Save Search

Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Current HansardDownload Current Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Wednesday, 17 August 2011
Page: 4771

Mining

(Question No. 833)


Senator Ludlam asked the Minister representing the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, upon notice, on 6 July 2011:

With reference to the answer to question on notice no. 659 (Senate Hansard, 16 June 2011, p. 137), regarding preliminary discussions between the department and the Western Australian Department of Mines and Petroleum about a possible intermodal facility at Parkeston and its potential use for uranium transport:

(1) Who is the proponent for this facility.

(2) Is the proponent a corporation or joint venture between multiple corporations.

(3) Is there any formal arrangement between the proponent and the Western Australian Department of Mines and Petroleum.

(4) Has there been any discussion about the financing of the facility.

(5) At what stage of planning is the facility.

(6) Are there any preliminary designs of the intermodal facility.

(7) What minerals or materials would the facility be in aid of.

(8) Have there been any preliminary discussions on the location of the facility within Parkeston.

(9) Has there been a referral of the facility to any state or federal government department.


Senator Conroy: The Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:

(1) The proposal has not been referred under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, consequently a proponent has not been determined.

(2) See answer to question 1.

(3) The department and the Western Australian Department of Mines and Petroleum have not discussed this matter.

(4) The department and the Western Australian Department of Mines and Petroleum have not discussed this matter.

(5) Planning for the facility is understood to be at a very early stage. Neither the department nor the minister have been involved in the planning process so I am unable provide a more definitive answer to this question.

(6) The department has not seen any preliminary designs.

(7) This would be a matter for the proponent in the first instance.

(8) The department and the Western Australian Department of Mines and Petroleum have not discussed this matter.

(9) No.