❓ A parliamentary question regarding mining activity near a residential property in Kalgoorlie, specifically concerning the use and importance of KCGM's infrastructure, including a conveyor belt, and the Department's interactions with the company.
AnsweredQoN 3368Legislative Council
Asked
4 April 2006
Member
Portfolio
Resources and Assisting the Minister for State Development
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to a letter signed by Roy Burton (enquiries Bob Stevens) Department of Industry and Resources dated 8 December 2005, addressed to Mr Peter Shaw (departmental reference 7321/99) titled ‘Mining Activity within 100 metres of 5 Cahill Road, Kalgoorlie’ -
(1) Is it correct that all the subject infrastructure including the conveyor belt, has been in continual use by KCGM in its current position for some ten years?
(2) If yes to (1), can the Minister explain how this was factually determined?
(3) If no to (1), which specific pieces of infrastructure have not been in continual use by KCGM for ten years?
(4) Did Mr Bob Stevens or any other departmental officer in verbal discussions with KCGM staff in any way suggest or encourage them to modify the company’s activities and relocate or remove some of the infrastructure?
(5) If no to (4), why not?
(6) If yes to (4), in what manner and how did this come about?
(7) Can the Minister explain how the Department factually determined the importance of this infrastructure (including the conveyor belt) to KCGM?
(8) If no to (7), why not?
(9) Can the Minister explain the factual basis behind how the Department determined that KCGM has little option but to continue using the infrastructure (including the conveyor belt) as an unavoidable and essential part of its operations?
(10) If no to (9), why not?
(1) Is it correct that all the subject infrastructure including the conveyor belt, has been in continual use by KCGM in its current position for some ten years?
(2) If yes to (1), can the Minister explain how this was factually determined?
(3) If no to (1), which specific pieces of infrastructure have not been in continual use by KCGM for ten years?
(4) Did Mr Bob Stevens or any other departmental officer in verbal discussions with KCGM staff in any way suggest or encourage them to modify the company’s activities and relocate or remove some of the infrastructure?
(5) If no to (4), why not?
(6) If yes to (4), in what manner and how did this come about?
(7) Can the Minister explain how the Department factually determined the importance of this infrastructure (including the conveyor belt) to KCGM?
(8) If no to (7), why not?
(9) Can the Minister explain the factual basis behind how the Department determined that KCGM has little option but to continue using the infrastructure (including the conveyor belt) as an unavoidable and essential part of its operations?
(10) If no to (9), why not?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
2 May 2006
Responded by
Leader of the House representing the Minister for Resources and Assisting the Minister for State Development
Response time
28 days
(1) Yes, with the exception of the dust monitor. Regarding the conveyor, the Minister is informed that there have been a few occasions during the past ten years when it has not been in use for certain periods because of operational reasons. (2) The general history of this infrastructure was determined from a number of sources, including files held by the Department of Industry and Resources (DoIR), personal knowledge of DoIR employees and information provided at DoIR's request by KCGM. (3) Not applicable. (4-6) In response to DoIR's written request that KCGM consider any actions that it might take in helping to resolve Mr Shaw's complaints, KCGM of its own volition offered in writing to remove or relocate most of the subject infrastructure, and to modify its maintenance activities in order to minimise any potential impact on the amenity of Mr Shaw's property. With a view to clarifying KCGM's intentions in the matter, a DoIR officer subsequently telephoned the company and, during the ensuing discussion, it was agreed that, in addition to what KCGM had already offered to do, the company would further modify its maintenance activities and relocate an additional piece of infrastructure to a new location further than 100 metres from Mr Shaw's property. (7-10) The importance of this infrastructure to KCGM and its operations was determined from DoIR's local operational and corporate knowledge and KCGM's responses to DoIR's enquiries in that regard.
(2) The general history of this infrastructure was determined from a number of sources, including files held by the Department of Industry and Resources (DoIR), personal knowledge of DoIR employees and information provided at DoIR's request by KCGM. (3) Not applicable. (4-6) In response to DoIR's written request that KCGM consider any actions that it might take in helping to resolve Mr Shaw's complaints, KCGM of its own volition offered in writing to remove or relocate most of the subject infrastructure, and to modify its maintenance activities in order to minimise any potential impact on the amenity of Mr Shaw's property. With a view to clarifying KCGM's intentions in the matter, a DoIR officer subsequently telephoned the company and, during the ensuing discussion, it was agreed that, in addition to what KCGM had already offered to do, the company would further modify its maintenance activities and relocate an additional piece of infrastructure to a new location further than 100 metres from Mr Shaw's property. (7-10) The importance of this infrastructure to KCGM and its operations was determined from DoIR's local operational and corporate knowledge and KCGM's responses to DoIR's enquiries in that regard.
(3) Not applicable. (4-6) In response to DoIR's written request that KCGM consider any actions that it might take in helping to resolve Mr Shaw's complaints, KCGM of its own volition offered in writing to remove or relocate most of the subject infrastructure, and to modify its maintenance activities in order to minimise any potential impact on the amenity of Mr Shaw's property. With a view to clarifying KCGM's intentions in the matter, a DoIR officer subsequently telephoned the company and, during the ensuing discussion, it was agreed that, in addition to what KCGM had already offered to do, the company would further modify its maintenance activities and relocate an additional piece of infrastructure to a new location further than 100 metres from Mr Shaw's property. (7-10) The importance of this infrastructure to KCGM and its operations was determined from DoIR's local operational and corporate knowledge and KCGM's responses to DoIR's enquiries in that regard.
(4-6) In response to DoIR's written request that KCGM consider any actions that it might take in helping to resolve Mr Shaw's complaints, KCGM of its own volition offered in writing to remove or relocate most of the subject infrastructure, and to modify its maintenance activities in order to minimise any potential impact on the amenity of Mr Shaw's property. With a view to clarifying KCGM's intentions in the matter, a DoIR officer subsequently telephoned the company and, during the ensuing discussion, it was agreed that, in addition to what KCGM had already offered to do, the company would further modify its maintenance activities and relocate an additional piece of infrastructure to a new location further than 100 metres from Mr Shaw's property. (7-10) The importance of this infrastructure to KCGM and its operations was determined from DoIR's local operational and corporate knowledge and KCGM's responses to DoIR's enquiries in that regard.
(7-10) The importance of this infrastructure to KCGM and its operations was determined from DoIR's local operational and corporate knowledge and KCGM's responses to DoIR's enquiries in that regard.
(2) The general history of this infrastructure was determined from a number of sources, including files held by the Department of Industry and Resources (DoIR), personal knowledge of DoIR employees and information provided at DoIR's request by KCGM. (3) Not applicable. (4-6) In response to DoIR's written request that KCGM consider any actions that it might take in helping to resolve Mr Shaw's complaints, KCGM of its own volition offered in writing to remove or relocate most of the subject infrastructure, and to modify its maintenance activities in order to minimise any potential impact on the amenity of Mr Shaw's property. With a view to clarifying KCGM's intentions in the matter, a DoIR officer subsequently telephoned the company and, during the ensuing discussion, it was agreed that, in addition to what KCGM had already offered to do, the company would further modify its maintenance activities and relocate an additional piece of infrastructure to a new location further than 100 metres from Mr Shaw's property. (7-10) The importance of this infrastructure to KCGM and its operations was determined from DoIR's local operational and corporate knowledge and KCGM's responses to DoIR's enquiries in that regard.
(3) Not applicable. (4-6) In response to DoIR's written request that KCGM consider any actions that it might take in helping to resolve Mr Shaw's complaints, KCGM of its own volition offered in writing to remove or relocate most of the subject infrastructure, and to modify its maintenance activities in order to minimise any potential impact on the amenity of Mr Shaw's property. With a view to clarifying KCGM's intentions in the matter, a DoIR officer subsequently telephoned the company and, during the ensuing discussion, it was agreed that, in addition to what KCGM had already offered to do, the company would further modify its maintenance activities and relocate an additional piece of infrastructure to a new location further than 100 metres from Mr Shaw's property. (7-10) The importance of this infrastructure to KCGM and its operations was determined from DoIR's local operational and corporate knowledge and KCGM's responses to DoIR's enquiries in that regard.
(4-6) In response to DoIR's written request that KCGM consider any actions that it might take in helping to resolve Mr Shaw's complaints, KCGM of its own volition offered in writing to remove or relocate most of the subject infrastructure, and to modify its maintenance activities in order to minimise any potential impact on the amenity of Mr Shaw's property. With a view to clarifying KCGM's intentions in the matter, a DoIR officer subsequently telephoned the company and, during the ensuing discussion, it was agreed that, in addition to what KCGM had already offered to do, the company would further modify its maintenance activities and relocate an additional piece of infrastructure to a new location further than 100 metres from Mr Shaw's property. (7-10) The importance of this infrastructure to KCGM and its operations was determined from DoIR's local operational and corporate knowledge and KCGM's responses to DoIR's enquiries in that regard.
(7-10) The importance of this infrastructure to KCGM and its operations was determined from DoIR's local operational and corporate knowledge and KCGM's responses to DoIR's enquiries in that regard.
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.