❓ A WA parliamentary question on notice regarding alleged breaches of tenement conditions by KCGM and Hancock Prospecting, focusing on clearing activities, prior approvals, and penalties. It seeks clarification on the DMP's enforcement actions and rationale behind penalties.
AnsweredQoN 2802Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
With reference to photographs taken on 21 January 2010, of 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 titled, ‘KCGM Mining Proposal and Works Approval Application’, questions on notice No. 2589 of 30 June 2010,and No. 5970 of 27 February 2008, a media statement dated 13 November 2007 titled ‘Minister tells mining companies to clean up their act’, and a media statement dated 13 July 2010 titled ‘environmental enforcement and compliance penalties reviewed’, I ask -
(1) Will the Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP) initiate forfeiture action on General Purpose Leases 26/165 and G 26/166 for failing to abide by tenement conditions?
(2) If no to (2), why not?
(3) Given that the Minister has stated that ‘exploration and clearing activities’ were carried out in September 2009 without the necessary prior approvals, will the DMP initiate forfeiture action on Prospecting Licences P26/2373 and P26/2790?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) Can the Minister explain the rationale and differences as to how forfeiture action is initiated by the DMP in relation to a General Purpose lease as opposed to a Prospecting Licence?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
(7) What is the maximum cumulative monetary penalty that can be imposed by the Minister for a breach of the tenement conditions concerning G26/165 and G26/166?
(8) What is the maximum monetary penalty that can be imposed for a breach of tenement conditions on Prospecting Licence 26/2790 and 26/2373 for each of the tenement conditions?
(9) Can the Minister describe what specific type of machinery and equipment was used in September 2009 by KGGM contractors/employees to carry out ‘exploration and clearing activities’?
(10) If no to (10), why not?
(11) Can the Minister state the duration over how many days and hours approximately that ‘exploration and clearing’ activities took place on G26/165, G26/166, P26/2790, P26/2373 and areas of land which did not have granted mining tenure?
(12) If no to (11), why not?
(13) Does the DMP regard the breaches of tenement conditions by KCGM on G26/165 and G26/166 as being extremely serious given that KCGM in a very similar manner were previously fined $57 500 in 1995 for a breach of tenement conditions in failing to obtain the prior written permission of the DMP for clearing and construction activities on the Fimiston 2 tailings dam?
(14) If no to (13), why not?
(15) Does the DMP regard the breaches of tenement conditions by KCGM on P26/2790 and P26/2373 as being extremely serious?
(16) If yes to (15), -
(a) to what extent; and
(b) why?
(17) If no to (15), why not?
(18) Given that the Minister has stated in part for question on notice No. 2589 of 30 June 2010 that ‘none of the other mining tenements mentioned were granted until early October 2009’, does the DMP regard ‘exploration and clearing activities’ being undertaken by KCGM employees/contractors on unallocated crown land without any form of granted mining tenure as being extremely serious?
(19) If no to (18), why not?
(20) If yes to (18), -
(a) why; and
(b) what action if any, does the DMP intend to take on this matter?
(21) With reference to the media release dated 13 November 2007 referred to above, in relation to the monetary penalty of $20 000 imposed on Hancock Prospecting, did the company have a prior history of breaching tenement conditions as in the case of KCGM?
(22) If no to (21), can the Minister explain the rationale as to how the fine of $20 000 was calculated?
(23) If yes to (21), can the minister quote the tenement number and specific text of the conditions that were previously breached by Hancock Prospecting?
(24) With reference to the media release dated 13 November 2007 referred to above, in relation to the monetary penalty of $71 500 imposed on Golden West Resources, did the company have a prior history of breaching tenement conditions as in the case of KCGM?
(25) If no to (24), can the Minister explain the rationale as to how the fine of $71 500 was calculated and determined?
(26) If yes to (24), can the minister quote the tenement number and specific text of the conditions that were previously breached by Golden West Resources?
(1) Will the Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP) initiate forfeiture action on General Purpose Leases 26/165 and G 26/166 for failing to abide by tenement conditions?
(2) If no to (2), why not?
(3) Given that the Minister has stated that ‘exploration and clearing activities’ were carried out in September 2009 without the necessary prior approvals, will the DMP initiate forfeiture action on Prospecting Licences P26/2373 and P26/2790?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) Can the Minister explain the rationale and differences as to how forfeiture action is initiated by the DMP in relation to a General Purpose lease as opposed to a Prospecting Licence?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
(7) What is the maximum cumulative monetary penalty that can be imposed by the Minister for a breach of the tenement conditions concerning G26/165 and G26/166?
(8) What is the maximum monetary penalty that can be imposed for a breach of tenement conditions on Prospecting Licence 26/2790 and 26/2373 for each of the tenement conditions?
(9) Can the Minister describe what specific type of machinery and equipment was used in September 2009 by KGGM contractors/employees to carry out ‘exploration and clearing activities’?
(10) If no to (10), why not?
(11) Can the Minister state the duration over how many days and hours approximately that ‘exploration and clearing’ activities took place on G26/165, G26/166, P26/2790, P26/2373 and areas of land which did not have granted mining tenure?
(12) If no to (11), why not?
(13) Does the DMP regard the breaches of tenement conditions by KCGM on G26/165 and G26/166 as being extremely serious given that KCGM in a very similar manner were previously fined $57 500 in 1995 for a breach of tenement conditions in failing to obtain the prior written permission of the DMP for clearing and construction activities on the Fimiston 2 tailings dam?
(14) If no to (13), why not?
(15) Does the DMP regard the breaches of tenement conditions by KCGM on P26/2790 and P26/2373 as being extremely serious?
(16) If yes to (15), -
(a) to what extent; and
(b) why?
(17) If no to (15), why not?
(18) Given that the Minister has stated in part for question on notice No. 2589 of 30 June 2010 that ‘none of the other mining tenements mentioned were granted until early October 2009’, does the DMP regard ‘exploration and clearing activities’ being undertaken by KCGM employees/contractors on unallocated crown land without any form of granted mining tenure as being extremely serious?
(19) If no to (18), why not?
(20) If yes to (18), -
(a) why; and
(b) what action if any, does the DMP intend to take on this matter?
(21) With reference to the media release dated 13 November 2007 referred to above, in relation to the monetary penalty of $20 000 imposed on Hancock Prospecting, did the company have a prior history of breaching tenement conditions as in the case of KCGM?
(22) If no to (21), can the Minister explain the rationale as to how the fine of $20 000 was calculated?
(23) If yes to (21), can the minister quote the tenement number and specific text of the conditions that were previously breached by Hancock Prospecting?
(24) With reference to the media release dated 13 November 2007 referred to above, in relation to the monetary penalty of $71 500 imposed on Golden West Resources, did the company have a prior history of breaching tenement conditions as in the case of KCGM?
(25) If no to (24), can the Minister explain the rationale as to how the fine of $71 500 was calculated and determined?
(26) If yes to (24), can the minister quote the tenement number and specific text of the conditions that were previously breached by Golden West Resources?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
9 November 2010
Responded by
Minister for Mines and Petroleum
Response time
48 days
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.