in 1986 it was very good year

The lower house (Assembly) debate. 2nd reading intro speach by the Minista.
=========================

Assembly – 10/06/1986
MR MacKINNON (Murdoch-Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [4.22 p.m.]: On be-half of the Opposition, I indicate to the Parliament that after discussions with the Leader of the House, the Opposition parties have agreed to this motion to enable the Bill to be introduced. The Minister for Minerals and Energy has given me a private briefing on the legislation, but the Opposition parties will now have the opportunity of examining the legislation and the reasons far it so that they can then determine a position on it and debate on it can proceed as a matter of urgency, as is the Government's wish. We have agreed to accede to that request.
The SPEAKER: In order to be successful, this motion requires the support of an absolute majority of the whole number of members of the House. If, when I put the question, there is a dissentient voice, I will have to ring the bells and divide the House.
Question put.
The SPEAKER: There being no dissentient voice and having satisfied myself that there is an absolute majority present, I declare the motion to be carried with the concurrence of the absolute majority of the whole number of the members of the House.
Question thus passed.
Introduction and First Reading
Bill introduced, on motion without notice by Mr Parker (Minister for Minerals and Energy), and read a first time.
Second Reading
MR PARKER (Fremantle-Minister for Minerals and Energy) [4.24 p.m.]: I move-That the Bill be now read a second time. The Bill has as its prime purpose a proposal to confirm and validate the renewal of certain mining leases which were approved under the old 1904 Mining Act and which were deemed to be mining leases under the Mining Act 1978 on the coming into operation of that Act on 1 January 1982.
Under the transitional provisions of the 1978 Act those deemed leases continued in force subject to the covenants and conditions under which they were granted-provided those covenants and conditions were not inconsistent with the 1978 Mining Act-and, otherwise, were subject to the 1978 Act. This meant, as I see it, that they otherwise assumed all the liabilities, requirements, and privileges of the 1978 Act, including a right of renewal which had existed under the 1904 Act.
The subject mining leases were-
(I) Gold mining lease 2329W, Paddington gold mine, on the Broad Arrow mineral field of which the lessee was Pancontinental Gold Mining Areas Pty Ltd;
(II) Coal mining lease 533 at Collie River mineral field of which Western Collieries Ltd was the lessee;
(III) Gold mining lease 1342Y at Bulong in the East Coolgardie mineral field of which Charles Bar-ton Cecil Jones was the lessee; and
(IV) Gold mining lease 5798Z at Comet Vale in the North Coolgardie mineral field of which Robert James Donovan, deceased, was the lessee.
In each of the subject instances an application for renewal of the lease was made after its expiry on 31 December 1985 and there was good and sufficient reason why the lease should be renewed in that the lessee had substantially observed the requirements of the lease and there was no valid reason to assume that the lessee would not continue to do so.
The Pancontinental case involving the Paddington gold mine-gold mining lease 2329W-was of course the most notable of these and received widespread coverage in the newspapers.
Members will recall that gold mining lease 2329W was the centrally located lease of the Paddington gold mine's operations and, had I not taken prompt action in approving its renewal, the jobs of some 100 employees would have been at stake and the operations of this major mine would have ceased in the mean-time. As it is, my action, as Minister, in renewing the lease is subject to challenge in the Supreme Court because another party, Wingate Holdings Pty Ltd, believes that renewal cannot be legally substantiated.
It is significant to say that this lease, even though it was subject to ongoing mining operations, was pegged by no less than six persons within a matter of seconds after midnight on the dates on which those persons believed the lease expired.
In all cases, application for renewal of the subject leases was made after the expiry date of the lease. These dates are---
(A) Pancontinental3 January 1986;
(B) Western Collieries 16 January 1986;
(C) Charles Barton Cecil Jones 15 January 1986: and
(D) The Public Trustee for Robert James Donovan deceased 17 January 1986.

The prevailing authority to effect such lease renewals in legal terms under the Mining Act is not clearly put. In fact, there are opposing legal views as to whether the Minister has such authority.

One of those views was that the subject leases which were all granted under the 1904 Mining Act and which were deemed to be mining leases under the 1978 Act could be renewed under that Act on expiry in accordance with pro-visions of section 78 and regulations 29 and 104.
Section 78, as it then was, merely stated that the Minister may, from time to time, upon receipt of due application in the prescribed form, renew a mining lease for successive terms of 21 years.
Regulation 29 reads-

Application for renewal of a mining lease shall be made, in the form No. 9 in the first schedule and lodged
at the office of the mining registrar, together with the duplicate instrument of lease (if issued) at any time
within the final year prior to the expiry date.
The notable part of this regulation, of course, is a requirement that an application for renewal must be lodged prior to the expiry of the lease. However, to my mind, regulation 104 provides a discretion to alter this requirement. It reads as follows-
(I) The time required by these regulations for any act to be done by the applicant for, or holder of, any mining tenement may be extended by the Minister or a warden, as the case requires, for reasonable cause, proof of which lies on the applicant or holder.
The opposing view which is reiterated in the Supreme Court proceedings is that there is no authority under the Mining Act to renew the leases which had already expired and the use of regulation 104 is precluded because it is inapplicable as respects an application for renewal of a lease.
The Bill is designed to remove any doubts as to the validity of my action and to place be-yond doubt the facts that the renewed titles to the leases remain valid, that any property such as minerals derived therefrom remain vested in the respective lessees and any action in continuing to mine the land as a result of the renewal of the leases is valid and legal in terms of the Mining Act.
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.
In order to achieve positively the objectives mentioned it has also been found necessary to include in the Bill a provision which will prevent any action at law in any court by parties other than the lessees of the renewed leases to obtain a mining tenement of the land in those leases or to obtain property in any mineral mined therefrom. It is proposed that any application for such a mining tenement will be de-void of any effect under the Mining Act and will, as a consequence, lapse.
This matter proceeded during the course of the election. It is always very difficult to get anything dealt with on a bipartisan basis at such a time. I very much appreciate having received the support of the Opposition for the action I took at that time. That action was certainly for the benefit of the industry. I also appreciate the support of the Opposition in facilitating the rapid progression of this Bill which, of course, will have a direct effect on the ability of the mining operation to continue.
Debate adjourned, on motion by Mr MacKinnon (Deputy Leader of the Opposition).