❓ A parliamentary question regarding KCGM's activities, specifically firebreak clearing and alleged damage to property, and the Department's response to these actions. The Minister defends the department's actions.
AnsweredQoN 431Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to a letter dated October 29 2001 signed by Clive Brown MLA, Minister for State Development titled ‘Complaints Concerning Information Supplied by the Department and Activities by Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mines Pty Ltd (KCGM)’ -
(1) Does the Department consider the clearing of a firebreak to be interference with the land and within the scope of section 20(5) of the
Mining Act 1978
?
(2) If not, why not?
(3) Can the Minister state why the Department does not consider the clearing of a firebreak falling either within the scope of the
Mining Act 1978
or KCGM’s lease conditions?
(4) If not, why not?
(5) Can the Minister state why it would have been preferable, in the interests of courtesy, for KCGM to have given the Minister a prior explanation of why the activity was required and when it would occur?
(6) If not, why not?
(7) Did KCGM employees/contractors destroy Mr and Mrs Meyer-Forst’s Freehold Department of Land Administration survey pegs when the company used a front end loader and truck to remove soil and other minerals without the Mr and Mrs Meyer-Forst’s permission on their surveyed freehold property?
(8) If so, is this an offence under the
Mining Act
and
Regulations
and the
Criminal Code
?
(9) Can the Minister state on what basis how the Department satisfied
itself
that the intentions of KCGM were bona fide and aimed at improving the safety and appearance of the area?
(10) If not, why not?
(1) Does the Department consider the clearing of a firebreak to be interference with the land and within the scope of section 20(5) of the
Mining Act 1978
?
(2) If not, why not?
(3) Can the Minister state why the Department does not consider the clearing of a firebreak falling either within the scope of the
Mining Act 1978
or KCGM’s lease conditions?
(4) If not, why not?
(5) Can the Minister state why it would have been preferable, in the interests of courtesy, for KCGM to have given the Minister a prior explanation of why the activity was required and when it would occur?
(6) If not, why not?
(7) Did KCGM employees/contractors destroy Mr and Mrs Meyer-Forst’s Freehold Department of Land Administration survey pegs when the company used a front end loader and truck to remove soil and other minerals without the Mr and Mrs Meyer-Forst’s permission on their surveyed freehold property?
(8) If so, is this an offence under the
Mining Act
and
Regulations
and the
Criminal Code
?
(9) Can the Minister state on what basis how the Department satisfied
itself
that the intentions of KCGM were bona fide and aimed at improving the safety and appearance of the area?
(10) If not, why not?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
26 March 2002
Responded by
Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for State Development
Response time
28 days
(1) No. (2-4) The Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources considers that the clearing of the firebreak was an activity designed to meet KCGM’s obligation to protect both its own and its neighbours’ properties from fire, rather than an 'interference with the land' falling within the scope of section 20(5) of the Mining Act 1978. (5-6) This was a routine operational matter in relation to which KCGM was not required to give me any prior notice or explanation. (7) Yes. (8) It is not an offence under the Mining Act 1978 because the survey pegs did not relate to a mining title. I am not in a position to comment regarding the Criminal Code. (9-10) The Department investigated the matter and, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, concluded that KCGM’s intentions were bona fide and aimed at improving the safety and appearance of the area.
(2-4) The Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources considers that the clearing of the firebreak was an activity designed to meet KCGM’s obligation to protect both its own and its neighbours’ properties from fire, rather than an 'interference with the land' falling within the scope of section 20(5) of the Mining Act 1978. (5-6) This was a routine operational matter in relation to which KCGM was not required to give me any prior notice or explanation. (7) Yes. (8) It is not an offence under the Mining Act 1978 because the survey pegs did not relate to a mining title. I am not in a position to comment regarding the Criminal Code. (9-10) The Department investigated the matter and, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, concluded that KCGM’s intentions were bona fide and aimed at improving the safety and appearance of the area.
(5-6) This was a routine operational matter in relation to which KCGM was not required to give me any prior notice or explanation. (7) Yes. (8) It is not an offence under the Mining Act 1978 because the survey pegs did not relate to a mining title. I am not in a position to comment regarding the Criminal Code. (9-10) The Department investigated the matter and, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, concluded that KCGM’s intentions were bona fide and aimed at improving the safety and appearance of the area.
(7) Yes. (8) It is not an offence under the Mining Act 1978 because the survey pegs did not relate to a mining title. I am not in a position to comment regarding the Criminal Code. (9-10) The Department investigated the matter and, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, concluded that KCGM’s intentions were bona fide and aimed at improving the safety and appearance of the area.
(8) It is not an offence under the Mining Act 1978 because the survey pegs did not relate to a mining title. I am not in a position to comment regarding the Criminal Code. (9-10) The Department investigated the matter and, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, concluded that KCGM’s intentions were bona fide and aimed at improving the safety and appearance of the area.
(9-10) The Department investigated the matter and, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, concluded that KCGM’s intentions were bona fide and aimed at improving the safety and appearance of the area.
(2-4) The Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources considers that the clearing of the firebreak was an activity designed to meet KCGM’s obligation to protect both its own and its neighbours’ properties from fire, rather than an 'interference with the land' falling within the scope of section 20(5) of the Mining Act 1978. (5-6) This was a routine operational matter in relation to which KCGM was not required to give me any prior notice or explanation. (7) Yes. (8) It is not an offence under the Mining Act 1978 because the survey pegs did not relate to a mining title. I am not in a position to comment regarding the Criminal Code. (9-10) The Department investigated the matter and, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, concluded that KCGM’s intentions were bona fide and aimed at improving the safety and appearance of the area.
(5-6) This was a routine operational matter in relation to which KCGM was not required to give me any prior notice or explanation. (7) Yes. (8) It is not an offence under the Mining Act 1978 because the survey pegs did not relate to a mining title. I am not in a position to comment regarding the Criminal Code. (9-10) The Department investigated the matter and, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, concluded that KCGM’s intentions were bona fide and aimed at improving the safety and appearance of the area.
(7) Yes. (8) It is not an offence under the Mining Act 1978 because the survey pegs did not relate to a mining title. I am not in a position to comment regarding the Criminal Code. (9-10) The Department investigated the matter and, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, concluded that KCGM’s intentions were bona fide and aimed at improving the safety and appearance of the area.
(8) It is not an offence under the Mining Act 1978 because the survey pegs did not relate to a mining title. I am not in a position to comment regarding the Criminal Code. (9-10) The Department investigated the matter and, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, concluded that KCGM’s intentions were bona fide and aimed at improving the safety and appearance of the area.
(9-10) The Department investigated the matter and, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, concluded that KCGM’s intentions were bona fide and aimed at improving the safety and appearance of the area.
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.