❓ Hon Jim Scott questions the Department of Environment Protection (DEP) regarding a shortened operating licence for Alcoa Wagerup due to insufficient payment, and the implications for tripartite groups. The Minister confirms the licence was shortened, attributing it to administrative efficiency and common practice.
AnsweredQoN 1451Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
(1) Was the period of the Alcoa Wagerup operating licence No 6217/7 shortened when insufficient payment was tendered for the licence? (2) Why did the Department for Environment Protection not ask for the correct amount of money? (3) Did the DEP write to Alcoa stating that shortening the licence period was acceptable? (4) Has the shortened licence period been granted; and, if so, is that normal DEP practice? (5) Approximately how many reduced licences have been granted by the department? (6) How will tripartite groups like Alcoa’s operations be affected if it is intended to grant a reduced licence period before these groups report to the minister? Hon TOM STEPHENS
AnswerView source ↗
The Minister for the Environment has provided the following reply - (1) Yes. (2) This was handled as an administrative matter to enable the licence to be issued on time. (3) Yes. (4) Yes, it is normal Department of Environmental Protection practice. It is not uncommon for licence periods to be reduced to match the correct fee payment, especially as fees have been amended each year and calculations for the fee are not always correct. (5) It is not possible to state without excessive research exactly how many licences have been granted with reduced periods. (6) The only effect is that the licence expiry date is 12 August 2004 instead of 30 September 2004, which would have been applicable for a full 12-month period. It is believed that this will not affect the activities of the tripartite group.
(2) Why did the Department for Environment Protection not ask for the correct amount of money? (3) Did the DEP write to Alcoa stating that shortening the licence period was acceptable? (4) Has the shortened licence period been granted; and, if so, is that normal DEP practice? (5) Approximately how many reduced licences have been granted by the department? (6) How will tripartite groups like Alcoa’s operations be affected if it is intended to grant a reduced licence period before these groups report to the minister? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: The Minister for the Environment has provided the following reply - (1) Yes. (2) This was handled as an administrative matter to enable the licence to be issued on time. (3) Yes. (4) Yes, it is normal Department of Environmental Protection practice. It is not uncommon for licence periods to be reduced to match the correct fee payment, especially as fees have been amended each year and calculations for the fee are not always correct. (5) It is not possible to state without excessive research exactly how many licences have been granted with reduced periods. (6) The only effect is that the licence expiry date is 12 August 2004 instead of 30 September 2004, which would have been applicable for a full 12-month period. It is believed that this will not affect the activities of the tripartite group.
(3) Did the DEP write to Alcoa stating that shortening the licence period was acceptable? (4) Has the shortened licence period been granted; and, if so, is that normal DEP practice? (5) Approximately how many reduced licences have been granted by the department? (6) How will tripartite groups like Alcoa’s operations be affected if it is intended to grant a reduced licence period before these groups report to the minister? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: The Minister for the Environment has provided the following reply - (1) Yes. (2) This was handled as an administrative matter to enable the licence to be issued on time. (3) Yes. (4) Yes, it is normal Department of Environmental Protection practice. It is not uncommon for licence periods to be reduced to match the correct fee payment, especially as fees have been amended each year and calculations for the fee are not always correct. (5) It is not possible to state without excessive research exactly how many licences have been granted with reduced periods. (6) The only effect is that the licence expiry date is 12 August 2004 instead of 30 September 2004, which would have been applicable for a full 12-month period. It is believed that this will not affect the activities of the tripartite group.
(4) Has the shortened licence period been granted; and, if so, is that normal DEP practice? (5) Approximately how many reduced licences have been granted by the department? (6) How will tripartite groups like Alcoa’s operations be affected if it is intended to grant a reduced licence period before these groups report to the minister? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: The Minister for the Environment has provided the following reply - (1) Yes. (2) This was handled as an administrative matter to enable the licence to be issued on time. (3) Yes. (4) Yes, it is normal Department of Environmental Protection practice. It is not uncommon for licence periods to be reduced to match the correct fee payment, especially as fees have been amended each year and calculations for the fee are not always correct. (5) It is not possible to state without excessive research exactly how many licences have been granted with reduced periods. (6) The only effect is that the licence expiry date is 12 August 2004 instead of 30 September 2004, which would have been applicable for a full 12-month period. It is believed that this will not affect the activities of the tripartite group.
(5) Approximately how many reduced licences have been granted by the department? (6) How will tripartite groups like Alcoa’s operations be affected if it is intended to grant a reduced licence period before these groups report to the minister? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: The Minister for the Environment has provided the following reply - (1) Yes. (2) This was handled as an administrative matter to enable the licence to be issued on time. (3) Yes. (4) Yes, it is normal Department of Environmental Protection practice. It is not uncommon for licence periods to be reduced to match the correct fee payment, especially as fees have been amended each year and calculations for the fee are not always correct. (5) It is not possible to state without excessive research exactly how many licences have been granted with reduced periods. (6) The only effect is that the licence expiry date is 12 August 2004 instead of 30 September 2004, which would have been applicable for a full 12-month period. It is believed that this will not affect the activities of the tripartite group.
(6) How will tripartite groups like Alcoa’s operations be affected if it is intended to grant a reduced licence period before these groups report to the minister? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: The Minister for the Environment has provided the following reply - (1) Yes. (2) This was handled as an administrative matter to enable the licence to be issued on time. (3) Yes. (4) Yes, it is normal Department of Environmental Protection practice. It is not uncommon for licence periods to be reduced to match the correct fee payment, especially as fees have been amended each year and calculations for the fee are not always correct. (5) It is not possible to state without excessive research exactly how many licences have been granted with reduced periods. (6) The only effect is that the licence expiry date is 12 August 2004 instead of 30 September 2004, which would have been applicable for a full 12-month period. It is believed that this will not affect the activities of the tripartite group.
Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: The Minister for the Environment has provided the following reply - (1) Yes. (2) This was handled as an administrative matter to enable the licence to be issued on time. (3) Yes. (4) Yes, it is normal Department of Environmental Protection practice. It is not uncommon for licence periods to be reduced to match the correct fee payment, especially as fees have been amended each year and calculations for the fee are not always correct. (5) It is not possible to state without excessive research exactly how many licences have been granted with reduced periods. (6) The only effect is that the licence expiry date is 12 August 2004 instead of 30 September 2004, which would have been applicable for a full 12-month period. It is believed that this will not affect the activities of the tripartite group.
The Minister for the Environment has provided the following reply - (1) Yes. (2) This was handled as an administrative matter to enable the licence to be issued on time. (3) Yes. (4) Yes, it is normal Department of Environmental Protection practice. It is not uncommon for licence periods to be reduced to match the correct fee payment, especially as fees have been amended each year and calculations for the fee are not always correct. (5) It is not possible to state without excessive research exactly how many licences have been granted with reduced periods. (6) The only effect is that the licence expiry date is 12 August 2004 instead of 30 September 2004, which would have been applicable for a full 12-month period. It is believed that this will not affect the activities of the tripartite group.
(1) Yes. (2) This was handled as an administrative matter to enable the licence to be issued on time. (3) Yes. (4) Yes, it is normal Department of Environmental Protection practice. It is not uncommon for licence periods to be reduced to match the correct fee payment, especially as fees have been amended each year and calculations for the fee are not always correct. (5) It is not possible to state without excessive research exactly how many licences have been granted with reduced periods. (6) The only effect is that the licence expiry date is 12 August 2004 instead of 30 September 2004, which would have been applicable for a full 12-month period. It is believed that this will not affect the activities of the tripartite group.
(2) This was handled as an administrative matter to enable the licence to be issued on time. (3) Yes. (4) Yes, it is normal Department of Environmental Protection practice. It is not uncommon for licence periods to be reduced to match the correct fee payment, especially as fees have been amended each year and calculations for the fee are not always correct. (5) It is not possible to state without excessive research exactly how many licences have been granted with reduced periods. (6) The only effect is that the licence expiry date is 12 August 2004 instead of 30 September 2004, which would have been applicable for a full 12-month period. It is believed that this will not affect the activities of the tripartite group.
(3) Yes. (4) Yes, it is normal Department of Environmental Protection practice. It is not uncommon for licence periods to be reduced to match the correct fee payment, especially as fees have been amended each year and calculations for the fee are not always correct. (5) It is not possible to state without excessive research exactly how many licences have been granted with reduced periods. (6) The only effect is that the licence expiry date is 12 August 2004 instead of 30 September 2004, which would have been applicable for a full 12-month period. It is believed that this will not affect the activities of the tripartite group.
(4) Yes, it is normal Department of Environmental Protection practice. It is not uncommon for licence periods to be reduced to match the correct fee payment, especially as fees have been amended each year and calculations for the fee are not always correct. (5) It is not possible to state without excessive research exactly how many licences have been granted with reduced periods. (6) The only effect is that the licence expiry date is 12 August 2004 instead of 30 September 2004, which would have been applicable for a full 12-month period. It is believed that this will not affect the activities of the tripartite group.
(5) It is not possible to state without excessive research exactly how many licences have been granted with reduced periods. (6) The only effect is that the licence expiry date is 12 August 2004 instead of 30 September 2004, which would have been applicable for a full 12-month period. It is believed that this will not affect the activities of the tripartite group.
(6) The only effect is that the licence expiry date is 12 August 2004 instead of 30 September 2004, which would have been applicable for a full 12-month period. It is believed that this will not affect the activities of the tripartite group.
(2) Why did the Department for Environment Protection not ask for the correct amount of money? (3) Did the DEP write to Alcoa stating that shortening the licence period was acceptable? (4) Has the shortened licence period been granted; and, if so, is that normal DEP practice? (5) Approximately how many reduced licences have been granted by the department? (6) How will tripartite groups like Alcoa’s operations be affected if it is intended to grant a reduced licence period before these groups report to the minister? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: The Minister for the Environment has provided the following reply - (1) Yes. (2) This was handled as an administrative matter to enable the licence to be issued on time. (3) Yes. (4) Yes, it is normal Department of Environmental Protection practice. It is not uncommon for licence periods to be reduced to match the correct fee payment, especially as fees have been amended each year and calculations for the fee are not always correct. (5) It is not possible to state without excessive research exactly how many licences have been granted with reduced periods. (6) The only effect is that the licence expiry date is 12 August 2004 instead of 30 September 2004, which would have been applicable for a full 12-month period. It is believed that this will not affect the activities of the tripartite group.
(3) Did the DEP write to Alcoa stating that shortening the licence period was acceptable? (4) Has the shortened licence period been granted; and, if so, is that normal DEP practice? (5) Approximately how many reduced licences have been granted by the department? (6) How will tripartite groups like Alcoa’s operations be affected if it is intended to grant a reduced licence period before these groups report to the minister? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: The Minister for the Environment has provided the following reply - (1) Yes. (2) This was handled as an administrative matter to enable the licence to be issued on time. (3) Yes. (4) Yes, it is normal Department of Environmental Protection practice. It is not uncommon for licence periods to be reduced to match the correct fee payment, especially as fees have been amended each year and calculations for the fee are not always correct. (5) It is not possible to state without excessive research exactly how many licences have been granted with reduced periods. (6) The only effect is that the licence expiry date is 12 August 2004 instead of 30 September 2004, which would have been applicable for a full 12-month period. It is believed that this will not affect the activities of the tripartite group.
(4) Has the shortened licence period been granted; and, if so, is that normal DEP practice? (5) Approximately how many reduced licences have been granted by the department? (6) How will tripartite groups like Alcoa’s operations be affected if it is intended to grant a reduced licence period before these groups report to the minister? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: The Minister for the Environment has provided the following reply - (1) Yes. (2) This was handled as an administrative matter to enable the licence to be issued on time. (3) Yes. (4) Yes, it is normal Department of Environmental Protection practice. It is not uncommon for licence periods to be reduced to match the correct fee payment, especially as fees have been amended each year and calculations for the fee are not always correct. (5) It is not possible to state without excessive research exactly how many licences have been granted with reduced periods. (6) The only effect is that the licence expiry date is 12 August 2004 instead of 30 September 2004, which would have been applicable for a full 12-month period. It is believed that this will not affect the activities of the tripartite group.
(5) Approximately how many reduced licences have been granted by the department? (6) How will tripartite groups like Alcoa’s operations be affected if it is intended to grant a reduced licence period before these groups report to the minister? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: The Minister for the Environment has provided the following reply - (1) Yes. (2) This was handled as an administrative matter to enable the licence to be issued on time. (3) Yes. (4) Yes, it is normal Department of Environmental Protection practice. It is not uncommon for licence periods to be reduced to match the correct fee payment, especially as fees have been amended each year and calculations for the fee are not always correct. (5) It is not possible to state without excessive research exactly how many licences have been granted with reduced periods. (6) The only effect is that the licence expiry date is 12 August 2004 instead of 30 September 2004, which would have been applicable for a full 12-month period. It is believed that this will not affect the activities of the tripartite group.
(6) How will tripartite groups like Alcoa’s operations be affected if it is intended to grant a reduced licence period before these groups report to the minister? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: The Minister for the Environment has provided the following reply - (1) Yes. (2) This was handled as an administrative matter to enable the licence to be issued on time. (3) Yes. (4) Yes, it is normal Department of Environmental Protection practice. It is not uncommon for licence periods to be reduced to match the correct fee payment, especially as fees have been amended each year and calculations for the fee are not always correct. (5) It is not possible to state without excessive research exactly how many licences have been granted with reduced periods. (6) The only effect is that the licence expiry date is 12 August 2004 instead of 30 September 2004, which would have been applicable for a full 12-month period. It is believed that this will not affect the activities of the tripartite group.
Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: The Minister for the Environment has provided the following reply - (1) Yes. (2) This was handled as an administrative matter to enable the licence to be issued on time. (3) Yes. (4) Yes, it is normal Department of Environmental Protection practice. It is not uncommon for licence periods to be reduced to match the correct fee payment, especially as fees have been amended each year and calculations for the fee are not always correct. (5) It is not possible to state without excessive research exactly how many licences have been granted with reduced periods. (6) The only effect is that the licence expiry date is 12 August 2004 instead of 30 September 2004, which would have been applicable for a full 12-month period. It is believed that this will not affect the activities of the tripartite group.
The Minister for the Environment has provided the following reply - (1) Yes. (2) This was handled as an administrative matter to enable the licence to be issued on time. (3) Yes. (4) Yes, it is normal Department of Environmental Protection practice. It is not uncommon for licence periods to be reduced to match the correct fee payment, especially as fees have been amended each year and calculations for the fee are not always correct. (5) It is not possible to state without excessive research exactly how many licences have been granted with reduced periods. (6) The only effect is that the licence expiry date is 12 August 2004 instead of 30 September 2004, which would have been applicable for a full 12-month period. It is believed that this will not affect the activities of the tripartite group.
(1) Yes. (2) This was handled as an administrative matter to enable the licence to be issued on time. (3) Yes. (4) Yes, it is normal Department of Environmental Protection practice. It is not uncommon for licence periods to be reduced to match the correct fee payment, especially as fees have been amended each year and calculations for the fee are not always correct. (5) It is not possible to state without excessive research exactly how many licences have been granted with reduced periods. (6) The only effect is that the licence expiry date is 12 August 2004 instead of 30 September 2004, which would have been applicable for a full 12-month period. It is believed that this will not affect the activities of the tripartite group.
(2) This was handled as an administrative matter to enable the licence to be issued on time. (3) Yes. (4) Yes, it is normal Department of Environmental Protection practice. It is not uncommon for licence periods to be reduced to match the correct fee payment, especially as fees have been amended each year and calculations for the fee are not always correct. (5) It is not possible to state without excessive research exactly how many licences have been granted with reduced periods. (6) The only effect is that the licence expiry date is 12 August 2004 instead of 30 September 2004, which would have been applicable for a full 12-month period. It is believed that this will not affect the activities of the tripartite group.
(3) Yes. (4) Yes, it is normal Department of Environmental Protection practice. It is not uncommon for licence periods to be reduced to match the correct fee payment, especially as fees have been amended each year and calculations for the fee are not always correct. (5) It is not possible to state without excessive research exactly how many licences have been granted with reduced periods. (6) The only effect is that the licence expiry date is 12 August 2004 instead of 30 September 2004, which would have been applicable for a full 12-month period. It is believed that this will not affect the activities of the tripartite group.
(4) Yes, it is normal Department of Environmental Protection practice. It is not uncommon for licence periods to be reduced to match the correct fee payment, especially as fees have been amended each year and calculations for the fee are not always correct. (5) It is not possible to state without excessive research exactly how many licences have been granted with reduced periods. (6) The only effect is that the licence expiry date is 12 August 2004 instead of 30 September 2004, which would have been applicable for a full 12-month period. It is believed that this will not affect the activities of the tripartite group.
(5) It is not possible to state without excessive research exactly how many licences have been granted with reduced periods. (6) The only effect is that the licence expiry date is 12 August 2004 instead of 30 September 2004, which would have been applicable for a full 12-month period. It is believed that this will not affect the activities of the tripartite group.
(6) The only effect is that the licence expiry date is 12 August 2004 instead of 30 September 2004, which would have been applicable for a full 12-month period. It is believed that this will not affect the activities of the tripartite group.
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.