3822, dated 12 April 2011, referring to 'that KCGM had reviewed the incident and implemented new procedures to ensure there would be no reoccurrence in the future' largely differ from the new procedures they claimed they implemented in 1995 referred to in (1) above to ensure there would be no reoccurrence in the future?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) Can the Minister explain how the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) can justify issuing a letter of warning in the year 2011 for illegal clearing to KCGM on the basis that they had reviewed the incident and implemented 'new procedures' given that KCGM reviewed the incident of illegal clearing in 1995 and implemented new procedures to ensure there would be no reoccurrence in the future?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
(7) Can the Minister explain why the DEC has deliberately targeted smaller individual farmers and other persons for illegal clearing with prosecutions and the larger companies such as KCGM, Barrick and Newmont have been let off simply by providing almost repetitious weak excuses by indicating they have reviewed the incident and implemented new procedures to ensure there would be no reoccurrence in the future?
(8) If no to (7), why not?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
1 May 2012
Responded by
Minister for Mental Health representing the Minister for Environment
Response time
56 days
(1)-(8) The Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) has spent approximately 200 hours answering questions from the Hon Member on projects owned by Barrick Gold, and Newmont Mining and managed by KCGM. Given the interest of the Member in this matter, the Minister would be happy to arrange for DEC to provide the Member with a briefing on any matters of concern.
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
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.