❓ Hon Robin Chapple questions the DMP's advice regarding Hawthorn Resources' clearing impacts on Pinjin Station, specifically concerning compliance with Section 20(5) of the Mining Act. The Minister acknowledges incorrect advice was given regarding breach provisions.
AnsweredQoN 1417Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP) specific
advice given to the Appeals Convenor and Minister for the Environment report/decision dated January 2016, concerning potential clearing impacts of dust,
noise being generated from Hawthorn Resources about the proximity of clearing
in relation to the homestead and amenity impacts on Pinjin Station well before
the Mining proposal was lodged with the department seeking approval with a
document dated 26 November 2015, and I ask: (a) in its advice to the Appeals Convenor is it correct that the DMP acknowledged
that the approved clearing footprint included the Pinjin Homestead and
associated infrastructure; (b) if
no to (a), what is specifically correct in relation to this advice provided to
the Appeals Convenor and Minister for the Environment; (c) is
it correct that the Appeals Convenor report in part states ‘Additionally DMP
advised that the applicant is required to comply with section (20)(5) of the
Mining Act and that any non compliance will be deemed a breach of condition
which may result in a penalty being imposed or the tenement forfeited’; (d) if
no to (c), can the Minister quote the specific text of what was in the Appeals
Convenor report/decision; (e) can
the Minister explain how a penalty can be imposed or the tenement be forfeited
for a failure to comply with section 20(5) of the Mining Act 1978 ; and (f) if no to (e), why not?
advice given to the Appeals Convenor and Minister for the Environment report/decision dated January 2016, concerning potential clearing impacts of dust,
noise being generated from Hawthorn Resources about the proximity of clearing
in relation to the homestead and amenity impacts on Pinjin Station well before
the Mining proposal was lodged with the department seeking approval with a
document dated 26 November 2015, and I ask: (a) in its advice to the Appeals Convenor is it correct that the DMP acknowledged
that the approved clearing footprint included the Pinjin Homestead and
associated infrastructure; (b) if
no to (a), what is specifically correct in relation to this advice provided to
the Appeals Convenor and Minister for the Environment; (c) is
it correct that the Appeals Convenor report in part states ‘Additionally DMP
advised that the applicant is required to comply with section (20)(5) of the
Mining Act and that any non compliance will be deemed a breach of condition
which may result in a penalty being imposed or the tenement forfeited’; (d) if
no to (c), can the Minister quote the specific text of what was in the Appeals
Convenor report/decision; (e) can
the Minister explain how a penalty can be imposed or the tenement be forfeited
for a failure to comply with section 20(5) of the Mining Act 1978 ; and (f) if no to (e), why not?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
29 August 2018
Responded by
Minister for Regional Development representing the Minister for Mines and Petroleum
Response time
10 days
(a) Yes
(b) Not applicable
(c) Yes
(d) Not applicable
(e) The advice previously provided by the Department of Mines and Petroleum to the Appeals Convenor was incorrect. Section 20(5) of the Mining Act does not include any breach provisions, and hence cannot be considered a breach of tenement conditions. While it is the case the failure to comply with section 20(5) may constitute an offence under other sections of the Mining Act, which can result in penalties being imposed, Section 20(5) of the Mining Act does not link to the tenement condition breach provisions within the Act, and hence cannot be in itself considered a breach of tenement conditions.
(f) Not applicable
(b) Not applicable
(c) Yes
(d) Not applicable
(e) The advice previously provided by the Department of Mines and Petroleum to the Appeals Convenor was incorrect. Section 20(5) of the Mining Act does not include any breach provisions, and hence cannot be considered a breach of tenement conditions. While it is the case the failure to comply with section 20(5) may constitute an offence under other sections of the Mining Act, which can result in penalties being imposed, Section 20(5) of the Mining Act does not link to the tenement condition breach provisions within the Act, and hence cannot be in itself considered a breach of tenement conditions.
(f) 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.