apla february 2016 newsletter number 30 · po box 2570 boulder wa 6432. stakeholder response form...

Copyright 2016 © Amalgamated and Prospectors and Leaseholders Association. Contact [email protected]

Date 30/01/2015 Issue Number 30

APLA NEWSLETTER

Whats Inside: 2016 Membership Fees Due……………………………………………………………………………………………………….………..2

Update on the Mining Act Amendments Bill..............................................................…...2

Professional and small Miners concerns…………………………………………………………………………………….…………2 APLA Stakeholder Response Form……………………………………………………………………………………………….……….5 Case Study - Bulong Mining, POW – P, ID 55532 ..……………………………………………………………………….….…..8 Letter Drafted to Hon William Marmion…………………………………………………………………………………….………10 Excerpt from Kalgoolie Miner………………………………………………………………………………………………….………….12 APLA discussion with DMP about the impact on proposed camping legalisation…………………………….…..12 Aboriginal Affairs Case Study – Input required………………………………………………………………………………….…15

Latest DMP News................................................................................................................……………..15

DMP unveils Abandoned Mine Policy The Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP) is seeking public comment on the proposed structure and content for a new publication Working in remote or isolated areas – guideline …………………………………………………………………………..….16

Branch Updates Perth……………………………………………………………………………………………….…………….. 16

Mandurah Branch……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……..18

South West Branch …………………………………………………………………….…………………………………………..……... 18

Safety First

EPIRBS (Electronic Position Indicating Radio Beacon)…………………………………….…….…………………………….20 Extra outback safety tips…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….21

GENERAL Outback Detecting Buddies ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………....21 Chit Chat ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….… 21

mailto:[email protected]

http://dmp.us2.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=cba119dd163867c2e7916c1f3&id=b4b934d3fd&e=cc7cb2e117


2016 Membership Subscriptions Due.

Electronic Invoices for the 2016 subscriptions have been sent out 15 December 2015 - if you did not get an

electronic invoice by email then;

1. Your email address is incorrect, 2. You do not have an email address, or, 3. You asked to have your accounts sent by Mail.

In the case of 1. Your email address is incorrect then you can login to your membership and change your email

address to the correct one or email [email protected] so the correct address can be put on your records.

NOTE – Second email invoices for non-paid accounts were sent out on 30 January 2016 – if you have paid then

please contact bill O’Connor Treasurer on 08 93051496 so it can be investigated.

Mining Legislation Amendment Bill 2015

THE MINING LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2015 (PT.2 (Bill No. 128-

1)

Professional & Small Miner Concerns

The Mining Legislation Amendment Bill 2015, will introduce the biggest changes in the mining Act since 1978 and

has already been debated in the Lower House of Parliament and is currently scheduled for the second reading in the

Upper House early in February in less than a month’s time and is about to be passed into law. The main effect

of this new legislation is to incorporate large sections WA Environmental Protection Act Legislation into the Mining

Act, following the significantly increased influence of the environmental division in policy development and

management within the DMP.

Prospectors believe the proposed amendments are unworkable for small miners and will drive them out of business.

The message of the Bill for small operators is “get big or get out of mining”, as the DMP will make no provision to

accommodate you. Prospectors seek support from Upper House members for this legislation to be sent to

committee for serious review, to take into consideration its serious shortcomings and the genuine concerns of small




miners and to protect their important role in the mining industry and regional economy. The critical concerns of this

important sector of the mining industry has been completely ignored in the drafting of this bill.

What prospectors and small miners specifically want from these parliamentarians.

The net effect of the proposed legislative changes will be drive several hundred fulltime prospectors and small

miners, who live and work in regional W.A., from the businesses and investments they have built up over many

years, forcing them to seek employment elsewhere, sell up (more likely be forced to abandon their assets) and

leave regional W.A., taking their capital, enterprise, knowhow and abilities elsewhere (for there is no other

employment for most of these individuals in regional W.A.).

This will have a dramatic effect on regional centres, on local flow-on service industries, community participation,

housing values, community government, community services, local, regional and State political representation,

the considerable shire rates generated form lease holdings, and the economic viability of whole communities in

regional W.A..

This could precipitate a serious depopulation and capital outflow from major regional centres and the creation

of ghost towns from what were once significant, viable and important population centres. Towns like Kalgoorlie

could suffer significant population declines with local mines being forced to use FIFO workers. This would

further hollow out local communities, local businesses and the life blood of these communities. Do we want to

effectively further depopulate inland Australia?

Small miners are the backbone of free enterprise in regional W.A. and hold (13%) or over 3000 of the 24,000

granted tenements (8% of the Exploration Licences, 28% of the prospecting Licences, and 10% of the Mining

Leases), and make up 42% of all tenement holders. They pay substantial shire rates on these tenements (the

major source of rate income in many shires), and pay around $40/tenement hectare/year into the regional

economy to for fill the annual expenditure requirements the DMP levies on these tenements. They also produce

collectively more than a tonne of gold per year (worth in excess of $50 million), which is also largely invested

and spent in regional W.A. where these people largely work, live, spend, raise families and vote. All this is

unnecessarily at risk with what is currently proposed and that could easily be remedied with a little more

consideration and thought by those charged with the responsibility for economic management and responsible

stewardship of these nationally significant assets. Nothing the small miners want is expensive, or will detract

from what the big end miners will gain from the proposed amendments. Larger miners will also benefit from

these changes as will the whole of regional W.A. There are no losers here and only small changes are being

suggested that could simply avoid serious problems and a great deal of unnecessary economic pain and the

potential for considerable economic devastation across regional W.A.

Small miners and prospectors provide a valuable role in subsidizing many mining company exploration program

expenditure requirements on leases by prospecting and undertaking small mining activities on company ground.

This allows companies to continue to maintain titles, expend more efficiently on exploration

Programs and maintain leases that might otherwise be relinquished. In the process this provides for the

continuation if much needed local shire rates payable on these leases, particularly in bad times.

Prospectors and small miners are also generally responsible for the initial discovery of most orebodies in that they

are hard-working, self-funding, and self-motivated; scouring their tenements and the landscape on a daily basis,

turning over every suspicious rock, testing with assays, traditional skills and applying years of hard-won experience.

Mining company geologists don’t do any of this, they don’t scour the countryside, instead they largely follow-up

leads provided by others (often prospectors) and applying their own knowledge and skills to ground brought to their

attention by the hard work of others. Companies could not afford to replace prospectors with geologists. It would be

like reorganising the medical profession by removing GP’s and sending out the medical specialists to find their own



patients. The vital link in the finding of orebodies by prospectors has been largely overlooked and unappreciated

and could be jeopardized by these proposed changes. It is a fact of life that most ore bodies in the past and even

today were/are discovered by prospectors (who are out there on the ground every day in their hundreds), passing

on discoveries to corporate miners who document, finance, developed and claimed them for the big end of mining.

This is where most of our ore bodies largely come from, but perhaps not for much longer if the Department of

Mining and Petroleum (DMP), gets its way. Another $4 billion Bronzewing orebody left in the ground, undiscovered

by prospectors, benefits nobody.

Significant simple changes to accommodate the small miner (that would not compromise the wider industry)

would be:

Remove newly introduced excessive documentation and fees for POW’s and Mining Proposals for work on small

land areas (under 10 hectares).

Recognise that the nature of ground disturbing work is immaterial when fair rehabilitation follows. The state of

the ground after rehabilitation is the critical is of concern, not the tonnage disturbed.

Improve environmental standards by improving environmental understanding and general mining competency

of all DMP personal. At the moment it is woeful. Small miners with 30+ years of successful operation know far

more about what works in specific circumstances, than recent wet and naïve environmental graduates and more

importantly far more about what is practical in terms of mining processes and economics.

DMP officials can give you many reasons why a work proposal is refused, but cannot and do not tell you how it

can succeed. If mining activity is to be thwarted and frustrated to the extent that it cannot proceed, then why

grant tenements in the first place?

In the vast majority of cases the quantity of disturbed land is miniscule, has no other economic or social value or

purpose, and will make no practical contribution to the State, the economy or the environment and is by far the

most productive use of that relatively small area of land.

Common sense, proven practicality, and the well-acknowledged fact that 98% (a DMP claim) of small operators have

met all environmental requirements over a great many years, seem to have been neglected. Things have worked

well for the small end of mining in the past. If it ain’t broke not only don’t fix it, but don’t strangle in costly time

consuming red tape, and don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater as this current mining Amendments Act

attempts to do. Nothing the small miners want is expensive, or will detract from what the gig miners will gain from

the proposed amendments. There are no losers here and only small changes in to Act and the DMP policies are

being suggested that could simply avoid serious problems and a great deal of unnecessary economic pain across and

industry in crises that is critical to the wellbeing of regional W.A.

Rather than rejecting the bill in its current form, Upper House MP’s should instead submit it to a properly convened

and representative committee (in which all stakeholders in the industry are represented), to shore up its numerous

shortcomings before resubmission.

It would also be essential to ensure that if good workable laws are introduced, the new Mining Regulations that will

eventually accompany the legislation could be reviewed at the same time and that a complementary package of

mining legislation and mining regulation results.



Following is the APLA Stakeholder Response Form

PO Box 2570 Boulder WA 6432.

Stakeholder Response Form “General comment(s)”

APLA welcomes DMPs draft “Refuse or Decline” policy, as yet in its formative stages. APLA hopes that this

initiative will put an end to the ad-hoc and drastic, punitive system of the past two years. We are however

disappointed that whilst the policy lists timelines that must be adhered to by the POW/MP proponent, it

provides no reciprocating similar obligation on the DMP. APLA will provide a case study to support its case

that such an obligation is mandatory if the DMP is to provide prompt, timely and orderly communication

methods. It is also noted that the DMP has provided no system of audit in the event of a dispute. Neither has

it outlined an appeal mode using a neutral arbiter.

Additionally, APLA has had difficulty in securing a version of the policy that can be easily edited, such as an

MS Word document. The version provided on the DMP website link is in Adobe PDF format and the small

prospector and miner does not have the expensive Adobe software required. This is in contrast to the many

Mineral Titles forms that have been available in easily accessible, editable MS Word format alongside the

PDF format for years. It has taken APLA two weeks and five DMP contacts to get a copy of the Submission

Header so that an electronic reply can be sent in a format that is preferred by the DMP. This appears to be an

increase in bureaucracy and not the reduction that APLA is told about at every meeting we have. APLA is

trying to comply, the DMP is making it difficult.

Comments on: “PROCEDURE RELATING TO DECLINING AND REFUSING ENVIRONMENTAL

APPLICATIONS” (or “PROPOSED APPROACH TOWARDS DECLINING AND REFUSING

APPLICATIONS”)

APLA notes the terminology used here and welcomes the consistency that will be used in the future.

“Declining to accept an application”

APLA notes that there is no timeline defined for the applicant when an application is being considered under

this category. Neither is there a mirror obligation on the DMP that will compel the DMP to adhere to a timeline

policy itself. APLA regards this lack of mutual obligation as biased and is not seen as complimenting an

efficient service philosophy. APLA adds that the omission of a timeline in this category is disparate to the rest

of the policy.

“Refusing (to approve) an environmental application”



As above, APLA sees no reciprocation from the DMP as to how quickly they will deal with any information

providing by an applicant.

APLA feels procedural changes are required in the assessment process. At present it appears that the assessment

process is done by utilising a holistic approach. This philosophy causes the delays that APLA members have

experienced. Further enquiries have revealed that replies from applicants and other government agencies have been

sitting on desktops for over 3 months. APLA suggests that an “overall, total picture” approach to an assessment be

abandoned at the outset when an application cannot succeed by dint of an immediately apparent, fatal flaw. It should

not be case where an application is assessed to the nth degree when something such as “tonnage” was regarded

excessive in its initial reading and therefore fatal to the application’s success. The application should have “fallen at

the first fence” and not had to go through a procedure taking many months whilst other information is sought, when

this other information would not have assisted the grant in any way. It failed at the first fence – refer to APLA’s case

study attached.

APLA disagrees that a DMP Environmental Officer should be the final arbiter of adverse decisions. This

sentence in the policy does nothing to comply with the contemporary maxims of “Procedural Fairness” and

“Natural Justice. This, from the policy document itself, “To ensure that assessment decisions are fair, justified

and consistently applied, the recommendation to refuse an application will be reviewed by a decision-maker

at least at Team Leader level.”

There is no dispute in any judgement until a point is reached where an adverse decision is made. When such

a decision reached and disputed, and only at that point, the “Refuse or Decline” policy must contain a method

of appeal to a neutral arbiter. It has always been the case in the event of any dispute over mining issues,

whether it be between external third parties or between the DMP and a second party, that there is the facility

to refer that matter to a Mining Warden. The Assessment Process that is being used by the DMP

Environmental Section is now part of the WA Mining Act. As such, any disputes that are contained under that

Act are referred to a Mining Warden and can be passed up to Ministerial level and as far as The Supreme

Court. APLA suggests this policy should include such avenues of appeal to ensure a complete absence of

any bias, perceived or otherwise.

APLA copies directly here from the West Australian Government Ombudsman publication:

“The type of hearing should be proportional to the nature of the decision. For instance, if the

consequences of the proposed decision are highly significant, a formal hearing process may be

warranted. In contrast, if the matter is relatively straightforward, a simple exchange of letters may be all

that is needed. Generally, in any oral (or face-to-face) hearing, it is reasonable to bring a friend or lawyer

as an observer, so you may wish to consider this.”

And further:

“The rules of procedural fairness require:

a hearing appropriate to the circumstances;

lack of bias;

evidence to support a decision; and

inquiry into matters in dispute.”



For more background:

http://www.ombudsman.wa.gov.au/Publications/Documents/guidelines/Procedural-fairness-

guidelines.pdf

The DMP policy thus far has never included a “stop the clock” clause, where all government agency costs such as rent and rates are suspended for the period of the Environmental Assessment. APLA feels this is grossly unfair as no work can be done on the applicant’s tenement whilst the assessment process is being finalised. This is contrary to the spirit of the Mining Act where every effort is made to encourage mining endeavour. A similar analogy would be the case of an “Application For Forfeiture” passing through the Warden’s Court system wherein the tenement holder is excused all expenditure on said tenement until the application is finalised one way or the other. It follows that it is the DMP process that is causing the delay therefore the applicant should not be penalised. It matters not that the applicant is part of the process as it is the actual process that is preventing work progress and not the applicant. APLA will highlight this point in its case presentation. APLA insists a “stop the clock” clause be introduced into this policy.

APLA sees no allowance in this draft policy that takes account of delays caused by other external government agencies, regardless of which party is seeking such clarifications. e.g Local shire and city councils that have control of town reserves or government agencies such as Dept Of Water etc. Such a clause is mandatory in a multi-discipline policy such as Environmental Assessment. Such decisions and inputs are major considerations but not all decisions and inputs are the sole domain of the DMP Environmental Section. Any delay to final refuse or decline decision process that is impacted by other external agencies should not penalise the applicant or jeopardise the application’s success. DMP must introduce internal systems to cater for such events.

“Notification of assessment decisions”

When the DMP notifies the applicant that an application has been “refused” then the “Letter of Refusal”

must inform the applicant that there is a process of appeal to a neutral arbiter.

In summary.

That these adverse assessments fit into the category of substantial detriment is beyond doubt when delays in project commencement are taken into consideration. These delays cause DMP rents and Shire Rates to be paid at a time when the DMP is still taking time to reach a decision and thus work cannot proceed.

Furthermore, the DMP currently has an open ended timeframe and any consequent adverse decision demands another lengthy application that has no timeline framework for the governing

body, the DMP. APLA extracts the following from the DMP’s own text, “Setting required response times is a critical element of effectively managing the workload and resources of DMP”. This must be a mutual obligation if the DMP is to abide by such aspiration.

If application fees ever return to the scope of the DMP’s Environmental Assessments any delays will simply compound the losses.

An appeal process is required and would fit with current practices in other sections of the DMP and that of other government departments. Such financially crucial disputes should not be judged by the decision maker. APLA considers all of the above omissions and the simplistic proposals to be fatal to the public issue of a finalised “Refuse or Decline Policy”.

The policy needs more input,thought and consideration if it is to meet the high standards of the current WA Mining Act that have been developed over the course of a century of mining and prospecting.



Technical Author, Les Lowe – on behalf of the APLA Executive Team. Please ensure all replies are

addressed via the APLA Secretary - [email protected]

Case Study

This is a study of delays that caused unnecessary work stoppage and

expense to an APLA member, through no fault of that member. Case - Bulong

Mining, POW – P, ID 55532

Outline.

APLA feels there is no need to provide a sheaf of documents to present this case as the DMP Environmental Section

has the all the relevant information that came from this protracted exercise. Suffice to use the ID number for

document tracing.

1. APLA notes that the POW-P for this case was lodged on 26th June 2015. The final rejection letter from Ian

Mitchell is dated 14th October 2015. A period of approximately 4 months.

2. The correspondence timeline indicates that several requests for further information were made of the POW-P applicant. APLA’s investigations reveal that the applicant responded promptly to each request and within acceptable timeframes. APLA is also aware that the case papers were left for several weeks without any progress checks or enquiries.

3. APLA also notes that the bulk of the items requiring further information relied on enquiries to other government departments over which the applicant had no control.

4. APLA contends that the applicant supplied sufficient assurance that he would not transgress into reserve areas that were located within the mining tenements that were the subject of the POW-P. To achieve this, the applicant used the accepted tick-box method on the POW-P application.

5. Despite the above “tick box” assurance, DMP chose an alternative path for an assurance and sought legal advice that additional assurances may be required by the use of Statutory Declarations.

6. This whole list of additional demands to provide double indemnity for the DMP despite adherence to existing and accepted clauses within the Mining Act caused an exceptionally protracted and unnecessary assessment process. APLA has never previously observed this level of bureaucracy and scrutiny.




7. The DMP was aware that the applicant was seeking all relevant information and permits from the respective government departments to secure prospecting on certain reserves. These included Trades Hall & Camping Reserve, and also reducing the offset or setback with regard to Cemetery and graves.

8. The POW-P ID number 55532 was refused. The reason for refusal was given as tonnage in excess of that allowed under the POW-P regime. This was despite the knowledge that tonnage is unrestricted when applied to a Mining Lease.

9. APLA now feels that a decision to refuse the POW-P could have been achieved by simply applying the tonnage issue to the assessment process in the first days of the life of the application. There was no need for the lengthy and increasing enquiries about Town Reserves, Pastoral Infrastructure etc. Basically, the application literally “failed the first test”. Why then was the applicant subjected to the needlessly extended enquiry process when the final refusal decision was made on grounds that were obvious at the outset?

10. The applicant replied to the refusal pleading the case on 15/10/2015 and a longer response from DMP was given in return. However, there were no grounds for appeal.

11. The applicant in this case now has to lodge another POW or MP whilst the costs mount. Thus far the

applicant’s total charges from the DMP are in the order of $20,000.00 in delays to this and other similarly

detailed scrutiny applications. This does not include lost working time or lost profit opportunity.

It is precisely the above situation that APLA seeks to avoid when it asks for the DMP to adopt a timeline backcheck

policy within its own systems. APLA also seeks a method of review or appeal to a neutral umpire. Additionally, in

order to avoid the cost of several thousand dollars whilst waiting for assessment completion that APLA suggests a

“stop the clock” mechanism should be adopted by the DMP. The case above highlights not the promised reduction in

red tape but a major increase. If this is the modus operandi for future Environmental Section enquiries, then a “stop

the clock” system is the least that can be done to reduce the cost impact of such enquiries. APLA does not dispute

the need for environmental scrutiny, but we do dispute the system under which it is done.

End of case study.

Submission Technical Author, Les Lowe – on behalf of the APLA Executive Team. Please ensure all replies are

addressed via the APLA Secretary - [email protected]




Letter Drafted to Hon William Marmion

A copy of the following letter was emailed to all current members of Parliament in an effort to have the

Mining Act Amendments Bill set aside to a review committee that may even adopt our concerns, which

was not done by you in the two meetings with DMP and yourself.

The next elections are only 14 months away and APLA will ensure that as many voters as practicable are

informed of the anomalies presented before Parliament to do with the Legislation.


Hon William Marmion

Level 10, London House

216 St George Terrace

Perth WA 6000

Dear Minister,

As requested by many Upper House politicians after our mail out in November 2015, APLA have listed our concerns

of the proposed Mining Amendments Bill currently in the Upper House. This is a 10 point list as follows:

Here are a selection of 10 specific items (amongst a great many) in the Mining Amendments Bill 2015 &

associated legislation listed with a short comment. Full-time prospectors and many others will find these

crippling with far reaching, adverse flow-on effects for the wider regional community. All for little or no

benefit to the professional prospector and small miner. Any advantages in this legislation are to the benefit

of the big end of mining, at the expense of the small end. Prospectors and small miners need input into this

process to effectively argue their case. So far their concerns have been ignored or worse forgotten in this

process.

1. Section 8 (1) - Removal of the definition of ground disturbance equipment. Outcome: No flexibility

for machinery to be used and potential requirement for the serial number of the machine

undertaking the activity to be recorded against the POW. The definition of ground disturbance

equipment has now been replaced with Part IVAA Division 2, which is now some 27 pages of

amendments.



2. In the case of a prospector holding a granted prospecting licence with an annual expenditure

requirement of $2000 per annum that is in the final year of its term. The holder is now required to lodge a

mining proposal which will incur a $6,950 fee. This amount is greater than the annual expenditure and

would force many to drop the tenement. This would happen in the 4th

year. An extreme increase in costs.

Even small miners need larger POW’s often covering large tenements for short periods and will have to

face a disproportionate burden compared to large miners for same fee.

3. Section 103 AY (1) (a)(b)(c) - Where native vegetation is cleared an additional area is required to

establish and maintain native vegetation to offset loss of land from clearing. Tenement holder may be

required to make monetary contributions to a fund for the purpose of establishing and maintaining native

vegetation. Outcome- Similar to a carbon offset program and will be cost prohibitive for tenement

holders. What other industry has to pay to clear native vegetation? Farmers do not have to do this –

why miners? Direct increase in costs

4. Section 103 AZC (1) (2) - A environmental management system required for mining leases and

miscellaneous licences. Outcome- This is a new layer of regulatory burden that industry cannot

afford.

5. Section 74. Mining Proposal needed for every Mining Lease application attracting huge fee. Why

not allow an ML application if you already have an active Low Impact or POW in place on your

PL (similar to what we now enjoy) – why go to all the extra trouble and rewrite and reapprove what you

are already allowed to do? – Can only be so the DMP can get the extra money.

6. Section 103AD. $20,000 fine - Draconian environmental law that penalises for giving misinformation –

A first in the Mining Act. What about degrees of severity and honest mistakes? – Whom, and what

process dictates the guilty?

7. Sec 103AE. Prospecting’ is a ‘Relevant Activity’ – To undertake a ‘RA’ you have to give a notice of

Low Impact Activity. So unless the regulations specifically define Prospecting to be other than a Low

Impact Activity you will have to lodge a Low Impact notice [or even a POW - 103AE(3) ] every time you

go “Prospecting” - This could be taken to extremes and say that Metal Detecting (prospecting) needs a LI

notice. Bottom line is how we know this won’t be the case without seeing the complete picture – the

whole Act and Regulations in mark-up form is needed and presented together. This is Russian Roulette

and we are the only ones playing.

8. Section 103AJ. Mine closure plans are now a condition of grant - every three years but subject to

review. – Greater hassles and paperwork particularly if mine closures will be many years away.

9. Section 103AM. Guidelines for environmental accountability are over the top. Difficult to satisfy the

conditions - you will likely need an environmental expert to write up reports for you to satisfy the

DMP…a considerable burden at considerable additional cost and drain on management resources.

There would need to be thresholds.

10. Section 103AZC. Environmentalists taking over the management systems. Too many reporting

conditions such as EMS’s are killing the small leaseholder.

APLA will not allow poor legislation to be passed through Parliament that affects the lives of so many prospectors,

tenement holders and small miners.

Yours sincerely,



Extract from Kalgoorlie Miner



Caravan and Camping Rights Under Threat!

APLA DISCUSSION WITH DMP ABOUT THE IMPACTS ON CAMPING

APLA are discussing this with the DMP relating to camping under a Miners Right while Prospecting for Gold

to ensure:

1) They are aware of it.

2) Miners Right holders camping on Crown Land for the purpose of Prospecting are not covered under the

Red Tape of these changes.

3) There is a clear definition and understanding of the right of camping on Mining Leases under the Act

and Camping on Crown Land and Pastoral Leases for the purposes of prospecting or mining

4) That Crown Land and the DPAW stations are excluded not caught up in the red tape bureaucratise of

the Local Government .

This is a response that APLA have already had from DMP "DMP will approach the Dept. of Local

Government and Communities to insure there will be no change to Regulation 8 of the CPCGR to ensure

the camping rights under the Mining Act and Regulations are preserved.

DMP will also request a copy of any draft legislation amendments for comment." However this paper will

definitely have some impact on APLA and Travelling prospectors and individuals need to put some input

into it to protect their future rights AND THE RIGHTS OF THEIR CHILDREN are protected.

Following is a submission from the APLA to the Dept of Local Government and

Communities




Senior Legislation and Strategy Officer

Caravans and Camping Review

Department of Local Government and Communities

GPO Box R1250

Perth WA 6844

SUBMISSION BY APLA ON THE SECOND CONSULTATION PAPER –

PROPOSAL FOR HOLIDAY AND CAMPING GROUNDS LEGISLATION

Sir/Madam,

The Amalgamated Prospectors and Leaseholders Association Inc (APLA) would like to

present the following submission:

We as Prospectors and Leaseholders commonly travel long distances in WA, mainly in

modern caravans to prospect and work on mining tenements. Most of the areas we

travel to are Pastoral Leases and Crown land. All members of APLA possess a Miners’

Right from the Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP), which confers rights under

the Western Australia Mining Act 1986, and we are very protective of those long fought

for and hard won rights.

DMP are aware of the proposed amendments and we are in discussion with DMP on the

Caravanning and Camping Legislation and have been given assurances on the following:

Miners’ Right holders camping on Crown Land for the purposes of Prospecting or small

Leaseholders working their leases will not be affected by the changes;

There is a clear definition and understanding of the right to camping on Mining

Tenements and Crown Land under the Mining Act for the purpose of mining and

detecting.

That Crown Land and the DPAW stations are excluded and not caught up in the red tape

of Local Government.

We have received a response from the DMP stating the following:

“DMP will approach the Department of Local Government and Communities to make

sure there will be no change to Regulation 8 of the CPCGR and to ensure the camping

rights under the Mining Acts and Regulations are preserved. DMP will also request a

copy of any draft legislation amendments for comment.”



Aboriginal Affairs Case Study - Input Required .

Dept Aboriginal Affairs Case Study - Input Required by Leaseholders APLA is seeking data and information

to present case studies to the WA Dept Of Aboriginal Affairs (DAA). This information will form part of a

presentation that the DAA will make in Canberra to highlight the issues that are contained within the

current system and how it can be improved for the benefit of prospectors and miners. Your assistance is

greatly appreciated. Please keep the material clear and concise and it must be your own experiences and

not second hand stories.

Please indicate your preferred level of confidentiality and whether you wish the undersigned or a DAA

representative to contact you.

Contact Les Lowe Phone 95276448 or mobile 0457658634 or this APLA email address - [email protected]

LATEST DMP NEWS

New policy establishes framework for rehabilitating abandoned mine sites.

Date: Friday, 15 January 2016

A robust framework for managing and rehabilitating Western Australia’s abandoned mine sites has

been published by the Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP).

Since 2010 the department has been implementing a number of significant environmental reforms

relating to mine closures across the State.

This has included the creation of the Mining Rehabilitation Fund (MRF), a dedicated fund used to

address the problems posed by abandoned mines, and improvements to the planning arrangements

around mine closures.

Executive Director Environment Dr Phil Gorey said the release of DMP’s new Abandoned Mines Policy

represented another important milestone towards reforming DMP’s regulatory and policy frameworks

for mine closure.

“It is important that there is a robust policy and project framework in place to support any decisions

regarding the prioritisation, management and rehabilitation of the State’s abandoned mine sites,” Dr

Gorey said.



http://www.dmp.wa.gov.au/Environment/Mining-Rehabilitation-Fund-MRF-4906.aspx


“DMP’s new Abandoned Mines Policy will ensure decisions are undertaken in a strategic manner that

balances the risks, costs, benefit to the environment and the community and the potential value of a

site that could be realised”.

“It will also be supported by a number of other initiatives the department will be developing over the

coming months to create further efficient, sustainable and innovative solutions to the problems posed

by abandoned mines.”

DMP’s new Abandoned Mines Policy was created following extensive consultation and feedback from

a broad cross-section of interested parties.

A Response to Submissions document outlining the comments received has also been published and

is available to view on the department’s website.

“The reality is that it is neither practical nor desirable to rehabilitate all abandoned mine sites across

the State,” Dr Gorey said.

“However, this new innovative and whole-of-government approach will ensure that MRF funds are

allocated and prioritised on abandoned mines sites that will deliver the best outcomes for Western

Australia.”

Help shape safety guideline Public comment sought for proposed outline of new guideline on working in remote or isolated areas.

Date: Thursday, 07 January 2016

The Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP) is seeking public comment on the proposed structure

and content for a new publication Working in remote or isolated areas – guideline.

Mines Safety Director Andrew Chaplyn said the guideline will assist mining and exploration operations

to develop safe systems of work for workers in remote or isolated areas.

“The guideline will cover individuals and groups working remotely or in isolation away from readily

accessible infrastructure and support services,” Mr Chaplyn said.

“Remote or isolated work can provide a number of challenges which need to be addressed to ensure

the work is carried out safely.


http://www.dmp.wa.gov.au/Documents/Environment/Abandoned_mines_policy.pdf

http://www.dmp.wa.gov.au/Documents/Environment/Abandoned_mines_policy_for_stakeholder_comment.pdf


“The guideline will provide important safety information and guidance to help ensure the safety of

workers in remote or isolated areas.”

Mr Chaplyn said the public comment period was an opportunity to identify gaps in coverage, provide

ideas for content, and any other sources of information.

“As a department, we are committed to improving safety in Western Australia’s resources industry,” Mr

Chaplyn said.

“Developing guidelines with input from across industry is an important part of that process.”

Information on the scope of the new guideline and its provisional structure and content is available on

the department’s website.

Feedback closes at noon on Friday 29 January 2016 and should be sent

to [email protected]

BRANCH UPDATES

PERTH BRANCH

Perth Presidents Plug

Wow, 2016 already and January is almost gone. The Perth branch of APLA finished off 2015 with a well-attended

meeting in December which was a brief meeting and a social get together for the members finishing off with the

draw for the MInelab 5000 detector which was raffled for fundraising to offset the cost of holding the open days and

to also subsidize the training for members.

Congratulations to:

Norm Pickett:- First Prize Mine Lab 5000 – Ticket # 0070

Michael Locke:- Second Prize – Nugget finder Coil Ticket number 0084

Tom Bateman:- Third Prize – Detector Bag – Tom Bateman Ticket Number 0874


http://www.dmp.wa.gov.au/Documents/Safety/MSH_Outline_WorkingRemoteAreas_DRAFT.docx



The success of holding the Open Days is reflected in not only the new members that we achieve through them but

also the amount of positive feedback that we get each year from members and non-members about the content

and that we are raising the public profile of not just APLA but also about prospecting in WA and doing it legally.

2016 is shaping up to be a very busy year for all of APLA and especially the executives, with the executive having

spent much of the Christmas break still fighting the battle for a parliamentary review of the proposed changes to the

mining act which are due to be debated in the upper house in Feb. These changes are far reaching and could affect

everyone from leaseholders to the casual detectorist, so if you haven’t made your voice heard to your local member

and also local opposition members then now is the time before it’s too late. This is just one of the many fronts that

your APLA executive is working hard on and putting forward submissions and proposals.

For the Perth branch our next couple of meeting for 2016 are currently schedules for Feb 17 and April 20. We are

currently looking into arranging a couple of GeoMap training sessions during Feb and early March for Perth

members so that more of us become proficient at using GeoMap.

The annual camp and also a possibility of a couple of short weekend excursions are also in the mix all going well.

For those members who like to plan well ahead remember to keep a few days free for the AGM and also the Royal

Show and the November 4x4 Adventure show as these are events well worth being involved with.

Looking forward to catching up with you all as the year progresses.

Kurk Brandstater

President Perth Branch

MANDURAH UPDATE

Mandurah branch is having there A G m on the 13th March 2016 Cooper at Mandurah All welcome ,all

positions are open Regards Gerda Our camp will be held week after Mother's Day in May .

SOUTH WEST BRANCH UPDATE

Amalgamated Prospectors & Leaseholders Association

South West



Newsletter NOT ALL WHO WANDER ARE LOST

Date: 19th January 2016

Issue No: 10

NEXT MEETING 27th January 2016

Welcome to our tenth issue for the APLA South West Newsletter!

The Presidents Report: Well here we are in 2016. I trust that you all had an enjoyable Festive Season and that you got what you were

hoping for Christmas. This year looks like an interesting one for our branch commencing with the guest speaker at

our first meeting for the year on the Wednesday 27th January with Mr John Williamson from the Rockingham

Districts Rock and Gem Hunting Club. The camp committee have commenced planning for what should be a great

event to be held over the West Australia Long Weekend of Saturday 4th, Sunday 5th and Monday 6th June. By that

time we will have had our Annual General Meeting (25th May meeting) with new office bearers to take us forward.

We look forward to seeing you all at our next meeting.

Notice of next meeting: The next APLA Southwest meeting will be held at The Capel Tavern 27th January 2016 Time: 7pm

Cost: $5.00 per person for refreshments after the meeting.

RSVP to the President, Tom Cousins on 0427 778 477 or [email protected]

General: The South West Branch Camp for this year will be on the Long weekend in June 2016. More details to come from the

camp committee.

Our Christmas function was held at the Eaton Foreshore with good attendance from old and new members.

If you have any issues with renewing your APLA membership please let us know at the meeting or if you can’t make

it please contact Tom or Leeann so we can sort it out for you.

Future Meeting Dates: 23rd of March, 25th May, 27th July, 28th September, and 23rd November 2016




SAFETY

NOT GETTING LOST by Peta Osborne. Education and Public Programs Officer

Western Australian Museum – Kalgoorlie-Boulder

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-18/rescued-german-tourists-were-well-prepared-for-desert-

trek/7095642

EPIRBS (Electronic Position Indicating Radio Beacon) are an excellent way to get help fast when you are in

remote areas, away from normal and reliable internet and phone coverage. A great example of this is the story

of the tourists recently in the Kalgoorlie Miner.

EPIRBS are not too expensive these days coming in at about $300.00. BUT…thanks to Mark Creasey, who

donated a number of EPIRBS which were excess to his requirements EGPA have a couple left, and they are

available at $75.00 each. Their batteries are valid until 2018 which still gives you a couple of years of use and

maybe by then you will be able to just replace the batteries instead of getting a new one.

An EPERB is at its most valuable when it is registered. This is simple and FREE!

https://www.beacons.amsa.gov.au/Public/PreRegistration/Beacon (don’t be confused when you notice it is

the Maritime Safety Website as they look after all beacons) is a direct link to the website. Here you can put in

as many details as you want, but at least then when your beacon goes off, the authorities have some idea of

who they are looking for.

If you don’t have the use of a computer or can’t use one, please don’t let that stop you. There are many of us

out there who are happy to help you fill in the forms.

Each year a prospector/Hunter/tourist goes missing in the “Outback”, some not having a good outcome. Take

care of your safety and grab an EPERB and when you have one BE SURE TO CARRY IT WITH YOU.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-18/rescued-german-tourists-were-well-prepared-for-desert-trek/7095642

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-18/rescued-german-tourists-were-well-prepared-for-desert-trek/7095642

https://www.beacons.amsa.gov.au/Public/PreRegistration/Beacon


SOME EXTRA SAFETY TIPS

Outback road safety tips

For a safe and enjoyable journey through the Northern Goldfields region of Western Australia, travellers are encouraged to take note of the following Outback road safety tips.

Travelling around the Northern Goldfields can be exciting, enjoyable and an adventure to remember. The views, native animals and birds, and sheer pleasure of being in such wide open spaces combine to create

an inspiring experience like no other.

However, travelling through the region is unlike metropolitan driving. Distances can be long, the roads can be quiet and animals such as kangaroos often create dangerous obstacles on the road. If careful consideration is given to the information below, most journeys can be undertaken in comfort, safety and without incident. Night travel is not recommended. Mobile phone coverage is limited; where available Telstra service only.

Distance

The Northern Goldfields has long stretches of road and wide-open spaces, which can lead to unintentional speeding and fatigue.

Driving for sustained periods of time can cause slow movements, decreased tolerance for other road users, poor lane tracking and loss of awareness.

It is recommended that drivers take frequent breaks and stop regularly for food and drinks.

Come well prepared

Pack four to five litres of water per person per day (in at least two containers). Pack a detailed road map. Ensure your vehicle is in good running order and that you have a collection of spare parts and tools. Make sure your tyres are suitable for unsealed roads and that you have at least two spares. Check road conditions with local Shire offices or Main Roads WA, especially after heavy rainfall.

Always notify someone of your travel plans and of any changes you make to your itinerary. If your vehicle breaks down or becomes bogged, stay with it – a car is easier to spot than a person in the

event of a search.

Road conditions

The condition of unsealed roads can change quickly and without warning. Dust can obscure other vehicles from view, so slowing down on dirt roads is the safest option.



If floodwater covers the road, then only attempt the crossing if you absolutely must, and only after you have first checked that it is safe to do so. If it is necessary to check water depth and speed, ensure you use a safety line.

Outback pedestrians

Nearly 50% of vehicle crashes on outback roads are caused by animal crossings. Be wary of the road and the area around it.

Kangaroos are prevalent, especially in early evenings, at night and in the early mornings. Emus are unpredictable and often have a mate following close behind. Cattle like to camp on roads at night and are often hard to see.

Wedge-tailed eagles are prevalent in the region and they like to scavenge from road kill. They are relatively slow moving birds and are often taken by surprise by fast moving vehicles.

Bulldust and washouts

Bulldust is fine, talc-like clay that covers the surfaces of many roads in the outback, making them look deceptively smooth, and hiding washouts and large holes.

When driving through bulldust patches reduce speed to avoid tyre and vehicle damage. Driving with headlights on is advisable in these conditions, as is using flags on the antenna of your vehicle (flags are especially useful when driving through sand dunes).

Water crossings

The rule for crossing water is to walk through the crossing first. Test the depth and strength of the current, and try to detect any underwater obstacles by using your feet or a stick. Once you have tested the waters,

engage four wheel drive low and drive through in second or third gear, keeping your momentum up.

The neighbours

Unless you have permission, stay on gazetted roads. Leave gates as you find them, avoid lighting fires, always have dogs on a lead and remember that no dogs are allowed in National Parks. Be aware poison baits are put out for wild dogs through the region.

Be safety aware

Caution should be taken when detecting or hiking through the region’s spectacular outback areas. Stay on designated paths and heed warning signs. Don’t go on your own – always let someone know where you

are going and when you’ll be back. Always carry water, wear suitable clothing and select trails and walks that suit your level of fitness.

Emergencies

The Royal Flying Doctor Service (RDFS) provides a high frequency network to control their aeronautical and medical traffic. Communications assistance will be given to anyone who is broken down, or involved in an accident and other emergencies. Before setting out on your journey register your radio call sign with a RFDS base before setting out.



OUTBACK DETECTING BUDDIES

Anyone interested in going out detecting and looking for a buddy

please contact Bill OConnor on the following email address

[email protected] Bill will put a page and details on website for interested parties if there is enough

interest by members.

General

NEW SCAM - BEWARE

If you receive an email from the Australian Federal Police regarding a traffic infringement, just delete it

quickly DON'T OPEN IT.

Interesting website …GOLD DETECTING

Contains chat room, forums and general gold detecting info.

http://s4.zetaboards.com/Gold_Detecting/search/

A Guide to Main Roads Rest Areas and Roadside Amenities

https://www.mainroads.wa.gov.au/USINGROADS/TOURINGWAMAPS/Pages/RestAreas.aspx



http://www.detectingwestaustraliangold.com/t5756-new-scam-beware#40676

http://s4.zetaboards.com/Gold_Detecting/search/

https://www.mainroads.wa.gov.au/USINGROADS/TOURINGWAMAPS/Pages/RestAreas.aspx