to be relevant as going to public interest, page-6

Retep49

The Minister said, as one of his reasons for knocking out Cazaly, was that if the situation was reversed he'd find in favour of Cazaly.

But grabbing my trusty sword called "common sense" and using it to peel back the over-burden of authority that covers ministerial utterances…I don't get it.

The decision implies any (absolutely any) Exploration Licence that expires inadvertently can be recovered no matter how small the tenement and no matter whether there are minerals, inferred or proven or discovered. As size is not important! Including the size of who is involved.

But Parliament, to my knowledge, never ever ever spoke in 1986 about restoring an expired exploration licence (EL)! Let alone restoring an EL if it had proven or inferred or no minerals. Just as they never spoke about restoring small or big mines. The public interest lay in the “going concern or ongoing mining business”. Not the size of the mine or value of royalties.

So all sides of politics were practically unanimously agreed that the Minister be able to restore a recently expired mining lease (ML) of ANY SIZE, and that they GAVE that power to the Minister under s.111A.

So to my mind, "SIZE" of anything, the land, the minerals discovered or thought might be “discoverable” or the size of the people involved, was never never ever a factor.

What Bowler did was add that "thought" as a political statement to win public opinion, IMHO.

I recall it was 1 of 3 reasons he gave for his decision. But he separated them as "stand alone" reasons. And it didn't matter should the SIZE of CAZALY or RIO not be a relevant factor because even if this SIZE argument failed in court, it would not affect the other 2 argument. As Bowler said, either one need only be a valid reason for his decision.

What I don't get is, "where does SIZE" ever have anything to do with anything when it comes to contesting ownership/ownership-rights, except in terms of a business's viability and financial backing in regard to an application.

When Parliament gave the Minister power to restore a recently expired ML the pollies made no reference, or at least I can’t find any reference to, a mine's size as being a factor.

Only that it be operating within the “requirements” of the Mining Act (plus other bits). Then the Minister can restore a mining lease by lifting his thumb or little finger vertically if he thinks vertical is good enough.

He could even do it in his sleep and it would be valid because no-one will find out. And besides, the pollies decide what information is in the public interest and if it should be made public.

And so no-one, like Cazaly, would ever peg a recently expired ML with great expectations.
=====================

Now if an expired mining lease (ML) can be restored by the Minister even while he is half asleep plus half drunk, and do so without any reference to the 'Public interest" so long as the mine was operating "somewhat" in accordance with the mining act, but an expired exploration licence (EL) can now be restored (according to the W.A. Court of Appeal) if the Minister "imagines or thinks" it is in the "public interest" because anything he imagines is in the public interest then it must be, such as he imagines his decision will encourage future investment in WA, which is complete nonsense IMHO, then where is there a difference between restoring a recently expired ML and EL ?

Why not just say "whatever the Minister wants the Minister can have" because the court respects a prostitute of power so long as it is an establishment of Parliament itself and is exercised within a house of high repute? A ministerial suite of Offices.

So the Courts are basically saying "Whoa! We back-off! We can't decide what is
the public interest unless Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, aka Caligula, aka the Minister, threatens by his actions or lack thereof, civil war!

And besides the Court still hesitates to act against the Minister because civil war might yet be averted!…..No, the Parliament gave this power to the Minister to decide. End of story”, says we

So why not all yea Pollies make s.111A simple?

“s.11A…the Minister is a God incarnate and shall have absolute power to decide any mining tenement application if he or she feels it is a matter that deserves any attention anyhow, and may do so at any time in the fullness of time from time to time. And he does not have to give reasons”.