❓ Hon Jon Ford questions the Minister's confidence in the EPA's decision to halt the Margaret River coalmine proposal. Hon Norman Moore defends the EPA and highlights the established mining application process, emphasizing property rights and appeal avenues.
AnsweredQoN 329Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
MARGARET RIVER COALMINE PROPOSAL — ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AUTHORITY
I refer to the Environmental Protection Authority’s recent decision to, in effect, stop LD Operations’ Margaret River coalmine proposal. (1) Is the minister or his department confident of the EPA’s assessment and decision? (2) If not, why not? Hon NORMAN MOORE
I refer to the Environmental Protection Authority’s recent decision to, in effect, stop LD Operations’ Margaret River coalmine proposal. (1) Is the minister or his department confident of the EPA’s assessment and decision? (2) If not, why not? Hon NORMAN MOORE
AnswerView source ↗
(1)–(2) Far be it from me to question the competence of the Environmental Protection Authority, which is what Hon Jon Ford is asking me to do. As far as I am concerned, the situation in Margaret River demonstrates very clearly that the process works. A company was granted a mining lease by the Labor Party in 1989 or 1991, and once the Labor Party gave it the mining lease, it then had certain property rights. I have no say in that because it was done by a previous minister. I know that if a company has a mining lease, it has a property right and is therefore entitled to certain considerations by government, and I know that the shadow minister agrees with me. As a result of the mining lease being granted to the company, it is entitled to make an application to mine, bearing in mind that the granting of a mining lease does not give a company the right to mine; it just gives title over the lease. There is no right to mine. If a company wants to mine, it makes an application through the normal processes of government, including the Environmental Protection Authority, the Department of Environment and Conservation and the Department of Mines and Petroleum, to get all the approvals to mine. If it turns out that the company is knocked back by the Department of Mines and Petroleum, the Environmental Protection Authority or the Department of Environment and Conservation, there is an appeal process. That is underway at the moment. If the appeal of the proponents is not upheld, that is the end of that and the application to mine cannot proceed for environmental reasons. I would have thought that is a pretty good process; it actually works! The people who are complaining about the process ought to have a good, hard look at it and they should recognise that what we have seen here is a process that has worked. I do not know what the ultimate outcome of the appeal will be, but I look forward to that with some interest. If it is that some members of the Labor Party want to take away people’s property rights, they should say so. Hon Jon Ford : It is the Premier who has done that, because he said that if the appeal is successful, he still won’t allow it to occur. Hon NORMAN MOORE : I do not know what the Premier said about that; I have not followed everybody’s comments. The government could make a decision, as members opposite could if they were in government, regardless of the environmental outcomes and the appeal process, that for other reasons the project cannot proceed. That would then become an issue for compensation, which I am sure the member is aware of.
(1) Is the minister or his department confident of the EPA’s assessment and decision? (2) If not, why not? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied : (1)–(2) Far be it from me to question the competence of the Environmental Protection Authority, which is what Hon Jon Ford is asking me to do. As far as I am concerned, the situation in Margaret River demonstrates very clearly that the process works. A company was granted a mining lease by the Labor Party in 1989 or 1991, and once the Labor Party gave it the mining lease, it then had certain property rights. I have no say in that because it was done by a previous minister. I know that if a company has a mining lease, it has a property right and is therefore entitled to certain considerations by government, and I know that the shadow minister agrees with me. As a result of the mining lease being granted to the company, it is entitled to make an application to mine, bearing in mind that the granting of a mining lease does not give a company the right to mine; it just gives title over the lease. There is no right to mine. If a company wants to mine, it makes an application through the normal processes of government, including the Environmental Protection Authority, the Department of Environment and Conservation and the Department of Mines and Petroleum, to get all the approvals to mine. If it turns out that the company is knocked back by the Department of Mines and Petroleum, the Environmental Protection Authority or the Department of Environment and Conservation, there is an appeal process. That is underway at the moment. If the appeal of the proponents is not upheld, that is the end of that and the application to mine cannot proceed for environmental reasons. I would have thought that is a pretty good process; it actually works! The people who are complaining about the process ought to have a good, hard look at it and they should recognise that what we have seen here is a process that has worked. I do not know what the ultimate outcome of the appeal will be, but I look forward to that with some interest. If it is that some members of the Labor Party want to take away people’s property rights, they should say so. Hon Jon Ford : It is the Premier who has done that, because he said that if the appeal is successful, he still won’t allow it to occur. Hon NORMAN MOORE : I do not know what the Premier said about that; I have not followed everybody’s comments. The government could make a decision, as members opposite could if they were in government, regardless of the environmental outcomes and the appeal process, that for other reasons the project cannot proceed. That would then become an issue for compensation, which I am sure the member is aware of.
(2) If not, why not? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied : (1)–(2) Far be it from me to question the competence of the Environmental Protection Authority, which is what Hon Jon Ford is asking me to do. As far as I am concerned, the situation in Margaret River demonstrates very clearly that the process works. A company was granted a mining lease by the Labor Party in 1989 or 1991, and once the Labor Party gave it the mining lease, it then had certain property rights. I have no say in that because it was done by a previous minister. I know that if a company has a mining lease, it has a property right and is therefore entitled to certain considerations by government, and I know that the shadow minister agrees with me. As a result of the mining lease being granted to the company, it is entitled to make an application to mine, bearing in mind that the granting of a mining lease does not give a company the right to mine; it just gives title over the lease. There is no right to mine. If a company wants to mine, it makes an application through the normal processes of government, including the Environmental Protection Authority, the Department of Environment and Conservation and the Department of Mines and Petroleum, to get all the approvals to mine. If it turns out that the company is knocked back by the Department of Mines and Petroleum, the Environmental Protection Authority or the Department of Environment and Conservation, there is an appeal process. That is underway at the moment. If the appeal of the proponents is not upheld, that is the end of that and the application to mine cannot proceed for environmental reasons. I would have thought that is a pretty good process; it actually works! The people who are complaining about the process ought to have a good, hard look at it and they should recognise that what we have seen here is a process that has worked. I do not know what the ultimate outcome of the appeal will be, but I look forward to that with some interest. If it is that some members of the Labor Party want to take away people’s property rights, they should say so. Hon Jon Ford : It is the Premier who has done that, because he said that if the appeal is successful, he still won’t allow it to occur. Hon NORMAN MOORE : I do not know what the Premier said about that; I have not followed everybody’s comments. The government could make a decision, as members opposite could if they were in government, regardless of the environmental outcomes and the appeal process, that for other reasons the project cannot proceed. That would then become an issue for compensation, which I am sure the member is aware of.
Hon NORMAN MOORE replied : (1)–(2) Far be it from me to question the competence of the Environmental Protection Authority, which is what Hon Jon Ford is asking me to do. As far as I am concerned, the situation in Margaret River demonstrates very clearly that the process works. A company was granted a mining lease by the Labor Party in 1989 or 1991, and once the Labor Party gave it the mining lease, it then had certain property rights. I have no say in that because it was done by a previous minister. I know that if a company has a mining lease, it has a property right and is therefore entitled to certain considerations by government, and I know that the shadow minister agrees with me. As a result of the mining lease being granted to the company, it is entitled to make an application to mine, bearing in mind that the granting of a mining lease does not give a company the right to mine; it just gives title over the lease. There is no right to mine. If a company wants to mine, it makes an application through the normal processes of government, including the Environmental Protection Authority, the Department of Environment and Conservation and the Department of Mines and Petroleum, to get all the approvals to mine. If it turns out that the company is knocked back by the Department of Mines and Petroleum, the Environmental Protection Authority or the Department of Environment and Conservation, there is an appeal process. That is underway at the moment. If the appeal of the proponents is not upheld, that is the end of that and the application to mine cannot proceed for environmental reasons. I would have thought that is a pretty good process; it actually works! The people who are complaining about the process ought to have a good, hard look at it and they should recognise that what we have seen here is a process that has worked. I do not know what the ultimate outcome of the appeal will be, but I look forward to that with some interest. If it is that some members of the Labor Party want to take away people’s property rights, they should say so. Hon Jon Ford : It is the Premier who has done that, because he said that if the appeal is successful, he still won’t allow it to occur. Hon NORMAN MOORE : I do not know what the Premier said about that; I have not followed everybody’s comments. The government could make a decision, as members opposite could if they were in government, regardless of the environmental outcomes and the appeal process, that for other reasons the project cannot proceed. That would then become an issue for compensation, which I am sure the member is aware of.
(1)–(2) Far be it from me to question the competence of the Environmental Protection Authority, which is what Hon Jon Ford is asking me to do. As far as I am concerned, the situation in Margaret River demonstrates very clearly that the process works. A company was granted a mining lease by the Labor Party in 1989 or 1991, and once the Labor Party gave it the mining lease, it then had certain property rights. I have no say in that because it was done by a previous minister. I know that if a company has a mining lease, it has a property right and is therefore entitled to certain considerations by government, and I know that the shadow minister agrees with me. As a result of the mining lease being granted to the company, it is entitled to make an application to mine, bearing in mind that the granting of a mining lease does not give a company the right to mine; it just gives title over the lease. There is no right to mine. If a company wants to mine, it makes an application through the normal processes of government, including the Environmental Protection Authority, the Department of Environment and Conservation and the Department of Mines and Petroleum, to get all the approvals to mine. If it turns out that the company is knocked back by the Department of Mines and Petroleum, the Environmental Protection Authority or the Department of Environment and Conservation, there is an appeal process. That is underway at the moment. If the appeal of the proponents is not upheld, that is the end of that and the application to mine cannot proceed for environmental reasons. I would have thought that is a pretty good process; it actually works! The people who are complaining about the process ought to have a good, hard look at it and they should recognise that what we have seen here is a process that has worked. I do not know what the ultimate outcome of the appeal will be, but I look forward to that with some interest. If it is that some members of the Labor Party want to take away people’s property rights, they should say so. Hon Jon Ford : It is the Premier who has done that, because he said that if the appeal is successful, he still won’t allow it to occur. Hon NORMAN MOORE : I do not know what the Premier said about that; I have not followed everybody’s comments. The government could make a decision, as members opposite could if they were in government, regardless of the environmental outcomes and the appeal process, that for other reasons the project cannot proceed. That would then become an issue for compensation, which I am sure the member is aware of.
Hon Jon Ford : It is the Premier who has done that, because he said that if the appeal is successful, he still won’t allow it to occur. Hon NORMAN MOORE : I do not know what the Premier said about that; I have not followed everybody’s comments. The government could make a decision, as members opposite could if they were in government, regardless of the environmental outcomes and the appeal process, that for other reasons the project cannot proceed. That would then become an issue for compensation, which I am sure the member is aware of.
Hon NORMAN MOORE : I do not know what the Premier said about that; I have not followed everybody’s comments. The government could make a decision, as members opposite could if they were in government, regardless of the environmental outcomes and the appeal process, that for other reasons the project cannot proceed. That would then become an issue for compensation, which I am sure the member is aware of.
(1) Is the minister or his department confident of the EPA’s assessment and decision? (2) If not, why not? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied : (1)–(2) Far be it from me to question the competence of the Environmental Protection Authority, which is what Hon Jon Ford is asking me to do. As far as I am concerned, the situation in Margaret River demonstrates very clearly that the process works. A company was granted a mining lease by the Labor Party in 1989 or 1991, and once the Labor Party gave it the mining lease, it then had certain property rights. I have no say in that because it was done by a previous minister. I know that if a company has a mining lease, it has a property right and is therefore entitled to certain considerations by government, and I know that the shadow minister agrees with me. As a result of the mining lease being granted to the company, it is entitled to make an application to mine, bearing in mind that the granting of a mining lease does not give a company the right to mine; it just gives title over the lease. There is no right to mine. If a company wants to mine, it makes an application through the normal processes of government, including the Environmental Protection Authority, the Department of Environment and Conservation and the Department of Mines and Petroleum, to get all the approvals to mine. If it turns out that the company is knocked back by the Department of Mines and Petroleum, the Environmental Protection Authority or the Department of Environment and Conservation, there is an appeal process. That is underway at the moment. If the appeal of the proponents is not upheld, that is the end of that and the application to mine cannot proceed for environmental reasons. I would have thought that is a pretty good process; it actually works! The people who are complaining about the process ought to have a good, hard look at it and they should recognise that what we have seen here is a process that has worked. I do not know what the ultimate outcome of the appeal will be, but I look forward to that with some interest. If it is that some members of the Labor Party want to take away people’s property rights, they should say so. Hon Jon Ford : It is the Premier who has done that, because he said that if the appeal is successful, he still won’t allow it to occur. Hon NORMAN MOORE : I do not know what the Premier said about that; I have not followed everybody’s comments. The government could make a decision, as members opposite could if they were in government, regardless of the environmental outcomes and the appeal process, that for other reasons the project cannot proceed. That would then become an issue for compensation, which I am sure the member is aware of.
(2) If not, why not? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied : (1)–(2) Far be it from me to question the competence of the Environmental Protection Authority, which is what Hon Jon Ford is asking me to do. As far as I am concerned, the situation in Margaret River demonstrates very clearly that the process works. A company was granted a mining lease by the Labor Party in 1989 or 1991, and once the Labor Party gave it the mining lease, it then had certain property rights. I have no say in that because it was done by a previous minister. I know that if a company has a mining lease, it has a property right and is therefore entitled to certain considerations by government, and I know that the shadow minister agrees with me. As a result of the mining lease being granted to the company, it is entitled to make an application to mine, bearing in mind that the granting of a mining lease does not give a company the right to mine; it just gives title over the lease. There is no right to mine. If a company wants to mine, it makes an application through the normal processes of government, including the Environmental Protection Authority, the Department of Environment and Conservation and the Department of Mines and Petroleum, to get all the approvals to mine. If it turns out that the company is knocked back by the Department of Mines and Petroleum, the Environmental Protection Authority or the Department of Environment and Conservation, there is an appeal process. That is underway at the moment. If the appeal of the proponents is not upheld, that is the end of that and the application to mine cannot proceed for environmental reasons. I would have thought that is a pretty good process; it actually works! The people who are complaining about the process ought to have a good, hard look at it and they should recognise that what we have seen here is a process that has worked. I do not know what the ultimate outcome of the appeal will be, but I look forward to that with some interest. If it is that some members of the Labor Party want to take away people’s property rights, they should say so. Hon Jon Ford : It is the Premier who has done that, because he said that if the appeal is successful, he still won’t allow it to occur. Hon NORMAN MOORE : I do not know what the Premier said about that; I have not followed everybody’s comments. The government could make a decision, as members opposite could if they were in government, regardless of the environmental outcomes and the appeal process, that for other reasons the project cannot proceed. That would then become an issue for compensation, which I am sure the member is aware of.
Hon NORMAN MOORE replied : (1)–(2) Far be it from me to question the competence of the Environmental Protection Authority, which is what Hon Jon Ford is asking me to do. As far as I am concerned, the situation in Margaret River demonstrates very clearly that the process works. A company was granted a mining lease by the Labor Party in 1989 or 1991, and once the Labor Party gave it the mining lease, it then had certain property rights. I have no say in that because it was done by a previous minister. I know that if a company has a mining lease, it has a property right and is therefore entitled to certain considerations by government, and I know that the shadow minister agrees with me. As a result of the mining lease being granted to the company, it is entitled to make an application to mine, bearing in mind that the granting of a mining lease does not give a company the right to mine; it just gives title over the lease. There is no right to mine. If a company wants to mine, it makes an application through the normal processes of government, including the Environmental Protection Authority, the Department of Environment and Conservation and the Department of Mines and Petroleum, to get all the approvals to mine. If it turns out that the company is knocked back by the Department of Mines and Petroleum, the Environmental Protection Authority or the Department of Environment and Conservation, there is an appeal process. That is underway at the moment. If the appeal of the proponents is not upheld, that is the end of that and the application to mine cannot proceed for environmental reasons. I would have thought that is a pretty good process; it actually works! The people who are complaining about the process ought to have a good, hard look at it and they should recognise that what we have seen here is a process that has worked. I do not know what the ultimate outcome of the appeal will be, but I look forward to that with some interest. If it is that some members of the Labor Party want to take away people’s property rights, they should say so. Hon Jon Ford : It is the Premier who has done that, because he said that if the appeal is successful, he still won’t allow it to occur. Hon NORMAN MOORE : I do not know what the Premier said about that; I have not followed everybody’s comments. The government could make a decision, as members opposite could if they were in government, regardless of the environmental outcomes and the appeal process, that for other reasons the project cannot proceed. That would then become an issue for compensation, which I am sure the member is aware of.
(1)–(2) Far be it from me to question the competence of the Environmental Protection Authority, which is what Hon Jon Ford is asking me to do. As far as I am concerned, the situation in Margaret River demonstrates very clearly that the process works. A company was granted a mining lease by the Labor Party in 1989 or 1991, and once the Labor Party gave it the mining lease, it then had certain property rights. I have no say in that because it was done by a previous minister. I know that if a company has a mining lease, it has a property right and is therefore entitled to certain considerations by government, and I know that the shadow minister agrees with me. As a result of the mining lease being granted to the company, it is entitled to make an application to mine, bearing in mind that the granting of a mining lease does not give a company the right to mine; it just gives title over the lease. There is no right to mine. If a company wants to mine, it makes an application through the normal processes of government, including the Environmental Protection Authority, the Department of Environment and Conservation and the Department of Mines and Petroleum, to get all the approvals to mine. If it turns out that the company is knocked back by the Department of Mines and Petroleum, the Environmental Protection Authority or the Department of Environment and Conservation, there is an appeal process. That is underway at the moment. If the appeal of the proponents is not upheld, that is the end of that and the application to mine cannot proceed for environmental reasons. I would have thought that is a pretty good process; it actually works! The people who are complaining about the process ought to have a good, hard look at it and they should recognise that what we have seen here is a process that has worked. I do not know what the ultimate outcome of the appeal will be, but I look forward to that with some interest. If it is that some members of the Labor Party want to take away people’s property rights, they should say so. Hon Jon Ford : It is the Premier who has done that, because he said that if the appeal is successful, he still won’t allow it to occur. Hon NORMAN MOORE : I do not know what the Premier said about that; I have not followed everybody’s comments. The government could make a decision, as members opposite could if they were in government, regardless of the environmental outcomes and the appeal process, that for other reasons the project cannot proceed. That would then become an issue for compensation, which I am sure the member is aware of.
Hon Jon Ford : It is the Premier who has done that, because he said that if the appeal is successful, he still won’t allow it to occur. Hon NORMAN MOORE : I do not know what the Premier said about that; I have not followed everybody’s comments. The government could make a decision, as members opposite could if they were in government, regardless of the environmental outcomes and the appeal process, that for other reasons the project cannot proceed. That would then become an issue for compensation, which I am sure the member is aware of.
Hon NORMAN MOORE : I do not know what the Premier said about that; I have not followed everybody’s comments. The government could make a decision, as members opposite could if they were in government, regardless of the environmental outcomes and the appeal process, that for other reasons the project cannot proceed. That would then become an issue for compensation, which I am sure the member is aware of.
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.