how do i love thee....?, page-4

CAz won't get this back IMO but this whole decision is DODGY. 'Special Treatment' at the ministers discretion with respect to a 'unique iron ore policy"???

Wasn't the minister asked to decide why in the public interest Cazaly Resources should not be awarded the tenement? Not why, due to special treatment at the ministers discretion Rio Tinto should get it? Is this for real?

The Australian:

Minister explains Cazaly decision
Ean Higgins
April 28, 2006
STUNG by political pressure and business uncertainty, the West Australian Government yesterday offered a belated explanation for why it took a potentially lucrative iron ore lease off junior miner Cazaly Resources and gave it back to giant Rio Tinto.
The Government claimed it had a unique iron ore policy which allowed for "special treatment" at the minister's discretion, and that Rio had been given back the lease to promote the principle of long-term tenure and lift investor confidence.

But the three-page document issued by state Resources Minister John Bowler was branded as woefully inadequate by the state Opposition, and as a sham by Cazaly managing director Nathan McMahon, whose company's shares have fallen 75 per cent since last Friday's decision.

Mr McMahon said the Government bowed to pressure from Rio. "There is no doubt that big business is being afforded a wonderful deal in this state that we, as a legitimate junior company, are not," he said.

Mr McMahon said Cazaly would proceed with an action in the Supreme Court to get the lease back and had submitted freedom-of-information requests for government documents surrounding the decision.

The Government had faced heat from the Opposition and two of its backbenchers for its failure to offer any reason for its decision to take the Shovelanna mining lease from Cazaly, which had won it after Rio failed to renew its lease on time.

Yesterday, Mr Bowler grovelled to journalists over his initial failure to provide an explanation, saying that "in hindsight" he should have done so.

He agreed Cazaly had been awarded the lease legitimately and had suffered immense damage through no fault of its own.

But he insisted he had made the decision on the basis of fairness and that he had not been pressured by Rio to do so.

"There has been some suggestion that since Rio is big that they leant on me," Mr Bowler said.

That, he said, was untrue, and he had not had contact with the company in taking the decision.

The dispute began in August when Rio failed to renew the Shovelanna lease in the Pilbara before it expired.

While it paid the renewal fees, the courier company failed to properly deliver the renewal documents by the deadline.

Cazaly then staked its claim, was awarded the lease, and paid its rent to the Government.

In his written explanation, Mr Bowler outlined three reasons:

* The state's "special" policy on iron ore meant that "the public interest" was "best served" by terminating Cazaly's lease.

* Investment would be best encouraged "when explorers can be confident that their ownership of resources they have discovered is not jeopardised".

* The decision was "fair" because he would have done the same thing if the positions of Cazaly and Rio were reversed.

But Mr McMahon said no one in the mining industry had heard of the "special" discretionary mining policy until yesterday; rather, they were familiar with the laws and regulations governing mining which, he said, put Cazaly clearly in the right.

Rio chief executive Sam Walsh said the company did not make political donations to any party.

Print Friendly Version Email this story