❓ Hon Paul Llewellyn questions the Minister for the Environment regarding KCGM's discharge practices into Prospecting Licence 26/1848, seeking clarification on environmental impact definitions, legislative precedence, and compliance with licence conditions, particularly concerning groundwater levels.
AnsweredQoN 3371Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to a letter dated October 10, 2005, signed by D Carew Hopkins, Acting Director General, Department of Environment (DoE) reference CEO 1162 addressed to Mr L Mills and question on notice number 2886 of 10 November 2005 -
(1) Given that the Minister has stated that the environment contained within Prospecting Licence 26/1848 not owned or occupied by KCGM is not considered to be a ‘holding facility’ under KCGM’s licence (which enables KCGM to discharge emissions of saline, alkaline, cyanide constituents and heavy metals and other toxic chemicals), can the Minister explain why the DoE since 1993 and up until 2006, has treated the environment of Prospecting Licence 26/1848 not owned or occupied by KCGM as a ‘holding facility’ into which all of the above constituents have been discharged?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) Can the Minister explain what ‘unacceptable environmental impact’ means?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) Does the
Environmental Protection Act 1986
override and take precedence over the
Mining Act 1978
?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
(7) If yes to (5), why?
(8) In relation to the answer to part (3) of question on notice number 2886, can the Minister state what specific ‘sufficient information’ is needed to justify the decision to impose the condition stated in the question?
(9) If no to (8), why not?
(10) Can the Minister explain what specific ramifications could not be considered prior to the issuing date and why these ramifications prevented a licence condition being imposed as stated in part (3) of the answer to question on notice number 2886?
(11) If no to (10), why not?
(12) Given that the Minister has stated that ‘another important component of this plan is to determine the historical groundwater levels of the area by 31 March 2006’ (essentially a licence condition), will the Department prosecute KCGM for failing to observe licence conditions in that as of 21 March 2006 the draft report for the historical water levels has not been released for public comment and the final report has not been completed?
(13) If no to (12), why not?
(1) Given that the Minister has stated that the environment contained within Prospecting Licence 26/1848 not owned or occupied by KCGM is not considered to be a ‘holding facility’ under KCGM’s licence (which enables KCGM to discharge emissions of saline, alkaline, cyanide constituents and heavy metals and other toxic chemicals), can the Minister explain why the DoE since 1993 and up until 2006, has treated the environment of Prospecting Licence 26/1848 not owned or occupied by KCGM as a ‘holding facility’ into which all of the above constituents have been discharged?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) Can the Minister explain what ‘unacceptable environmental impact’ means?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) Does the
Environmental Protection Act 1986
override and take precedence over the
Mining Act 1978
?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
(7) If yes to (5), why?
(8) In relation to the answer to part (3) of question on notice number 2886, can the Minister state what specific ‘sufficient information’ is needed to justify the decision to impose the condition stated in the question?
(9) If no to (8), why not?
(10) Can the Minister explain what specific ramifications could not be considered prior to the issuing date and why these ramifications prevented a licence condition being imposed as stated in part (3) of the answer to question on notice number 2886?
(11) If no to (10), why not?
(12) Given that the Minister has stated that ‘another important component of this plan is to determine the historical groundwater levels of the area by 31 March 2006’ (essentially a licence condition), will the Department prosecute KCGM for failing to observe licence conditions in that as of 21 March 2006 the draft report for the historical water levels has not been released for public comment and the final report has not been completed?
(13) If no to (12), why not?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
9 May 2006
Responded by
Minister for Education and Training representing the Minister for the Environment
Response time
35 days
(2) Not applicable. (3) Unacceptable environmental impacts would be offences under the Environmental Protection Act 1986 , such as pollution or environmental harm (serious or material). (4) Not applicable. (5) Section 5 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 provides provisions for the Environmental Protection Act 1986 to prevail over the provisions of another Act where there is an inconsistency. Where two Acts can operate without inconsistency the provision does not operate. (6) Not applicable. (7) Not applicable. (8) The answer to this question is within the answer already provided to (3) of Question on Notice number 2886 of 10 November 2005. To clarify, the DoE would need information on the historical levels and current levels along the boundary, the practicality of reducing levels, along with the benefit of reducing the levels and the ramifications of the imposition of the licence condition including the fact imposing such a condition could immediately place KCGM in breach of their licence. (9) Not applicable. (10) As per (8). (11) Not applicable. (12) The answer to this question will be provided in answer to Question on Notice 3372 of 4 April 2006. (13) Not Applicable.
(3) Unacceptable environmental impacts would be offences under the Environmental Protection Act 1986 , such as pollution or environmental harm (serious or material). (4) Not applicable. (5) Section 5 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 provides provisions for the Environmental Protection Act 1986 to prevail over the provisions of another Act where there is an inconsistency. Where two Acts can operate without inconsistency the provision does not operate. (6) Not applicable. (7) Not applicable. (8) The answer to this question is within the answer already provided to (3) of Question on Notice number 2886 of 10 November 2005. To clarify, the DoE would need information on the historical levels and current levels along the boundary, the practicality of reducing levels, along with the benefit of reducing the levels and the ramifications of the imposition of the licence condition including the fact imposing such a condition could immediately place KCGM in breach of their licence. (9) Not applicable. (10) As per (8). (11) Not applicable. (12) The answer to this question will be provided in answer to Question on Notice 3372 of 4 April 2006. (13) Not Applicable.
(4) Not applicable. (5) Section 5 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 provides provisions for the Environmental Protection Act 1986 to prevail over the provisions of another Act where there is an inconsistency. Where two Acts can operate without inconsistency the provision does not operate. (6) Not applicable. (7) Not applicable. (8) The answer to this question is within the answer already provided to (3) of Question on Notice number 2886 of 10 November 2005. To clarify, the DoE would need information on the historical levels and current levels along the boundary, the practicality of reducing levels, along with the benefit of reducing the levels and the ramifications of the imposition of the licence condition including the fact imposing such a condition could immediately place KCGM in breach of their licence. (9) Not applicable. (10) As per (8). (11) Not applicable. (12) The answer to this question will be provided in answer to Question on Notice 3372 of 4 April 2006. (13) Not Applicable.
(5) Section 5 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 provides provisions for the Environmental Protection Act 1986 to prevail over the provisions of another Act where there is an inconsistency. Where two Acts can operate without inconsistency the provision does not operate. (6) Not applicable. (7) Not applicable. (8) The answer to this question is within the answer already provided to (3) of Question on Notice number 2886 of 10 November 2005. To clarify, the DoE would need information on the historical levels and current levels along the boundary, the practicality of reducing levels, along with the benefit of reducing the levels and the ramifications of the imposition of the licence condition including the fact imposing such a condition could immediately place KCGM in breach of their licence. (9) Not applicable. (10) As per (8). (11) Not applicable. (12) The answer to this question will be provided in answer to Question on Notice 3372 of 4 April 2006. (13) Not Applicable.
(6) Not applicable. (7) Not applicable. (8) The answer to this question is within the answer already provided to (3) of Question on Notice number 2886 of 10 November 2005. To clarify, the DoE would need information on the historical levels and current levels along the boundary, the practicality of reducing levels, along with the benefit of reducing the levels and the ramifications of the imposition of the licence condition including the fact imposing such a condition could immediately place KCGM in breach of their licence. (9) Not applicable. (10) As per (8). (11) Not applicable. (12) The answer to this question will be provided in answer to Question on Notice 3372 of 4 April 2006. (13) Not Applicable.
(7) Not applicable. (8) The answer to this question is within the answer already provided to (3) of Question on Notice number 2886 of 10 November 2005. To clarify, the DoE would need information on the historical levels and current levels along the boundary, the practicality of reducing levels, along with the benefit of reducing the levels and the ramifications of the imposition of the licence condition including the fact imposing such a condition could immediately place KCGM in breach of their licence. (9) Not applicable. (10) As per (8). (11) Not applicable. (12) The answer to this question will be provided in answer to Question on Notice 3372 of 4 April 2006. (13) Not Applicable.
(8) The answer to this question is within the answer already provided to (3) of Question on Notice number 2886 of 10 November 2005. To clarify, the DoE would need information on the historical levels and current levels along the boundary, the practicality of reducing levels, along with the benefit of reducing the levels and the ramifications of the imposition of the licence condition including the fact imposing such a condition could immediately place KCGM in breach of their licence. (9) Not applicable. (10) As per (8). (11) Not applicable. (12) The answer to this question will be provided in answer to Question on Notice 3372 of 4 April 2006. (13) Not Applicable.
(9) Not applicable. (10) As per (8). (11) Not applicable. (12) The answer to this question will be provided in answer to Question on Notice 3372 of 4 April 2006. (13) Not Applicable.
(10) As per (8). (11) Not applicable. (12) The answer to this question will be provided in answer to Question on Notice 3372 of 4 April 2006. (13) Not Applicable.
(11) Not applicable. (12) The answer to this question will be provided in answer to Question on Notice 3372 of 4 April 2006. (13) Not Applicable.
(12) The answer to this question will be provided in answer to Question on Notice 3372 of 4 April 2006. (13) Not Applicable.
(13) Not Applicable.
(3) Unacceptable environmental impacts would be offences under the Environmental Protection Act 1986 , such as pollution or environmental harm (serious or material). (4) Not applicable. (5) Section 5 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 provides provisions for the Environmental Protection Act 1986 to prevail over the provisions of another Act where there is an inconsistency. Where two Acts can operate without inconsistency the provision does not operate. (6) Not applicable. (7) Not applicable. (8) The answer to this question is within the answer already provided to (3) of Question on Notice number 2886 of 10 November 2005. To clarify, the DoE would need information on the historical levels and current levels along the boundary, the practicality of reducing levels, along with the benefit of reducing the levels and the ramifications of the imposition of the licence condition including the fact imposing such a condition could immediately place KCGM in breach of their licence. (9) Not applicable. (10) As per (8). (11) Not applicable. (12) The answer to this question will be provided in answer to Question on Notice 3372 of 4 April 2006. (13) Not Applicable.
(4) Not applicable. (5) Section 5 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 provides provisions for the Environmental Protection Act 1986 to prevail over the provisions of another Act where there is an inconsistency. Where two Acts can operate without inconsistency the provision does not operate. (6) Not applicable. (7) Not applicable. (8) The answer to this question is within the answer already provided to (3) of Question on Notice number 2886 of 10 November 2005. To clarify, the DoE would need information on the historical levels and current levels along the boundary, the practicality of reducing levels, along with the benefit of reducing the levels and the ramifications of the imposition of the licence condition including the fact imposing such a condition could immediately place KCGM in breach of their licence. (9) Not applicable. (10) As per (8). (11) Not applicable. (12) The answer to this question will be provided in answer to Question on Notice 3372 of 4 April 2006. (13) Not Applicable.
(5) Section 5 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 provides provisions for the Environmental Protection Act 1986 to prevail over the provisions of another Act where there is an inconsistency. Where two Acts can operate without inconsistency the provision does not operate. (6) Not applicable. (7) Not applicable. (8) The answer to this question is within the answer already provided to (3) of Question on Notice number 2886 of 10 November 2005. To clarify, the DoE would need information on the historical levels and current levels along the boundary, the practicality of reducing levels, along with the benefit of reducing the levels and the ramifications of the imposition of the licence condition including the fact imposing such a condition could immediately place KCGM in breach of their licence. (9) Not applicable. (10) As per (8). (11) Not applicable. (12) The answer to this question will be provided in answer to Question on Notice 3372 of 4 April 2006. (13) Not Applicable.
(6) Not applicable. (7) Not applicable. (8) The answer to this question is within the answer already provided to (3) of Question on Notice number 2886 of 10 November 2005. To clarify, the DoE would need information on the historical levels and current levels along the boundary, the practicality of reducing levels, along with the benefit of reducing the levels and the ramifications of the imposition of the licence condition including the fact imposing such a condition could immediately place KCGM in breach of their licence. (9) Not applicable. (10) As per (8). (11) Not applicable. (12) The answer to this question will be provided in answer to Question on Notice 3372 of 4 April 2006. (13) Not Applicable.
(7) Not applicable. (8) The answer to this question is within the answer already provided to (3) of Question on Notice number 2886 of 10 November 2005. To clarify, the DoE would need information on the historical levels and current levels along the boundary, the practicality of reducing levels, along with the benefit of reducing the levels and the ramifications of the imposition of the licence condition including the fact imposing such a condition could immediately place KCGM in breach of their licence. (9) Not applicable. (10) As per (8). (11) Not applicable. (12) The answer to this question will be provided in answer to Question on Notice 3372 of 4 April 2006. (13) Not Applicable.
(8) The answer to this question is within the answer already provided to (3) of Question on Notice number 2886 of 10 November 2005. To clarify, the DoE would need information on the historical levels and current levels along the boundary, the practicality of reducing levels, along with the benefit of reducing the levels and the ramifications of the imposition of the licence condition including the fact imposing such a condition could immediately place KCGM in breach of their licence. (9) Not applicable. (10) As per (8). (11) Not applicable. (12) The answer to this question will be provided in answer to Question on Notice 3372 of 4 April 2006. (13) Not Applicable.
(9) Not applicable. (10) As per (8). (11) Not applicable. (12) The answer to this question will be provided in answer to Question on Notice 3372 of 4 April 2006. (13) Not Applicable.
(10) As per (8). (11) Not applicable. (12) The answer to this question will be provided in answer to Question on Notice 3372 of 4 April 2006. (13) Not Applicable.
(11) Not applicable. (12) The answer to this question will be provided in answer to Question on Notice 3372 of 4 April 2006. (13) Not Applicable.
(12) The answer to this question will be provided in answer to Question on Notice 3372 of 4 April 2006. (13) Not Applicable.
(13) 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.