❓ A WA parliamentary question on notice regarding a works approval issued to KCGM for its Fimiston I tailings dam, focusing on the timing of correspondence, consultation, and potential misleading information provided by KCGM.
AnsweredQoN 2545Legislative 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) Can the Minister state on what day and date the faxed letter was received by the Department?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) Can the Minister state on what day and date the original letter was received by the Department?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) Is it correct that the Chief Executive Officer under section 59 of the
Environmental Protection Act 1986
can revoke or suspend a works approval or licence when information contained in or supporting the application was false or misleading in a material respect?
(6) If no to (5), what are all the specific grounds for revocation or suspension of a works approval?
(7) Can the Minister explain why the Department chose to issue a works approval on Monday, August 15 2005, without consulting with Mr L Mills on proposed works approval licence conditions, to clearly prevent any emissions including seepage to be prevented, controlled and abated within the confines and tenement boundaries of Mining Lease 26/383, which is the tenement that KCGM’s Fimiston I tailings dam is located on?
(8) If no to (7), why not?
(9) Will the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Environment revoke the works approval licence issued to KCGM, given that KCGM has provided misleading information by way of a map figure 2 for its works approval application, purporting to own land as part of the premises under Mining Lease 26/383 which is clearly not owned by KCGM?
(10) If no to (9), why not?
(1) Can the Minister state on what day and date the faxed letter was received by the Department?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) Can the Minister state on what day and date the original letter was received by the Department?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) Is it correct that the Chief Executive Officer under section 59 of the
Environmental Protection Act 1986
can revoke or suspend a works approval or licence when information contained in or supporting the application was false or misleading in a material respect?
(6) If no to (5), what are all the specific grounds for revocation or suspension of a works approval?
(7) Can the Minister explain why the Department chose to issue a works approval on Monday, August 15 2005, without consulting with Mr L Mills on proposed works approval licence conditions, to clearly prevent any emissions including seepage to be prevented, controlled and abated within the confines and tenement boundaries of Mining Lease 26/383, which is the tenement that KCGM’s Fimiston I tailings dam is located on?
(8) If no to (7), why not?
(9) Will the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Environment revoke the works approval licence issued to KCGM, given that KCGM has provided misleading information by way of a map figure 2 for its works approval application, purporting to own land as part of the premises under Mining Lease 26/383 which is clearly not owned by KCGM?
(10) If no to (9), 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) 12 August 2005. (2) Not applicable. (3) 15 August 2005. (4) Not applicable. (5) Yes. (6) Not applicable. (7) In line with the Environmental Protection Regulations 1987 requirements for advertising applications for Works Approvals, the DoE advertised the application in the West Australian Newspaper on 14 March 2005. The 21 day public comment period concluded on 4 April 2005. No submissions were received during the comment period. Any written correspondence received outside that submission period cannot be considered as a formal submission on the application. (8) Not applicable. (9) No. (10) The DoE considered that the material presented with the Works Approval application was not false or misleading in a material way. Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mine (KCGM) clearly listed tenement number M26/383 on their Works Approval application as the tenement on which the Tailings Storage Facility (TSF) is located. In addition, the associated map showed a broken red line to define the 'approximate lease boundary'. As such, the DoE does not consider this issue to be sufficient grounds for revocation or suspension of the Works Approval.
(1) 12 August 2005. (2) Not applicable. (3) 15 August 2005. (4) Not applicable. (5) Yes. (6) Not applicable. (7) In line with the Environmental Protection Regulations 1987 requirements for advertising applications for Works Approvals, the DoE advertised the application in the West Australian Newspaper on 14 March 2005. The 21 day public comment period concluded on 4 April 2005. No submissions were received during the comment period. Any written correspondence received outside that submission period cannot be considered as a formal submission on the application. (8) Not applicable. (9) No. (10) The DoE considered that the material presented with the Works Approval application was not false or misleading in a material way. Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mine (KCGM) clearly listed tenement number M26/383 on their Works Approval application as the tenement on which the Tailings Storage Facility (TSF) is located. In addition, the associated map showed a broken red line to define the 'approximate lease boundary'. As such, the DoE does not consider this issue to be sufficient grounds for revocation or suspension of the Works Approval.
(2) Not applicable. (3) 15 August 2005. (4) Not applicable. (5) Yes. (6) Not applicable. (7) In line with the Environmental Protection Regulations 1987 requirements for advertising applications for Works Approvals, the DoE advertised the application in the West Australian Newspaper on 14 March 2005. The 21 day public comment period concluded on 4 April 2005. No submissions were received during the comment period. Any written correspondence received outside that submission period cannot be considered as a formal submission on the application. (8) Not applicable. (9) No. (10) The DoE considered that the material presented with the Works Approval application was not false or misleading in a material way. Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mine (KCGM) clearly listed tenement number M26/383 on their Works Approval application as the tenement on which the Tailings Storage Facility (TSF) is located. In addition, the associated map showed a broken red line to define the 'approximate lease boundary'. As such, the DoE does not consider this issue to be sufficient grounds for revocation or suspension of the Works Approval.
(3) 15 August 2005. (4) Not applicable. (5) Yes. (6) Not applicable. (7) In line with the Environmental Protection Regulations 1987 requirements for advertising applications for Works Approvals, the DoE advertised the application in the West Australian Newspaper on 14 March 2005. The 21 day public comment period concluded on 4 April 2005. No submissions were received during the comment period. Any written correspondence received outside that submission period cannot be considered as a formal submission on the application. (8) Not applicable. (9) No. (10) The DoE considered that the material presented with the Works Approval application was not false or misleading in a material way. Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mine (KCGM) clearly listed tenement number M26/383 on their Works Approval application as the tenement on which the Tailings Storage Facility (TSF) is located. In addition, the associated map showed a broken red line to define the 'approximate lease boundary'. As such, the DoE does not consider this issue to be sufficient grounds for revocation or suspension of the Works Approval.
(4) Not applicable. (5) Yes. (6) Not applicable. (7) In line with the Environmental Protection Regulations 1987 requirements for advertising applications for Works Approvals, the DoE advertised the application in the West Australian Newspaper on 14 March 2005. The 21 day public comment period concluded on 4 April 2005. No submissions were received during the comment period. Any written correspondence received outside that submission period cannot be considered as a formal submission on the application. (8) Not applicable. (9) No. (10) The DoE considered that the material presented with the Works Approval application was not false or misleading in a material way. Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mine (KCGM) clearly listed tenement number M26/383 on their Works Approval application as the tenement on which the Tailings Storage Facility (TSF) is located. In addition, the associated map showed a broken red line to define the 'approximate lease boundary'. As such, the DoE does not consider this issue to be sufficient grounds for revocation or suspension of the Works Approval.
(5) Yes. (6) Not applicable. (7) In line with the Environmental Protection Regulations 1987 requirements for advertising applications for Works Approvals, the DoE advertised the application in the West Australian Newspaper on 14 March 2005. The 21 day public comment period concluded on 4 April 2005. No submissions were received during the comment period. Any written correspondence received outside that submission period cannot be considered as a formal submission on the application. (8) Not applicable. (9) No. (10) The DoE considered that the material presented with the Works Approval application was not false or misleading in a material way. Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mine (KCGM) clearly listed tenement number M26/383 on their Works Approval application as the tenement on which the Tailings Storage Facility (TSF) is located. In addition, the associated map showed a broken red line to define the 'approximate lease boundary'. As such, the DoE does not consider this issue to be sufficient grounds for revocation or suspension of the Works Approval.
(6) Not applicable. (7) In line with the Environmental Protection Regulations 1987 requirements for advertising applications for Works Approvals, the DoE advertised the application in the West Australian Newspaper on 14 March 2005. The 21 day public comment period concluded on 4 April 2005. No submissions were received during the comment period. Any written correspondence received outside that submission period cannot be considered as a formal submission on the application. (8) Not applicable. (9) No. (10) The DoE considered that the material presented with the Works Approval application was not false or misleading in a material way. Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mine (KCGM) clearly listed tenement number M26/383 on their Works Approval application as the tenement on which the Tailings Storage Facility (TSF) is located. In addition, the associated map showed a broken red line to define the 'approximate lease boundary'. As such, the DoE does not consider this issue to be sufficient grounds for revocation or suspension of the Works Approval.
(7) In line with the Environmental Protection Regulations 1987 requirements for advertising applications for Works Approvals, the DoE advertised the application in the West Australian Newspaper on 14 March 2005. The 21 day public comment period concluded on 4 April 2005. No submissions were received during the comment period. Any written correspondence received outside that submission period cannot be considered as a formal submission on the application. (8) Not applicable. (9) No. (10) The DoE considered that the material presented with the Works Approval application was not false or misleading in a material way. Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mine (KCGM) clearly listed tenement number M26/383 on their Works Approval application as the tenement on which the Tailings Storage Facility (TSF) is located. In addition, the associated map showed a broken red line to define the 'approximate lease boundary'. As such, the DoE does not consider this issue to be sufficient grounds for revocation or suspension of the Works Approval.
(8) Not applicable. (9) No. (10) The DoE considered that the material presented with the Works Approval application was not false or misleading in a material way. Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mine (KCGM) clearly listed tenement number M26/383 on their Works Approval application as the tenement on which the Tailings Storage Facility (TSF) is located. In addition, the associated map showed a broken red line to define the 'approximate lease boundary'. As such, the DoE does not consider this issue to be sufficient grounds for revocation or suspension of the Works Approval.
(9) No. (10) The DoE considered that the material presented with the Works Approval application was not false or misleading in a material way. Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mine (KCGM) clearly listed tenement number M26/383 on their Works Approval application as the tenement on which the Tailings Storage Facility (TSF) is located. In addition, the associated map showed a broken red line to define the 'approximate lease boundary'. As such, the DoE does not consider this issue to be sufficient grounds for revocation or suspension of the Works Approval.
(10) The DoE considered that the material presented with the Works Approval application was not false or misleading in a material way. Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mine (KCGM) clearly listed tenement number M26/383 on their Works Approval application as the tenement on which the Tailings Storage Facility (TSF) is located. In addition, the associated map showed a broken red line to define the 'approximate lease boundary'. As such, the DoE does not consider this issue to be sufficient grounds for revocation or suspension of the Works Approval.
(1) 12 August 2005. (2) Not applicable. (3) 15 August 2005. (4) Not applicable. (5) Yes. (6) Not applicable. (7) In line with the Environmental Protection Regulations 1987 requirements for advertising applications for Works Approvals, the DoE advertised the application in the West Australian Newspaper on 14 March 2005. The 21 day public comment period concluded on 4 April 2005. No submissions were received during the comment period. Any written correspondence received outside that submission period cannot be considered as a formal submission on the application. (8) Not applicable. (9) No. (10) The DoE considered that the material presented with the Works Approval application was not false or misleading in a material way. Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mine (KCGM) clearly listed tenement number M26/383 on their Works Approval application as the tenement on which the Tailings Storage Facility (TSF) is located. In addition, the associated map showed a broken red line to define the 'approximate lease boundary'. As such, the DoE does not consider this issue to be sufficient grounds for revocation or suspension of the Works Approval.
(2) Not applicable. (3) 15 August 2005. (4) Not applicable. (5) Yes. (6) Not applicable. (7) In line with the Environmental Protection Regulations 1987 requirements for advertising applications for Works Approvals, the DoE advertised the application in the West Australian Newspaper on 14 March 2005. The 21 day public comment period concluded on 4 April 2005. No submissions were received during the comment period. Any written correspondence received outside that submission period cannot be considered as a formal submission on the application. (8) Not applicable. (9) No. (10) The DoE considered that the material presented with the Works Approval application was not false or misleading in a material way. Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mine (KCGM) clearly listed tenement number M26/383 on their Works Approval application as the tenement on which the Tailings Storage Facility (TSF) is located. In addition, the associated map showed a broken red line to define the 'approximate lease boundary'. As such, the DoE does not consider this issue to be sufficient grounds for revocation or suspension of the Works Approval.
(3) 15 August 2005. (4) Not applicable. (5) Yes. (6) Not applicable. (7) In line with the Environmental Protection Regulations 1987 requirements for advertising applications for Works Approvals, the DoE advertised the application in the West Australian Newspaper on 14 March 2005. The 21 day public comment period concluded on 4 April 2005. No submissions were received during the comment period. Any written correspondence received outside that submission period cannot be considered as a formal submission on the application. (8) Not applicable. (9) No. (10) The DoE considered that the material presented with the Works Approval application was not false or misleading in a material way. Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mine (KCGM) clearly listed tenement number M26/383 on their Works Approval application as the tenement on which the Tailings Storage Facility (TSF) is located. In addition, the associated map showed a broken red line to define the 'approximate lease boundary'. As such, the DoE does not consider this issue to be sufficient grounds for revocation or suspension of the Works Approval.
(4) Not applicable. (5) Yes. (6) Not applicable. (7) In line with the Environmental Protection Regulations 1987 requirements for advertising applications for Works Approvals, the DoE advertised the application in the West Australian Newspaper on 14 March 2005. The 21 day public comment period concluded on 4 April 2005. No submissions were received during the comment period. Any written correspondence received outside that submission period cannot be considered as a formal submission on the application. (8) Not applicable. (9) No. (10) The DoE considered that the material presented with the Works Approval application was not false or misleading in a material way. Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mine (KCGM) clearly listed tenement number M26/383 on their Works Approval application as the tenement on which the Tailings Storage Facility (TSF) is located. In addition, the associated map showed a broken red line to define the 'approximate lease boundary'. As such, the DoE does not consider this issue to be sufficient grounds for revocation or suspension of the Works Approval.
(5) Yes. (6) Not applicable. (7) In line with the Environmental Protection Regulations 1987 requirements for advertising applications for Works Approvals, the DoE advertised the application in the West Australian Newspaper on 14 March 2005. The 21 day public comment period concluded on 4 April 2005. No submissions were received during the comment period. Any written correspondence received outside that submission period cannot be considered as a formal submission on the application. (8) Not applicable. (9) No. (10) The DoE considered that the material presented with the Works Approval application was not false or misleading in a material way. Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mine (KCGM) clearly listed tenement number M26/383 on their Works Approval application as the tenement on which the Tailings Storage Facility (TSF) is located. In addition, the associated map showed a broken red line to define the 'approximate lease boundary'. As such, the DoE does not consider this issue to be sufficient grounds for revocation or suspension of the Works Approval.
(6) Not applicable. (7) In line with the Environmental Protection Regulations 1987 requirements for advertising applications for Works Approvals, the DoE advertised the application in the West Australian Newspaper on 14 March 2005. The 21 day public comment period concluded on 4 April 2005. No submissions were received during the comment period. Any written correspondence received outside that submission period cannot be considered as a formal submission on the application. (8) Not applicable. (9) No. (10) The DoE considered that the material presented with the Works Approval application was not false or misleading in a material way. Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mine (KCGM) clearly listed tenement number M26/383 on their Works Approval application as the tenement on which the Tailings Storage Facility (TSF) is located. In addition, the associated map showed a broken red line to define the 'approximate lease boundary'. As such, the DoE does not consider this issue to be sufficient grounds for revocation or suspension of the Works Approval.
(7) In line with the Environmental Protection Regulations 1987 requirements for advertising applications for Works Approvals, the DoE advertised the application in the West Australian Newspaper on 14 March 2005. The 21 day public comment period concluded on 4 April 2005. No submissions were received during the comment period. Any written correspondence received outside that submission period cannot be considered as a formal submission on the application. (8) Not applicable. (9) No. (10) The DoE considered that the material presented with the Works Approval application was not false or misleading in a material way. Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mine (KCGM) clearly listed tenement number M26/383 on their Works Approval application as the tenement on which the Tailings Storage Facility (TSF) is located. In addition, the associated map showed a broken red line to define the 'approximate lease boundary'. As such, the DoE does not consider this issue to be sufficient grounds for revocation or suspension of the Works Approval.
(8) Not applicable. (9) No. (10) The DoE considered that the material presented with the Works Approval application was not false or misleading in a material way. Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mine (KCGM) clearly listed tenement number M26/383 on their Works Approval application as the tenement on which the Tailings Storage Facility (TSF) is located. In addition, the associated map showed a broken red line to define the 'approximate lease boundary'. As such, the DoE does not consider this issue to be sufficient grounds for revocation or suspension of the Works Approval.
(9) No. (10) The DoE considered that the material presented with the Works Approval application was not false or misleading in a material way. Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mine (KCGM) clearly listed tenement number M26/383 on their Works Approval application as the tenement on which the Tailings Storage Facility (TSF) is located. In addition, the associated map showed a broken red line to define the 'approximate lease boundary'. As such, the DoE does not consider this issue to be sufficient grounds for revocation or suspension of the Works Approval.
(10) The DoE considered that the material presented with the Works Approval application was not false or misleading in a material way. Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mine (KCGM) clearly listed tenement number M26/383 on their Works Approval application as the tenement on which the Tailings Storage Facility (TSF) is located. In addition, the associated map showed a broken red line to define the 'approximate lease boundary'. As such, the DoE does not consider this issue to be sufficient grounds for revocation or suspension of the Works Approval.
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.