❓ Hon Paul Llewellyn questions the Minister for State Development regarding KCGM's activities near a residence, specifically concerning consent requirements under section 20(5). The Minister's response details the department's investigation progress and commitment to balancing resident concerns with existing mining operations.
AnsweredQoN 2542Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to a letter of complaint dated January 5 2005, addressed to the Minister for State Development from a resident requesting urgent regulatory enforcement action from the Department of Industry and Resources (DOIR), in relation to section 20(5) requiring written consent for concrete shed/fencing known as KCGM Williamstown switchboard, large gates and fencing constructed across haul road used by employees, contractors, dust monitoring equipment/installation, maintenance with equipment and usage of road not the haul road (constructed within fencing of conveyor belt) all within 100 metres of 5 Cahill Road, Kalgoorlie -
(1) Will DOIR direct or request that KCGM cease usage and discontinuance of the concrete shed/fencing known as the KCGM Williamstown switchboard, given that the occupier has not given written consent as is required under section 20(5) for the usage?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) Will DOIR direct or request that KCGM cease usage and discontinuance of the large gates and fencing constructed across haul road, used by employees, contractors all times of the day/night, given that the occupier has not given written consent as is required under section 20(5)?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(1) Will DOIR direct or request that KCGM cease usage and discontinuance of the concrete shed/fencing known as the KCGM Williamstown switchboard, given that the occupier has not given written consent as is required under section 20(5) for the usage?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) Will DOIR direct or request that KCGM cease usage and discontinuance of the large gates and fencing constructed across haul road, used by employees, contractors all times of the day/night, given that the occupier has not given written consent as is required under section 20(5)?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
20 September 2005
Responded by
Leader of the House representing the Minister for State Development
Response time
26 days
· On 3 February 2005 DoIR wrote to the resident with a view to arranging a meeting between him and a DoIR officer (at a mutually convenient time and venue) in order to discuss all pertinent issues; · On 20 March 2005 the resident and two other local residents met with a DoIR officer at the resident's house for a two-hour meeting; · On 14 April 2005 this officer's detailed report on the issues discussed at the meeting (accompanied by photographs and other relevant documentation) was received by DoIR's Perth office; · Acting on information contained in this report, DoIR in the following weeks held discussions with relevant KCGM personnel in order to clarify certain matters relating to the resident's complaint; · on 17 May 2005 DoIR sought advice from the State Solicitor's Office (SSO) concerning several associated legal issues; · on 3 June 2005 DoIR wrote to the resident to inform him of the progress made to date in DoIR's investigation; · on 21 June 2005 DoIR received a detailed response from the SSO and, after carefully considering the advice, DoIR on 15 August 2005 wrote to KCGM to request its formal response to the allegations made by the resident against the company; and · also on the 15 August 2005, DoIR again wrote to the resident to inform him of the current situation in this matter. Upon receipt of KCGM's response DoIR will be in a position to finalise its investigation and take any action considered appropriate and necessary in all the circumstances of this case. Any action taken will be consistent with my predecessor's statement to Parliament on 28 November 2004, part of which is quoted below:- "The interpretation of section 20(5) by the State Counsel raises the vexed question of what approach should be taken towards existing mining and mining activities that fall within 100 metres of occupied land. In my view, the public interest is not served by the Government seeking to retrospectively apply a new interpretation of legislation to past events and activities. Having said that, every endeavour should be made to apply the law as it is now understood. To this end, I note the KCGM offer to make practical changes to reduce the impact of activities within 100 metres of occupied land. I have asked the Department of Industry and Resources to work with KCGM and liaise with local residents to provide a report on the mining and ancillary operations that will need to be carried out within 100 metres of occupied land in the next two years, and to place that report before adjoining residents for written approval or rejection. It is acknowledged that this process could well result in an impasse being reached in which KCGM has to carry out certain activity as an unavoidable part of its operations even when it is unable to obtain adjoining residents' consent. If such a dilemma arises, the Government will need to resolve it in the broad public interest."
· On 20 March 2005 the resident and two other local residents met with a DoIR officer at the resident's house for a two-hour meeting; · On 14 April 2005 this officer's detailed report on the issues discussed at the meeting (accompanied by photographs and other relevant documentation) was received by DoIR's Perth office; · Acting on information contained in this report, DoIR in the following weeks held discussions with relevant KCGM personnel in order to clarify certain matters relating to the resident's complaint; · on 17 May 2005 DoIR sought advice from the State Solicitor's Office (SSO) concerning several associated legal issues; · on 3 June 2005 DoIR wrote to the resident to inform him of the progress made to date in DoIR's investigation; · on 21 June 2005 DoIR received a detailed response from the SSO and, after carefully considering the advice, DoIR on 15 August 2005 wrote to KCGM to request its formal response to the allegations made by the resident against the company; and · also on the 15 August 2005, DoIR again wrote to the resident to inform him of the current situation in this matter. Upon receipt of KCGM's response DoIR will be in a position to finalise its investigation and take any action considered appropriate and necessary in all the circumstances of this case. Any action taken will be consistent with my predecessor's statement to Parliament on 28 November 2004, part of which is quoted below:- "The interpretation of section 20(5) by the State Counsel raises the vexed question of what approach should be taken towards existing mining and mining activities that fall within 100 metres of occupied land. In my view, the public interest is not served by the Government seeking to retrospectively apply a new interpretation of legislation to past events and activities. Having said that, every endeavour should be made to apply the law as it is now understood. To this end, I note the KCGM offer to make practical changes to reduce the impact of activities within 100 metres of occupied land. I have asked the Department of Industry and Resources to work with KCGM and liaise with local residents to provide a report on the mining and ancillary operations that will need to be carried out within 100 metres of occupied land in the next two years, and to place that report before adjoining residents for written approval or rejection. It is acknowledged that this process could well result in an impasse being reached in which KCGM has to carry out certain activity as an unavoidable part of its operations even when it is unable to obtain adjoining residents' consent. If such a dilemma arises, the Government will need to resolve it in the broad public interest."
· On 14 April 2005 this officer's detailed report on the issues discussed at the meeting (accompanied by photographs and other relevant documentation) was received by DoIR's Perth office; · Acting on information contained in this report, DoIR in the following weeks held discussions with relevant KCGM personnel in order to clarify certain matters relating to the resident's complaint; · on 17 May 2005 DoIR sought advice from the State Solicitor's Office (SSO) concerning several associated legal issues; · on 3 June 2005 DoIR wrote to the resident to inform him of the progress made to date in DoIR's investigation; · on 21 June 2005 DoIR received a detailed response from the SSO and, after carefully considering the advice, DoIR on 15 August 2005 wrote to KCGM to request its formal response to the allegations made by the resident against the company; and · also on the 15 August 2005, DoIR again wrote to the resident to inform him of the current situation in this matter. Upon receipt of KCGM's response DoIR will be in a position to finalise its investigation and take any action considered appropriate and necessary in all the circumstances of this case. Any action taken will be consistent with my predecessor's statement to Parliament on 28 November 2004, part of which is quoted below:- "The interpretation of section 20(5) by the State Counsel raises the vexed question of what approach should be taken towards existing mining and mining activities that fall within 100 metres of occupied land. In my view, the public interest is not served by the Government seeking to retrospectively apply a new interpretation of legislation to past events and activities. Having said that, every endeavour should be made to apply the law as it is now understood. To this end, I note the KCGM offer to make practical changes to reduce the impact of activities within 100 metres of occupied land. I have asked the Department of Industry and Resources to work with KCGM and liaise with local residents to provide a report on the mining and ancillary operations that will need to be carried out within 100 metres of occupied land in the next two years, and to place that report before adjoining residents for written approval or rejection. It is acknowledged that this process could well result in an impasse being reached in which KCGM has to carry out certain activity as an unavoidable part of its operations even when it is unable to obtain adjoining residents' consent. If such a dilemma arises, the Government will need to resolve it in the broad public interest."
· Acting on information contained in this report, DoIR in the following weeks held discussions with relevant KCGM personnel in order to clarify certain matters relating to the resident's complaint; · on 17 May 2005 DoIR sought advice from the State Solicitor's Office (SSO) concerning several associated legal issues; · on 3 June 2005 DoIR wrote to the resident to inform him of the progress made to date in DoIR's investigation; · on 21 June 2005 DoIR received a detailed response from the SSO and, after carefully considering the advice, DoIR on 15 August 2005 wrote to KCGM to request its formal response to the allegations made by the resident against the company; and · also on the 15 August 2005, DoIR again wrote to the resident to inform him of the current situation in this matter. Upon receipt of KCGM's response DoIR will be in a position to finalise its investigation and take any action considered appropriate and necessary in all the circumstances of this case. Any action taken will be consistent with my predecessor's statement to Parliament on 28 November 2004, part of which is quoted below:- "The interpretation of section 20(5) by the State Counsel raises the vexed question of what approach should be taken towards existing mining and mining activities that fall within 100 metres of occupied land. In my view, the public interest is not served by the Government seeking to retrospectively apply a new interpretation of legislation to past events and activities. Having said that, every endeavour should be made to apply the law as it is now understood. To this end, I note the KCGM offer to make practical changes to reduce the impact of activities within 100 metres of occupied land. I have asked the Department of Industry and Resources to work with KCGM and liaise with local residents to provide a report on the mining and ancillary operations that will need to be carried out within 100 metres of occupied land in the next two years, and to place that report before adjoining residents for written approval or rejection. It is acknowledged that this process could well result in an impasse being reached in which KCGM has to carry out certain activity as an unavoidable part of its operations even when it is unable to obtain adjoining residents' consent. If such a dilemma arises, the Government will need to resolve it in the broad public interest."
· on 17 May 2005 DoIR sought advice from the State Solicitor's Office (SSO) concerning several associated legal issues; · on 3 June 2005 DoIR wrote to the resident to inform him of the progress made to date in DoIR's investigation; · on 21 June 2005 DoIR received a detailed response from the SSO and, after carefully considering the advice, DoIR on 15 August 2005 wrote to KCGM to request its formal response to the allegations made by the resident against the company; and · also on the 15 August 2005, DoIR again wrote to the resident to inform him of the current situation in this matter. Upon receipt of KCGM's response DoIR will be in a position to finalise its investigation and take any action considered appropriate and necessary in all the circumstances of this case. Any action taken will be consistent with my predecessor's statement to Parliament on 28 November 2004, part of which is quoted below:- "The interpretation of section 20(5) by the State Counsel raises the vexed question of what approach should be taken towards existing mining and mining activities that fall within 100 metres of occupied land. In my view, the public interest is not served by the Government seeking to retrospectively apply a new interpretation of legislation to past events and activities. Having said that, every endeavour should be made to apply the law as it is now understood. To this end, I note the KCGM offer to make practical changes to reduce the impact of activities within 100 metres of occupied land. I have asked the Department of Industry and Resources to work with KCGM and liaise with local residents to provide a report on the mining and ancillary operations that will need to be carried out within 100 metres of occupied land in the next two years, and to place that report before adjoining residents for written approval or rejection. It is acknowledged that this process could well result in an impasse being reached in which KCGM has to carry out certain activity as an unavoidable part of its operations even when it is unable to obtain adjoining residents' consent. If such a dilemma arises, the Government will need to resolve it in the broad public interest."
· on 3 June 2005 DoIR wrote to the resident to inform him of the progress made to date in DoIR's investigation; · on 21 June 2005 DoIR received a detailed response from the SSO and, after carefully considering the advice, DoIR on 15 August 2005 wrote to KCGM to request its formal response to the allegations made by the resident against the company; and · also on the 15 August 2005, DoIR again wrote to the resident to inform him of the current situation in this matter. Upon receipt of KCGM's response DoIR will be in a position to finalise its investigation and take any action considered appropriate and necessary in all the circumstances of this case. Any action taken will be consistent with my predecessor's statement to Parliament on 28 November 2004, part of which is quoted below:- "The interpretation of section 20(5) by the State Counsel raises the vexed question of what approach should be taken towards existing mining and mining activities that fall within 100 metres of occupied land. In my view, the public interest is not served by the Government seeking to retrospectively apply a new interpretation of legislation to past events and activities. Having said that, every endeavour should be made to apply the law as it is now understood. To this end, I note the KCGM offer to make practical changes to reduce the impact of activities within 100 metres of occupied land. I have asked the Department of Industry and Resources to work with KCGM and liaise with local residents to provide a report on the mining and ancillary operations that will need to be carried out within 100 metres of occupied land in the next two years, and to place that report before adjoining residents for written approval or rejection. It is acknowledged that this process could well result in an impasse being reached in which KCGM has to carry out certain activity as an unavoidable part of its operations even when it is unable to obtain adjoining residents' consent. If such a dilemma arises, the Government will need to resolve it in the broad public interest."
· on 21 June 2005 DoIR received a detailed response from the SSO and, after carefully considering the advice, DoIR on 15 August 2005 wrote to KCGM to request its formal response to the allegations made by the resident against the company; and · also on the 15 August 2005, DoIR again wrote to the resident to inform him of the current situation in this matter. Upon receipt of KCGM's response DoIR will be in a position to finalise its investigation and take any action considered appropriate and necessary in all the circumstances of this case. Any action taken will be consistent with my predecessor's statement to Parliament on 28 November 2004, part of which is quoted below:- "The interpretation of section 20(5) by the State Counsel raises the vexed question of what approach should be taken towards existing mining and mining activities that fall within 100 metres of occupied land. In my view, the public interest is not served by the Government seeking to retrospectively apply a new interpretation of legislation to past events and activities. Having said that, every endeavour should be made to apply the law as it is now understood. To this end, I note the KCGM offer to make practical changes to reduce the impact of activities within 100 metres of occupied land. I have asked the Department of Industry and Resources to work with KCGM and liaise with local residents to provide a report on the mining and ancillary operations that will need to be carried out within 100 metres of occupied land in the next two years, and to place that report before adjoining residents for written approval or rejection. It is acknowledged that this process could well result in an impasse being reached in which KCGM has to carry out certain activity as an unavoidable part of its operations even when it is unable to obtain adjoining residents' consent. If such a dilemma arises, the Government will need to resolve it in the broad public interest."
· also on the 15 August 2005, DoIR again wrote to the resident to inform him of the current situation in this matter. Upon receipt of KCGM's response DoIR will be in a position to finalise its investigation and take any action considered appropriate and necessary in all the circumstances of this case. Any action taken will be consistent with my predecessor's statement to Parliament on 28 November 2004, part of which is quoted below:- "The interpretation of section 20(5) by the State Counsel raises the vexed question of what approach should be taken towards existing mining and mining activities that fall within 100 metres of occupied land. In my view, the public interest is not served by the Government seeking to retrospectively apply a new interpretation of legislation to past events and activities. Having said that, every endeavour should be made to apply the law as it is now understood. To this end, I note the KCGM offer to make practical changes to reduce the impact of activities within 100 metres of occupied land. I have asked the Department of Industry and Resources to work with KCGM and liaise with local residents to provide a report on the mining and ancillary operations that will need to be carried out within 100 metres of occupied land in the next two years, and to place that report before adjoining residents for written approval or rejection. It is acknowledged that this process could well result in an impasse being reached in which KCGM has to carry out certain activity as an unavoidable part of its operations even when it is unable to obtain adjoining residents' consent. If such a dilemma arises, the Government will need to resolve it in the broad public interest."
Upon receipt of KCGM's response DoIR will be in a position to finalise its investigation and take any action considered appropriate and necessary in all the circumstances of this case. Any action taken will be consistent with my predecessor's statement to Parliament on 28 November 2004, part of which is quoted below:- "The interpretation of section 20(5) by the State Counsel raises the vexed question of what approach should be taken towards existing mining and mining activities that fall within 100 metres of occupied land. In my view, the public interest is not served by the Government seeking to retrospectively apply a new interpretation of legislation to past events and activities. Having said that, every endeavour should be made to apply the law as it is now understood. To this end, I note the KCGM offer to make practical changes to reduce the impact of activities within 100 metres of occupied land. I have asked the Department of Industry and Resources to work with KCGM and liaise with local residents to provide a report on the mining and ancillary operations that will need to be carried out within 100 metres of occupied land in the next two years, and to place that report before adjoining residents for written approval or rejection. It is acknowledged that this process could well result in an impasse being reached in which KCGM has to carry out certain activity as an unavoidable part of its operations even when it is unable to obtain adjoining residents' consent. If such a dilemma arises, the Government will need to resolve it in the broad public interest."
"The interpretation of section 20(5) by the State Counsel raises the vexed question of what approach should be taken towards existing mining and mining activities that fall within 100 metres of occupied land. In my view, the public interest is not served by the Government seeking to retrospectively apply a new interpretation of legislation to past events and activities. Having said that, every endeavour should be made to apply the law as it is now understood. To this end, I note the KCGM offer to make practical changes to reduce the impact of activities within 100 metres of occupied land. I have asked the Department of Industry and Resources to work with KCGM and liaise with local residents to provide a report on the mining and ancillary operations that will need to be carried out within 100 metres of occupied land in the next two years, and to place that report before adjoining residents for written approval or rejection. It is acknowledged that this process could well result in an impasse being reached in which KCGM has to carry out certain activity as an unavoidable part of its operations even when it is unable to obtain adjoining residents' consent. If such a dilemma arises, the Government will need to resolve it in the broad public interest."
· On 20 March 2005 the resident and two other local residents met with a DoIR officer at the resident's house for a two-hour meeting; · On 14 April 2005 this officer's detailed report on the issues discussed at the meeting (accompanied by photographs and other relevant documentation) was received by DoIR's Perth office; · Acting on information contained in this report, DoIR in the following weeks held discussions with relevant KCGM personnel in order to clarify certain matters relating to the resident's complaint; · on 17 May 2005 DoIR sought advice from the State Solicitor's Office (SSO) concerning several associated legal issues; · on 3 June 2005 DoIR wrote to the resident to inform him of the progress made to date in DoIR's investigation; · on 21 June 2005 DoIR received a detailed response from the SSO and, after carefully considering the advice, DoIR on 15 August 2005 wrote to KCGM to request its formal response to the allegations made by the resident against the company; and · also on the 15 August 2005, DoIR again wrote to the resident to inform him of the current situation in this matter. Upon receipt of KCGM's response DoIR will be in a position to finalise its investigation and take any action considered appropriate and necessary in all the circumstances of this case. Any action taken will be consistent with my predecessor's statement to Parliament on 28 November 2004, part of which is quoted below:- "The interpretation of section 20(5) by the State Counsel raises the vexed question of what approach should be taken towards existing mining and mining activities that fall within 100 metres of occupied land. In my view, the public interest is not served by the Government seeking to retrospectively apply a new interpretation of legislation to past events and activities. Having said that, every endeavour should be made to apply the law as it is now understood. To this end, I note the KCGM offer to make practical changes to reduce the impact of activities within 100 metres of occupied land. I have asked the Department of Industry and Resources to work with KCGM and liaise with local residents to provide a report on the mining and ancillary operations that will need to be carried out within 100 metres of occupied land in the next two years, and to place that report before adjoining residents for written approval or rejection. It is acknowledged that this process could well result in an impasse being reached in which KCGM has to carry out certain activity as an unavoidable part of its operations even when it is unable to obtain adjoining residents' consent. If such a dilemma arises, the Government will need to resolve it in the broad public interest."
· On 14 April 2005 this officer's detailed report on the issues discussed at the meeting (accompanied by photographs and other relevant documentation) was received by DoIR's Perth office; · Acting on information contained in this report, DoIR in the following weeks held discussions with relevant KCGM personnel in order to clarify certain matters relating to the resident's complaint; · on 17 May 2005 DoIR sought advice from the State Solicitor's Office (SSO) concerning several associated legal issues; · on 3 June 2005 DoIR wrote to the resident to inform him of the progress made to date in DoIR's investigation; · on 21 June 2005 DoIR received a detailed response from the SSO and, after carefully considering the advice, DoIR on 15 August 2005 wrote to KCGM to request its formal response to the allegations made by the resident against the company; and · also on the 15 August 2005, DoIR again wrote to the resident to inform him of the current situation in this matter. Upon receipt of KCGM's response DoIR will be in a position to finalise its investigation and take any action considered appropriate and necessary in all the circumstances of this case. Any action taken will be consistent with my predecessor's statement to Parliament on 28 November 2004, part of which is quoted below:- "The interpretation of section 20(5) by the State Counsel raises the vexed question of what approach should be taken towards existing mining and mining activities that fall within 100 metres of occupied land. In my view, the public interest is not served by the Government seeking to retrospectively apply a new interpretation of legislation to past events and activities. Having said that, every endeavour should be made to apply the law as it is now understood. To this end, I note the KCGM offer to make practical changes to reduce the impact of activities within 100 metres of occupied land. I have asked the Department of Industry and Resources to work with KCGM and liaise with local residents to provide a report on the mining and ancillary operations that will need to be carried out within 100 metres of occupied land in the next two years, and to place that report before adjoining residents for written approval or rejection. It is acknowledged that this process could well result in an impasse being reached in which KCGM has to carry out certain activity as an unavoidable part of its operations even when it is unable to obtain adjoining residents' consent. If such a dilemma arises, the Government will need to resolve it in the broad public interest."
· Acting on information contained in this report, DoIR in the following weeks held discussions with relevant KCGM personnel in order to clarify certain matters relating to the resident's complaint; · on 17 May 2005 DoIR sought advice from the State Solicitor's Office (SSO) concerning several associated legal issues; · on 3 June 2005 DoIR wrote to the resident to inform him of the progress made to date in DoIR's investigation; · on 21 June 2005 DoIR received a detailed response from the SSO and, after carefully considering the advice, DoIR on 15 August 2005 wrote to KCGM to request its formal response to the allegations made by the resident against the company; and · also on the 15 August 2005, DoIR again wrote to the resident to inform him of the current situation in this matter. Upon receipt of KCGM's response DoIR will be in a position to finalise its investigation and take any action considered appropriate and necessary in all the circumstances of this case. Any action taken will be consistent with my predecessor's statement to Parliament on 28 November 2004, part of which is quoted below:- "The interpretation of section 20(5) by the State Counsel raises the vexed question of what approach should be taken towards existing mining and mining activities that fall within 100 metres of occupied land. In my view, the public interest is not served by the Government seeking to retrospectively apply a new interpretation of legislation to past events and activities. Having said that, every endeavour should be made to apply the law as it is now understood. To this end, I note the KCGM offer to make practical changes to reduce the impact of activities within 100 metres of occupied land. I have asked the Department of Industry and Resources to work with KCGM and liaise with local residents to provide a report on the mining and ancillary operations that will need to be carried out within 100 metres of occupied land in the next two years, and to place that report before adjoining residents for written approval or rejection. It is acknowledged that this process could well result in an impasse being reached in which KCGM has to carry out certain activity as an unavoidable part of its operations even when it is unable to obtain adjoining residents' consent. If such a dilemma arises, the Government will need to resolve it in the broad public interest."
· on 17 May 2005 DoIR sought advice from the State Solicitor's Office (SSO) concerning several associated legal issues; · on 3 June 2005 DoIR wrote to the resident to inform him of the progress made to date in DoIR's investigation; · on 21 June 2005 DoIR received a detailed response from the SSO and, after carefully considering the advice, DoIR on 15 August 2005 wrote to KCGM to request its formal response to the allegations made by the resident against the company; and · also on the 15 August 2005, DoIR again wrote to the resident to inform him of the current situation in this matter. Upon receipt of KCGM's response DoIR will be in a position to finalise its investigation and take any action considered appropriate and necessary in all the circumstances of this case. Any action taken will be consistent with my predecessor's statement to Parliament on 28 November 2004, part of which is quoted below:- "The interpretation of section 20(5) by the State Counsel raises the vexed question of what approach should be taken towards existing mining and mining activities that fall within 100 metres of occupied land. In my view, the public interest is not served by the Government seeking to retrospectively apply a new interpretation of legislation to past events and activities. Having said that, every endeavour should be made to apply the law as it is now understood. To this end, I note the KCGM offer to make practical changes to reduce the impact of activities within 100 metres of occupied land. I have asked the Department of Industry and Resources to work with KCGM and liaise with local residents to provide a report on the mining and ancillary operations that will need to be carried out within 100 metres of occupied land in the next two years, and to place that report before adjoining residents for written approval or rejection. It is acknowledged that this process could well result in an impasse being reached in which KCGM has to carry out certain activity as an unavoidable part of its operations even when it is unable to obtain adjoining residents' consent. If such a dilemma arises, the Government will need to resolve it in the broad public interest."
· on 3 June 2005 DoIR wrote to the resident to inform him of the progress made to date in DoIR's investigation; · on 21 June 2005 DoIR received a detailed response from the SSO and, after carefully considering the advice, DoIR on 15 August 2005 wrote to KCGM to request its formal response to the allegations made by the resident against the company; and · also on the 15 August 2005, DoIR again wrote to the resident to inform him of the current situation in this matter. Upon receipt of KCGM's response DoIR will be in a position to finalise its investigation and take any action considered appropriate and necessary in all the circumstances of this case. Any action taken will be consistent with my predecessor's statement to Parliament on 28 November 2004, part of which is quoted below:- "The interpretation of section 20(5) by the State Counsel raises the vexed question of what approach should be taken towards existing mining and mining activities that fall within 100 metres of occupied land. In my view, the public interest is not served by the Government seeking to retrospectively apply a new interpretation of legislation to past events and activities. Having said that, every endeavour should be made to apply the law as it is now understood. To this end, I note the KCGM offer to make practical changes to reduce the impact of activities within 100 metres of occupied land. I have asked the Department of Industry and Resources to work with KCGM and liaise with local residents to provide a report on the mining and ancillary operations that will need to be carried out within 100 metres of occupied land in the next two years, and to place that report before adjoining residents for written approval or rejection. It is acknowledged that this process could well result in an impasse being reached in which KCGM has to carry out certain activity as an unavoidable part of its operations even when it is unable to obtain adjoining residents' consent. If such a dilemma arises, the Government will need to resolve it in the broad public interest."
· on 21 June 2005 DoIR received a detailed response from the SSO and, after carefully considering the advice, DoIR on 15 August 2005 wrote to KCGM to request its formal response to the allegations made by the resident against the company; and · also on the 15 August 2005, DoIR again wrote to the resident to inform him of the current situation in this matter. Upon receipt of KCGM's response DoIR will be in a position to finalise its investigation and take any action considered appropriate and necessary in all the circumstances of this case. Any action taken will be consistent with my predecessor's statement to Parliament on 28 November 2004, part of which is quoted below:- "The interpretation of section 20(5) by the State Counsel raises the vexed question of what approach should be taken towards existing mining and mining activities that fall within 100 metres of occupied land. In my view, the public interest is not served by the Government seeking to retrospectively apply a new interpretation of legislation to past events and activities. Having said that, every endeavour should be made to apply the law as it is now understood. To this end, I note the KCGM offer to make practical changes to reduce the impact of activities within 100 metres of occupied land. I have asked the Department of Industry and Resources to work with KCGM and liaise with local residents to provide a report on the mining and ancillary operations that will need to be carried out within 100 metres of occupied land in the next two years, and to place that report before adjoining residents for written approval or rejection. It is acknowledged that this process could well result in an impasse being reached in which KCGM has to carry out certain activity as an unavoidable part of its operations even when it is unable to obtain adjoining residents' consent. If such a dilemma arises, the Government will need to resolve it in the broad public interest."
· also on the 15 August 2005, DoIR again wrote to the resident to inform him of the current situation in this matter. Upon receipt of KCGM's response DoIR will be in a position to finalise its investigation and take any action considered appropriate and necessary in all the circumstances of this case. Any action taken will be consistent with my predecessor's statement to Parliament on 28 November 2004, part of which is quoted below:- "The interpretation of section 20(5) by the State Counsel raises the vexed question of what approach should be taken towards existing mining and mining activities that fall within 100 metres of occupied land. In my view, the public interest is not served by the Government seeking to retrospectively apply a new interpretation of legislation to past events and activities. Having said that, every endeavour should be made to apply the law as it is now understood. To this end, I note the KCGM offer to make practical changes to reduce the impact of activities within 100 metres of occupied land. I have asked the Department of Industry and Resources to work with KCGM and liaise with local residents to provide a report on the mining and ancillary operations that will need to be carried out within 100 metres of occupied land in the next two years, and to place that report before adjoining residents for written approval or rejection. It is acknowledged that this process could well result in an impasse being reached in which KCGM has to carry out certain activity as an unavoidable part of its operations even when it is unable to obtain adjoining residents' consent. If such a dilemma arises, the Government will need to resolve it in the broad public interest."
Upon receipt of KCGM's response DoIR will be in a position to finalise its investigation and take any action considered appropriate and necessary in all the circumstances of this case. Any action taken will be consistent with my predecessor's statement to Parliament on 28 November 2004, part of which is quoted below:- "The interpretation of section 20(5) by the State Counsel raises the vexed question of what approach should be taken towards existing mining and mining activities that fall within 100 metres of occupied land. In my view, the public interest is not served by the Government seeking to retrospectively apply a new interpretation of legislation to past events and activities. Having said that, every endeavour should be made to apply the law as it is now understood. To this end, I note the KCGM offer to make practical changes to reduce the impact of activities within 100 metres of occupied land. I have asked the Department of Industry and Resources to work with KCGM and liaise with local residents to provide a report on the mining and ancillary operations that will need to be carried out within 100 metres of occupied land in the next two years, and to place that report before adjoining residents for written approval or rejection. It is acknowledged that this process could well result in an impasse being reached in which KCGM has to carry out certain activity as an unavoidable part of its operations even when it is unable to obtain adjoining residents' consent. If such a dilemma arises, the Government will need to resolve it in the broad public interest."
"The interpretation of section 20(5) by the State Counsel raises the vexed question of what approach should be taken towards existing mining and mining activities that fall within 100 metres of occupied land. In my view, the public interest is not served by the Government seeking to retrospectively apply a new interpretation of legislation to past events and activities. Having said that, every endeavour should be made to apply the law as it is now understood. To this end, I note the KCGM offer to make practical changes to reduce the impact of activities within 100 metres of occupied land. I have asked the Department of Industry and Resources to work with KCGM and liaise with local residents to provide a report on the mining and ancillary operations that will need to be carried out within 100 metres of occupied land in the next two years, and to place that report before adjoining residents for written approval or rejection. It is acknowledged that this process could well result in an impasse being reached in which KCGM has to carry out certain activity as an unavoidable part of its operations even when it is unable to obtain adjoining residents' consent. If such a dilemma arises, the Government will need to resolve it in the broad public interest."
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.