❓ A WA parliamentary question on notice addresses mining operations in Ludlow State Forest. The Minister confirms consent was granted, conditions were set, and documentation was tabled.
AnsweredQoN 582Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
With regard to the proposed mining in the Ludlow state forest on tenement M70/86, I ask - (1) Has the minister granted express consent to undertake mining operations on this tenement as set out in section 24(6)(a) of the Mining Act 1978; and, if so, when was this consent given? (2) Will the minister table written copies of any such consent given? (3) If not, why not? (4) Will the minister table copies of any terms or conditions issued with this consent, and advise what due diligence was carried out in issuing this consent? (5) If not, why not? (6) If no to (1), will the minister specifically refuse his consent to mine on the grounds that the state forest in question is too valuable to be subject to mining? (7) If not, why not? Hon KEN TRAVERS
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. Consent was given on 17 August 2004. (2) Yes. See the attached copy of conditions referred to, which I now table. (3) Not applicable. (4) Yes. See (2) above. (5) Not applicable. (6)-(7) See (1) above. [See paper No 2456.]
(1) Has the minister granted express consent to undertake mining operations on this tenement as set out in section 24(6)(a) of the Mining Act 1978; and, if so, when was this consent given? (2) Will the minister table written copies of any such consent given? (3) If not, why not? (4) Will the minister table copies of any terms or conditions issued with this consent, and advise what due diligence was carried out in issuing this consent? (5) If not, why not? (6) If no to (1), will the minister specifically refuse his consent to mine on the grounds that the state forest in question is too valuable to be subject to mining? (7) If not, why not? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. Consent was given on 17 August 2004. (2) Yes. See the attached copy of conditions referred to, which I now table. (3) Not applicable. (4) Yes. See (2) above. (5) Not applicable. (6)-(7) See (1) above. [See paper No 2456.]
(2) Will the minister table written copies of any such consent given? (3) If not, why not? (4) Will the minister table copies of any terms or conditions issued with this consent, and advise what due diligence was carried out in issuing this consent? (5) If not, why not? (6) If no to (1), will the minister specifically refuse his consent to mine on the grounds that the state forest in question is too valuable to be subject to mining? (7) If not, why not? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. Consent was given on 17 August 2004. (2) Yes. See the attached copy of conditions referred to, which I now table. (3) Not applicable. (4) Yes. See (2) above. (5) Not applicable. (6)-(7) See (1) above. [See paper No 2456.]
(3) If not, why not? (4) Will the minister table copies of any terms or conditions issued with this consent, and advise what due diligence was carried out in issuing this consent? (5) If not, why not? (6) If no to (1), will the minister specifically refuse his consent to mine on the grounds that the state forest in question is too valuable to be subject to mining? (7) If not, why not? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. Consent was given on 17 August 2004. (2) Yes. See the attached copy of conditions referred to, which I now table. (3) Not applicable. (4) Yes. See (2) above. (5) Not applicable. (6)-(7) See (1) above. [See paper No 2456.]
(4) Will the minister table copies of any terms or conditions issued with this consent, and advise what due diligence was carried out in issuing this consent? (5) If not, why not? (6) If no to (1), will the minister specifically refuse his consent to mine on the grounds that the state forest in question is too valuable to be subject to mining? (7) If not, why not? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. Consent was given on 17 August 2004. (2) Yes. See the attached copy of conditions referred to, which I now table. (3) Not applicable. (4) Yes. See (2) above. (5) Not applicable. (6)-(7) See (1) above. [See paper No 2456.]
(5) If not, why not? (6) If no to (1), will the minister specifically refuse his consent to mine on the grounds that the state forest in question is too valuable to be subject to mining? (7) If not, why not? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. Consent was given on 17 August 2004. (2) Yes. See the attached copy of conditions referred to, which I now table. (3) Not applicable. (4) Yes. See (2) above. (5) Not applicable. (6)-(7) See (1) above. [See paper No 2456.]
(6) If no to (1), will the minister specifically refuse his consent to mine on the grounds that the state forest in question is too valuable to be subject to mining? (7) If not, why not? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. Consent was given on 17 August 2004. (2) Yes. See the attached copy of conditions referred to, which I now table. (3) Not applicable. (4) Yes. See (2) above. (5) Not applicable. (6)-(7) See (1) above. [See paper No 2456.]
(7) If not, why not? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. Consent was given on 17 August 2004. (2) Yes. See the attached copy of conditions referred to, which I now table. (3) Not applicable. (4) Yes. See (2) above. (5) Not applicable. (6)-(7) See (1) above. [See paper No 2456.]
Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. Consent was given on 17 August 2004. (2) Yes. See the attached copy of conditions referred to, which I now table. (3) Not applicable. (4) Yes. See (2) above. (5) Not applicable. (6)-(7) See (1) above. [See paper No 2456.]
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. Consent was given on 17 August 2004. (2) Yes. See the attached copy of conditions referred to, which I now table. (3) Not applicable. (4) Yes. See (2) above. (5) Not applicable. (6)-(7) See (1) above. [See paper No 2456.]
(1) Yes. Consent was given on 17 August 2004. (2) Yes. See the attached copy of conditions referred to, which I now table. (3) Not applicable. (4) Yes. See (2) above. (5) Not applicable. (6)-(7) See (1) above. [See paper No 2456.]
(2) Yes. See the attached copy of conditions referred to, which I now table. (3) Not applicable. (4) Yes. See (2) above. (5) Not applicable. (6)-(7) See (1) above. [See paper No 2456.]
(3) Not applicable. (4) Yes. See (2) above. (5) Not applicable. (6)-(7) See (1) above. [See paper No 2456.]
(4) Yes. See (2) above. (5) Not applicable. (6)-(7) See (1) above. [See paper No 2456.]
(5) Not applicable. (6)-(7) See (1) above. [See paper No 2456.]
(6)-(7) See (1) above. [See paper No 2456.]
[See paper No 2456.]
(1) Has the minister granted express consent to undertake mining operations on this tenement as set out in section 24(6)(a) of the Mining Act 1978; and, if so, when was this consent given? (2) Will the minister table written copies of any such consent given? (3) If not, why not? (4) Will the minister table copies of any terms or conditions issued with this consent, and advise what due diligence was carried out in issuing this consent? (5) If not, why not? (6) If no to (1), will the minister specifically refuse his consent to mine on the grounds that the state forest in question is too valuable to be subject to mining? (7) If not, why not? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. Consent was given on 17 August 2004. (2) Yes. See the attached copy of conditions referred to, which I now table. (3) Not applicable. (4) Yes. See (2) above. (5) Not applicable. (6)-(7) See (1) above. [See paper No 2456.]
(2) Will the minister table written copies of any such consent given? (3) If not, why not? (4) Will the minister table copies of any terms or conditions issued with this consent, and advise what due diligence was carried out in issuing this consent? (5) If not, why not? (6) If no to (1), will the minister specifically refuse his consent to mine on the grounds that the state forest in question is too valuable to be subject to mining? (7) If not, why not? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. Consent was given on 17 August 2004. (2) Yes. See the attached copy of conditions referred to, which I now table. (3) Not applicable. (4) Yes. See (2) above. (5) Not applicable. (6)-(7) See (1) above. [See paper No 2456.]
(3) If not, why not? (4) Will the minister table copies of any terms or conditions issued with this consent, and advise what due diligence was carried out in issuing this consent? (5) If not, why not? (6) If no to (1), will the minister specifically refuse his consent to mine on the grounds that the state forest in question is too valuable to be subject to mining? (7) If not, why not? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. Consent was given on 17 August 2004. (2) Yes. See the attached copy of conditions referred to, which I now table. (3) Not applicable. (4) Yes. See (2) above. (5) Not applicable. (6)-(7) See (1) above. [See paper No 2456.]
(4) Will the minister table copies of any terms or conditions issued with this consent, and advise what due diligence was carried out in issuing this consent? (5) If not, why not? (6) If no to (1), will the minister specifically refuse his consent to mine on the grounds that the state forest in question is too valuable to be subject to mining? (7) If not, why not? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. Consent was given on 17 August 2004. (2) Yes. See the attached copy of conditions referred to, which I now table. (3) Not applicable. (4) Yes. See (2) above. (5) Not applicable. (6)-(7) See (1) above. [See paper No 2456.]
(5) If not, why not? (6) If no to (1), will the minister specifically refuse his consent to mine on the grounds that the state forest in question is too valuable to be subject to mining? (7) If not, why not? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. Consent was given on 17 August 2004. (2) Yes. See the attached copy of conditions referred to, which I now table. (3) Not applicable. (4) Yes. See (2) above. (5) Not applicable. (6)-(7) See (1) above. [See paper No 2456.]
(6) If no to (1), will the minister specifically refuse his consent to mine on the grounds that the state forest in question is too valuable to be subject to mining? (7) If not, why not? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. Consent was given on 17 August 2004. (2) Yes. See the attached copy of conditions referred to, which I now table. (3) Not applicable. (4) Yes. See (2) above. (5) Not applicable. (6)-(7) See (1) above. [See paper No 2456.]
(7) If not, why not? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. Consent was given on 17 August 2004. (2) Yes. See the attached copy of conditions referred to, which I now table. (3) Not applicable. (4) Yes. See (2) above. (5) Not applicable. (6)-(7) See (1) above. [See paper No 2456.]
Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. Consent was given on 17 August 2004. (2) Yes. See the attached copy of conditions referred to, which I now table. (3) Not applicable. (4) Yes. See (2) above. (5) Not applicable. (6)-(7) See (1) above. [See paper No 2456.]
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. Consent was given on 17 August 2004. (2) Yes. See the attached copy of conditions referred to, which I now table. (3) Not applicable. (4) Yes. See (2) above. (5) Not applicable. (6)-(7) See (1) above. [See paper No 2456.]
(1) Yes. Consent was given on 17 August 2004. (2) Yes. See the attached copy of conditions referred to, which I now table. (3) Not applicable. (4) Yes. See (2) above. (5) Not applicable. (6)-(7) See (1) above. [See paper No 2456.]
(2) Yes. See the attached copy of conditions referred to, which I now table. (3) Not applicable. (4) Yes. See (2) above. (5) Not applicable. (6)-(7) See (1) above. [See paper No 2456.]
(3) Not applicable. (4) Yes. See (2) above. (5) Not applicable. (6)-(7) See (1) above. [See paper No 2456.]
(4) Yes. See (2) above. (5) Not applicable. (6)-(7) See (1) above. [See paper No 2456.]
(5) Not applicable. (6)-(7) See (1) above. [See paper No 2456.]
(6)-(7) See (1) above. [See paper No 2456.]
[See paper No 2456.]
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.