Hansard

Bills

Mining Amendment Bill 2025

Second reading

Resumed from an earlier stage of the sitting.

Mr Ron Sao (Cannington) (4:13 pm): In short, before question time I was saying that the Mining Amendment Bill 2025 will effectively reduce red tape, fix old problems and build a platform for the future, protecting Western Australia. Western Australia is recognised globally as one of the safest places to invest in mining. As others in this house have mentioned, we are in a global race for capital. Investors in Toronto, London and New York put money into WA because they know that our system is stable, transparent and fair, but reputations are fragile. The uncertainty of recent years has been noticed internationally. If we do not address it, capital will flow elsewhere, to Canada, Latin America and Africa, where jurisdictions are competing aggressively for the mining dollar. This bill is about saying to the world that we are open for business, WA's rules are clear and that we remain the best place to invest. Every time we talk about investment confidence, we must remember what it means on the ground. It means young apprentices in Newman knowing that their training will lead to long-term jobs, a small engineering firm in Welshpool being able to hire more staff, and a steady flow of royalties that fund upgrades at local schools and hospitals in Cannington and beyond. The resources sector's contribution is not abstract; it is lived every day by families who depend on its strength. This bill will strengthen that foundation by ensuring that projects are not derailed by avoidable legal ambiguity.

It is also important to stress that this bill will not weaken oversight. Environmental protections, native title obligations and transparency remain in place. The bill will make sure that when companies follow the rules, they can have confidence that their tenure will not collapse under the weight of litigation years down the track. That balance of strong oversight and strong certainty is what underpins both community trust and investor confidence.

To summarise, the Mining Amendment Bill 2025 targets several priority areas within the mining regulatory framework. It will enhance certainty for mining and exploration tenure, providing investors and operators with greater security and streamline administrative processes, reducing bureaucratic burden for industry participants. It will provide for the resolution of longstanding legal ambiguities, addressing issues that have created uncertainty. It will also modernise outdated legislative language, replace obsolete terminology with contemporary standards and provide responsive measures to significant legal precedents, incorporating lessons from key court decisions.

The outcome, though, is that the Mining Amendment Bill is more than just legal tidiness; it is about restoring confidence to a sector that drives $238 billion in sales and supports 135,000 jobs. It is about safeguarding our reputation as a safe and stable mining jurisdiction; ensuring that WA families, local businesses and communities continue to thrive; and ensuring that the benefits of mining are not put at risk by legal technicalities or outdated processes. Mining is part of our identity as a state. It is part of the story of our towns, our families and our future. This bill will ensure that the story remains one of confidence, growth and opportunity.

I commend the bill to the house.

Mr Shane Love (Mid-West—Leader of the Nationals WA) (4:17 pm): I rise to talk on the Mining Amendment Bill 2025. I advise that I am the lead speaker for the opposition on this matter. I am not sure whether there will be many other speakers, by the look of it, but that is not to say that the opposition does not take the concerns of the mining industry very seriously. We will support the legislation. I understand that for a long time industry has been calling for certainty around many of these measures. In a way, it could be said that the bill has been much anticipated and is somewhat overdue. We want to see the legislation progress as soon as possible. I am very aware that the industry welcomes this amendment bill, which will provide certainty and make it easier for business to be done.

What is mining to Western Australia? As we have just heard from the member for Cannington, the mining industry is a significant part of Australia's economy, but, of course, in Western Australia's context, it is even more so. Western Australian resources companies, according to the Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia's 2024 report, injected $150 billion into the national economy and paid $12.7 billion in royalties and taxes to the state government and $37.7 billion to the federal government. One in three jobs in Western Australia is supported by our resources sector. As we have heard, there are over 136,000 people working in the mining sector in Western Australia. Since 2020, the mining industry's share of the state economy has consistently been between 42% and 47%. But I think these boom times have been marred by uncertainty brought about by years of legislative inaction. This legislation should have been amended years ago. Promises were made to do so but they did not seem to be carried through.

If we look at some of these uncertainties and where they come from, firstly we saw the Forrest & Forrest Pty Ltd v Wilson and Ors [2017] HCA 30, a High Court decision that left the security of mining tenure in Western Australia on somewhat uncertain ground. The case concerned applications by Yarri Mining and Onslow Resources to convert exploration licences into mining leases in 2011. On appeal, the High Court found that failure to lodge a mineralisation report at the same time as the mining lease application was "fatal to the validity" of the mining leases because of the failures to strictly comply with the statutory conditions essential to the grant of mining leases. The High Court found the granting of mining lease applications to be flawed and in the High Court ruling handed down on 17 August 2017, that case established that elements of the act had not been met. That began a growing body of case law that fuelled uncertainty and did nothing to aid investor confidence in the Western Australian mining industry. If we look at Onslow against the Minister for Mines in 2021, the Western Australian Court of Appeal applied the "Forrest approach", as it was known. A mining lease application was found to be invalid because it was not accompanied by a compliant mining operation statement.

Other cases occurred around the validity of existing mining tenements. In 2022, a Warden's Court decision in August of that year with True Fella mining followed the strict compliance stance taken by the High Court in the Forrest case, and the Mining Warden found an exploration licence was invalid as the applicant submitted an enveloped section 58 statement. The applicant had outlined planned works and expenditure for only the first year of the five-year exploration licence on the grounds that future work would depend on the results of the first year's exploration.

Again, in Blue Ribbon Mines v Roy Hill Infrastructure, Blue Ribbon applied for an exploration licence covering 63 graticular blocks. Objections were raised by Roy Hill and others to the overlaps with their key infrastructure. The Supreme Court held that the minister does not have the power to excise areas of land the subject of a miscellaneous licence or general lease from an exploration licence, and the minister may have the power to impose a no-mining condition, but there is uncertainty around what would be required to meet the conditions of such an order. I understand that the no-mining provision was subject to some discussion in consultation with the department and industry in a partner series of forums. I would be interested to know what the result of that was, whether that was seen to be a feasible approach under the current legislation, and is this why we have to deal with this in this particular legislation? With the validity of granted mining tenure at risk and the validity of existing mining tenements thrown into question, legal firms had their work handed to them on a plate while cautioning tenement holders to take care when preparing and lodging mining tenement application supporting documentation.

Following the Forrest case, then Minister Johnston, in a media release of 28 November 2017, claimed legislation will be drafted to validate granted tenements and ensure security of title for mining companies. In response to that High Court decision, the media release stated:

The amending legislation will validate those mining leases where the mineralisation report was not submitted concurrently with the mining application.

…

The State Government has encouraged the Commonwealth to progress complementary amendments to the Native Title Act to ensure complete certainty.

Among the comments attributed to the minister, it goes on:

"The McGowan Government recognises the importance of the resources sector to Western Australia and the importance of security of tenure.

"We have kept our promise and acted swiftly to resolve this serious matter.

"Not taking action to validate mining tenements could have significant implications for the State as an investment destination.

"I can assure the industry this matter has been taken very seriously and we're getting on with the job."

That does not seem to have been borne out by the facts. That was 2017. We are now nearly eight years on from that time and these comments, which are now eight years old, lead to the question as to why it has taken so long to come to this position. Maybe the minister can explain why it has taken eight years for this situation to be addressed by legislation when we know that it is crucial to our state and to the national economy. Never mind all the established tenements and the like, but what about all those people coming forward and trying to finance projects and get them up to the next level? They need that security of tenure and the security of mining rights.

Going back to that period of time, in a Chamber of Minerals and Energy WA media release issued the same day as the minister's media release, the former long-term chief executive Reg Howard-Smith said:

"Security of tenure is a fundamental principle of the Mining Act and we are grateful that the Government has moved quickly to address the issue to protect mining tenements.

"CME looks forward to its swift passage through parliament once drafted, and will be encouraging all parties to give bi-partisan support to the legislation."

CME urged the Federal Government to progress any complementary amendments to the Native Title Act to ensure validity of mining leases.

How far did that much-anticipated legislation go? There was a second reading speech on 28 November 2018, when Minister Johnston concluded that:

In light of the High Court decision, this bill is necessary to provide security for holders of mining tenements, now and into the future, ensuring Western Australia maintains its position as one of the world's most attractive destinations for mining investment.

We know that the Mining Amendment (Procedures and Validation) Bill 2018 was discharged from the notice paper under standing order 144(a) in 2019. Six years follow before we had any further announcements, which came from the current minister on 12 June 2024 by way of a media release, "Draft mining amendment legislation to provide greater certainty". It states:

The Cook Government has approved draft mining amendment legislation needed to support security of tenure in Western Australia's mining sector.

Draft mining legislation to ensure security of mining tenure and address key industry issues

Actions address High Court's Forrest & Forrest v Wilson decision and other matters

Powers to excise areas from the grant of an exploration licence to be introduced

The final paragraph of the media release made reference to the previously buried legislation and states:

Procedural changes to the Mining Act 1978 were proposed as part of the Mining Amendment (Procedures and Validation) Bill 2018, with validation matters addressing existing mining leases remaining subject to ongoing consultation with the Federal Government to consider Native Title Act 1993 amendments.

Not unlike the Mining Amendment (Procedures and Validation) Bill 2018, the Mining Amendment Bill 2024 was second read by the minister but went no further. It was actually introduced by way of a notice of motion on 26 November and read in the following day, the second last sitting day before the 2025 state election. When we read in reports that the bill was introduced but never passed by Parliament, I think it would be a very unrealistic expectation to think that a bill that was introduced on the second last day of Parliament would be able to progress through both houses and be passed. I do not think there was ever a serious view that this was going to be an act of Parliament. Perhaps the government was trying to signal something to the mining industry prior to the election of a degree of commitment of its future purpose, but it was nothing other than a signal in that regard.

The government's failure to act over that time and bring necessary legislation that would afford the mining and investment community the surety it needs has had a profound impact on our state's reputation. I think the member for Cannington made some reference to the need to have confidence in the sector and that Western Australia was falling away as opposed to some other jurisdictions that have seemed to be able to attract investment more than Western Australia in recent times. In the global investment attractiveness stakes in the Fraser Institute's most recent Annual Survey of Mining Companies 2024, , Western Australia has fallen from the top position—and it is quite a spectacular fall. In 2021, Western Australia held the number one spot in the world. In 2022, we were second; in 2023, we were fourth; and last year, we plummeted to 17th. That should send shivers down the spine of everybody in Western Australia who understands that this resources sector is vital to our future economy. Ahead of us were countries such as Finland, Guyana, Sweden and the Philippines. Responding to the annual survey results, the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia did not hold back. Aaron Morey, now the CEO, said the result should be a wake-up call to governments. He said:

Our global competitiveness is under threat from a bloated approvals regime that is scaring off investors …

This report calls out the lengthy delays being experienced by projects.

…

Australia and WA in particular is in a global race for capital, and we simply can't afford to allow investment to head overseas because of excessive red and green tape.

I have a lot of respect for Mr Morey and his views, but I think something that was missed in that analysis is that a threat to the tenement system will also scare investors off, because uncertainty is what is driving some of that fall in Western Australia's attractiveness as an investment destination.

In 2021, this government under Premier McGowan introduced its cultural heritage legislation. The furore that followed finished up with that legislation being overturned and a return to a form of the 1972 act. That urgent legislation was rushed through both houses. There was no way that one could say it was given proper scrutiny. I remember that the opposition had a few hours to go through the bill before it was debated. I do not think anyone would imagine that that was the proper process for such a fundamentally important piece of legislation. The tabling of a petition with 30,000 signatures, protests in front of Parliament House and the government's decision to overturn the legislation showed that due process was not followed. We have returned to the 1972 act, yet the issues around native title have not been resolved. We know that the government has now moved to review native title heritage processes. That was announced on 30 May this year. We have been told that it is about improving the efficiency, effectiveness and equity of the native title and cultural heritage processes.

I am grateful that the head of the review, Mr Glen Kelly, took the time to meet with members of the Amalgamated Prospectors and Leaseholders Association of WA and the Eastern Goldfields Prospectors Association in Kalgoorlie last month to hear some of their concerns. Those concerns are real and potentially crippling to the future discovery of minerals in the state, because if prospectors cannot get out into countries to turn over a few rocks to find what might be underneath, we will not see the development of further projects that they may be able to contribute to in terms of their knowledge.

The Premier recently announced—I think it was on Monday—that he will roll out the red carpet for international investment and improve the processes, but we have heard all that before. I remember the Streamline program that was announced, I think, eight years ago, which seems to not have achieved anything. If we go back to Mr Morey's comments, he says that our bloated approvals regime is scaring off investors. Despite all the announcements about streamlining approvals pretty well in every budget ever since, we know that a budget announcement does not mean change. We are now dealing with the Mining Amendment Bill 2025, which has nine pages of last-minute amendments that we will go through today. I am grateful that I was able to have a briefing from the minister's office on Monday to go through those. I understand that sometimes things pop up and new ideas come through, but it does seem in some circumstances a bit strange that they were not incorporated in the 2025 act. We will talk about that during the consideration in detail stage. I will not dwell on that for too long. I find it regretful that this legislation was not prioritised and action taken earlier following on from the Forrest decision, which has had ramifications in decisions such as True Fella and the like and caused so much uncertainty in the sector. Moving from the current system in which the wardens et cetera make the decision in many circumstances and going back to a system in which more ministerial decision-making is involved says that confidence has been dented in our system in Western Australia through all of this.

I commend the current minister for seeing the process through. I acknowledge the advocacy of the mining sector, from the prospectors through to the explorers that the Association of Mining and Exploration represent and the larger operators in the Chamber of Minerals and Energy. I join them in saying that we support this legislation. I look forward to the discussion in consideration in detail. I do not think it will be a particularly torrid time for the minister, but it will be an opportunity to put a few things on the record. We also have those amendments to deal with. With that, I conclude my discussion and commend the bill to the house.

Mr Liam Staltari (Carine) (4:36 pm): I, too, rise to make a brief contribution to the Mining Amendment Bill 2025. As the Leader of the Nationals WA on behalf of the opposition has made clear, we on this side of the house will be supporting this bill because we really do believe in the importance of providing that bedrock of certainty and consistency that, as previous speakers have noted, is so essential to attracting investment and allowing this vital industry to grow. Of course, other members spoke about the history of the High Court decision that gave rise to the issues that this bill seeks to address. The Leader of the National Party was, of course, right to note that it is interesting that it can take eight long years under this government to get to a point at which we can redress those issues when certain other priorities are expedited at full pace. But, as has been stated, we certainly welcome the opportunity to support this bill and provide that certainty following strong feedback from the sector that this is needed.

I will not go through the detail of what the bill proposes to do because, of course, previous speakers have elaborated on key aspects of what it will do. It was noted that further to the Forrest decision in 2017, subsequent decisions added to the uncertainty around tenement access, which has caused concerns for many miners and explorers. I refer to True Fella Pty Ltd v Pantoro South Pty Ltd and Blue Ribbon Pty Ltd v Roy Hill Infrastructure Pty Ltd and others. Ultimately, those cases sought to saddle miners and explorers with uncertainty, which they just do not need. They are in the business, as we know, of generating prosperity for Western Australians—the Western Australians they employ and the Western Australians who access the key public services that their royalties fund—and ensuring that our standard of living in this state and, as it has been observed by others, the standard of living of all Australians are buoyed on the back of the hard work of our fantastic fly-in fly-out staff.

I will dwell, as some others have done, on the importance of the sector overall, because I think it is important that whenever a bill in this space comes forward, we need to reflect on the wider context of the industry that it affects. We know that this is the backbone of the WA economy. It drives more than half of our export income, underpins the state budget and sustains communities right up and down metro Perth and, of course, throughout regional WA. Certainly, as I have said on several occasions in here, when I doorknock and I am in shopping centres in my electorate of Carine, it is not uncommon to meet families whose livelihoods rely on the success of the mining industry directly or who are employed in one of the many supporting industries and sectors that underpin mining more broadly. Those people do great work. Our FIFO workers do great work, often spending long periods of time away from their families. We know the stresses and strain that can come with that, but they do it because they want to back the industry and the prosperity it gives them and their kids and future generations. We in this place owe it to them to do the same—to back this industry without reservation. Certainly, that is what we on this side of the house intend to do. Legislation that strips out that uncertainty and addresses previous issues through the law must, of course, be supported.

I will just make one quick note. There was a jab, I think, from the member for Butler in her contribution. I respect very much the member for Butler. She talked about members on this side not supporting consistent rules or changing the rules of the game, which, of course, deters investment. The Leader of the National Party addressed this, but to provide a textbook example of changing the rules of the game in a way that scares off investment and deters our miners, it is, of course, the botched rollout and then repeal of the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act.

I was working for one of the big mines at the time. The big project that consumed my life for several months around the time that bill was passed and came into effect was working to update our land access management program to respond to all the new changes, which seemed to be constantly being updated. It was chaos and anarchy in understanding not just how the laws worked but also how they could be complied with. If there is one way to ensure uncertainty for our miners, it is to bring in a raft of disastrous changes like those, hold on for too long and then repeal them at the last minute. That is not best practice, and we certainly opposed it.

This bill, of course, will redress longstanding issues that have existed since 2017, and we are pleased to support it. As the Leader of the National Party noted, we will have an opportunity in consideration in detail to go through many of the additional clauses. We are grateful for the advance notice that was provided of the further clauses and amendments, but as was touched on previously, more notice would ideally be provided in the future to ensure that we in the opposition can do our job correctly. Thank you. I commend the bill to the house.

I close, Acting Speaker, by calling your attention to the state of the house. Thank you. I should have done that first for an audience!

(Quorum formed.)

Mr David Michael (Balcatta—Minister for Mines and Petroleum) (4:42 pm) in reply: I thank all members who have contributed to the Mining Amendment Bill 2025.

I will start with a little bit of history. It was covered by a couple of members, and those members spoke about some of the High Court and Supreme Court decisions that led to the need to validate past mining tenure, which we are not discussing in this bill, to ensure that we do not create a validation problem in the future. One was the Forrest & Forrest Pty Ltd v Wilson & Ors decision.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Ron Sao) will know that the former Minister for Mines and Petroleum brought in the Mining Amendment (Procedures and Validation) Bill 2017, and some references have been made to that. The Leader of the National Party referred to that legislation. I was the government Whip at the time, and my recollection is that the minister made it very clear that we could not pass that legislation without the federal government agreeing to the changes to validate past mining tenure. To do so would probably create more of a problem because the passing of that legislation would be a future act that would create additional issues for mining validation in our state.

Two bits of that bill—one that validates past tenure and one that changes the procedures for future grants of mining tenure—were together from 2018. The minister at the time met with the then federal Attorney-General, Christian Porter, about these issues, but I think the scent then went a bit cold waiting for the Morrison government to agree to make the changes to native title legislation that would enable us to pass that legislation in this place and the other place. That is where it is at. It needed the federal government to change native title legislation to allow us to pass legislation for the validation of past mining grants.

Then, we had the 2021 election and, obviously, that legislation fell away. We dealt with the pandemic around that time, and then we had a change of federal government. I remember talking to the former minister, the former member for Cannington, about this when I became Minister for Mines and Petroleum, and I sought his advice on what to do. He said that the new federal government had been in for about a year, so maybe it was a good time to re-engage in conversation with the federal government to try to work out how to resolve these matters. Midway through last year, on one of our trips to Canberra, we talked to our friends in Canberra. I met with Attorney-General Hon Mark Dreyfus and suggested that both his department and a bit of my department, the Department of Energy, Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety, should have regular meetings to try to resolve these matters so that some proper advice on the validation of mine tenure could come to me to take to my cabinet and for him and the Minister for Resources, Hon Madeleine King, to take to their cabinet. Since then, our departments have been meeting on a regular basis to look at these issues, and we will continue to look towards that. I also note that the Australian Law Reform Commission has an ongoing review into native title legislation, and I presume that those discussions will form part of those deliberations. That is kind of the answer on the validation part of that former piece of legislation. At around the same time, we went to Canberra.

There is a bit of noise coming from the back.

Around that same time, with the support of cabinet, I, as the minister, decided to split the legislation, knowing that there might be changes to federal native title legislation and knowing that a review, which is underway at the moment, was coming. These things are complex and will take some time and have far-reaching implications, so we took the decision to split the legislation rather than wait for that to happen. The validation bit still sits there and is something that we will need to do at some point, once we reach an agreement with the federal government. The other half is the procedural legislation, which in essence will be rewritten by the legislation that we are dealing with today. The idea is that when this legislation is proclaimed, the issues that have caused some of the High Court and Supreme Court decisions in the last decade or so will be resolved, and new grants of mining tenure will not have the same validation issues as those that were granted in the past. The bill also has a few other modernisation parts. The undertaking I gave some of the mining industry peak bodies was to signal the government's intent to do that. We did that. Well before drafting commenced, I even got special dispensation to signal to the media that we were going to do that. I did that towards the middle of last year. The legislation was ready to be introduced on about the second-last day of the last Parliament. We did that to show that it was our intention to resolve these issues in the Mining Act for future grants of mining tenure. We thought it was an important signal to show. At the time, the shadow minister was the former member for Central Wheatbelt, and there was general agreement that the parties in this place supported getting that legislation in. We did not call it that at the time, but it was essentially a green bill. We were bringing it in to allow consultation.

A lot of the contributions today about this legislation were about the certainty that is needed in mining legislation. In my head, this means a couple of things in the Western Australian context. One is that we do not change the Mining Act too often. Unless the government makes a decision to do something that industry really does not want to do, we want to make sure that everyone—from prospectors to explorers, mining companies, mining professionals and tenement managers—understands, has had a look at and generally agrees with what the government is doing. We did that. After March this year, with DEMIRS, we took some of that feedback on board, so this bill is obviously slightly different from the bill that I introduced in November last year. Here we are today. Hopefully, that has given everyone a bit of a history of where things are, as best I can.

I want to thank members for their contributions on the legislation. The member for Butler talked about the importance of the FIFO workforce, especially in her electorate, and she thanked them for their work in the industry. She mentioned the importance of regulatory certainty for investment. She also went into the Forrest & Forrest Pty Ltd v. Wilson & Ors decision.

The member for Belmont talked about the importance of the mining industry for decarbonisation efforts across our globe, especially in the critical mineral space, and for the energy transition. She also talked about the State Development Bill 2025, which we are looking forward to introducing into this place tomorrow with its first reading and the commencement of its second reading. She spoke about the importance of attraction and retention of capital and, again, linking that to a stable and secure regulatory system. She also talked about our priorities document.

Many members talked about the mining industry. It enables governments to do all the good things that we do in health and jobs and in our communities. They talked, very importantly, on the importance of safety for workers on mine sites and the fact that anyone who works on a mine site should be able to come home safely to see their families. That does not always happen.

The member for Cannington, the Acting Speaker, talked about the resources sector and how it is important that it has confidence in mining regimes and that it is the backbone of the WA economy. He also talked about the Forrest & Forrest Pty Ltd v Wilson & Ors decision, which he will know well, given all that history he gave. I think he was chief of staff for the former Minister for Mines during that period, so I am sure he knows more about this than I do. He also spoke about the impact of the resources sector, especially around training and employment, and the contribution it makes to the WA economy.

I will skip the shadow minister for a second. The member for Carine talked about certainty for investment. He went through the High Court and Supreme Court decisions that tried to resolve, at least for the future, grants of mining tenure. He also spoke about the importance of the sector for Western Australia. I thank the Liberal Party for its support.

The Leader of the National Party spoke and I thank him for the National Party's support for this legislation. Again, he talked about the importance to the state and national economies of the Forrest & Forrest v Wilson and the True Fella decisions. He spoke about the Fraser Institute survey, which I know gets bandied around a little bit. From my point of view, this government continues to look at what we can do to make this an even better place to invest. We know it is already one of the best places to invest.

We had Africa Down Under last week, so I met many African mines ministers, acting ministers and chiefs and heads of delegation from all over Africa. They hold WA's mining sector and our mining regulatory regime, including our Mining Act—some countries have literally copied our Mining Act—in the highest esteem when they look at their fledgling mining industries. That goes for South American countries as well. I meet with their delegations from time to time. They always talk about wanting to learn from us. We have some great Western Australian mining companies and mining services companies that are selling our services all around the world. There is a lot of talk about some of the countries in the world that have less stable political systems, less stable legislative regimes, less stable royalties and those kinds of things. We always watch things like the Fraser Institute survey with our environmental reforms. I will talk a little bit about this today when we debate some of the amendments. We proclaimed the Mining Amendment Act 2022 two weeks ago. The Resources Online system, which allows for eligible mining activity applications to be assessed instantaneously, went live this morning. I went to Government House a week and a half ago for a special Executive Council meeting to proclaim the legislation. About half of the amendments, last minute as they were, were because we were not sure whether that legislation would be proclaimed by the time we brought this bill to the point that we have today. We had to do one of them, and it ended up that we have to amend a few things. I apologise in advance. I hope that getting that to opposition members a few days in advance is helpful.

The Leader of the National Party talked about the "no mining" provision. That is clause 10 of the bill, which will insert new section 57(1A) that will introduce a new administrative flexibility that allows the minister to vary or cancel terms or conditions without prejudicing the holder. Currently, this can be achieved only upon regrant. It will expand the existing rule that an exploration licence may be granted over part of a block that is unsuitable for exploration by broadening and clarifying the circumstances in which this can occur.

Clause 10 will also introduce a new subsection that will apply to situations in which more than one applicant has applied for the same graticular block or blocks. In such cases, an applicant will be able to amend their application to remove all blocks that are subject to competing applications. This will allow the exclusion of contested ground, enabling the earlier determination of uncontested applications. Previously, there was no express mechanism allowing an applicant to amend their application to remove only the contested blocks. This change will introduce a new administrative flexibility that will allow the minister to vary or cancel terms or conditions without prejudicing the holder. Currently, this can be achieved only upon regrant.

I asked my office for a simple explanation or a simple example. The explanation was that it can stop exploration licences overlapping miscellaneous licences to prevent mining activity impacting things like railway lines, for instance, and will allow resolutions of objections and resolving conflict. That is the "no mining" condition. Obviously, when we get there, we can ask some questions as well.

I am not going to go through what the bill contains because we will get through it. I know members opposite want to go to consideration in detail, which I am looking forward to. Again, I thank all members for their contributions. In advance, I thank my office and the now Department of Mines, Petroleum and Exploration, and the peak bodies. We have two prospecting associations, AMEC and CME, that we rely on to make sure that, when we do these kinds of things, they have had a look to make sure that we have got it right. I thank them for their help along the way to make sure we are getting the amendments to the Mining Act right. I commend the bill to the house.

Question put and passed.

Bill read a second time.

Leave denied to proceed forthwith to third reading.

Consideration in detail

Clause 1 put and passed

Clause 2: Commencement

Mr David Michael: I move:

Page 2, lines 10 to 14 — To delete the lines.

This amendment will delete clause 2(2), which deals with the timing of commencement of operations of the provisions of the bill if the Mining Amendment Act 2022 had not yet commenced. Clause 2(2) is now redundant, as the Mining Amendment Act 2022 commenced on 9 September 2025.

Amendment put and passed.

Clause, as amended, put and passed.

Clause 3 put and passed

Clause 4: Section 6 amended

Mr Shane Love: The explanatory memorandum is excellently written in my view. I put on the record that I am reliant upon that rather than a deeper knowledge of the Mining Act. It states that clause 4:

… reflects the proposed amendments to section 74, under which reports will be lodged "as part of" rather than accompany a mining lease application.

Perhaps the minister could explain exactly what that means.

Mr David Michael: Section 6 provides a link between the Mining Act 1978 and the Environmental Protection Act 1986, theEPA. Section 6(1a)(a) provides:

only the applicant can refer a proposal to which the application relates under section 38(1)…

That is the EPA. The reference in section 6(1a) is to documents that the applicant needs to provide to the department when applying for a mining lease. These documents, the mineralisation report and accompanying statement were listed in section 74(1)(ca)(ii). Now that section 74(1)(ca)(ii) is being deleted, those documents will be listed in section 74(1AA).

Mr Shane Love: I am happy with that.

Clause put and passed.

Clause 5: Section 8 amended

Mr Shane Love: The explanatory memorandum states that clause 5(2):

… amends the definition of "mining development and closure proposal" by stating it is to be lodged "as part of" an application for a mining lease.

I take it that that is just found in a different area and it is not actually a different document. Perhaps the minister could explain that.

Mr David Michael: This just reflects the fact that we have as part of some of our reforms put together the mining proposal and the mining closure plan documents into one document. Again, I think some of that has gone live today.

Mr Shane Love: So the information that has been required is no different. Has it just combined into a single form?

Mr David Michael: Yes.

Clause put and passed.

Clause 6: Section 19 amended

Mr David Michael by leave: I move:

Page 4, lines 14 to 17 — To delete the lines and substitute:

(3) Delete section 19(2a).

Page 4, after line 22 — To insert:

(aa) delete "on or after the prescribed day,";

Page 5, line 3 — To delete "referred to in subsection (2b)" and substitute:

made under subsection (1)(a)

Page 5, line 12 — To insert after "instrument":

made under subsection (1)(a)

Page 5, after line 15 — To insert:

(6) Delete section 19(2d)

Mr Shane Love: This is quite a lengthy amendment, so perhaps the minister could explain a little bit of the background of the amendment itself. I am trying to find it. It is on the notice paper. I would say much of it is to do with renumbering and the like. Could the minister generally explain the need for that with a bit more detail. I might ask a specific question on a couple of other points.

Mr David Michael: These amendments are a consequence of the transitional provision in new clause 31 being inserted by new clause 46. Section 19 empowers the minister to grant exemptions for particular purposes. Clause 6 will provide that any such exemptions will be published on the department's website and, amongst other matters, will take effect on a specified date and time. Each amendment removes the redundant concept of prescribed day from section 19 of the act.

Mr Shane Love: The minister's office was kind enough to provide me with the explanatory memorandum. I am talking just on the amendments here, not the clause. I highlighted clause 33. Sections 96, 96A and 97 replace the commencement of the Mining Amendment Act 2022. Is this simply to do with what we have just dealt with in terms of removing the commencement clause for those sections around the Mining Amendment Act 2022 because it has already happened as of today?

Mr David Michael: Obviously, we will get to proper clause 33 later, and we will talk about it a little bit more. That deals with the transfer of decision-making power for some enforcement decisions from the warden to the minister. We can talk about the reason for them later. It is not related to the amendments to clause 6.

Mr Shane Love: The explanatory memorandum refers to forfeiture grounds operating uniformly with the Mining Amendment Act 2022, which is the reason I was asking about the commencement of that act and what it needs in terms of this particular provision, not so much about whether it referred simply to the act but also the effect on those important matters that are around forfeiture but also to rent and royalty payments that have not been made. Perhaps the minister could just explain a little bit more about what this amendment is about.

Mr David Michael: Hopefully this answers it; if not, we can go back and try again. In terms of the change to clause 33 regarding the transfer of some powers from the Mining Warden to the minister, those changes will come into effect on commencement day. They are not related to the changes in terms of the prescribed day that is referred to in clause 6.

Mr Shane Love: Clause 33 in the explanatory memorandum, and in the clause itself, refers to the rental royalty, but the EM refers to avoiding the reliance on breach of covenant conditions and preserving enforcement parity following the transition of royalty collections, not compliance to RevenueWA. I am just trying to dig down and find out the reason for that. Was there some flaw that had been found in how there would be compliance if there was non-payment to RevenueWA? How does the department get to know of these issues?

Mr David Michael: This is more about clause 33 if you want to wait until we get to 33—because we are on clause 6.

Mr Shane Love: Yes; all right. Sorry.

Mr David Michael: Sorry. That is why I am getting confused. I have to go through clause 33, but we are still dealing with amendments to clause 6.

Mr Shane Love: All right, okay. I have got ahead of myself.

Mr David Michael: Yeah-no—you're all right!

Mr Shane Love: I will sit down!

Amendments put and passed.

Mr Shane Love: Clause 6, according to the minister's excellent advice, will amend section 19(1) of the act. I just want to get an understanding of it. As I read through the clause, it refers to there being an exemption instrument, as opposed to there being just an instrument. Can the minister explain to me why there is a need for that change in wording? Looking through the act, I cannot find a definition of "exemption instrument". Is there such a definition?

Mr David Michael: This is the short answer: too long; didn't read. It is so we do not have to hand sign everything anymore! This is the official answer: amending section 19(1) of the Mining Act 1978 removes a requirement that the instrument be in writing under the minister's hand or delegate and allows both the instrument and the execution of the instrument to be electronic and published on the department's website. There is no longer a requirement to publish in the Government Gazette. This amendment also introduces a newly defined term for such "exemption instrument". This defined term is to be used only in section 19.

Mr Shane Love: Where is it defined, minister? In my simple reading, I just see "exemption" put in front of "instrument". What is the definition of an "exemption instrument"? It is referred to, but it is not defined.

Mr David Michael: It is an inline definition. If the member looks at the blue bill, after the amendment, it reads:

… The minister … from time to time by instrument—

For which the definition is in brackets—

(an exemption instrument) published on the Department's website …

The fact that it is bold and italicised would indicate that it has an inline definition.

Mr Shane Love: Yes—clear as mud! Thank you, minister. I looked at the blue bill, and I still did not really understand the difference between the instrument and the exemption instrument. Perhaps that is something the minister might look into by the time the bill reaches the other place.

Proposed subsection (5) of clause 6 states:

… An the exemption instrument referred to in subsection (2b) expires, subject to any extension or extensions under subsection (2CA) …

I see the date and time that an extension can occur will now go from two years to five years. I have lost my page. I just want to know: What was the reason for the change from two to five years? Was the change the result of consultation with industry or is it something that the department considered worthwhile?

Mr David Michael: In terms of the section 19 exemptions, not many section 19s actually ever get revoked. Once the minister puts them in, they tend to stay around for a lengthy period. Currently, the department has to administratively go back and redo the section 19s every two years, whereas this is a bit of red-tape reduction to say, "Hey, maybe because they do tend to stay around for a time, we'll do them every five years." Notwithstanding, the minister has the ability to revoke one at any time, but in terms of the administrative rolling them over, doing every five years is less work, so the department can get on with doing its other work and getting approvals and those kinds of things done.

Mr Shane Love: Has there been any quantification of the savings to the department from such a change?

Mr David Michael: There is nothing that is quantifiable. Again, any savings would be that there are other jobs that officers would do. Their job is not just doing section 19s over and over again, and it will free up their time to deal with other matters that are very critical to the mining industry in terms of getting approvals through and those kinds of things. The other one is that on some odd occasions a section 19 lapses and is not picked up in the system. Obviously, proponents can still go in and start applying for grants and put in applications, and to wind all that back is not ideal, so by doing it every five years, hopefully we will be able to make sure that does not have to happen.

Clause, as amended, put and passed.

Clause 7: Section 40 amended

Mr Shane Love: This part of the bill says that the minister can cancel or vary terms or conditions placed on the prospecting licence if the minister is satisfied it is necessary to do so, if the term or condition contains an error or if the cancellation or variation is without detriment to the holder of the licence. I have a couple of questions on that. First of all, how is detriment to the holder of the licence determined? Is there a test for that occurring?

Mr David Michael: It is important to note that the amendment will allow for tenement holders to request the minister consider changes to terms and conditions. That is currently not available. We think this will especially help those prospectors. In terms of "without detriment to the holder of the licence", I would presume—if I am not told otherwise—that the ordinary dictionary meaning of that would be challengeable in a court.

Mr Lachlan Hunter: On "without detriment", is there a test that can be applied for that or will it be just the minister making a decision?

Mr David Michael: Normal practice would be, obviously, to consult the holder of the tenement. Again, it also allows for tenement holders to request a change if they have a reason to have a condition changed, which currently they cannot do. The minister, though, would make a decision and it would be challengeable in court.

Mr Lachlan Hunter: How will the prospector or the licence holder be informed about that? Will it be via writing and will there be a certain period of time in which they must be notified? Will it be 14 business days? How will they actually be notified?

Mr David Michael: Again, we expect that when this is used, most instances will be the prospector writing to us to request something. If it were the other way around, the department is very good at making sure there is procedural fairness and would write and ask for a submission and the like.

Mr Shane Love: Just on the wording of the juncture between proposed paragraphs (a) and (b), proposed subsection (1A) states:

(a) it is necessary to cancel or vary the term or condition because the term or condition contains an error; or

(b) the cancellation or variation can be done without detriment …

Why is it "or" instead of "and"? Why cancel a condition simply because that variation can be done without detriment to the holder of the licence? What circumstances would initiate the minister actually doing that if no error or other issue had been brought to their attention?

Mr David Michael: The "or" is there to account for all scenarios. One example might be if the error were caused by the applicant and fixing that error could actually cause a detriment but it was their fault.

Mr Shane Love: The minister finished his answer by saying it was caused by the applicant and it was their fault. Again, I am not sure why the cancellation or variation should be one that would cause detriment to the holder of the licence. If we are trying to create a sense of certainty, surely it has to be "and" not "or". If the minister is satisfied it is necessary, it would not preclude them from making a decision even if it were to cause determent to the holder of the licence. To me, that is a much looser construction of a process than would have been the intention and it does not seem to be in line with the government intention. It is important because similar wording is used for all sorts of categories of tenement throughout the bill. Can the minister just explain again why it is "or" and not "and", because to me that does seem to promote the idea of greater certainly for the holder of the licence?

Mr David Michael: Another way to put it is that not every request to change a condition would fall under proposed subsection (1A)(a) because it contains an error. The parties concerned may wish to change a condition based on a reason that it is not an error, and that is why it cannot be "and".

Mr Shane Love: The minister is putting forward a proposition that there is an error and the error is sought to be changed. That could be detrimental for the licence holder. Would that be acceptable under this provision?

Mr David Michael: It could in certain circumstances, but, again, there would be procedural fairness. The minister would make a decision and that decision would be open to review by a court.

Clause put and passed.

Clauses 8 and 9 put and passed

Clause 10: Section 57 amended

Mr Shane Love: This clause is about exploration licences and its wording is similar to what we have just been discussing, so we will not go through that again because we have already covered that. However, proposed section 57(2C) states:

The area of land in respect of which an exploration licence is granted may be less than the area of land in respect of which the exploration licence is sought, and may comprise part of a block …

The bill then outlines certain circumstances. Could the minister perhaps give a little bit of background about the importance of this provision and what it will achieve?

Mr David Michael: These amendments provide industry with greater procedural flexibility by augmenting the rule in section 57(2c) that an exploration licence can be granted over less than the area applied for. Proposed section 57(2C) states that, in a broader set of circumstances:

The area of land in respect of which an exploration licence is granted may be less than the area of land in respect of which the exploration licence is sought, and may comprise part of a block …

Currently, section 57(2c) allows the minister to grant an exploration licence over part of a graticular block only if a part of a block for which the application is made is not available for exploration. Proposed section 57(1A) introduces a new power allowing the minister to cancel or vary the terms or conditions of an exploration licence if they are erroneous or invalid or if it is necessary to amend them or can be changed without detriment to the licence holder.

Clause 10(2) will replace and expand sections 57(2c) to 57(2e), with new provisions allowing the minister to grant an exploration licence over part of a graticular block in specific circumstances when part of the land is already subject to another mining tenement or pending application, excluding exploration and miscellaneous licences or when part of the land is not suitable for exploration before the application is granted. The term "not suitable" is intended to cover both inherent limitations like heritage or environmental values and temporary access constraints. Land that is not suitable for exploration is not a permanent restriction, but, rather, a lack of suitability or legal unavailability at the time of the grant.

Again, exploration licences are normally done in blocks. This will allow for parts of those blocks that have other uses, especially for another mine or something like that, to be taken out of that exploration licence. That cannot happen at the moment.

Mr Shane Love: I have a couple of questions from that. Proposed section 57(2C)(a), for instance, states:

the part is, or was when the application for the exploration licence was made, the subject of a current mining tenement (other than a miscellaneous licence);

Perhaps the minister could explain why the bill includes, "other than a miscellaneous licence".

Mr David Michael: Miscellaneous licences were already excluded.

Mr Shane Love: Clause 10(4) will insert proposed section 57(2I), which states:

If 2 or more applications for exploration licences with respect to 1 or more of the same blocks are made, but have not been determined, an applicant may, with the approval of the Minister, amend their application to remove all of the same blocks from their application.

If there are a couple of applications, would they all sit around the table and divvy it up? Have we ever seen that approach in the past whereby mining companies would normally seek to take all the licence area? Is this something that the industry has suggested? Where did this concept come from?

Mr David Michael: We hope the answer to that and the last question the member had on the other clause will remove quite a bit out of the Warden's Court. This is when two applicants put in an application for the same graticular block or blocks. What happens now is that they tend to be at loggerheads in the Warden's Court for way too long. If they were to drop part of the area in each of their blocks, they might be able to come up with an arrangement and the minister might agree to allow both of them to have a partial block.

Mr Shane Love: I thank the minister. It is a lovely romantic concept that they will accept part of the block rather than the whole block! I am not sure whether that is the way things will work.

I skipped over something that I wanted to raise. The minister referred to proposed section 57(2C)(c) and the concept that part of an application is not suitable for the purposes of exploration. Industry has raised its concerns with me about the definition of what is "not suitable". That might be a very loose term. Could the minister explain the definition of "not suitable" and where that might be found?

Mr David Michael: I know that there was some discussion with industry regarding this section. At some point, the words were going to be "unavailable for exploration", but we have changed them to "not suitable". Land being "not suitable for the purposes of exploration" is intended to cover circumstances and inherent characteristics of the land that render it inappropriate for exploration, such as the presence of Indigenous heritage or environmental considerations. In addition, it covers land intentionally excluded by the minister. Such limitations on access are inherently temporary and are subject to the expiry, surrender or forfeiture of the relevant licence, at which point the land may again become available for exploration. We are very much making sure that it is understood that it might be unsuitable at that time, but that is not to say that it might not become available in the future.

Mr Shane Love: In the case we are talking about, the minister is suggesting that land would be considered unsuitable. When would that be flagged? This provision comes into effect when an exploration licence is granted, and it may be varied according to various matters. Presumably, the land has already gone through some process—either a heritage survey or some other sort understanding—and it has been granted an approval at some point or has been deemed suitable. What triggers it being considered no longer suitable, given that it has already been through some environmental consideration and other processes that would normally mean that the holder of that right would be able to exercise it?

Mr David Michael: Again, the previous wording "unavailable for exploration" caused confusion, sometimes being interpreted as a permanent exclusion of land from mining activities. The new term "not suitable for … exploration" makes it clear that this is a case-by-case decision based only on current circumstances. For example, if a block overlaps with an environmental protection area or heritage site, it can be excluded now but it may be reconsidered later if circumstances change. It aims to provide clarity for industry, landholders and communities, ensuring everyone understands that the decisions under section 57 do not lock land out of future exploration or mining. Obviously, these areas would be reflected in TENGRAPH Web as file notation areas, and they could be things like national parks.

Mr Shane Love: The explanatory memorandum says:

26. Such limitations on access are inherently temporary and subject to the expiry, surrender, or forfeiture of the relevant licence, at which point the land may again become available for exploration

Does that imply that the only way that the temporary nature can actually be temporary is upon the expiry, surrender or forfeiture of the current licence? If someone has a licence, but an area is excluded as unsuitable, that could never change while that licence holder has that particular licence. Do they have to surrender or somehow forfeit the licence or does the licence have to expire before that can change? That does not really sound very temporary because they cannot have it changed as long as they have the licence. To me, that circumstance is not a very flexible arrangement for the explorer. They will never actually be able to get onto that land, so, in effect, it is a permanent lockout for them.

Mr David Michael: Previously, the Mining Act used the term "unavailable for exploration", which created confusion and implied that certain land might be permanently off limits for exploration or mining. The bill replaces this with "not suitable for … exploration" to make it clear that the exclusion only applies to the current application or ministerial decision being considered. It does not prevent future applications or mean that the land is permanently ineligible. It simply reflects temporary circumstances at the time, like infrastructure, heritage protection, environmental issues or overlapping applications. The intent of section 57 remains unchanged. It is an administrative tool to ensure exploration licences are granted only over land that is practical and appropriate to explore at that point in time. It is important to note that future exploration or mining can still occur once those temporary issues are resolved, subject to the usual approvals and consent processes. If a bit of the block has been carved out because of these issues, it allows the government to approve exploration in the bit that it is approving. Then, if issues need to be resolved in the bit that has been carved out, the proponent can come back to add to the area they are exploring once those issues have been resolved.

Mr Shane Love: Is it that the only way they can come back is if they forfeit the current exploration licence? I am reading what the explanatory memorandum has said and the explanation of it. That seems to be at odds with what the minister just said. I am going back to paragraph 26, which says it is "inherently temporary and subject to the expiry, surrender, or forfeiture of the relevant licence".

Mr David Michael: If there were issues with the piece of land that was not approved, whatever had made it unsuitable would be resolved at that point in time. They would come back to the department and put in a new application, all at the same time, and presumably return their existing exploration area. They would do it all at the same time and make a fresh application, including the part that they were not able to get approval for at first go.

Mr Shane Love: Turning again to what the department issued in the explanatory memorandum, paragraph 25 states:

Land that is 'not suitable' for exploration is intended to cover circumstances where the inherent characteristics of the land render it inappropriate for exploration …

How are the "inherent characteristics of the land" a temporary issue?

Mr David Michael: As I have mentioned before, there might be some infrastructure or environmental or heritage issues that make it unsuitable at the time because those issues have not been resolved to allow for exploration. Again, rather than rejecting an entire graticular block, this is about excising a bit out of it so we can get going on the main chunk.

Clause put and passed.

Clause 11: Section 58 amended

Mr Shane Love: Would this be what we could term the True Fella amendment to the bill? Perhaps the minister could explain the operation of this clause in general terms.

Mr David Michael: Subclause (1) will amend section 58(1) to insert the word "must" to ensure that an application for an exploration licence is not considered complete unless the application has been made in the prescribed form and manner as set out in section 58. Subclause (1)(b) will insert section 58(1)(b) to outline how an applicant must apply to the minister to have their application amended to remove blocks. Applicants who wish to amend their application must do so by a formal letter to the minister addressing the blocks to be excluded and providing a reason, or reasons. This amendment is in response to the True Fella case, in which Warden Cleary ruled that applicants applying for an exploration licence require five years worth of information in their statement. This amendment will change that requirement to one year's worth of information and provides certainty to industry. The reason only one year is needed is that exploratory work predominantly takes place in the first year. Additionally, in the administration of the Mining Act, no-one has required five years of information to date. A further reason for this change is that a number of warden case decisions that followed the True Fella principal have made applications invalid if they did not have the five years of information. These cases are: True Fella v Pantoro South Pty Ltd [2022], Azure Minerals Ltd v D&G Geraghty Pty Ltd [2022], Barto Gold Mining Ltd and Ors [2023], in the matter of competing applications for exploration licences by Ariela Nominees Pty Ltd and others, Toolonga Mineral Sand Pty Ltd v Callum and Belinda Carruth & Ors [2023], in the matter of competing applications for exploration licences by Pilbara Gold Exploration Pty Ltd and others, in the matter of competing applications for exploration licences by Toro Energy Exploration Pty Ltd and another, William Robert Richmond v Regis Resources Ltd [2023], and Pantoro South Pty Ltd & Anor v True Fella Pty Ltd [2023].

Clause 11(c) and (e) replace "shall" with "must" to be consistent with modern drafting conventions reflected in the current legislative drafting style guide. This is a non-substantive stylistic update that improves consistency and clarity across the act. Secondly, this amendment deletes paragraph (d), which is now redundant following the amendment to paragraph (a). The requirement previously contained in (d), that an applicant must specify the proposed method of application, has been incorporated into the revised wording of paragraph (a), which now comprehensively sets out the required details of the proposed program of work.

Mr Shane Love: I am very pleased to hear it! Minister, we have just been discussing the five-year term. When we look at section 58 being amended, we can see that proposed subsection (1)(b)(ii) reads:

the estimated amount of money proposed to be expended on exploration in the first year of the term of the licence;

I am asking this question out of procedure. If we go through the first year, what is the process from the department procedurally? Does it assess whether that expenditure was indeed undertaken, and, if not, does it seek an explanation?

Mr David Michael: Each year, proponents have to submit a form 5 to the department. The department assesses that against the required expenditure under regulations. If they have not met those requirements, the department goes through a procedure for forfeiture, but obviously, from time to time, other people or companies can also challenge these matters in the Warden's Court.

Mr Shane Love: Paragraph 36 of the explanatory memorandum talks about the assessment of the amount of money that the proponent has to carry out the exploration. It refers to an example when someone might have $100 of resources but, in fact, the regulations require a minimum of $10,000 for a one-block exploration licence. Could the minister explain why an application from a person with $100 should actually be considered at all? It sets out that there is now a two-step process. Their financial resources are ascertained and then the department looks at what that means and whether they should be deemed suitable. Can the minister perhaps explain how that works and why it is different from the current situation?

Mr David Michael: I will explain the two-step process. We know exploration is the livelihood of the industry, but there are some very small players who might seek to get an exploration licence with not a lot of capital behind them. It is very speculative. That is the $100 example, I suppose. Once granted, they will then go out and seek investors, which is the separate process around their financial ability and how that will affect the required expenditure. That is when that second process comes into it—once they are able to get some capital. That is the best example.

Mr Shane Love: Does the test require that they have to be able to provide that money in the first year?

Mr David Michael: Again, it is a two-step process of the section 58 lodgement and looking at the financial resources available. The example we have is someone with an incredibly small business who will use the labour and equipment that they own and their financial resources will be quite low, especially if the area is quite small. That is an example of why there is the two-step process—one under section 58, and the other under regulation 21(1b) of the Mining Regulations for the annual expenditure requirements.

Mr Shane Love: Under 21(1b)(a) of the regulations, is that $10,000 an annual expenditure or is it over the length of the term?

Mr David Michael: The $10,000 is annual and it is a minimum. That is the amount that is assessed each year with the form 5 return.

Ms Sandra Brewer: I find subparagraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) on page 8 repetitive in terms of the estimated amount of money proposed in subparagraph (ii). Subparagraph (i) asks for the details of the program, and subparagraph (iii) asks about the financial resources available. Is it necessary to also ask about the estimated amount of money to be expended on exploration?

Mr David Michael: Is that subparagraph (ii)?

Ms Sandra Brewer: Yes.

Mr David Michael: Prescribing it in subparagraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) and being quite detailed is about making sure that applicants know the information that we or the Mining Warden might be after in the future. We are asking for the program of work and the estimated amount of money proposed to be expended in the first year and for the technical and future financial resources because we want the area to be explored and to make sure that, from the word go, the applicants can prove they are able to explore the land. If they are not, that land should be made available for someone else to explore.

Clause put and passed.

Clause 12: Section 59 amended

Ms Sandra Brewer: I refer to the end of clause 12(5), which states that the warden must give a report to the minister for the minister's consideration. Is there a template for the report? What is the structure of the report?

Mr David Michael: I would not presume to ask a magistrate to send something to me in a prescribed way—they will do what they want to do. The clause deletes a requirement to forward to the minister for the minister's consideration notes of evidence, any maps or other documents referred to in the notes of evidence. They may choose to, but they do not have to. The amended provision requires the warden to forward a report to the minister that either recommends or refuses a grant for an exploration licence. Basically, it is taking away what we consider obsolete requirements to forward some documents that may not be helpful. It will be up to the warden, as a magistrate, to send to the minister what he or she sees fit.

Clause put and passed.

Clauses 13 to 15 put and passed

Clause 16: Section 70B amended

Mr Shane Love: This is a similar provision to some of the other ones that have been discussed already. I refer to a retention licence. We are talking about something that has gone through a number of stages. Under what circumstances would proposed section 70B(1A) be invoked? At some stage would a minister form the view that a retention licence should not be retained by the holder? Can the minister indicate in which circumstances that might occur?

Mr David Michael: It is about a little bit of consistency in some of the matters we discussed earlier. The detailed explanation I have says that the purpose of the amendment is that it will allow potentially invalid or ultra vires conditions that may have been imposed on titles to be removed without impacting the validity of the grant.

Clause put and passed.

Clauses 17 to 19 put and passed

Clause 20: Section 70O replaced

Mr Shane Love: Clause 20 seems to go to the heart of one of the problems we have been confronting with the need to provide information at a certain time. Perhaps the minister could just give a general overview of the importance of clause 20 and how it will operate.

Mr David Michael: The explanatory memorandum is relatively extensive on this one. Some extra information is that the amendment reflects the changes made to section 74, which provides for compliance information to be lodged in respect of rather than accompanying a mining lease application. It reflects a broader legislative intent to enhance flexibility in both the timing and the manner of lodgement within the application process.

Mr Shane Love: Is this in direct response to the original High Court decision around Forrest? Is the minister confident that this will be sufficient to overcome those issues that have developed since then?

Mr David Michael: Yes, this follows from the High Court decision. We are confident that this will resolve the matter for future mining grants, but obviously it does not validate past ones because those issues are still to be resolved.

Mr Shane Love: Can the minister give me some idea of what the compliance period will be?

Mr David Michael: The compliance period will be dealt with in the regulations, but the department and I will commit to making sure we consult the industry, specifically through the Resource Industry Consultative Committee (RICC), which, setting aside oil and gas, has on it the Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia, the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies and the Amalgamated Prospectors and Leaseholders Association.

Mr Shane Love: Have there been any thoughts about would be acceptable for a compliance period to enable this to stand up to the challenges as a result of the Forrest decision?

Mr David Michael: We are very much looking to work with industry on this, but as a starting point, we will make sure that we try to align those timeframes with other similar processes within the act.

Mr Shane Love: What are some of the considerations the minister will make when coming to decisions on what the compliance period will be, and also the other period of time that is mentioned, which is the objection period? Are they intended to be the same length of time or would they be different lengths of time? How will the minister determine a suitable period of time for both of those?

Mr David Michael: Again, we will work with industry on these matters to try to align the timeframes with other similar processes that may exist within the act. We will obviously have to look at the compliance period before looking at the objection because one cannot be shorter than the other. Again, we will definitely consult with industry even on the objection period, noting that many objectors come from industry. Through RICC we will maybe come up with a starting point and then see what industry thinks.

Mr Shane Love: I turn to proposed section 70O(2), which defines "significant mineralisation". It seems fairly loose. It says:

... if exploration results in respect of a deposit of minerals located in, on or under that land indicate that there is a reasonable prospect of minerals being obtained by mining operations on the land.

Can the minister explain what determines whether there is a reasonable prospect of minerals being obtained on the land?

Mr David Michael: I am told that the term "significant mineralisation" and its definition existed in the Mining Act up until a few weeks ago. It was taken out by the Mining Amendment Bill 2022. This simply puts it back in in a different spot.

Clause put and passed.

Clause 21 put and passed

Clause 22: Section 74 amended

Mr Shane Love: I wish to ask the minister about the explanatory memorandum. It refers to:

… threefold path documentation to be lodged "as part of" the application" within the prescribed time and prescribed manner and inserts new subsection (1AB) which states section 103AN(3)(b), (d) and (e) apply in relation to a proposal lodged under section (1AA)(a).

Perhaps the minister could just explain what the threefold pathway of communication and documentation is all about.

Mr David Michael: I think this has been moved from another part of the act. It refers to the three ways to apply for a mining lease, being the mining development and closure proposal, a mineralisation report and statement, or a resource report and statement. There are three different paths.

Mr Shane Love: I think we spoke about the deletion of the JORC code in clause 22(4) in the briefing. Could the minister explain what will be replacing that requirement under the act? I will probably ask a question or two about his explanation.

Mr David Michael: I have a lengthy answer that I will not read yet. The JORC code requirements for those companies that have to comply with the ASX would still have to fulfil their requirements for the ASX. The JORC code applies to only one of the three mining application pathways. Many applicants, such as small prospectors and private companies, are not required to comply with the JORC code and would face unnecessary compliance burdens if it remained a statutory requirement. Removing the references simplifies the act, levels the playing field and keeps the option for JORC compliant reports when appropriate. As I said, listed companies remain bound by ASX rules, which already require JORC reporting.

Mr Shane Love: Will there be detailed guidance as to what is required in the mineralisation report that the company that is not listed needs to provide? I think the proposal is that it just be prepared by a qualified person. I am wondering what the department would accept as being sufficient in terms of the mineralisation report and how that might be communicated to the industry so it knows what it actually needs to provide.

Mr David Michael: I am told the Geological Survey of WA already provides guidance material on these matters. Obviously, we will continue to keep those up to date with legislative changes.

Ms Sandra Brewer: I refer to page 16, subclause 6 and the resource report that has been given to the Australian Securities Exchange. I am just curious about how that clause would be affected because there are other exchanges in existence.

Mr David Michael: Again, there are three pathways. The mineralisation report pathway is for ASX companies. If a company is on a Canadian exchange, it does not use JORC. It uses some other report that I do not know. There is another report. Those companies would have to use one of the other pathways. We are amending the definition of "resource reports" to say that it has been given to the Australian Securities Exchange Limited. We are taking out the words "JORC Code" because the ASX could change the JORC code requirements. We are taking that out of the act to state that if the ASX determined that a new report was required, that would automatically apply. Does that make sense?

Ms Sandra Brewer: Yes. The National Stock Exchange of Australia and others are active in Australia. Are we certain we are just capturing companies listed with those exchanges?

Mr David Michael: Again, there are three pathways. There is the mining proposal and closure pathway, the mineralisation report pathway and the resource report pathway. We are talking now about the resource report pathway. If someone were in a different exchange, they would have to use one of the other two pathways. This pathway is for Australian Securities Exchange companies.

Clause put and passed.

Clause 23: Section 74A amended

Mr David Michael: I move:

Page 16, line 17 — To delete "give the Minister" and substitute:

prepare

Mr Shane Love: It is a pretty simple amendment to delete "give the Minister" and substitute "prepare". What is the impact of that?

Mr David Michael: This change clarifies that the director of the Geological Survey of WA is to prepare a report rather than give a report to the minister. It makes it clear that the duty imposed is to create and finalise the report with the process of transmitting the report to the decision-maker addressed elsewhere in the act. The amendment avoids any question that the minister can act on the receipt of a mineralisation report on their own initiative before the mining registrar or warden has considered it.

Amendment put and passed.

Ms Sandra Brewer: Are we just taking questions now on the clause? Is that right?

The Acting Speaker (Mrs Magenta Marshall): Yes, on clause 23.

Ms Sandra Brewer: Not the amendment? Thank you. On page 20, proposed section 75B(1) states "the Minister may grant or refuse a mining lease as the minister thinks fit". The answer might be straightforward, but I am just wondering about the role of the Premier in this case and obviously the Premier's announcements yesterday about supporting state development and his intention to use those powers.

The Acting Speaker: Apologies, member, is that page 20?

Ms Sandra Brewer: Yes, at 75B.

The Acting Speaker: Yes, to clause 24?

Ms Sandra Brewer: Did I skip ahead a clause?

The Acting Speaker: Yes. That is all right. If there is nothing on clause 23, I will put the question.

Clause, as amended, put and passed.

Clause 24: Section 75 replaced

Mr David Michael: I move:

Page 21, lines 5 and 6 — To delete "applicant for the mining lease is" and substitute:

report is in respect of an application for a mining lease made by

I will pre-empt a question from the Leader of the Nationals. Clause 24 will replace section 75 of the act and insert proposed sections 74B, 75, 75A and 75B, which govern objections, recommendations and the minister's determination of mining lease applications. In particular, proposed section 75B(1) provides that on receipt of a report under proposed sections 75(2) or 75A(4)(a) in respect of an application the minister may grant or refuse the lease. Proposed section 75B(2) then sets out the must-grant rule for certain applicants. The change replaces the words "applicant for the mining lease is" with "report is in respect of an application for a mining lease made by", and in doing so it clarifies reporting obligations and streamlines the process for forwarding supporting reports to the minister. This puts beyond doubt that proposed section 75B(2) is engaged only if a report has been provided.

Amendment put and passed.

Ms Sandra Brewer: I refer to proposed section 75B on page 20. Being new to this place, I ask: Does the Premier have any role in overriding a minister's refusal or granting of a mining lease?

Mr David Michael: Thank you, member, for the question. Other examples would be those under a state agreement. Obviously, they are all slightly different and the Minister for State Development, who is currently the Premier, would have the final say over those kinds of things, with the support of the department. I know that some state agreements have kept bits of the Mining Act 1904 alive and some of the agreements are quite old, so they probably refer to former mining acts and things like that because they are state agreements, obviously. In terms of the application of the proposed legislation, it is obviously being read in tomorrow, so that will be a question for the debate on that legislation as that goes through.

Mr Shane Love: Similar to some of the questioning along those lines, it seems in the amendments that there is a greater role for the minister to be the decision-maker, as opposed to the warden. Can the minister explain why that seems to be the general thrust that we are seeing throughout the changes in this bill?

Mr David Michael: This clause is just a restructure of the existing powers of the minister, except for a matter regarding the warden and prospecting fines and forfeitures, which we will get to later. There is no intention in the act to give the minister or the delegate any new powers that I can think of.

Clause, as amended, put and passed.

Clause 25: Section 78 amended

Mr Shane Love: I believe this clause deals with second reviews. Can the minister perhaps outline how those changes will impact the current situation and improve the Mining Act?

Mr David Michael: Currently there is a perception that all mining lease renewal applications must be lodged during the final year of the lease term regardless of whether it is the first or second renewal or a later renewal. The bill will introduce proposed section 78(2A), which gives the minister the power to prescribe via regulations a longer lodgement window for second and subsequent renewals. Under the transitional arrangements, the period will initially be set at three years before the end of the lease term compared with the current one-year window. First renewals remain unchanged. These are granted as of right and involve a simpler, more certain process. Later renewals are more complex due to the future act requirements of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). A longer window gives leaseholders more time to prepare comprehensive applications, improving the quality of information provided to government and reducing the risk of late or noncompliant lodgements. The change was requested by industry to align with the practical realities of operating mature mining projects while still maintaining robust oversight.

Obviously the Mining Act allows for a first renewal after 21 years and further renewals, so an applicant shall receive their first renewal and they may receive future renewals. Last year I think we had the first mining leases that were approved under the 1978 act were actually from 1982—once the act was proclaimed and everything was done—and so 42 years from then was 2024, so that came up for the first time last year. The mining applications from between 1982 and 1994 when the Native Title Act came in, or around then, did not have to deal with native title because it did not exist back in 1982 in the way we now know it. Therefore, they have not had to go through an Indigenous land use agreement (ILUA) or native title negotiations or those kinds of negotiations with traditional owners or native title holders. They now do, and that is a function like every other mine that has been approved since the mid 1990s. Every year for the next decade or so, those mines that have been around for 42 years when they are seeking another 21 years to take it to 63 years, will have to get an ILUA or deal with native title through the right-to-negotiate process. Obviously, it is quite complex or there are other ways that they can do that.

Industry has made it clear that to enable them to do that, a longer period than one year would be helpful. Therefore, our proposal under this is by regulation we will be able to make that three years. It is important to note, though, that just by lodging their application for a second renewal, they are able to continue mining and continue their operations whilst that application is live, so we have started granting second renewals, which is great, and some have been through the right-to-negotiate process. There are a heap more working their way through the system, but none of those mines have to stop on the day of their 42nd birthday. They can continue as long as the application is still live. In this clause we acknowledge that it would be helpful for them to be able to apply up to three years before the end of their 42 years.

Mr Shane Love: In practical terms, though, is there anything stopping a company getting all its ducks in a row before the final year in an Indigenous land use agreement and whatever requirements it needs to meet to comply, or does a trigger have to be pulled before the company can get to the point of having all those ducks in a row, hence the need to have that greater time period?

Mr David Michael: No. Some applicants who already have an ILUA in place are coming up for a second renewal. Part of the process we are going through is to make sure that whatever conditions are in that agreement—the government ordinarily would not see those—have the provision for future renewals, and putting them through those tests. The answer is no, absolutely not. Obviously, we would encourage industry, and, as we know, a lot of industry does have very good relations with its traditional owners and native title holders. If the company has an ILUA and it contemplates future renewals, all that can be validated by the department. Although there is a process to go through, as I said, some of these have already started to be approved because of that situation.

Clause put and passed.

Clauses 26 to 28 put and passed

Clause 29: Section 88 amended

Mr Shane Love: This provision is similar to some of the other provisions we have been talking about that provide that the minister may cancel or vary. The clause refers to a general purpose lease and says:

(2A) Any term or condition on which a general purpose lease is renewed or further renewed under section 2(a) …

I will not go through all the numbers:

… may be cancelled or varied by the Minister at any time if the Minister is satisfied that —

(a) it is necessary to cancel …

Would this be done only at the time of a further renewal, or is this at any point during the term of the general purpose lease?

Mr David Michael: It is not specifically related to second renewals, but again, the purpose of this amendment, like the similar ones we saw before, is to allow potentially invalid or ultra vires conditions that might have been imposed on titles to be removed without impacting the validity of the grant. The amendment will also allow for tenement holders to request the minister to consider changes to its terms and conditions, which is not currently available.

Clause put and passed.

Clauses 30 to 32 put and passed.

Clause 33: Sections 96, 96A and 97 replaced

Mr David Michael by leave: I move:

Page 28, after line 6 — To insert:

(ia) the prescribed rent or royalty in respect of the lease is not paid in accordance with this Act; or

Page 28, after line 16 — To insert:

(ia) the prescribed rent or royalty in respect of the lease is not paid in accordance with this Act; or

Amendments put and passed.

Mr Shane Love: We were inadvertently talking about this before, minister, but, I am sorry, I have spent too much time in an aircraft today.

Can the minister explain the import of this in terms of the change to RevenueWA, why it is necessary and what it might achieve?

Mr David Michael: Are we talking about the amendments or the clause in general?

Mr Shane Love: We are talking about the amendments. The amendments say two similar things in two different sections. Can the minister just explain the import of that amendment to the value of the actual clause?

Mr David Michael: The amendments follow some Parliamentary Counsel's Office advice on the proclamation of the Mining Amendment (Transfer of Royalty Administration) Act 2025, which, as the member will remember, we passed in this house only a short time ago, transferring royalty administration from the Department of Mines, Petroleum and Exploration to RevenueWA.

Mr Shane Love: I am losing my place now. Clause 33 is quite a wideranging clause. Perhaps the minister could explain the general impact of clause 33 while I collect my thoughts on asking further questions.

Mr David Michael: The bill transfers final decision-making authority for forfeiture of mining tenements from the Mining Warden to the Minister for Mines and Petroleum to create a consistent, modern compliance framework across all tenure types. Currently, different tenements are handled inconsistently. The warden has decision-making authority for some tenements, including prospecting and miscellaneous, whilst the minister already makes these decisions for others, including exploration and mining. This split creates confusion, administrative delays and unnecessary duplication, especially when procedural issues must be escalated from the warden to the minister for implementation. Key benefits of the reform will include consistency and fairness; one clear decision point for all tenement types, ensuring everyone is treated equally; administrative efficiency, streamlining processes by reducing duplication and shortening the compliance pathway; and improved accountability. The minister is ultimately responsible for managing the state's mineral resources and ensuring regulatory integrity, so it is appropriate that they hold the final decision-making power. The reform will retain procedural safeguards. The warden's role is not being removed. The warden will still conduct hearings, gather evidence and make recommendations to ensure that decisions remain well-informed and transparent. This reform aligns forfeiture processes with modern practice and supports a clearer, more efficient regulatory system.

To give a bit more of an explanation, obviously, from time to time, I will be sent a briefing note from the department with a Warden's Court decision for my decision regarding exploration and mining leases and licences, but I know from my discussions with the Eastern Goldfields Prospectors Association and the Amalgamated Leaseholders and Prospectors Association of WA that the minister has no power to vary or change the Mining Warden's decisions affecting prospecting and miscellaneous licences. I am sure that they would—I am using my words really carefully now—think that if a warden were to make a decision that they thought was unjust or out of kilter with previous decisions, they may wish to write to the minister seeking a variation or some other decision.

Mr Shane Love: Does the minister have any idea how much of a workload he is taking on in being the final decision-maker on these matters? What is the volume of decisions that are currently made by the warden that the minister will have to consider? And when he has answered that, I will ask a couple of questions on the procedure.

Mr David Michael: We do not believe that adding miscellaneous and prospecting decisions to ministerial decisions will be onerous. Obviously anyone can check the current Warden's Court listings on the EMITS system. It is HTML from about 1999, but at some point we will upgrade that system. It is a little bit clunky, but it works! People can see that, yes, whilst there are cases coming through and decisions are being made, it is not hundreds and hundreds, so we do not think it will be onerous. As the member knows, I am a hard worker, so we will go through each decision.

Clause, as amended, put and passed.

Clauses 34 to 36 put and passed

Clause 37: Section 102 amended

Mr Shane Love: The explanatory memorandum we were presented refers to clauses 37 through to 39 as one group, so forgive me if I get this wrong. Paragraph 108 of the EM says:

… the amendment removes the requirement for applicants to specify the amount of expenditure to be exempted. This rectifies a long-standing flaw in the exemption process, where applicants often submit applications based on estimated expenditure early in the reporting period. If actual expenditure reported in the Operations Report (known in industry as a Form 5 report) later differs, this discrepancy can expose applicants to penalties or forfeiture.

Perhaps the minister could expand a little bit on what that issue has been in the past and how he believes these changes will rectify the situation. Apologies if I have not got the exact clause of those listed in that section—clauses 37 to 39.

Mr David Michael: The amendments to section 102 are intended to clarify the procedural elements of expenditure reporting and exemption processes. The policy objectives are threefold. Firstly, to implement a fully digital real-time system that removes the need to issue paper certificates of exemption once an exemption is granted. Under this system, exemption applications will be submitted and recorded digitally, streamlining the process both internally and externally. Secondly, to address a flaw in the exemption application process by removing the requirement for applicants to specify the amount of expenditure to be exempted. In practice, applicants often submit exemption requests in advance of the formal reporting period, relying on predictive estimates of the amount that will ultimately be needed. If these estimates later differ from actual expenditure reported in the operations report, which is the form 5 report, applicants may face penalties or forfeiture action. Thirdly, to clarify that the receipt of reasons in the form of a statutory declaration is a jurisdictional prerequisite for determining an application for exemption from expenditure conditions. This requirement ensures that all grounds for exemption are adequately disclosed, reinforcing the legislative intent behind the act's self-policing framework.

Clause put and passed.

Clause 38: Section 102A amended

Mr David Michael: I move:

Page 41, after line 18—To insert:

(1B) An applicant must lodge within the prescribed period and in the prescribed manner a statutory declaration made by the applicant setting out the reasons for which the exemption is sought.

Amendment put and passed.

Clause, as amended, put and passed.

Clause 39 put and passed

Clause 40 put and negatived

Clause 41: Section 111A amended

Mr David Michael: I have an amendment standing in my name on the notice paper. I move:

Page 42, lines 9 to 12—To delete the lines and substitute:

the term of the lease) for the renewal of the lease with effect from the expiry of the" and insert:

prescribed, but not within the period prescribed, for the purposes of section 78(1)(b)(i) for the renewal of the lease with effect from the expiry of the initial

Mr Shane Love: If the minister could just explain the proposed amendment to clause 41.

Mr David Michael: For the record I am going to explain why we just voted no to the last clause. On commencement of the Mining Amendment Transfer of Royalty Act 2025, sections 109 and 109A were deleted from the Mining Act 1978, so opposing clause 40 avoids amending a provision that no longer exists. The amendment to clause 41A aligns with section 120Q, "Consequence of failure to pay royalties provision", in the new part 5A with a restructured forfeiture grounds in section 96 of the Mining Amendment Bill 2025. Under part 5A, if a notice is given under section 120P(4) and the amount is not paid by the specified day, section 120Q deems that failure to have specified legal consequences. For mining tenements, section 120Q(2)(a) presently frames the consequences as a breach of covenant sufficient to ground forfeiture. For applications, section 120Q(2)(b) deems public interest grounds for refusal under section 111A(4). This change updates section 120Q(2) to directly reference a forfeiture ground for non-payment in section 96(2) for all tenement types including new paragraphs (d)(ia) and (e)(ia) so that noncompliance with a section 120P(4) notice will feed straight into the relevant section 96 ground, improving clarity post part 5A and ensuring uniform treatment while preserving the section 96 discretion. I will give that to Hansard in a moment.

Amendment put and passed.

Clause, as amended, put and passed.

New clause 41A

Mr David Michael: I move:

Page 42, after line 13—To insert:

41A. Section 120Q amended

Delete section 120Q(2)(a) and insert:

(a) in the case of a mining tenement — a failure to pay the prescribed royalty in respect of the mining tenement in accordance with this Act for the purposes of section 96(2)(a)(i), (b)(i), (c)(i), (d)(ia) or (e)(ia), as the case requires; or

Mr Shane Love: We had the explanation of new clause 41A. I am just confused. I thought we had already moved it. I will sit down now.

New clause put and passed.

Clause 42 put and passed.

Clause 43: Section 162B amended

Mr Shane Love: The regulations are to be developed. Can the minister give me an idea of how far advanced they are and when we might expect to see some of these provisions begin to take effect? Sometimes these bills take a long time to be empowered because the regulations take a long time. What is the expectation, to assure industry, about how long this will all take?

Mr David Michael: Work has started with Parliamentary Counsel's Office on framing the regulations, but obviously we cannot draft it fully until the legislation has passed through both chambers. Having said that, some of the transitional provisions in the bill bridge the gap between the current Mining Act and when the regulations will come in.

Clause put and passed.

Clause 44 put and passed

Clause 45: Part IX Division 2 inserted

Mr Shane Love: This clause inserts a new division under part IX of the act. Paragraph 124 of the explanatory memorandum states:

The new Division 2 is inserted into the Mining Act to address the implications of the Forrest decision. It restores what was the commonly understood status quo prior to the High Court decision. It also deals with pending applications that may be affected by the Forrest decision. It relates to applications for mining tenements as well as private land matters, amalgamations, extensions of term, retention status, restoration and surrenders which may be affected by the Forrest decision.

Perhaps the minister could explain how all that is enabled by clause 45.

Mr David Michael: This new division is required to enable three sections to be made to address the issues raised in the Forrest decision. The three new provisions will restore the status quo prior to the High Court decision. There is also a provision that will address the validity of pending tenement applications. This clause defines the words and terms used in new sections 165 and 166. Section 165 addresses the procedural implications arising from the High Court decision in Forrest & Forrest Pty Ltd v Wilson & Ors. This new section will enable the validation of pending applications for mining tenements that might potentially be invalid because of the Forrest decision. Provision has also been made for the registrar or the warden, as the case may be, to be able to request further information, including documents such as section 58 statements and section 74 documents in order to determine the application. This clause is required to ensure that invalid applications marked in the register cannot be validated under section 165(1).

Clause put and passed.

Clause 46: Second Schedule Division 3A inserted

Mr David Michael: I would ask members to consider opposing clause 46 so that it can be replaced with new division 5 in the second schedule to provide tailored transitional savings and application provisions that will ensure an orderly transition to the amended act. The provisions are technical in nature and preserve fairness and legal certainty for those applications that have been lodged but not yet determined. Obviously, we can go through questions for the new division, should clause 46 be opposed.

Clause put and negatived.

New clause 46

Mr David Michael: I move:

Page 51, after line 14 — To insert:

Division 5 — Provisions relating to Mining Amendment Act 2025

31. Exemption for land

(1) In this clause —

commencement day means the day on which the Mining Amendment Act 2025 section 6 comes into operation;

existing exemption instrument means an instrument exempting land that is in effect under section 19 immediately before commencement day.

(2) On and from commencement day, section 19 applies in relation to an existing exemption instrument as if the Mining Amendment Act 2025 section 6 had not come into operation.

32. Power to cancel or vary term or condition of mining tenement

(1) In this clause —

commencement day means the day on which the Mining Amendment Act 2025 sections 7, 10(1), 16, 21(2), 28, 29, 31 and 32 come into operation;

relevant provision means section 40(1A), 57(1A), 70B(1A), 71(2), 86(1A), 88(2A), 91B(3A) or 94(2A) as inserted by the Mining Amendment Act 2025 section 7, 10(1), 16, 21(2), 28, 29, 31 or 32.

(2) A relevant provision applies to a mining tenement granted, or renewed or further renewed, before commencement day.

33. Application for exploration licence

(1) In this clause —

commencement day means the day on which the Mining Amendment Act 2025 sections 10(2) to (4), 11 and 12 come into operation;

pending application means an application for an exploration licence that was lodged, but had not been finally determined, before commencement day.

(2) Section 57(2C), as inserted by the Mining Amendment Act 2025 section 10(2), applies to the grant of an exploration licence on a pending application.

(3) Section 57(2I) and (2J), as inserted by the Mining Amendment Act 2025 section 10(4), apply to a pending application.

(4) On and from commencement day, sections 58 and 59 apply for the purpose of dealing with and determining a pending application as if the Mining Amendment Act 2025 sections 11 and 12 had not come into operation.

(5) Despite subclause (4), section 59(5), as inserted by the Mining Amendment Act 2025 section 12(5), applies to a pending application (unless section 59(5), as in force from time to time before commencement day, was complied with before commencement day).

34. Application for retention lease

(1) In this clause —

commencement day means the day on which the Mining Amendment Act 2025 section 17 comes into operation;

pending application means an application for a retention lease that was lodged, but had not been finally determined, before commencement day.

(2) Section 70D(5), as inserted by the Mining Amendment Act 2025 section 17, applies to a pending application (unless section 70D(5), as in force from time to time before commencement day, was complied with before commencement day).

35. Application for mining lease or general purpose lease

(1) In this clause —

amending provisions means the Mining Amendment Act 2025 sections 4, 5(2), 8, 9, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21(1), 22, 23, 24, 27 and 30;

commencement day means the day on which the amending provisions come into operation;

former section 75(5) means section 75(5) as deleted by the Mining Amendment Act 2025 section 24;

pending application means an application for a mining lease or general purpose lease that was lodged, but had not been finally determined, before commencement day.

(2) On and from commencement day —

(a) section 6(1a) applies in relation to a pending application as if the amending provisions had not come into operation; and

(b) the definition of mining development and closure proposal in section 8(1) applies in relation to a pending application as if the amending provisions had not come into operation; and

(c) sections 49(1), 56A(8aa), 67(1), 70(8aa) and 70L(1), and Part IV Divisions 3 and 4, apply for the purpose of dealing with and determining a pending application as if the amending provisions had not come into operation.

(3) Former section 75(5), as it applies to a pending application under subclause (2)(c), applies as if paragraphs (a) and (b) were deleted.

36. Renewal of mining lease

(1) In this clause —

commencement day means the day on which the Mining Amendment Act 2025 sections 25 and 41 come into operation;

pre-commencement application means an application for the renewal, or further renewal, of a pre-commencement mining lease that was made before commencement day;

pre-commencement mining lease means a mining lease granted or acquired before commencement day.

(2) On and from commencement day —

(a) section 78, as amended by the Mining Amendment Act 2025 section 25, applies for the purpose of renewing and further renewing pre-commencement mining leases; but

(b) section 78 applies in relation to a pre-commencement application that has not been finally determined before commencement day as if the Mining Amendment Act 2025 section 25 had not come into operation.

(3) For the purposes of subclause (2)(a), section 78(2A) applies to a pre-commencement mining lease as it applies to a mining lease that is renewed for the further term in the circumstances mentioned in section 78(1)(b)(i) if the pre-commencement mining lease —

(a) was renewed on 1 or more occasions before commencement day; or

(b) was never renewed before commencement day but is renewed on or after commencement day in accordance with subclause (2)(b).

(4) On and from commencement day, the definition of late renewal application in section 111A(2) includes a pre-commencement application that was covered by that definition as in force from time to time before commencement day.

37. Forfeiture of mining tenement

(1) In this clause —

amending provisions means the Mining Amendment Act 2025 sections 13, 18, 26, 33, 34, 35, 36 and 41A;

commencement day means the day on which the amending provisions come into operation;

event includes breach, failure, non-compliance and omission;

existing mining tenement means a mining tenement granted or acquired before commencement day;

ground for forfeiture means —

(a) an event referred to in section 96(2)(a) to (e) as inserted by the Mining Amendment Act 2025 section 33; or

(b) an event in relation to which an application may be made to the warden under section 96B(1) or 96C(1) as inserted by the Mining Amendment Act 2025 section 33; or

(c) a failure to pay an amount as referred to in section 120Q(1).

(2) Sections 96 to 97, as inserted by the Mining Amendment Act 2025 section 33, apply in relation to —

(a) an existing mining tenement; and

(b) a ground for forfeiture that occurred before commencement day in respect of an existing mining tenement.

(3) Despite subclause (2), sections 96 to 97, as inserted by the Mining Amendment Act 2025 section 33, do not apply in relation to a ground for forfeiture in respect of an existing mining tenement if —

(a) the ground for forfeiture occurred before commencement day; and

(b) either of the following applies —

(i) before commencement day, the ground for forfeiture was the subject of an application made under section 96 or 98 as in force from time to time before commencement day;

(ii) before commencement day, the ground for forfeiture was considered by the Minister for the purposes of section 96A or 97, as in force from time to time before commencement day, as a ground, or as a potential ground, for the forfeiture of the existing mining tenement, or for the imposition of a penalty, under that section.

(4) Section 120Q(2)(a), as inserted by the Mining Amendment Act 2025 section 41A, applies to a failure to pay an amount as referred to in section 120Q(1) that occurred before commencement day.

(5) Despite subclause (4), section 120Q(2)(a), as inserted by the Mining Amendment Act 2025 failure to pay an amount as referred to in section 120Q(1) if the failure to pay the amount is a ground for forfeiture in respect of an existing mining tenement that is covered by subclause (3).

(6) On and from commencement day, this Act applies in relation to the following as if the amending provisions had not come into operation —

(a) a ground for forfeiture in respect of an existing mining tenement that is covered by subclause (3);

(b) without limiting paragraph (a) —

(i) an application made before commencement day under section 96, 97A or 98 as in force from time to time before commencement day;

(ii) the forfeiture of an existing mining tenement that occurred before commencement day;

(iii) the imposition, before commencement day, of a penalty on the holder of an existing mining tenement as an alternative to forfeiture of the existing mining tenement;

(iv) anything else that was done or occurred before commencement day under sections 96 to 100 as in force from time to time before commencement day.

38. Exemption from expenditure condition

(1) In this clause —

commencement day means the day on which the Mining Amendment Act 2025 sections 37 and 38 come into operation;

former section 102(1) means section 102(1) as in force from time to time before commencement day;

former section 102A(1) means section 102A(1) as in force from time to time before commencement day.

(2) On and from commencement day —

(a) a certificate of exemption granted under former section 102(1) that is in effect immediately before commencement day is taken to be an exemption granted under section 102(1) as amended by the Mining Amendment Act 2025 section 37; and

(b) a certificate granted under former section 102A(1) that is in effect immediately before commencement day is taken to be an exemption granted under section 102A(1) as amended by the Mining Amendment Act 2025 section 38.

(3) An application for a certificate of exemption made under former section 102(1) that has not been finally determined before commencement day is to be dealt with and determined under section 102 as amended by the Mining Amendment Act 2025 section 37.

(4) An application for a certificate made under former section 102A(1) that has not been finally determined before commencement day is to be dealt with and determined under section 102A as amended by the Mining Amendment Act 2025 section 38.

(5) For the purposes of subclauses (3) and (4), a statutory declaration that was lodged under the Mining Regulations 1981 regulation 54(3) before commencement day in respect of an application is taken to have been lodged under section 102(1B) or 102A(1B), as the case requires.

39. Continuing application of regulation

(1) In this clause —

commencement day has the meaning given in clause 31(1), 33(1), 35(1), 36(1) or 37(1), as the case requires.

(2) For the purpose of giving effect to clause 31(2), 33(4), 35(2), 36(2)(b) or 37(6), any relevant regulation in force before commencement day applies on and from commencement day as it applied before commencement day, despite the regulation being repealed or amended on or after commencement day.

40. Transitional regulations

(1) In this clause —

commencement day means the day on which the Mining Amendment Act 2025 section 46 comes into operation;

publication day, in relation to transitional regulations, means the day on which the regulations are published in accordance with the Interpretation Act 1984 section 41(1)(a);

transitional regulations means regulations made for the purposes of subclause (2).

(2) The regulations may deal with matters of a transitional, savings or application nature arising as a result of the enactment of the Mining Amendment Act 2025.

(3) Transitional regulations may not be made after the end of the period of 2 years beginning on commencement day.

(4) If transitional regulations provide that a state of affairs is taken to have existed, or not to have existed, on and from a day that is earlier than publication day, but not earlier than commencement day, the regulations have effect according to their terms.

(5) If transitional regulations contain a provision referred to in subclause (4), the provision does not operate so as to —

(a) affect, in a manner prejudicial to any person (other than the State or an authority of the State), the rights of that person existing before publication day; or

(b) impose liabilities on any person (other than the State or an authority of the State) in respect of anything done or omitted to be done before publication day.

Notes for this Division:

1. This Division applies, as relevant, for the purpose of dealing with and determining an application in accordance with section 165(1) as if the prescribed requirements referred to in section 165(1) had been complied with.

2. For example —

(a) sections 58 and 59 apply in accordance with clause 33(4) for the purpose of dealing with and determining, in accordance with section 165(1), an application for an exploration licence as if the prescribed requirements referred to in section 165(1) had been complied with; and

(b) the provisions referred to in clause 35(2)(c) apply in accordance with clause 35(2)(c) for the purpose of dealing with and determining, in accordance with section 165(1), an application for a mining lease or general purpose lease as if the prescribed requirements referred to in section 165(1) had been complied with.

Mr Shane Love: This is an extraordinary amount of change from the bill that the minister introduced not long ago. Perhaps the minister might explain how this promotes the orderly transition that he has been talking about.

Mr David Michael: Again, the short answer is that I am advised by PCO. The long answer is that since the bill was introduced in June 2025 there have been further consultations with Parliamentary Counsel's Office, the State Solicitor's Office and key stakeholders; refinements to transitional arrangements to ensure a smooth implementation and avoid uncertainty for applicants and existing tenement holders; and the need to align the bill with two other significant legislative changes, one being the Mining Amendment Act 2022, which, as we covered, has only recently commenced, and the Mining Amendment (Transfer of Royalty Administration) Act 2025, which shifts responsibility for royalty collection between departments. Some of these changes could be finalised only after the bill was introduced, as it depended on the timing of those other acts and final legal advice from the SSO. Moving these amendments through this process will avoid delays. Obviously, one option would have been to withdraw the bill and resubmit it, which would have set these reforms back by many months. It also provides some transparency, whereby we have been going through each of the amendments. Like the other amendments, because of the Mining Amendment Act 2022 and the Mining Amendment (Transfer of Royalty Administration) Act 2025, in consultation with PCO, SSO and stakeholders, as a transitional arrangement, it was decided that rather than withdraw the bill, we have decided to do it tonight.

Mr Shane Love: Throughout the new clause are now many different commencement dates for various sections of the act. I will not go through them all because there are heaps of them. Would that not affect the commencement date in the clauses of the original bill? How will that interact with what has now been approved as the commencement date under proposed section 41(2)?

Mr David Michael: Basically, it means that anyone who has an application in the system, and all the different permutations of those applications, will not be disadvantaged by the commencement and then proclamation of the amendment bill.

Mr Shane Love: I am sure the minister would agree that this is an extraordinarily complex clause that we are confronted with here. I imagine that plenty of people will be looking at this and thinking it is extraordinarily difficult to navigate through. Having said that, I have to accept that the Parliamentary Counsel's Office and the State Solicitor's Office have come forward with advice, and their knowledge of the law is much greater than mine, but I put on the record that there is a lot to go through here. I do not think we have had sufficient time to digest all these changes. Perhaps by the time the bill gets to the other place, there might be a little bit more consideration about what the impact of all this is.

Mr David Michael: The transitional provisions will apply only to applicants who currently have a live undetermined application in the system. The advice that I have is that it is all about making sure that none of them are disadvantaged. Anyone currently in the system will continue through the application process, once the amendment is made, under the existing provisions. They can continue through and, hopefully, for most of them, get approved. Obviously, the transitional provisions will not apply once all these provisions have been proclaimed. They will automatically go under the new system.

New clause put and passed.

Clause 47 put and passed

Clause 48: Sections 4 to 7 deleted

Mr Shane Love: This is an extraordinarily short clause that will delete sections 4 to 7 of the Mining Legislation Amendment Act 2014. There is a quite detailed explanation in some measure in the explanatory memorandum, but perhaps the minister might explain why sections 4 to 7 are being deleted in this fashion.

Mr David Michael: In essence, these four sections of the Mining Legislation Amendment Act 2014 are being deleted as they either relate to terminology no longer necessary or would have switched the availability of mining tenement information from the Mining Act to the Mining Regulations 1981. I understand that sections 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Mining Legislation Amendment Act 2014 were never proclaimed, so in a sense they have been sitting there unproclaimed for 11 years and are no longer necessary.

Mr Shane Love: The obvious question is: why have they sat there for so long and not been proclaimed? Perhaps the minister could give an explanation of that.

Mr David Michael: Obviously, it was 11 years ago, so a lot of water has gone under the bridge since then. It was under the former Liberal–National government. I saw the member wake up over there! I am not sure. We do not see these sections as being necessary anymore. I mean this genuinely, but this is probably a question for whoever was the minister. We had Ministers L'Estrange and Marmion back in the day. For some reason, they amended the legislation to do certain things but then there was some policy decision taken at some point to not proclaim those sections, or they were possibly forgotten about. They sit there unproclaimed and this is an opportunity to get rid of them.

Mr Shane Love: Does the minister concede that eight of those years have been under his government?

Mr David Michael: Obviously, this is the first opportunity we have had to deal with this. Clearly, the former government brought in obsolete legislation from the word go!

Clause put and passed.

Title put and passed

House adjourned at 7:16:05 pm

Questions on notice answered today are available on the Parliament of Western Australia's website