❓ Opposition asks about the dynamiting of Preston Island by CITIC Pacific Mining and the government's approval and response. The Minister confirms the development was approved in 2003 with environmental conditions, but no bond was required.
AnsweredQoN 808Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
PRESTON ISLAND — DYNAMITING
808. Hon SUE ELLERY to the
minister representing the Minister for Environment:
I refer to the article ''The real deal with Clive'',
published in The Australian Financial
Review on 24 July, which refers to the mining company CITIC Pacific Mining
dynamiting Preston Island.
(1) Can the minister confirm whether this incident took
place; and, if so —
(a) was the company given approval
by the state government to dynamite Preston Island;
(b) if yes to (a), when was
approval given and by which department or departments; and
(c) when did the state government
first learn of this incident and what was its response?
(2) Did the state government impose an environmental bond on
the project?
(3) If yes to (2), what was the value of the bond?
(4) If no to (2), why not, and at which party's request
was a bond waived?
808. Hon SUE ELLERY to the
minister representing the Minister for Environment:
I refer to the article ''The real deal with Clive'',
published in The Australian Financial
Review on 24 July, which refers to the mining company CITIC Pacific Mining
dynamiting Preston Island.
(1) Can the minister confirm whether this incident took
place; and, if so —
(a) was the company given approval
by the state government to dynamite Preston Island;
(b) if yes to (a), when was
approval given and by which department or departments; and
(c) when did the state government
first learn of this incident and what was its response?
(2) Did the state government impose an environmental bond on
the project?
(3) If yes to (2), what was the value of the bond?
(4) If no to (2), why not, and at which party's request
was a bond waived?
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of the question.
(1) As part of
the port construction, much of the island has been developed into a port
storage area. The construction works that have occurred at the island are in
accordance with the approval. It should be noted that the original approval was
granted by the government in 2003.
(2) In 2003
the then Minister for Environment imposed 16 environmental conditions on the
proposal as part of the ministerial approval. The approval did not place a
condition requiring an environmental bond.
(3) Not applicable.
(4) See (2) above.
(1) As part of
the port construction, much of the island has been developed into a port
storage area. The construction works that have occurred at the island are in
accordance with the approval. It should be noted that the original approval was
granted by the government in 2003.
(2) In 2003
the then Minister for Environment imposed 16 environmental conditions on the
proposal as part of the ministerial approval. The approval did not place a
condition requiring an environmental bond.
(3) Not applicable.
(4) See (2) above.
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.