❓ Hon Adele Farina questions the Minister for Mines and Petroleum regarding the discretionary powers under the Mining Act concerning exploration licences and mining tenements. The Minister defends his approach, emphasizing the importance of the mining industry to the state's economy and clarifying the scope of 'public interest'.
AnsweredQoN 902Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
MINING ACT — SECTIONS 59 AND 111A — MINISTER’S DISCRETION
I refer to the Mining Act and to the minister’s discretion under section 59 to refuse an exploration licence and his discretion under section 111A to terminate or refuse a mining tenement. (1) What grounds would the minister consider to be reasonable in the public interest for the exercise of a section 59 and/or section 111A discretion? (2) Given the statutory discretion, how is it that an officer of the Department of Mines and Petroleum is operating under delegated authority granting exploration licences and mining tenements, when the act requires that the minister personally exercise his discretion? Hon NORMAN MOORE
I refer to the Mining Act and to the minister’s discretion under section 59 to refuse an exploration licence and his discretion under section 111A to terminate or refuse a mining tenement. (1) What grounds would the minister consider to be reasonable in the public interest for the exercise of a section 59 and/or section 111A discretion? (2) Given the statutory discretion, how is it that an officer of the Department of Mines and Petroleum is operating under delegated authority granting exploration licences and mining tenements, when the act requires that the minister personally exercise his discretion? Hon NORMAN MOORE
AnswerView source ↗
(1)–(2) In respect of the issue of public interest, which I think is contained in the question, the Minister for Mines has to make a decision about the public interests of Western Australia, not the public interests of Hon Adele Farina or a particular landowner in the South West region, or a particular group of people in the South West region. It is my obligation to ensure that the Mining Act is implemented in such a way that we encourage people to invest in mining; indeed, the state’s economy is very much dependent upon the mining industry. I have gone to some lengths to in fact expedite the processes of approval so that people can expend money on exploration and mining. However, there are some occasions when the minister can use the Mining Act to prevent things from happening. I think section 59 provides for refusing exploration licences in the public interest. Companies have applied for exploration licences in the vicinity of Margaret River and Busselton. When applications are made for exploration licences, they can be for a whole range of minerals. They may not be for coal; they may be for mineral sands. As the member knows, there are many mineral sands mines in her electorate that have been very successful. If she believes that I should not grant those, then she should say that so that we know exactly where the Labor Party is coming from. I do not have information available to me on these exploration licences that would enable me in the public interest to not grant them. I might add that I cannot recall in the past when any minister has not granted an exploration licence in the public interest. However, if it can be proved to me that there is a public interest issue, bearing in mind that I am talking about the public of Western Australia, not the public of Margaret River, because I have a broader requirement to consider the total public interest, then I am happy to listen to that particular proposition. It seems to me that there are some people in the Margaret River area who want to exclude mining altogether from that part of the South West. I am not being in any way critical, I can understand that, but there are processes that companies go through under the Mining Act. They are required to abide by the conditions of the Mining Act, just as I as the minister am required to abide by them. Those processes will be gone through. In respect of Margaret River, we have a number of situations. There are applications for exploration licences and there are granted mining leases—mining leases not granted by me but granted by previous ministers, and the member knows who they are. I have no authority to terminate those leases; indeed, the Mining Act provides—this is substantiated by State Solicitor’s advice—that they can be rolled over for a second term. Hon Adele Farina : That is not the question. Hon NORMAN MOORE : I know, but I am giving the member the answer that I want to give her. I will get to her question in a minute. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon NORMAN MOORE : The first question was: why did I not do it in the public interest? I have told the member that the public interest is not her public interest; it is the total state public interest, which is the reason I have not had any proposition put to me that granting exploration licences is against the public interest of Western Australia. I have not had that put to me. However, most of them have not been granted as yet. I also just want to make the point that there are some restrictions on what ministers can do. Mining leases, which are the issue at stake in Margaret River fundamentally, are granted mining leases. A company is entitled to exercise the rights that apply to other mining leases. They are property rights, the same as the member’s freehold block. If she said to me that we should get rid of people’s property rights by denying them the rights attached to a mining lease, she should say so, so that we know just where she’s coming from. In respect of discretion, it is a delegated authority. There are many areas in which the Minister for Mines and Petroleum delegates authority to departmental officers, where normal department processes apply, and traditionally and in 99 per cent of cases there are no issues that require the minister to be involved. The Department of Mines and Petroleum officers would always advise me if they thought there was some issue of public contention in respect of them exercising their delegated authority. I do not have any problem with the mines department operating under delegated authority to grant exploration licences. It is a technical issue; an exploration licence simply allows people to explore, subject to all the conditions that are attached to that. It does not allow them to mine until such time as they apply for a mining lease and then apply for the right to mine. It is a very long process and the exploration licence is but the very beginning.
(1) What grounds would the minister consider to be reasonable in the public interest for the exercise of a section 59 and/or section 111A discretion? (2) Given the statutory discretion, how is it that an officer of the Department of Mines and Petroleum is operating under delegated authority granting exploration licences and mining tenements, when the act requires that the minister personally exercise his discretion? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: (1)–(2) In respect of the issue of public interest, which I think is contained in the question, the Minister for Mines has to make a decision about the public interests of Western Australia, not the public interests of Hon Adele Farina or a particular landowner in the South West region, or a particular group of people in the South West region. It is my obligation to ensure that the Mining Act is implemented in such a way that we encourage people to invest in mining; indeed, the state’s economy is very much dependent upon the mining industry. I have gone to some lengths to in fact expedite the processes of approval so that people can expend money on exploration and mining. However, there are some occasions when the minister can use the Mining Act to prevent things from happening. I think section 59 provides for refusing exploration licences in the public interest. Companies have applied for exploration licences in the vicinity of Margaret River and Busselton. When applications are made for exploration licences, they can be for a whole range of minerals. They may not be for coal; they may be for mineral sands. As the member knows, there are many mineral sands mines in her electorate that have been very successful. If she believes that I should not grant those, then she should say that so that we know exactly where the Labor Party is coming from. I do not have information available to me on these exploration licences that would enable me in the public interest to not grant them. I might add that I cannot recall in the past when any minister has not granted an exploration licence in the public interest. However, if it can be proved to me that there is a public interest issue, bearing in mind that I am talking about the public of Western Australia, not the public of Margaret River, because I have a broader requirement to consider the total public interest, then I am happy to listen to that particular proposition. It seems to me that there are some people in the Margaret River area who want to exclude mining altogether from that part of the South West. I am not being in any way critical, I can understand that, but there are processes that companies go through under the Mining Act. They are required to abide by the conditions of the Mining Act, just as I as the minister am required to abide by them. Those processes will be gone through. In respect of Margaret River, we have a number of situations. There are applications for exploration licences and there are granted mining leases—mining leases not granted by me but granted by previous ministers, and the member knows who they are. I have no authority to terminate those leases; indeed, the Mining Act provides—this is substantiated by State Solicitor’s advice—that they can be rolled over for a second term. Hon Adele Farina : That is not the question. Hon NORMAN MOORE : I know, but I am giving the member the answer that I want to give her. I will get to her question in a minute. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon NORMAN MOORE : The first question was: why did I not do it in the public interest? I have told the member that the public interest is not her public interest; it is the total state public interest, which is the reason I have not had any proposition put to me that granting exploration licences is against the public interest of Western Australia. I have not had that put to me. However, most of them have not been granted as yet. I also just want to make the point that there are some restrictions on what ministers can do. Mining leases, which are the issue at stake in Margaret River fundamentally, are granted mining leases. A company is entitled to exercise the rights that apply to other mining leases. They are property rights, the same as the member’s freehold block. If she said to me that we should get rid of people’s property rights by denying them the rights attached to a mining lease, she should say so, so that we know just where she’s coming from. In respect of discretion, it is a delegated authority. There are many areas in which the Minister for Mines and Petroleum delegates authority to departmental officers, where normal department processes apply, and traditionally and in 99 per cent of cases there are no issues that require the minister to be involved. The Department of Mines and Petroleum officers would always advise me if they thought there was some issue of public contention in respect of them exercising their delegated authority. I do not have any problem with the mines department operating under delegated authority to grant exploration licences. It is a technical issue; an exploration licence simply allows people to explore, subject to all the conditions that are attached to that. It does not allow them to mine until such time as they apply for a mining lease and then apply for the right to mine. It is a very long process and the exploration licence is but the very beginning.
(2) Given the statutory discretion, how is it that an officer of the Department of Mines and Petroleum is operating under delegated authority granting exploration licences and mining tenements, when the act requires that the minister personally exercise his discretion? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: (1)–(2) In respect of the issue of public interest, which I think is contained in the question, the Minister for Mines has to make a decision about the public interests of Western Australia, not the public interests of Hon Adele Farina or a particular landowner in the South West region, or a particular group of people in the South West region. It is my obligation to ensure that the Mining Act is implemented in such a way that we encourage people to invest in mining; indeed, the state’s economy is very much dependent upon the mining industry. I have gone to some lengths to in fact expedite the processes of approval so that people can expend money on exploration and mining. However, there are some occasions when the minister can use the Mining Act to prevent things from happening. I think section 59 provides for refusing exploration licences in the public interest. Companies have applied for exploration licences in the vicinity of Margaret River and Busselton. When applications are made for exploration licences, they can be for a whole range of minerals. They may not be for coal; they may be for mineral sands. As the member knows, there are many mineral sands mines in her electorate that have been very successful. If she believes that I should not grant those, then she should say that so that we know exactly where the Labor Party is coming from. I do not have information available to me on these exploration licences that would enable me in the public interest to not grant them. I might add that I cannot recall in the past when any minister has not granted an exploration licence in the public interest. However, if it can be proved to me that there is a public interest issue, bearing in mind that I am talking about the public of Western Australia, not the public of Margaret River, because I have a broader requirement to consider the total public interest, then I am happy to listen to that particular proposition. It seems to me that there are some people in the Margaret River area who want to exclude mining altogether from that part of the South West. I am not being in any way critical, I can understand that, but there are processes that companies go through under the Mining Act. They are required to abide by the conditions of the Mining Act, just as I as the minister am required to abide by them. Those processes will be gone through. In respect of Margaret River, we have a number of situations. There are applications for exploration licences and there are granted mining leases—mining leases not granted by me but granted by previous ministers, and the member knows who they are. I have no authority to terminate those leases; indeed, the Mining Act provides—this is substantiated by State Solicitor’s advice—that they can be rolled over for a second term. Hon Adele Farina : That is not the question. Hon NORMAN MOORE : I know, but I am giving the member the answer that I want to give her. I will get to her question in a minute. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon NORMAN MOORE : The first question was: why did I not do it in the public interest? I have told the member that the public interest is not her public interest; it is the total state public interest, which is the reason I have not had any proposition put to me that granting exploration licences is against the public interest of Western Australia. I have not had that put to me. However, most of them have not been granted as yet. I also just want to make the point that there are some restrictions on what ministers can do. Mining leases, which are the issue at stake in Margaret River fundamentally, are granted mining leases. A company is entitled to exercise the rights that apply to other mining leases. They are property rights, the same as the member’s freehold block. If she said to me that we should get rid of people’s property rights by denying them the rights attached to a mining lease, she should say so, so that we know just where she’s coming from. In respect of discretion, it is a delegated authority. There are many areas in which the Minister for Mines and Petroleum delegates authority to departmental officers, where normal department processes apply, and traditionally and in 99 per cent of cases there are no issues that require the minister to be involved. The Department of Mines and Petroleum officers would always advise me if they thought there was some issue of public contention in respect of them exercising their delegated authority. I do not have any problem with the mines department operating under delegated authority to grant exploration licences. It is a technical issue; an exploration licence simply allows people to explore, subject to all the conditions that are attached to that. It does not allow them to mine until such time as they apply for a mining lease and then apply for the right to mine. It is a very long process and the exploration licence is but the very beginning.
Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: (1)–(2) In respect of the issue of public interest, which I think is contained in the question, the Minister for Mines has to make a decision about the public interests of Western Australia, not the public interests of Hon Adele Farina or a particular landowner in the South West region, or a particular group of people in the South West region. It is my obligation to ensure that the Mining Act is implemented in such a way that we encourage people to invest in mining; indeed, the state’s economy is very much dependent upon the mining industry. I have gone to some lengths to in fact expedite the processes of approval so that people can expend money on exploration and mining. However, there are some occasions when the minister can use the Mining Act to prevent things from happening. I think section 59 provides for refusing exploration licences in the public interest. Companies have applied for exploration licences in the vicinity of Margaret River and Busselton. When applications are made for exploration licences, they can be for a whole range of minerals. They may not be for coal; they may be for mineral sands. As the member knows, there are many mineral sands mines in her electorate that have been very successful. If she believes that I should not grant those, then she should say that so that we know exactly where the Labor Party is coming from. I do not have information available to me on these exploration licences that would enable me in the public interest to not grant them. I might add that I cannot recall in the past when any minister has not granted an exploration licence in the public interest. However, if it can be proved to me that there is a public interest issue, bearing in mind that I am talking about the public of Western Australia, not the public of Margaret River, because I have a broader requirement to consider the total public interest, then I am happy to listen to that particular proposition. It seems to me that there are some people in the Margaret River area who want to exclude mining altogether from that part of the South West. I am not being in any way critical, I can understand that, but there are processes that companies go through under the Mining Act. They are required to abide by the conditions of the Mining Act, just as I as the minister am required to abide by them. Those processes will be gone through. In respect of Margaret River, we have a number of situations. There are applications for exploration licences and there are granted mining leases—mining leases not granted by me but granted by previous ministers, and the member knows who they are. I have no authority to terminate those leases; indeed, the Mining Act provides—this is substantiated by State Solicitor’s advice—that they can be rolled over for a second term. Hon Adele Farina : That is not the question. Hon NORMAN MOORE : I know, but I am giving the member the answer that I want to give her. I will get to her question in a minute. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon NORMAN MOORE : The first question was: why did I not do it in the public interest? I have told the member that the public interest is not her public interest; it is the total state public interest, which is the reason I have not had any proposition put to me that granting exploration licences is against the public interest of Western Australia. I have not had that put to me. However, most of them have not been granted as yet. I also just want to make the point that there are some restrictions on what ministers can do. Mining leases, which are the issue at stake in Margaret River fundamentally, are granted mining leases. A company is entitled to exercise the rights that apply to other mining leases. They are property rights, the same as the member’s freehold block. If she said to me that we should get rid of people’s property rights by denying them the rights attached to a mining lease, she should say so, so that we know just where she’s coming from. In respect of discretion, it is a delegated authority. There are many areas in which the Minister for Mines and Petroleum delegates authority to departmental officers, where normal department processes apply, and traditionally and in 99 per cent of cases there are no issues that require the minister to be involved. The Department of Mines and Petroleum officers would always advise me if they thought there was some issue of public contention in respect of them exercising their delegated authority. I do not have any problem with the mines department operating under delegated authority to grant exploration licences. It is a technical issue; an exploration licence simply allows people to explore, subject to all the conditions that are attached to that. It does not allow them to mine until such time as they apply for a mining lease and then apply for the right to mine. It is a very long process and the exploration licence is but the very beginning.
(1)–(2) In respect of the issue of public interest, which I think is contained in the question, the Minister for Mines has to make a decision about the public interests of Western Australia, not the public interests of Hon Adele Farina or a particular landowner in the South West region, or a particular group of people in the South West region. It is my obligation to ensure that the Mining Act is implemented in such a way that we encourage people to invest in mining; indeed, the state’s economy is very much dependent upon the mining industry. I have gone to some lengths to in fact expedite the processes of approval so that people can expend money on exploration and mining. However, there are some occasions when the minister can use the Mining Act to prevent things from happening. I think section 59 provides for refusing exploration licences in the public interest. Companies have applied for exploration licences in the vicinity of Margaret River and Busselton. When applications are made for exploration licences, they can be for a whole range of minerals. They may not be for coal; they may be for mineral sands. As the member knows, there are many mineral sands mines in her electorate that have been very successful. If she believes that I should not grant those, then she should say that so that we know exactly where the Labor Party is coming from. I do not have information available to me on these exploration licences that would enable me in the public interest to not grant them. I might add that I cannot recall in the past when any minister has not granted an exploration licence in the public interest. However, if it can be proved to me that there is a public interest issue, bearing in mind that I am talking about the public of Western Australia, not the public of Margaret River, because I have a broader requirement to consider the total public interest, then I am happy to listen to that particular proposition. It seems to me that there are some people in the Margaret River area who want to exclude mining altogether from that part of the South West. I am not being in any way critical, I can understand that, but there are processes that companies go through under the Mining Act. They are required to abide by the conditions of the Mining Act, just as I as the minister am required to abide by them. Those processes will be gone through. In respect of Margaret River, we have a number of situations. There are applications for exploration licences and there are granted mining leases—mining leases not granted by me but granted by previous ministers, and the member knows who they are. I have no authority to terminate those leases; indeed, the Mining Act provides—this is substantiated by State Solicitor’s advice—that they can be rolled over for a second term. Hon Adele Farina : That is not the question. Hon NORMAN MOORE : I know, but I am giving the member the answer that I want to give her. I will get to her question in a minute. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon NORMAN MOORE : The first question was: why did I not do it in the public interest? I have told the member that the public interest is not her public interest; it is the total state public interest, which is the reason I have not had any proposition put to me that granting exploration licences is against the public interest of Western Australia. I have not had that put to me. However, most of them have not been granted as yet. I also just want to make the point that there are some restrictions on what ministers can do. Mining leases, which are the issue at stake in Margaret River fundamentally, are granted mining leases. A company is entitled to exercise the rights that apply to other mining leases. They are property rights, the same as the member’s freehold block. If she said to me that we should get rid of people’s property rights by denying them the rights attached to a mining lease, she should say so, so that we know just where she’s coming from. In respect of discretion, it is a delegated authority. There are many areas in which the Minister for Mines and Petroleum delegates authority to departmental officers, where normal department processes apply, and traditionally and in 99 per cent of cases there are no issues that require the minister to be involved. The Department of Mines and Petroleum officers would always advise me if they thought there was some issue of public contention in respect of them exercising their delegated authority. I do not have any problem with the mines department operating under delegated authority to grant exploration licences. It is a technical issue; an exploration licence simply allows people to explore, subject to all the conditions that are attached to that. It does not allow them to mine until such time as they apply for a mining lease and then apply for the right to mine. It is a very long process and the exploration licence is but the very beginning.
In respect of Margaret River, we have a number of situations. There are applications for exploration licences and there are granted mining leases—mining leases not granted by me but granted by previous ministers, and the member knows who they are. I have no authority to terminate those leases; indeed, the Mining Act provides—this is substantiated by State Solicitor’s advice—that they can be rolled over for a second term.
Hon NORMAN MOORE : I know, but I am giving the member the answer that I want to give her. I will get to her question in a minute. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon NORMAN MOORE : The first question was: why did I not do it in the public interest? I have told the member that the public interest is not her public interest; it is the total state public interest, which is the reason I have not had any proposition put to me that granting exploration licences is against the public interest of Western Australia. I have not had that put to me. However, most of them have not been granted as yet. I also just want to make the point that there are some restrictions on what ministers can do. Mining leases, which are the issue at stake in Margaret River fundamentally, are granted mining leases. A company is entitled to exercise the rights that apply to other mining leases. They are property rights, the same as the member’s freehold block. If she said to me that we should get rid of people’s property rights by denying them the rights attached to a mining lease, she should say so, so that we know just where she’s coming from. In respect of discretion, it is a delegated authority. There are many areas in which the Minister for Mines and Petroleum delegates authority to departmental officers, where normal department processes apply, and traditionally and in 99 per cent of cases there are no issues that require the minister to be involved. The Department of Mines and Petroleum officers would always advise me if they thought there was some issue of public contention in respect of them exercising their delegated authority. I do not have any problem with the mines department operating under delegated authority to grant exploration licences. It is a technical issue; an exploration licence simply allows people to explore, subject to all the conditions that are attached to that. It does not allow them to mine until such time as they apply for a mining lease and then apply for the right to mine. It is a very long process and the exploration licence is but the very beginning.
Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon NORMAN MOORE : The first question was: why did I not do it in the public interest? I have told the member that the public interest is not her public interest; it is the total state public interest, which is the reason I have not had any proposition put to me that granting exploration licences is against the public interest of Western Australia. I have not had that put to me. However, most of them have not been granted as yet. I also just want to make the point that there are some restrictions on what ministers can do. Mining leases, which are the issue at stake in Margaret River fundamentally, are granted mining leases. A company is entitled to exercise the rights that apply to other mining leases. They are property rights, the same as the member’s freehold block. If she said to me that we should get rid of people’s property rights by denying them the rights attached to a mining lease, she should say so, so that we know just where she’s coming from. In respect of discretion, it is a delegated authority. There are many areas in which the Minister for Mines and Petroleum delegates authority to departmental officers, where normal department processes apply, and traditionally and in 99 per cent of cases there are no issues that require the minister to be involved. The Department of Mines and Petroleum officers would always advise me if they thought there was some issue of public contention in respect of them exercising their delegated authority. I do not have any problem with the mines department operating under delegated authority to grant exploration licences. It is a technical issue; an exploration licence simply allows people to explore, subject to all the conditions that are attached to that. It does not allow them to mine until such time as they apply for a mining lease and then apply for the right to mine. It is a very long process and the exploration licence is but the very beginning.
The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon NORMAN MOORE : The first question was: why did I not do it in the public interest? I have told the member that the public interest is not her public interest; it is the total state public interest, which is the reason I have not had any proposition put to me that granting exploration licences is against the public interest of Western Australia. I have not had that put to me. However, most of them have not been granted as yet. I also just want to make the point that there are some restrictions on what ministers can do. Mining leases, which are the issue at stake in Margaret River fundamentally, are granted mining leases. A company is entitled to exercise the rights that apply to other mining leases. They are property rights, the same as the member’s freehold block. If she said to me that we should get rid of people’s property rights by denying them the rights attached to a mining lease, she should say so, so that we know just where she’s coming from. In respect of discretion, it is a delegated authority. There are many areas in which the Minister for Mines and Petroleum delegates authority to departmental officers, where normal department processes apply, and traditionally and in 99 per cent of cases there are no issues that require the minister to be involved. The Department of Mines and Petroleum officers would always advise me if they thought there was some issue of public contention in respect of them exercising their delegated authority. I do not have any problem with the mines department operating under delegated authority to grant exploration licences. It is a technical issue; an exploration licence simply allows people to explore, subject to all the conditions that are attached to that. It does not allow them to mine until such time as they apply for a mining lease and then apply for the right to mine. It is a very long process and the exploration licence is but the very beginning.
Hon NORMAN MOORE : The first question was: why did I not do it in the public interest? I have told the member that the public interest is not her public interest; it is the total state public interest, which is the reason I have not had any proposition put to me that granting exploration licences is against the public interest of Western Australia. I have not had that put to me. However, most of them have not been granted as yet. I also just want to make the point that there are some restrictions on what ministers can do. Mining leases, which are the issue at stake in Margaret River fundamentally, are granted mining leases. A company is entitled to exercise the rights that apply to other mining leases. They are property rights, the same as the member’s freehold block. If she said to me that we should get rid of people’s property rights by denying them the rights attached to a mining lease, she should say so, so that we know just where she’s coming from. In respect of discretion, it is a delegated authority. There are many areas in which the Minister for Mines and Petroleum delegates authority to departmental officers, where normal department processes apply, and traditionally and in 99 per cent of cases there are no issues that require the minister to be involved. The Department of Mines and Petroleum officers would always advise me if they thought there was some issue of public contention in respect of them exercising their delegated authority. I do not have any problem with the mines department operating under delegated authority to grant exploration licences. It is a technical issue; an exploration licence simply allows people to explore, subject to all the conditions that are attached to that. It does not allow them to mine until such time as they apply for a mining lease and then apply for the right to mine. It is a very long process and the exploration licence is but the very beginning.
In respect of discretion, it is a delegated authority. There are many areas in which the Minister for Mines and Petroleum delegates authority to departmental officers, where normal department processes apply, and traditionally and in 99 per cent of cases there are no issues that require the minister to be involved. The Department of Mines and Petroleum officers would always advise me if they thought there was some issue of public contention in respect of them exercising their delegated authority. I do not have any problem with the mines department operating under delegated authority to grant exploration licences. It is a technical issue; an exploration licence simply allows people to explore, subject to all the conditions that are attached to that. It does not allow them to mine until such time as they apply for a mining lease and then apply for the right to mine. It is a very long process and the exploration licence is but the very beginning.
(1) What grounds would the minister consider to be reasonable in the public interest for the exercise of a section 59 and/or section 111A discretion? (2) Given the statutory discretion, how is it that an officer of the Department of Mines and Petroleum is operating under delegated authority granting exploration licences and mining tenements, when the act requires that the minister personally exercise his discretion? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: (1)–(2) In respect of the issue of public interest, which I think is contained in the question, the Minister for Mines has to make a decision about the public interests of Western Australia, not the public interests of Hon Adele Farina or a particular landowner in the South West region, or a particular group of people in the South West region. It is my obligation to ensure that the Mining Act is implemented in such a way that we encourage people to invest in mining; indeed, the state’s economy is very much dependent upon the mining industry. I have gone to some lengths to in fact expedite the processes of approval so that people can expend money on exploration and mining. However, there are some occasions when the minister can use the Mining Act to prevent things from happening. I think section 59 provides for refusing exploration licences in the public interest. Companies have applied for exploration licences in the vicinity of Margaret River and Busselton. When applications are made for exploration licences, they can be for a whole range of minerals. They may not be for coal; they may be for mineral sands. As the member knows, there are many mineral sands mines in her electorate that have been very successful. If she believes that I should not grant those, then she should say that so that we know exactly where the Labor Party is coming from. I do not have information available to me on these exploration licences that would enable me in the public interest to not grant them. I might add that I cannot recall in the past when any minister has not granted an exploration licence in the public interest. However, if it can be proved to me that there is a public interest issue, bearing in mind that I am talking about the public of Western Australia, not the public of Margaret River, because I have a broader requirement to consider the total public interest, then I am happy to listen to that particular proposition. It seems to me that there are some people in the Margaret River area who want to exclude mining altogether from that part of the South West. I am not being in any way critical, I can understand that, but there are processes that companies go through under the Mining Act. They are required to abide by the conditions of the Mining Act, just as I as the minister am required to abide by them. Those processes will be gone through. In respect of Margaret River, we have a number of situations. There are applications for exploration licences and there are granted mining leases—mining leases not granted by me but granted by previous ministers, and the member knows who they are. I have no authority to terminate those leases; indeed, the Mining Act provides—this is substantiated by State Solicitor’s advice—that they can be rolled over for a second term. Hon Adele Farina : That is not the question. Hon NORMAN MOORE : I know, but I am giving the member the answer that I want to give her. I will get to her question in a minute. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon NORMAN MOORE : The first question was: why did I not do it in the public interest? I have told the member that the public interest is not her public interest; it is the total state public interest, which is the reason I have not had any proposition put to me that granting exploration licences is against the public interest of Western Australia. I have not had that put to me. However, most of them have not been granted as yet. I also just want to make the point that there are some restrictions on what ministers can do. Mining leases, which are the issue at stake in Margaret River fundamentally, are granted mining leases. A company is entitled to exercise the rights that apply to other mining leases. They are property rights, the same as the member’s freehold block. If she said to me that we should get rid of people’s property rights by denying them the rights attached to a mining lease, she should say so, so that we know just where she’s coming from. In respect of discretion, it is a delegated authority. There are many areas in which the Minister for Mines and Petroleum delegates authority to departmental officers, where normal department processes apply, and traditionally and in 99 per cent of cases there are no issues that require the minister to be involved. The Department of Mines and Petroleum officers would always advise me if they thought there was some issue of public contention in respect of them exercising their delegated authority. I do not have any problem with the mines department operating under delegated authority to grant exploration licences. It is a technical issue; an exploration licence simply allows people to explore, subject to all the conditions that are attached to that. It does not allow them to mine until such time as they apply for a mining lease and then apply for the right to mine. It is a very long process and the exploration licence is but the very beginning.
(2) Given the statutory discretion, how is it that an officer of the Department of Mines and Petroleum is operating under delegated authority granting exploration licences and mining tenements, when the act requires that the minister personally exercise his discretion? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: (1)–(2) In respect of the issue of public interest, which I think is contained in the question, the Minister for Mines has to make a decision about the public interests of Western Australia, not the public interests of Hon Adele Farina or a particular landowner in the South West region, or a particular group of people in the South West region. It is my obligation to ensure that the Mining Act is implemented in such a way that we encourage people to invest in mining; indeed, the state’s economy is very much dependent upon the mining industry. I have gone to some lengths to in fact expedite the processes of approval so that people can expend money on exploration and mining. However, there are some occasions when the minister can use the Mining Act to prevent things from happening. I think section 59 provides for refusing exploration licences in the public interest. Companies have applied for exploration licences in the vicinity of Margaret River and Busselton. When applications are made for exploration licences, they can be for a whole range of minerals. They may not be for coal; they may be for mineral sands. As the member knows, there are many mineral sands mines in her electorate that have been very successful. If she believes that I should not grant those, then she should say that so that we know exactly where the Labor Party is coming from. I do not have information available to me on these exploration licences that would enable me in the public interest to not grant them. I might add that I cannot recall in the past when any minister has not granted an exploration licence in the public interest. However, if it can be proved to me that there is a public interest issue, bearing in mind that I am talking about the public of Western Australia, not the public of Margaret River, because I have a broader requirement to consider the total public interest, then I am happy to listen to that particular proposition. It seems to me that there are some people in the Margaret River area who want to exclude mining altogether from that part of the South West. I am not being in any way critical, I can understand that, but there are processes that companies go through under the Mining Act. They are required to abide by the conditions of the Mining Act, just as I as the minister am required to abide by them. Those processes will be gone through. In respect of Margaret River, we have a number of situations. There are applications for exploration licences and there are granted mining leases—mining leases not granted by me but granted by previous ministers, and the member knows who they are. I have no authority to terminate those leases; indeed, the Mining Act provides—this is substantiated by State Solicitor’s advice—that they can be rolled over for a second term. Hon Adele Farina : That is not the question. Hon NORMAN MOORE : I know, but I am giving the member the answer that I want to give her. I will get to her question in a minute. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon NORMAN MOORE : The first question was: why did I not do it in the public interest? I have told the member that the public interest is not her public interest; it is the total state public interest, which is the reason I have not had any proposition put to me that granting exploration licences is against the public interest of Western Australia. I have not had that put to me. However, most of them have not been granted as yet. I also just want to make the point that there are some restrictions on what ministers can do. Mining leases, which are the issue at stake in Margaret River fundamentally, are granted mining leases. A company is entitled to exercise the rights that apply to other mining leases. They are property rights, the same as the member’s freehold block. If she said to me that we should get rid of people’s property rights by denying them the rights attached to a mining lease, she should say so, so that we know just where she’s coming from. In respect of discretion, it is a delegated authority. There are many areas in which the Minister for Mines and Petroleum delegates authority to departmental officers, where normal department processes apply, and traditionally and in 99 per cent of cases there are no issues that require the minister to be involved. The Department of Mines and Petroleum officers would always advise me if they thought there was some issue of public contention in respect of them exercising their delegated authority. I do not have any problem with the mines department operating under delegated authority to grant exploration licences. It is a technical issue; an exploration licence simply allows people to explore, subject to all the conditions that are attached to that. It does not allow them to mine until such time as they apply for a mining lease and then apply for the right to mine. It is a very long process and the exploration licence is but the very beginning.
Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: (1)–(2) In respect of the issue of public interest, which I think is contained in the question, the Minister for Mines has to make a decision about the public interests of Western Australia, not the public interests of Hon Adele Farina or a particular landowner in the South West region, or a particular group of people in the South West region. It is my obligation to ensure that the Mining Act is implemented in such a way that we encourage people to invest in mining; indeed, the state’s economy is very much dependent upon the mining industry. I have gone to some lengths to in fact expedite the processes of approval so that people can expend money on exploration and mining. However, there are some occasions when the minister can use the Mining Act to prevent things from happening. I think section 59 provides for refusing exploration licences in the public interest. Companies have applied for exploration licences in the vicinity of Margaret River and Busselton. When applications are made for exploration licences, they can be for a whole range of minerals. They may not be for coal; they may be for mineral sands. As the member knows, there are many mineral sands mines in her electorate that have been very successful. If she believes that I should not grant those, then she should say that so that we know exactly where the Labor Party is coming from. I do not have information available to me on these exploration licences that would enable me in the public interest to not grant them. I might add that I cannot recall in the past when any minister has not granted an exploration licence in the public interest. However, if it can be proved to me that there is a public interest issue, bearing in mind that I am talking about the public of Western Australia, not the public of Margaret River, because I have a broader requirement to consider the total public interest, then I am happy to listen to that particular proposition. It seems to me that there are some people in the Margaret River area who want to exclude mining altogether from that part of the South West. I am not being in any way critical, I can understand that, but there are processes that companies go through under the Mining Act. They are required to abide by the conditions of the Mining Act, just as I as the minister am required to abide by them. Those processes will be gone through. In respect of Margaret River, we have a number of situations. There are applications for exploration licences and there are granted mining leases—mining leases not granted by me but granted by previous ministers, and the member knows who they are. I have no authority to terminate those leases; indeed, the Mining Act provides—this is substantiated by State Solicitor’s advice—that they can be rolled over for a second term. Hon Adele Farina : That is not the question. Hon NORMAN MOORE : I know, but I am giving the member the answer that I want to give her. I will get to her question in a minute. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon NORMAN MOORE : The first question was: why did I not do it in the public interest? I have told the member that the public interest is not her public interest; it is the total state public interest, which is the reason I have not had any proposition put to me that granting exploration licences is against the public interest of Western Australia. I have not had that put to me. However, most of them have not been granted as yet. I also just want to make the point that there are some restrictions on what ministers can do. Mining leases, which are the issue at stake in Margaret River fundamentally, are granted mining leases. A company is entitled to exercise the rights that apply to other mining leases. They are property rights, the same as the member’s freehold block. If she said to me that we should get rid of people’s property rights by denying them the rights attached to a mining lease, she should say so, so that we know just where she’s coming from. In respect of discretion, it is a delegated authority. There are many areas in which the Minister for Mines and Petroleum delegates authority to departmental officers, where normal department processes apply, and traditionally and in 99 per cent of cases there are no issues that require the minister to be involved. The Department of Mines and Petroleum officers would always advise me if they thought there was some issue of public contention in respect of them exercising their delegated authority. I do not have any problem with the mines department operating under delegated authority to grant exploration licences. It is a technical issue; an exploration licence simply allows people to explore, subject to all the conditions that are attached to that. It does not allow them to mine until such time as they apply for a mining lease and then apply for the right to mine. It is a very long process and the exploration licence is but the very beginning.
(1)–(2) In respect of the issue of public interest, which I think is contained in the question, the Minister for Mines has to make a decision about the public interests of Western Australia, not the public interests of Hon Adele Farina or a particular landowner in the South West region, or a particular group of people in the South West region. It is my obligation to ensure that the Mining Act is implemented in such a way that we encourage people to invest in mining; indeed, the state’s economy is very much dependent upon the mining industry. I have gone to some lengths to in fact expedite the processes of approval so that people can expend money on exploration and mining. However, there are some occasions when the minister can use the Mining Act to prevent things from happening. I think section 59 provides for refusing exploration licences in the public interest. Companies have applied for exploration licences in the vicinity of Margaret River and Busselton. When applications are made for exploration licences, they can be for a whole range of minerals. They may not be for coal; they may be for mineral sands. As the member knows, there are many mineral sands mines in her electorate that have been very successful. If she believes that I should not grant those, then she should say that so that we know exactly where the Labor Party is coming from. I do not have information available to me on these exploration licences that would enable me in the public interest to not grant them. I might add that I cannot recall in the past when any minister has not granted an exploration licence in the public interest. However, if it can be proved to me that there is a public interest issue, bearing in mind that I am talking about the public of Western Australia, not the public of Margaret River, because I have a broader requirement to consider the total public interest, then I am happy to listen to that particular proposition. It seems to me that there are some people in the Margaret River area who want to exclude mining altogether from that part of the South West. I am not being in any way critical, I can understand that, but there are processes that companies go through under the Mining Act. They are required to abide by the conditions of the Mining Act, just as I as the minister am required to abide by them. Those processes will be gone through. In respect of Margaret River, we have a number of situations. There are applications for exploration licences and there are granted mining leases—mining leases not granted by me but granted by previous ministers, and the member knows who they are. I have no authority to terminate those leases; indeed, the Mining Act provides—this is substantiated by State Solicitor’s advice—that they can be rolled over for a second term. Hon Adele Farina : That is not the question. Hon NORMAN MOORE : I know, but I am giving the member the answer that I want to give her. I will get to her question in a minute. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon NORMAN MOORE : The first question was: why did I not do it in the public interest? I have told the member that the public interest is not her public interest; it is the total state public interest, which is the reason I have not had any proposition put to me that granting exploration licences is against the public interest of Western Australia. I have not had that put to me. However, most of them have not been granted as yet. I also just want to make the point that there are some restrictions on what ministers can do. Mining leases, which are the issue at stake in Margaret River fundamentally, are granted mining leases. A company is entitled to exercise the rights that apply to other mining leases. They are property rights, the same as the member’s freehold block. If she said to me that we should get rid of people’s property rights by denying them the rights attached to a mining lease, she should say so, so that we know just where she’s coming from. In respect of discretion, it is a delegated authority. There are many areas in which the Minister for Mines and Petroleum delegates authority to departmental officers, where normal department processes apply, and traditionally and in 99 per cent of cases there are no issues that require the minister to be involved. The Department of Mines and Petroleum officers would always advise me if they thought there was some issue of public contention in respect of them exercising their delegated authority. I do not have any problem with the mines department operating under delegated authority to grant exploration licences. It is a technical issue; an exploration licence simply allows people to explore, subject to all the conditions that are attached to that. It does not allow them to mine until such time as they apply for a mining lease and then apply for the right to mine. It is a very long process and the exploration licence is but the very beginning.
In respect of Margaret River, we have a number of situations. There are applications for exploration licences and there are granted mining leases—mining leases not granted by me but granted by previous ministers, and the member knows who they are. I have no authority to terminate those leases; indeed, the Mining Act provides—this is substantiated by State Solicitor’s advice—that they can be rolled over for a second term.
Hon NORMAN MOORE : I know, but I am giving the member the answer that I want to give her. I will get to her question in a minute. Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon NORMAN MOORE : The first question was: why did I not do it in the public interest? I have told the member that the public interest is not her public interest; it is the total state public interest, which is the reason I have not had any proposition put to me that granting exploration licences is against the public interest of Western Australia. I have not had that put to me. However, most of them have not been granted as yet. I also just want to make the point that there are some restrictions on what ministers can do. Mining leases, which are the issue at stake in Margaret River fundamentally, are granted mining leases. A company is entitled to exercise the rights that apply to other mining leases. They are property rights, the same as the member’s freehold block. If she said to me that we should get rid of people’s property rights by denying them the rights attached to a mining lease, she should say so, so that we know just where she’s coming from. In respect of discretion, it is a delegated authority. There are many areas in which the Minister for Mines and Petroleum delegates authority to departmental officers, where normal department processes apply, and traditionally and in 99 per cent of cases there are no issues that require the minister to be involved. The Department of Mines and Petroleum officers would always advise me if they thought there was some issue of public contention in respect of them exercising their delegated authority. I do not have any problem with the mines department operating under delegated authority to grant exploration licences. It is a technical issue; an exploration licence simply allows people to explore, subject to all the conditions that are attached to that. It does not allow them to mine until such time as they apply for a mining lease and then apply for the right to mine. It is a very long process and the exploration licence is but the very beginning.
Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon NORMAN MOORE : The first question was: why did I not do it in the public interest? I have told the member that the public interest is not her public interest; it is the total state public interest, which is the reason I have not had any proposition put to me that granting exploration licences is against the public interest of Western Australia. I have not had that put to me. However, most of them have not been granted as yet. I also just want to make the point that there are some restrictions on what ministers can do. Mining leases, which are the issue at stake in Margaret River fundamentally, are granted mining leases. A company is entitled to exercise the rights that apply to other mining leases. They are property rights, the same as the member’s freehold block. If she said to me that we should get rid of people’s property rights by denying them the rights attached to a mining lease, she should say so, so that we know just where she’s coming from. In respect of discretion, it is a delegated authority. There are many areas in which the Minister for Mines and Petroleum delegates authority to departmental officers, where normal department processes apply, and traditionally and in 99 per cent of cases there are no issues that require the minister to be involved. The Department of Mines and Petroleum officers would always advise me if they thought there was some issue of public contention in respect of them exercising their delegated authority. I do not have any problem with the mines department operating under delegated authority to grant exploration licences. It is a technical issue; an exploration licence simply allows people to explore, subject to all the conditions that are attached to that. It does not allow them to mine until such time as they apply for a mining lease and then apply for the right to mine. It is a very long process and the exploration licence is but the very beginning.
The PRESIDENT : Order! Hon NORMAN MOORE : The first question was: why did I not do it in the public interest? I have told the member that the public interest is not her public interest; it is the total state public interest, which is the reason I have not had any proposition put to me that granting exploration licences is against the public interest of Western Australia. I have not had that put to me. However, most of them have not been granted as yet. I also just want to make the point that there are some restrictions on what ministers can do. Mining leases, which are the issue at stake in Margaret River fundamentally, are granted mining leases. A company is entitled to exercise the rights that apply to other mining leases. They are property rights, the same as the member’s freehold block. If she said to me that we should get rid of people’s property rights by denying them the rights attached to a mining lease, she should say so, so that we know just where she’s coming from. In respect of discretion, it is a delegated authority. There are many areas in which the Minister for Mines and Petroleum delegates authority to departmental officers, where normal department processes apply, and traditionally and in 99 per cent of cases there are no issues that require the minister to be involved. The Department of Mines and Petroleum officers would always advise me if they thought there was some issue of public contention in respect of them exercising their delegated authority. I do not have any problem with the mines department operating under delegated authority to grant exploration licences. It is a technical issue; an exploration licence simply allows people to explore, subject to all the conditions that are attached to that. It does not allow them to mine until such time as they apply for a mining lease and then apply for the right to mine. It is a very long process and the exploration licence is but the very beginning.
Hon NORMAN MOORE : The first question was: why did I not do it in the public interest? I have told the member that the public interest is not her public interest; it is the total state public interest, which is the reason I have not had any proposition put to me that granting exploration licences is against the public interest of Western Australia. I have not had that put to me. However, most of them have not been granted as yet. I also just want to make the point that there are some restrictions on what ministers can do. Mining leases, which are the issue at stake in Margaret River fundamentally, are granted mining leases. A company is entitled to exercise the rights that apply to other mining leases. They are property rights, the same as the member’s freehold block. If she said to me that we should get rid of people’s property rights by denying them the rights attached to a mining lease, she should say so, so that we know just where she’s coming from. In respect of discretion, it is a delegated authority. There are many areas in which the Minister for Mines and Petroleum delegates authority to departmental officers, where normal department processes apply, and traditionally and in 99 per cent of cases there are no issues that require the minister to be involved. The Department of Mines and Petroleum officers would always advise me if they thought there was some issue of public contention in respect of them exercising their delegated authority. I do not have any problem with the mines department operating under delegated authority to grant exploration licences. It is a technical issue; an exploration licence simply allows people to explore, subject to all the conditions that are attached to that. It does not allow them to mine until such time as they apply for a mining lease and then apply for the right to mine. It is a very long process and the exploration licence is but the very beginning.
In respect of discretion, it is a delegated authority. There are many areas in which the Minister for Mines and Petroleum delegates authority to departmental officers, where normal department processes apply, and traditionally and in 99 per cent of cases there are no issues that require the minister to be involved. The Department of Mines and Petroleum officers would always advise me if they thought there was some issue of public contention in respect of them exercising their delegated authority. I do not have any problem with the mines department operating under delegated authority to grant exploration licences. It is a technical issue; an exploration licence simply allows people to explore, subject to all the conditions that are attached to that. It does not allow them to mine until such time as they apply for a mining lease and then apply for the right to mine. It is a very long process and the exploration licence is but the very beginning.
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.