❓ A parliamentary question regarding the interpretation of Section 78(2) of the Mining Act 1978 concerning mining lease renewals in Margaret River, specifically whether the discretionary power applies to first renewals. The Minister defends the department's legal counsel's interpretation and declines to seek a Supreme Court ruling.
AnsweredQoN 791Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
MINING LEASE RENEWALS — MARGARET RIVER
I refer to an email from the minister’s principal policy adviser to Brent Watson of the NO COALition group dated 1 October 2010 providing a summary of legal advice provided to the minister on the application of section 78 of the Mining Act 1978, in particular the advice that “the discretionary power in section 78(2) clearly refers to successive terms, which indicates that it is intended to apply to terms arising after the first renewal previously granted under the power in section 78(1).” (1) Does this statement accurately reflect the legal advice provided to the minister? (2) Will the minister ask the State Solicitor’s Office to advise why, in providing this legal advice, it has ignored the words “renew or further renew a mining lease” which clearly state that the discretionary power relates to both the first renewal and any subsequent renewals? (3) If no to (2), why not? (4) If yes to (2), will the minister make this legal advice public as he did the initial advice provided by the State Solicitor’s Office? (5) Will the Minister for Mines and Petroleum seek a legal ruling from the Supreme Court on the interpretation of section 78(2) rather than require the Margaret River community to take action in the Supreme Court by way of prerogative writ or by seeking a declaration? (6) Is the minister at all concerned that the mining leases renewed on 28 September—I think that should be 30 September—may have been illegally renewed in that section 78(2) provides the minister with a discretion and it is not open to a departmental officer to exercise the minister’s discretion on delegated authority? Hon NORMAN MOORE
I refer to an email from the minister’s principal policy adviser to Brent Watson of the NO COALition group dated 1 October 2010 providing a summary of legal advice provided to the minister on the application of section 78 of the Mining Act 1978, in particular the advice that “the discretionary power in section 78(2) clearly refers to successive terms, which indicates that it is intended to apply to terms arising after the first renewal previously granted under the power in section 78(1).” (1) Does this statement accurately reflect the legal advice provided to the minister? (2) Will the minister ask the State Solicitor’s Office to advise why, in providing this legal advice, it has ignored the words “renew or further renew a mining lease” which clearly state that the discretionary power relates to both the first renewal and any subsequent renewals? (3) If no to (2), why not? (4) If yes to (2), will the minister make this legal advice public as he did the initial advice provided by the State Solicitor’s Office? (5) Will the Minister for Mines and Petroleum seek a legal ruling from the Supreme Court on the interpretation of section 78(2) rather than require the Margaret River community to take action in the Supreme Court by way of prerogative writ or by seeking a declaration? (6) Is the minister at all concerned that the mining leases renewed on 28 September—I think that should be 30 September—may have been illegally renewed in that section 78(2) provides the minister with a discretion and it is not open to a departmental officer to exercise the minister’s discretion on delegated authority? Hon NORMAN MOORE
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) No. (3) The advice was not provided by the State Solicitor’s Office, it was provided by the Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel. The Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel is of the opinion that by reason of statutory interpretation, legal commentary and case law, the discretionary power of the minister in section 78(2) of the state Mining Act 1978, relates only to second and subsequent renewals of mining leases. Hon Adele Farina : That is not what the act says. Hon NORMAN MOORE : I would hate to think the member would be my counsel! I would seriously worry if she were giving advice to me as a person who was seeking legal advice. Hon Ken Travers : You couldn’t afford her! Hon NORMAN MOORE : You’re probably right. It just means some people probably got robbed in the past! I continue — (4) Not applicable. The substantive issues covered by the legal advice provided to me by the Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel have already been provided to Mr Brent Watson in the email from my principal policy adviser dated Friday, 1 October 2010. (5) No. It is not my practice to seek a ruling from the Supreme Court because a person holds a differing interpretation of the law to me or the department. To do so would result in significant administrative inefficiencies both in terms of cost to the public and administrative delay. (6) No.
(1) Does this statement accurately reflect the legal advice provided to the minister? (2) Will the minister ask the State Solicitor’s Office to advise why, in providing this legal advice, it has ignored the words “renew or further renew a mining lease” which clearly state that the discretionary power relates to both the first renewal and any subsequent renewals? (3) If no to (2), why not? (4) If yes to (2), will the minister make this legal advice public as he did the initial advice provided by the State Solicitor’s Office? (5) Will the Minister for Mines and Petroleum seek a legal ruling from the Supreme Court on the interpretation of section 78(2) rather than require the Margaret River community to take action in the Supreme Court by way of prerogative writ or by seeking a declaration? (6) Is the minister at all concerned that the mining leases renewed on 28 September—I think that should be 30 September—may have been illegally renewed in that section 78(2) provides the minister with a discretion and it is not open to a departmental officer to exercise the minister’s discretion on delegated authority? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) No. (3) The advice was not provided by the State Solicitor’s Office, it was provided by the Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel. The Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel is of the opinion that by reason of statutory interpretation, legal commentary and case law, the discretionary power of the minister in section 78(2) of the state Mining Act 1978, relates only to second and subsequent renewals of mining leases. Hon Adele Farina : That is not what the act says. Hon NORMAN MOORE : I would hate to think the member would be my counsel! I would seriously worry if she were giving advice to me as a person who was seeking legal advice. Hon Ken Travers : You couldn’t afford her! Hon NORMAN MOORE : You’re probably right. It just means some people probably got robbed in the past! I continue — (4) Not applicable. The substantive issues covered by the legal advice provided to me by the Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel have already been provided to Mr Brent Watson in the email from my principal policy adviser dated Friday, 1 October 2010. (5) No. It is not my practice to seek a ruling from the Supreme Court because a person holds a differing interpretation of the law to me or the department. To do so would result in significant administrative inefficiencies both in terms of cost to the public and administrative delay. (6) No.
(2) Will the minister ask the State Solicitor’s Office to advise why, in providing this legal advice, it has ignored the words “renew or further renew a mining lease” which clearly state that the discretionary power relates to both the first renewal and any subsequent renewals? (3) If no to (2), why not? (4) If yes to (2), will the minister make this legal advice public as he did the initial advice provided by the State Solicitor’s Office? (5) Will the Minister for Mines and Petroleum seek a legal ruling from the Supreme Court on the interpretation of section 78(2) rather than require the Margaret River community to take action in the Supreme Court by way of prerogative writ or by seeking a declaration? (6) Is the minister at all concerned that the mining leases renewed on 28 September—I think that should be 30 September—may have been illegally renewed in that section 78(2) provides the minister with a discretion and it is not open to a departmental officer to exercise the minister’s discretion on delegated authority? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) No. (3) The advice was not provided by the State Solicitor’s Office, it was provided by the Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel. The Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel is of the opinion that by reason of statutory interpretation, legal commentary and case law, the discretionary power of the minister in section 78(2) of the state Mining Act 1978, relates only to second and subsequent renewals of mining leases. Hon Adele Farina : That is not what the act says. Hon NORMAN MOORE : I would hate to think the member would be my counsel! I would seriously worry if she were giving advice to me as a person who was seeking legal advice. Hon Ken Travers : You couldn’t afford her! Hon NORMAN MOORE : You’re probably right. It just means some people probably got robbed in the past! I continue — (4) Not applicable. The substantive issues covered by the legal advice provided to me by the Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel have already been provided to Mr Brent Watson in the email from my principal policy adviser dated Friday, 1 October 2010. (5) No. It is not my practice to seek a ruling from the Supreme Court because a person holds a differing interpretation of the law to me or the department. To do so would result in significant administrative inefficiencies both in terms of cost to the public and administrative delay. (6) No.
(3) If no to (2), why not? (4) If yes to (2), will the minister make this legal advice public as he did the initial advice provided by the State Solicitor’s Office? (5) Will the Minister for Mines and Petroleum seek a legal ruling from the Supreme Court on the interpretation of section 78(2) rather than require the Margaret River community to take action in the Supreme Court by way of prerogative writ or by seeking a declaration? (6) Is the minister at all concerned that the mining leases renewed on 28 September—I think that should be 30 September—may have been illegally renewed in that section 78(2) provides the minister with a discretion and it is not open to a departmental officer to exercise the minister’s discretion on delegated authority? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) No. (3) The advice was not provided by the State Solicitor’s Office, it was provided by the Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel. The Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel is of the opinion that by reason of statutory interpretation, legal commentary and case law, the discretionary power of the minister in section 78(2) of the state Mining Act 1978, relates only to second and subsequent renewals of mining leases. Hon Adele Farina : That is not what the act says. Hon NORMAN MOORE : I would hate to think the member would be my counsel! I would seriously worry if she were giving advice to me as a person who was seeking legal advice. Hon Ken Travers : You couldn’t afford her! Hon NORMAN MOORE : You’re probably right. It just means some people probably got robbed in the past! I continue — (4) Not applicable. The substantive issues covered by the legal advice provided to me by the Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel have already been provided to Mr Brent Watson in the email from my principal policy adviser dated Friday, 1 October 2010. (5) No. It is not my practice to seek a ruling from the Supreme Court because a person holds a differing interpretation of the law to me or the department. To do so would result in significant administrative inefficiencies both in terms of cost to the public and administrative delay. (6) No.
(4) If yes to (2), will the minister make this legal advice public as he did the initial advice provided by the State Solicitor’s Office? (5) Will the Minister for Mines and Petroleum seek a legal ruling from the Supreme Court on the interpretation of section 78(2) rather than require the Margaret River community to take action in the Supreme Court by way of prerogative writ or by seeking a declaration? (6) Is the minister at all concerned that the mining leases renewed on 28 September—I think that should be 30 September—may have been illegally renewed in that section 78(2) provides the minister with a discretion and it is not open to a departmental officer to exercise the minister’s discretion on delegated authority? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) No. (3) The advice was not provided by the State Solicitor’s Office, it was provided by the Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel. The Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel is of the opinion that by reason of statutory interpretation, legal commentary and case law, the discretionary power of the minister in section 78(2) of the state Mining Act 1978, relates only to second and subsequent renewals of mining leases. Hon Adele Farina : That is not what the act says. Hon NORMAN MOORE : I would hate to think the member would be my counsel! I would seriously worry if she were giving advice to me as a person who was seeking legal advice. Hon Ken Travers : You couldn’t afford her! Hon NORMAN MOORE : You’re probably right. It just means some people probably got robbed in the past! I continue — (4) Not applicable. The substantive issues covered by the legal advice provided to me by the Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel have already been provided to Mr Brent Watson in the email from my principal policy adviser dated Friday, 1 October 2010. (5) No. It is not my practice to seek a ruling from the Supreme Court because a person holds a differing interpretation of the law to me or the department. To do so would result in significant administrative inefficiencies both in terms of cost to the public and administrative delay. (6) No.
(5) Will the Minister for Mines and Petroleum seek a legal ruling from the Supreme Court on the interpretation of section 78(2) rather than require the Margaret River community to take action in the Supreme Court by way of prerogative writ or by seeking a declaration? (6) Is the minister at all concerned that the mining leases renewed on 28 September—I think that should be 30 September—may have been illegally renewed in that section 78(2) provides the minister with a discretion and it is not open to a departmental officer to exercise the minister’s discretion on delegated authority? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) No. (3) The advice was not provided by the State Solicitor’s Office, it was provided by the Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel. The Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel is of the opinion that by reason of statutory interpretation, legal commentary and case law, the discretionary power of the minister in section 78(2) of the state Mining Act 1978, relates only to second and subsequent renewals of mining leases. Hon Adele Farina : That is not what the act says. Hon NORMAN MOORE : I would hate to think the member would be my counsel! I would seriously worry if she were giving advice to me as a person who was seeking legal advice. Hon Ken Travers : You couldn’t afford her! Hon NORMAN MOORE : You’re probably right. It just means some people probably got robbed in the past! I continue — (4) Not applicable. The substantive issues covered by the legal advice provided to me by the Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel have already been provided to Mr Brent Watson in the email from my principal policy adviser dated Friday, 1 October 2010. (5) No. It is not my practice to seek a ruling from the Supreme Court because a person holds a differing interpretation of the law to me or the department. To do so would result in significant administrative inefficiencies both in terms of cost to the public and administrative delay. (6) No.
(6) Is the minister at all concerned that the mining leases renewed on 28 September—I think that should be 30 September—may have been illegally renewed in that section 78(2) provides the minister with a discretion and it is not open to a departmental officer to exercise the minister’s discretion on delegated authority? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) No. (3) The advice was not provided by the State Solicitor’s Office, it was provided by the Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel. The Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel is of the opinion that by reason of statutory interpretation, legal commentary and case law, the discretionary power of the minister in section 78(2) of the state Mining Act 1978, relates only to second and subsequent renewals of mining leases. Hon Adele Farina : That is not what the act says. Hon NORMAN MOORE : I would hate to think the member would be my counsel! I would seriously worry if she were giving advice to me as a person who was seeking legal advice. Hon Ken Travers : You couldn’t afford her! Hon NORMAN MOORE : You’re probably right. It just means some people probably got robbed in the past! I continue — (4) Not applicable. The substantive issues covered by the legal advice provided to me by the Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel have already been provided to Mr Brent Watson in the email from my principal policy adviser dated Friday, 1 October 2010. (5) No. It is not my practice to seek a ruling from the Supreme Court because a person holds a differing interpretation of the law to me or the department. To do so would result in significant administrative inefficiencies both in terms of cost to the public and administrative delay. (6) No.
Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) No. (3) The advice was not provided by the State Solicitor’s Office, it was provided by the Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel. The Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel is of the opinion that by reason of statutory interpretation, legal commentary and case law, the discretionary power of the minister in section 78(2) of the state Mining Act 1978, relates only to second and subsequent renewals of mining leases. Hon Adele Farina : That is not what the act says. Hon NORMAN MOORE : I would hate to think the member would be my counsel! I would seriously worry if she were giving advice to me as a person who was seeking legal advice. Hon Ken Travers : You couldn’t afford her! Hon NORMAN MOORE : You’re probably right. It just means some people probably got robbed in the past! I continue — (4) Not applicable. The substantive issues covered by the legal advice provided to me by the Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel have already been provided to Mr Brent Watson in the email from my principal policy adviser dated Friday, 1 October 2010. (5) No. It is not my practice to seek a ruling from the Supreme Court because a person holds a differing interpretation of the law to me or the department. To do so would result in significant administrative inefficiencies both in terms of cost to the public and administrative delay. (6) No.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) No. (3) The advice was not provided by the State Solicitor’s Office, it was provided by the Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel. The Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel is of the opinion that by reason of statutory interpretation, legal commentary and case law, the discretionary power of the minister in section 78(2) of the state Mining Act 1978, relates only to second and subsequent renewals of mining leases. Hon Adele Farina : That is not what the act says. Hon NORMAN MOORE : I would hate to think the member would be my counsel! I would seriously worry if she were giving advice to me as a person who was seeking legal advice. Hon Ken Travers : You couldn’t afford her! Hon NORMAN MOORE : You’re probably right. It just means some people probably got robbed in the past! I continue — (4) Not applicable. The substantive issues covered by the legal advice provided to me by the Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel have already been provided to Mr Brent Watson in the email from my principal policy adviser dated Friday, 1 October 2010. (5) No. It is not my practice to seek a ruling from the Supreme Court because a person holds a differing interpretation of the law to me or the department. To do so would result in significant administrative inefficiencies both in terms of cost to the public and administrative delay. (6) No.
(1) Yes. (2) No. (3) The advice was not provided by the State Solicitor’s Office, it was provided by the Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel. The Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel is of the opinion that by reason of statutory interpretation, legal commentary and case law, the discretionary power of the minister in section 78(2) of the state Mining Act 1978, relates only to second and subsequent renewals of mining leases. Hon Adele Farina : That is not what the act says. Hon NORMAN MOORE : I would hate to think the member would be my counsel! I would seriously worry if she were giving advice to me as a person who was seeking legal advice. Hon Ken Travers : You couldn’t afford her! Hon NORMAN MOORE : You’re probably right. It just means some people probably got robbed in the past! I continue — (4) Not applicable. The substantive issues covered by the legal advice provided to me by the Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel have already been provided to Mr Brent Watson in the email from my principal policy adviser dated Friday, 1 October 2010. (5) No. It is not my practice to seek a ruling from the Supreme Court because a person holds a differing interpretation of the law to me or the department. To do so would result in significant administrative inefficiencies both in terms of cost to the public and administrative delay. (6) No.
(2) No. (3) The advice was not provided by the State Solicitor’s Office, it was provided by the Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel. The Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel is of the opinion that by reason of statutory interpretation, legal commentary and case law, the discretionary power of the minister in section 78(2) of the state Mining Act 1978, relates only to second and subsequent renewals of mining leases. Hon Adele Farina : That is not what the act says. Hon NORMAN MOORE : I would hate to think the member would be my counsel! I would seriously worry if she were giving advice to me as a person who was seeking legal advice. Hon Ken Travers : You couldn’t afford her! Hon NORMAN MOORE : You’re probably right. It just means some people probably got robbed in the past! I continue — (4) Not applicable. The substantive issues covered by the legal advice provided to me by the Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel have already been provided to Mr Brent Watson in the email from my principal policy adviser dated Friday, 1 October 2010. (5) No. It is not my practice to seek a ruling from the Supreme Court because a person holds a differing interpretation of the law to me or the department. To do so would result in significant administrative inefficiencies both in terms of cost to the public and administrative delay. (6) No.
(3) The advice was not provided by the State Solicitor’s Office, it was provided by the Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel. The Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel is of the opinion that by reason of statutory interpretation, legal commentary and case law, the discretionary power of the minister in section 78(2) of the state Mining Act 1978, relates only to second and subsequent renewals of mining leases. Hon Adele Farina : That is not what the act says. Hon NORMAN MOORE : I would hate to think the member would be my counsel! I would seriously worry if she were giving advice to me as a person who was seeking legal advice. Hon Ken Travers : You couldn’t afford her! Hon NORMAN MOORE : You’re probably right. It just means some people probably got robbed in the past! I continue — (4) Not applicable. The substantive issues covered by the legal advice provided to me by the Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel have already been provided to Mr Brent Watson in the email from my principal policy adviser dated Friday, 1 October 2010. (5) No. It is not my practice to seek a ruling from the Supreme Court because a person holds a differing interpretation of the law to me or the department. To do so would result in significant administrative inefficiencies both in terms of cost to the public and administrative delay. (6) No.
Hon Adele Farina : That is not what the act says. Hon NORMAN MOORE : I would hate to think the member would be my counsel! I would seriously worry if she were giving advice to me as a person who was seeking legal advice. Hon Ken Travers : You couldn’t afford her! Hon NORMAN MOORE : You’re probably right. It just means some people probably got robbed in the past! I continue — (4) Not applicable. The substantive issues covered by the legal advice provided to me by the Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel have already been provided to Mr Brent Watson in the email from my principal policy adviser dated Friday, 1 October 2010. (5) No. It is not my practice to seek a ruling from the Supreme Court because a person holds a differing interpretation of the law to me or the department. To do so would result in significant administrative inefficiencies both in terms of cost to the public and administrative delay. (6) No.
Hon NORMAN MOORE : I would hate to think the member would be my counsel! I would seriously worry if she were giving advice to me as a person who was seeking legal advice. Hon Ken Travers : You couldn’t afford her! Hon NORMAN MOORE : You’re probably right. It just means some people probably got robbed in the past! I continue — (4) Not applicable. The substantive issues covered by the legal advice provided to me by the Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel have already been provided to Mr Brent Watson in the email from my principal policy adviser dated Friday, 1 October 2010. (5) No. It is not my practice to seek a ruling from the Supreme Court because a person holds a differing interpretation of the law to me or the department. To do so would result in significant administrative inefficiencies both in terms of cost to the public and administrative delay. (6) No.
Hon Ken Travers : You couldn’t afford her! Hon NORMAN MOORE : You’re probably right. It just means some people probably got robbed in the past! I continue — (4) Not applicable. The substantive issues covered by the legal advice provided to me by the Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel have already been provided to Mr Brent Watson in the email from my principal policy adviser dated Friday, 1 October 2010. (5) No. It is not my practice to seek a ruling from the Supreme Court because a person holds a differing interpretation of the law to me or the department. To do so would result in significant administrative inefficiencies both in terms of cost to the public and administrative delay. (6) No.
Hon NORMAN MOORE : You’re probably right. It just means some people probably got robbed in the past! I continue — (4) Not applicable. The substantive issues covered by the legal advice provided to me by the Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel have already been provided to Mr Brent Watson in the email from my principal policy adviser dated Friday, 1 October 2010. (5) No. It is not my practice to seek a ruling from the Supreme Court because a person holds a differing interpretation of the law to me or the department. To do so would result in significant administrative inefficiencies both in terms of cost to the public and administrative delay. (6) No.
(4) Not applicable. The substantive issues covered by the legal advice provided to me by the Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel have already been provided to Mr Brent Watson in the email from my principal policy adviser dated Friday, 1 October 2010. (5) No. It is not my practice to seek a ruling from the Supreme Court because a person holds a differing interpretation of the law to me or the department. To do so would result in significant administrative inefficiencies both in terms of cost to the public and administrative delay. (6) No.
(5) No. It is not my practice to seek a ruling from the Supreme Court because a person holds a differing interpretation of the law to me or the department. To do so would result in significant administrative inefficiencies both in terms of cost to the public and administrative delay. (6) No.
(6) No.
(1) Does this statement accurately reflect the legal advice provided to the minister? (2) Will the minister ask the State Solicitor’s Office to advise why, in providing this legal advice, it has ignored the words “renew or further renew a mining lease” which clearly state that the discretionary power relates to both the first renewal and any subsequent renewals? (3) If no to (2), why not? (4) If yes to (2), will the minister make this legal advice public as he did the initial advice provided by the State Solicitor’s Office? (5) Will the Minister for Mines and Petroleum seek a legal ruling from the Supreme Court on the interpretation of section 78(2) rather than require the Margaret River community to take action in the Supreme Court by way of prerogative writ or by seeking a declaration? (6) Is the minister at all concerned that the mining leases renewed on 28 September—I think that should be 30 September—may have been illegally renewed in that section 78(2) provides the minister with a discretion and it is not open to a departmental officer to exercise the minister’s discretion on delegated authority? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) No. (3) The advice was not provided by the State Solicitor’s Office, it was provided by the Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel. The Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel is of the opinion that by reason of statutory interpretation, legal commentary and case law, the discretionary power of the minister in section 78(2) of the state Mining Act 1978, relates only to second and subsequent renewals of mining leases. Hon Adele Farina : That is not what the act says. Hon NORMAN MOORE : I would hate to think the member would be my counsel! I would seriously worry if she were giving advice to me as a person who was seeking legal advice. Hon Ken Travers : You couldn’t afford her! Hon NORMAN MOORE : You’re probably right. It just means some people probably got robbed in the past! I continue — (4) Not applicable. The substantive issues covered by the legal advice provided to me by the Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel have already been provided to Mr Brent Watson in the email from my principal policy adviser dated Friday, 1 October 2010. (5) No. It is not my practice to seek a ruling from the Supreme Court because a person holds a differing interpretation of the law to me or the department. To do so would result in significant administrative inefficiencies both in terms of cost to the public and administrative delay. (6) No.
(2) Will the minister ask the State Solicitor’s Office to advise why, in providing this legal advice, it has ignored the words “renew or further renew a mining lease” which clearly state that the discretionary power relates to both the first renewal and any subsequent renewals? (3) If no to (2), why not? (4) If yes to (2), will the minister make this legal advice public as he did the initial advice provided by the State Solicitor’s Office? (5) Will the Minister for Mines and Petroleum seek a legal ruling from the Supreme Court on the interpretation of section 78(2) rather than require the Margaret River community to take action in the Supreme Court by way of prerogative writ or by seeking a declaration? (6) Is the minister at all concerned that the mining leases renewed on 28 September—I think that should be 30 September—may have been illegally renewed in that section 78(2) provides the minister with a discretion and it is not open to a departmental officer to exercise the minister’s discretion on delegated authority? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) No. (3) The advice was not provided by the State Solicitor’s Office, it was provided by the Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel. The Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel is of the opinion that by reason of statutory interpretation, legal commentary and case law, the discretionary power of the minister in section 78(2) of the state Mining Act 1978, relates only to second and subsequent renewals of mining leases. Hon Adele Farina : That is not what the act says. Hon NORMAN MOORE : I would hate to think the member would be my counsel! I would seriously worry if she were giving advice to me as a person who was seeking legal advice. Hon Ken Travers : You couldn’t afford her! Hon NORMAN MOORE : You’re probably right. It just means some people probably got robbed in the past! I continue — (4) Not applicable. The substantive issues covered by the legal advice provided to me by the Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel have already been provided to Mr Brent Watson in the email from my principal policy adviser dated Friday, 1 October 2010. (5) No. It is not my practice to seek a ruling from the Supreme Court because a person holds a differing interpretation of the law to me or the department. To do so would result in significant administrative inefficiencies both in terms of cost to the public and administrative delay. (6) No.
(3) If no to (2), why not? (4) If yes to (2), will the minister make this legal advice public as he did the initial advice provided by the State Solicitor’s Office? (5) Will the Minister for Mines and Petroleum seek a legal ruling from the Supreme Court on the interpretation of section 78(2) rather than require the Margaret River community to take action in the Supreme Court by way of prerogative writ or by seeking a declaration? (6) Is the minister at all concerned that the mining leases renewed on 28 September—I think that should be 30 September—may have been illegally renewed in that section 78(2) provides the minister with a discretion and it is not open to a departmental officer to exercise the minister’s discretion on delegated authority? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) No. (3) The advice was not provided by the State Solicitor’s Office, it was provided by the Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel. The Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel is of the opinion that by reason of statutory interpretation, legal commentary and case law, the discretionary power of the minister in section 78(2) of the state Mining Act 1978, relates only to second and subsequent renewals of mining leases. Hon Adele Farina : That is not what the act says. Hon NORMAN MOORE : I would hate to think the member would be my counsel! I would seriously worry if she were giving advice to me as a person who was seeking legal advice. Hon Ken Travers : You couldn’t afford her! Hon NORMAN MOORE : You’re probably right. It just means some people probably got robbed in the past! I continue — (4) Not applicable. The substantive issues covered by the legal advice provided to me by the Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel have already been provided to Mr Brent Watson in the email from my principal policy adviser dated Friday, 1 October 2010. (5) No. It is not my practice to seek a ruling from the Supreme Court because a person holds a differing interpretation of the law to me or the department. To do so would result in significant administrative inefficiencies both in terms of cost to the public and administrative delay. (6) No.
(4) If yes to (2), will the minister make this legal advice public as he did the initial advice provided by the State Solicitor’s Office? (5) Will the Minister for Mines and Petroleum seek a legal ruling from the Supreme Court on the interpretation of section 78(2) rather than require the Margaret River community to take action in the Supreme Court by way of prerogative writ or by seeking a declaration? (6) Is the minister at all concerned that the mining leases renewed on 28 September—I think that should be 30 September—may have been illegally renewed in that section 78(2) provides the minister with a discretion and it is not open to a departmental officer to exercise the minister’s discretion on delegated authority? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) No. (3) The advice was not provided by the State Solicitor’s Office, it was provided by the Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel. The Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel is of the opinion that by reason of statutory interpretation, legal commentary and case law, the discretionary power of the minister in section 78(2) of the state Mining Act 1978, relates only to second and subsequent renewals of mining leases. Hon Adele Farina : That is not what the act says. Hon NORMAN MOORE : I would hate to think the member would be my counsel! I would seriously worry if she were giving advice to me as a person who was seeking legal advice. Hon Ken Travers : You couldn’t afford her! Hon NORMAN MOORE : You’re probably right. It just means some people probably got robbed in the past! I continue — (4) Not applicable. The substantive issues covered by the legal advice provided to me by the Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel have already been provided to Mr Brent Watson in the email from my principal policy adviser dated Friday, 1 October 2010. (5) No. It is not my practice to seek a ruling from the Supreme Court because a person holds a differing interpretation of the law to me or the department. To do so would result in significant administrative inefficiencies both in terms of cost to the public and administrative delay. (6) No.
(5) Will the Minister for Mines and Petroleum seek a legal ruling from the Supreme Court on the interpretation of section 78(2) rather than require the Margaret River community to take action in the Supreme Court by way of prerogative writ or by seeking a declaration? (6) Is the minister at all concerned that the mining leases renewed on 28 September—I think that should be 30 September—may have been illegally renewed in that section 78(2) provides the minister with a discretion and it is not open to a departmental officer to exercise the minister’s discretion on delegated authority? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) No. (3) The advice was not provided by the State Solicitor’s Office, it was provided by the Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel. The Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel is of the opinion that by reason of statutory interpretation, legal commentary and case law, the discretionary power of the minister in section 78(2) of the state Mining Act 1978, relates only to second and subsequent renewals of mining leases. Hon Adele Farina : That is not what the act says. Hon NORMAN MOORE : I would hate to think the member would be my counsel! I would seriously worry if she were giving advice to me as a person who was seeking legal advice. Hon Ken Travers : You couldn’t afford her! Hon NORMAN MOORE : You’re probably right. It just means some people probably got robbed in the past! I continue — (4) Not applicable. The substantive issues covered by the legal advice provided to me by the Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel have already been provided to Mr Brent Watson in the email from my principal policy adviser dated Friday, 1 October 2010. (5) No. It is not my practice to seek a ruling from the Supreme Court because a person holds a differing interpretation of the law to me or the department. To do so would result in significant administrative inefficiencies both in terms of cost to the public and administrative delay. (6) No.
(6) Is the minister at all concerned that the mining leases renewed on 28 September—I think that should be 30 September—may have been illegally renewed in that section 78(2) provides the minister with a discretion and it is not open to a departmental officer to exercise the minister’s discretion on delegated authority? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) No. (3) The advice was not provided by the State Solicitor’s Office, it was provided by the Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel. The Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel is of the opinion that by reason of statutory interpretation, legal commentary and case law, the discretionary power of the minister in section 78(2) of the state Mining Act 1978, relates only to second and subsequent renewals of mining leases. Hon Adele Farina : That is not what the act says. Hon NORMAN MOORE : I would hate to think the member would be my counsel! I would seriously worry if she were giving advice to me as a person who was seeking legal advice. Hon Ken Travers : You couldn’t afford her! Hon NORMAN MOORE : You’re probably right. It just means some people probably got robbed in the past! I continue — (4) Not applicable. The substantive issues covered by the legal advice provided to me by the Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel have already been provided to Mr Brent Watson in the email from my principal policy adviser dated Friday, 1 October 2010. (5) No. It is not my practice to seek a ruling from the Supreme Court because a person holds a differing interpretation of the law to me or the department. To do so would result in significant administrative inefficiencies both in terms of cost to the public and administrative delay. (6) No.
Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) No. (3) The advice was not provided by the State Solicitor’s Office, it was provided by the Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel. The Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel is of the opinion that by reason of statutory interpretation, legal commentary and case law, the discretionary power of the minister in section 78(2) of the state Mining Act 1978, relates only to second and subsequent renewals of mining leases. Hon Adele Farina : That is not what the act says. Hon NORMAN MOORE : I would hate to think the member would be my counsel! I would seriously worry if she were giving advice to me as a person who was seeking legal advice. Hon Ken Travers : You couldn’t afford her! Hon NORMAN MOORE : You’re probably right. It just means some people probably got robbed in the past! I continue — (4) Not applicable. The substantive issues covered by the legal advice provided to me by the Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel have already been provided to Mr Brent Watson in the email from my principal policy adviser dated Friday, 1 October 2010. (5) No. It is not my practice to seek a ruling from the Supreme Court because a person holds a differing interpretation of the law to me or the department. To do so would result in significant administrative inefficiencies both in terms of cost to the public and administrative delay. (6) No.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) No. (3) The advice was not provided by the State Solicitor’s Office, it was provided by the Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel. The Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel is of the opinion that by reason of statutory interpretation, legal commentary and case law, the discretionary power of the minister in section 78(2) of the state Mining Act 1978, relates only to second and subsequent renewals of mining leases. Hon Adele Farina : That is not what the act says. Hon NORMAN MOORE : I would hate to think the member would be my counsel! I would seriously worry if she were giving advice to me as a person who was seeking legal advice. Hon Ken Travers : You couldn’t afford her! Hon NORMAN MOORE : You’re probably right. It just means some people probably got robbed in the past! I continue — (4) Not applicable. The substantive issues covered by the legal advice provided to me by the Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel have already been provided to Mr Brent Watson in the email from my principal policy adviser dated Friday, 1 October 2010. (5) No. It is not my practice to seek a ruling from the Supreme Court because a person holds a differing interpretation of the law to me or the department. To do so would result in significant administrative inefficiencies both in terms of cost to the public and administrative delay. (6) No.
(1) Yes. (2) No. (3) The advice was not provided by the State Solicitor’s Office, it was provided by the Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel. The Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel is of the opinion that by reason of statutory interpretation, legal commentary and case law, the discretionary power of the minister in section 78(2) of the state Mining Act 1978, relates only to second and subsequent renewals of mining leases. Hon Adele Farina : That is not what the act says. Hon NORMAN MOORE : I would hate to think the member would be my counsel! I would seriously worry if she were giving advice to me as a person who was seeking legal advice. Hon Ken Travers : You couldn’t afford her! Hon NORMAN MOORE : You’re probably right. It just means some people probably got robbed in the past! I continue — (4) Not applicable. The substantive issues covered by the legal advice provided to me by the Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel have already been provided to Mr Brent Watson in the email from my principal policy adviser dated Friday, 1 October 2010. (5) No. It is not my practice to seek a ruling from the Supreme Court because a person holds a differing interpretation of the law to me or the department. To do so would result in significant administrative inefficiencies both in terms of cost to the public and administrative delay. (6) No.
(2) No. (3) The advice was not provided by the State Solicitor’s Office, it was provided by the Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel. The Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel is of the opinion that by reason of statutory interpretation, legal commentary and case law, the discretionary power of the minister in section 78(2) of the state Mining Act 1978, relates only to second and subsequent renewals of mining leases. Hon Adele Farina : That is not what the act says. Hon NORMAN MOORE : I would hate to think the member would be my counsel! I would seriously worry if she were giving advice to me as a person who was seeking legal advice. Hon Ken Travers : You couldn’t afford her! Hon NORMAN MOORE : You’re probably right. It just means some people probably got robbed in the past! I continue — (4) Not applicable. The substantive issues covered by the legal advice provided to me by the Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel have already been provided to Mr Brent Watson in the email from my principal policy adviser dated Friday, 1 October 2010. (5) No. It is not my practice to seek a ruling from the Supreme Court because a person holds a differing interpretation of the law to me or the department. To do so would result in significant administrative inefficiencies both in terms of cost to the public and administrative delay. (6) No.
(3) The advice was not provided by the State Solicitor’s Office, it was provided by the Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel. The Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel is of the opinion that by reason of statutory interpretation, legal commentary and case law, the discretionary power of the minister in section 78(2) of the state Mining Act 1978, relates only to second and subsequent renewals of mining leases. Hon Adele Farina : That is not what the act says. Hon NORMAN MOORE : I would hate to think the member would be my counsel! I would seriously worry if she were giving advice to me as a person who was seeking legal advice. Hon Ken Travers : You couldn’t afford her! Hon NORMAN MOORE : You’re probably right. It just means some people probably got robbed in the past! I continue — (4) Not applicable. The substantive issues covered by the legal advice provided to me by the Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel have already been provided to Mr Brent Watson in the email from my principal policy adviser dated Friday, 1 October 2010. (5) No. It is not my practice to seek a ruling from the Supreme Court because a person holds a differing interpretation of the law to me or the department. To do so would result in significant administrative inefficiencies both in terms of cost to the public and administrative delay. (6) No.
Hon Adele Farina : That is not what the act says. Hon NORMAN MOORE : I would hate to think the member would be my counsel! I would seriously worry if she were giving advice to me as a person who was seeking legal advice. Hon Ken Travers : You couldn’t afford her! Hon NORMAN MOORE : You’re probably right. It just means some people probably got robbed in the past! I continue — (4) Not applicable. The substantive issues covered by the legal advice provided to me by the Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel have already been provided to Mr Brent Watson in the email from my principal policy adviser dated Friday, 1 October 2010. (5) No. It is not my practice to seek a ruling from the Supreme Court because a person holds a differing interpretation of the law to me or the department. To do so would result in significant administrative inefficiencies both in terms of cost to the public and administrative delay. (6) No.
Hon NORMAN MOORE : I would hate to think the member would be my counsel! I would seriously worry if she were giving advice to me as a person who was seeking legal advice. Hon Ken Travers : You couldn’t afford her! Hon NORMAN MOORE : You’re probably right. It just means some people probably got robbed in the past! I continue — (4) Not applicable. The substantive issues covered by the legal advice provided to me by the Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel have already been provided to Mr Brent Watson in the email from my principal policy adviser dated Friday, 1 October 2010. (5) No. It is not my practice to seek a ruling from the Supreme Court because a person holds a differing interpretation of the law to me or the department. To do so would result in significant administrative inefficiencies both in terms of cost to the public and administrative delay. (6) No.
Hon Ken Travers : You couldn’t afford her! Hon NORMAN MOORE : You’re probably right. It just means some people probably got robbed in the past! I continue — (4) Not applicable. The substantive issues covered by the legal advice provided to me by the Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel have already been provided to Mr Brent Watson in the email from my principal policy adviser dated Friday, 1 October 2010. (5) No. It is not my practice to seek a ruling from the Supreme Court because a person holds a differing interpretation of the law to me or the department. To do so would result in significant administrative inefficiencies both in terms of cost to the public and administrative delay. (6) No.
Hon NORMAN MOORE : You’re probably right. It just means some people probably got robbed in the past! I continue — (4) Not applicable. The substantive issues covered by the legal advice provided to me by the Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel have already been provided to Mr Brent Watson in the email from my principal policy adviser dated Friday, 1 October 2010. (5) No. It is not my practice to seek a ruling from the Supreme Court because a person holds a differing interpretation of the law to me or the department. To do so would result in significant administrative inefficiencies both in terms of cost to the public and administrative delay. (6) No.
(4) Not applicable. The substantive issues covered by the legal advice provided to me by the Department of Mines and Petroleum’s legal counsel have already been provided to Mr Brent Watson in the email from my principal policy adviser dated Friday, 1 October 2010. (5) No. It is not my practice to seek a ruling from the Supreme Court because a person holds a differing interpretation of the law to me or the department. To do so would result in significant administrative inefficiencies both in terms of cost to the public and administrative delay. (6) No.
(5) No. It is not my practice to seek a ruling from the Supreme Court because a person holds a differing interpretation of the law to me or the department. To do so would result in significant administrative inefficiencies both in terms of cost to the public and administrative delay. (6) No.
(6) No.
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.