minister explains cazaly decision, page-18

Sometimes, it is better to keep one’s silence and be thought the fool, rather than open one's mouth and confirm the fact!

I would be embarrassed to put my name to that piece of diatribe...juvenile at best, incompetent at worst and generally, just plain wrong…and certainly way below standard for someone in his position.

He may as well have simply said "because".

"I took it off CAZ because."

Because why?

"Just because!"

So much wrong with these so-called "facts" in support of the "public interest" argument, it really isn't funny.

Further, the majority of his comments would be laughed out of court if they were ever presented before a judge...they are as well reasoned as a 2 year old trying to convince you he "didn't eat the cake", in spite of the evidence all over his face.

lol...I don't know whether to get angry, or just laugh at the thinly veiled stupidity of it all.

For example, it appears a great deal of weight has been placed on the physical passage of documents...not sure how this fits in the "public interest" argument...but anyway…how do we actually know they were in fact sent when RIO said they were, and how do we actually know the courier wasn't suddenly given the documents after the error had been discovered?

The fact is we don't...we have to believe without question, what RIO has told us...of course, they wouldn't lie now would they?

Is the minister suggesting the application of a future “honour system” here? Will he incorporate this into the act? I can just see it now…”Section 82.1 - The dog ate my homework clause”

And what about the acceptance of a cheque without supporting documentation, as official payment for a tenement? What kind of precedent does this set for the wider industry? Can I send in a cheque with “tenement” written on the back, which they will rightfully send back, then retrospectively send in the documentation for any future ground pegged next door to the next big find, wherever that might happen to be? After all, I had previously sent in the cheque, clearly signalling my intent!

lol...what a mess!

I am sorry, but not one of his arguments are actually in the "public interest"...and as for his suggestions that the industry needs to feel confident of the integrity of the system to protect long term investment, in spite of unforeseen errors...lol...I thought that was what the Mining Act was for?

I am afraid that in one foul swoop, the minister in his wisdom, has done more damage to the "sovereign risk" issue for WA and by extension, the future for mining investment in that state, than any political coup or act of war might have ever achieved.

In this decision, he has effectively thrown the Mining Act out the window...so...if he can do it on this occasion, where else might he feel inclined to do so in the future?


I also find particularly interesting his suggestion that should the roles have been reversed, that CAZ would have been awarded the tenement...lol...yeah right.

But in fairness, if we do entertain such an idea, we do perhaps get an interesting update on the Minister's current views on mining and exploration in the state of W.A.

It now appears that the recent "use it or lose it" decree from the government was obviously just a joke and perhaps no longer applies...from which we can assume that anyone who behaves as RIO did, will receive similar treatment.

So...in future, any prospective miner, large or small (according to the minister's assurances of fairness) can; repeatedly miss renewal deadlines; ignore annual minimum expenditure requirements; and ultimately, not feel pressured into ever developing their resource...EVER!

The inequities here are just too numerous to mention...which sadly, sends a very loud warning to prospective investors world wide.

Why would any company consider an investment in a state where clearly, the "status quo" of the big players will be jealously guarded by an inward looking, incompetent and generally backwards government.

It appears that "WA inc" is more than just alive and well, it is clearly well and truly running the state...and unfortunately, judging by the thinly veiled bias and somewhat in-your-face brashness of the decision, is suggestive of a wider penetration into virtually every level of government and perhaps even he judicial system itself?

So much so, they didn’t even feel the need to disguise the unfairness of the decision.

It appears that the law and more specifically, the WA Mining act (with recent amendments), is basically a waste of time…in future, we can all do our own thing and if we are unhappy with an outcome, appeal directly to the minister to put his personal touch on things.

How interesting if the Minister were to suddenly get a flood of objections on the basis of “public interest” for various “indiscretions” from a myriad of previous actions that did not manage to conform to the act?

A can of worms has been opened here...I suspect the minister would have been much better keeping his mouth shut!

Cheers!