i think this is some interesting statistics , page-11

I've compiled the debate in the Assembly (lower house) as a word doc. Some very interesting stuff I think, assuming what the Minista said at the time, in support of the s.111A changes, are unaltered by later amendments that I am not yet aware of.

For example. The Minister for Minerals & Energy said, in a Committee debate on an amendment to s.111A on 12/06/1986.
==========================
Mr Parker (Fremantle)

The whole point of the exercise is that under the mining laws of this State the variety of applications, individuals, and circumstances which arise are so diverse that they must be dealt with by a clause of this nature. This is really a sketch clause which will provide a framework within which the Minister and the Government of the day may choose to act, bearing in mind the constraints I referred to earlier, to ensure the law operates.
Gradually over time a body of precedent will be built up, as occurs with all laws, a body which will demonstrate precisely how the provision should operate.
I shall give members a few undertakings. Firstly, I undertake that the provision will not be used in any capricious sense. Quite apart from the fact that if the provision were used in a capricious sense a court may find against it, because of the way in which I administer my Ministry---I think there is a reasonable level of support for that. I recognise it is not in the interests of the mining industry that the provision should be exercised in that way. Anyway, the courts would probably overturn the capricious exercise of that discretion.
Secondly, it will not be used for any political purposes. Once again, the courts would probably overturn the use of the provision in that way. The provision is to be used purely to protect the genuine operators in the industry against these fleas and ratbags who come along and try to overpeg.
Quite apart from the legal constraints upon e Minister in exercising such a power, obviously there is also the political constraint. That is apparent to any Minister who exercises such a power in a way which will not achieve the general acclaim of the industry, maybe not of the individuals involved. The Minister should be seen to be fair and reasonable in his actions by the industry as a whole. Any Minister who does not comply with that will find himself well and truly on the outer with the industry, ultimately with his colleagues, and, in the final analysis, with the public


Page 197

Therefore, there is no incentive or reason that a Minister would want to use such a provision in that way. It is certainly my view that the clause should remain unaltered.
================End of quote

But the amendment, which was meant only to clarify what the Minister was proposing in the original s.111A, got passed.

And again, the dabate was all about expired leases. I can't find any reference to anyone suggesting s.111A was envisioned to apply to an exploration licence, except for the acknowledgement
that s.111A (1a)-(1c) applied to any type of tenement. And, as Mr Parker also said in his second reading speach.
==================
Mr. Parker starting 4:24pm 10/06/1986

"Further clauses have been inserted in the Bill which propose to give the Minister power to refuse future mining tenement applications when he considers that those applications com-prise recently expired leases for which an application for renewal has been lodged and should be granted, or that, in the public interest, the mining tenement application in question should not be granted".
==============end of quote