❓ Hon Robin Scott questions the Minister for Mines and Petroleum regarding a fine imposed for breaches on mining lease 26/499, seeking specific details about the breaches and justification for the penalty over a warning. The Minister was unable to provide the information in the time required.
AnsweredQoN 182Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
MINING LEASE 26/499 —
BREACH
182. Hon ROBIN SCOTT to the minister representing the
Minister for Mines and Petroleum:
I refer to mining lease 26/499 and a
fine of $19 000 imposed on 17 February 2016 for a breach of conditions 2, 3 and
4 pursuant to section 82(1) of the Mining Act 1978. I note that the forfeitures
officer's letter described the breach as including drill collars that
had not been securely plugged below ground, open sumps, green sample bags left
on the ground and drilling waste.
(1) How many
drill collars were unplugged, how many sumps were open, how many green sample
bags were on the ground and what was the quantity of drilling waste?
(2) Will the
minister table relevant photographs and the diary notes of the inspecting
Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety environmental officers?
(3) Given that a mining
proposal was granted and plans were being made to commence an open-cut mining
operation, why was a penalty imposed instead of resolving the matter with a warning
letter?
BREACH
182. Hon ROBIN SCOTT to the minister representing the
Minister for Mines and Petroleum:
I refer to mining lease 26/499 and a
fine of $19 000 imposed on 17 February 2016 for a breach of conditions 2, 3 and
4 pursuant to section 82(1) of the Mining Act 1978. I note that the forfeitures
officer's letter described the breach as including drill collars that
had not been securely plugged below ground, open sumps, green sample bags left
on the ground and drilling waste.
(1) How many
drill collars were unplugged, how many sumps were open, how many green sample
bags were on the ground and what was the quantity of drilling waste?
(2) Will the
minister table relevant photographs and the diary notes of the inspecting
Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety environmental officers?
(3) Given that a mining
proposal was granted and plans were being made to commence an open-cut mining
operation, why was a penalty imposed instead of resolving the matter with a warning
letter?
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for the question.
The Minister for Mines and Petroleum
has advised that it is not possible to provide the detailed information
requested in the time required. I therefore ask the honourable member to place
the question on notice.
The Minister for Mines and Petroleum
has advised that it is not possible to provide the detailed information
requested in the time required. I therefore ask the honourable member to place
the question on notice.
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.