SHIRE OF MOUNT MAGNET -v- ATLANTIC VANADIUM PTY LTD [2025] WASC 274 (8 July 2025)

1. This proceeding is an appeal by the Shire of Mt Magnet (Shire) against a decision of the State Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) in favour of the respondent, Atlantic Vanadium Pty Ltd (Atlantic). The Tribunal's decision was published with the citation Atlantic Vanadium Pty Ltd v Shire of Mount Magnet [2024] WASAT 16.
2. In accordance with facts agreed by the parties for the purpose of the proceeding, the Tribunal found the following background facts:[1]
   1. Atlantic holds six miscellaneous licences (L58/27, L58/28, L58/29, L58/30, L58/32 and L58/35) (Miscellaneous Licences) over land, relevantly, within the Shire of Mount Magnet (Shire or Respondent). These licences were granted between 23 June 1998 and 12 June 2009.
   2. Atlantic acquired the Miscellaneous Licences in around 2016 and they form part of its Windimurra Vanadium project.
   3. The Miscellaneous Licences cover a total area of 5,633.39 ha, of which 4,237.59 ha sits within the Shire. The remaining portions are within the adjoining Shire of Sandstone.
   4. On or about 15 June 2023, the Shire issued rates notices to Atlantic in respect of the Miscellaneous Licences following a review of its rate record under s 6.39 of the LGA. Prior to 15 June 2023, the Shire did not issue rates notices for any of its Miscellaneous Licences.
   5. Upon receipt of the rates notices, Atlantic and the Shire exchanged a series of communications on the question as to whether the land the subject of the Miscellaneous Licences is rateable land.
3. Before the Tribunal, the parties formulated a preliminary issue for determination. The singular question determined by the Tribunal and raised on this appeal is whether Crown land the subject of an occupied miscellaneous licence is, or is not, rateable land. The answer to that question turns on the proper construction of s 6.26 of the Local Government Act 1995 (WA) (LGA).
4. Section 6.26(1) and (2)(a) provide as follows:

1. The principles of statutory construction are well established and were not in dispute. They have been repeated in many cases and may be relevantly summarised as follows.
2. The statutory text is the surest guide to Parliament's intention. A decision as to the meaning of the text requires consideration of the context, in its widest sense, including the general purpose and policy of the provision. The context includes the existing state of the law, the history of the legislative scheme and the mischief to which the statute is directed. However, legislative history and extrinsic materials cannot displace the meaning of statutory text. Further, the examination of legislative history and extrinsic materials is not an end in itself. The purpose of legislation must be derived from the statutory text and not from any assumption about the desired or desirable reach or operation of the relevant provisions. The intended reach of a legislative provision is to be discerned from the words of the provision and not by making a prior assumption about its purpose.[3]
3. Of particular relevance in this case is the principle articulated by the Court of Appeal of Victoria in Victoria v Tabcorp Holdings Ltd [2014] VSCA 143[4] and repeated in Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) (Vic) v Walters (a Pseudonym) [2015] VSCA 303; 49 VR 356 at [3]:

1. The respondent argued that its construction was supported by the second reading speech because the speech reflected an intention to render mining tenements rateable regardless of their occupation, which was then followed by a statement of exemption for miscellaneous licenses. It is said that the second reading speech indicates that the exemption for miscellaneous licenses is also to operate regardless of occupation.
2. On the basis of that legislative history, the respondent contended that the absence of the notion of occupation in the s 1.4(e) definition of 'owner' is a contextual and textual indicator that occupation is irrelevant to the rateability of a mining tenement under s 6.26.1(2)(a) and therefore also irrelevant to excluded tenements, such as a miscellaneous license.
3. It may be accepted that in respect of mining tenements generally, the prospective amendment of the Amending Act removed the notion of occupation from the relevant definition of owner. However, the substantive meaning of s 532(2)(b) is to be distilled from its terms, not from an inference drawn from an amendment to a definition of a term used by the section. Relevantly, s 532(2)(b) of the 1960 Act is in substance the same as s 6.26(2)(b). To the extent that there is any ambiguity in s 6.26(2)(b), the same ambiguity is reflected in s 532(2)(b) of the 1960 Act.
4. Moreover, in my view, the second reading speech is itself ambiguous. It is clear that it reflects an intention generally to render mining tenements rateable regardless of occupation. And that is what the amendments achieved - mining tenements are generally rateable irrespective of whether or not they are occupied. That is because if they are occupied, they do not fall within the exemption and if they are unoccupied, they are expressly excepted from the exemption.
5. I accept that, read literally, the second reading speech is open to be understood as reflecting an intention to exempt a miscellaneous licence from rateability regardless of occupation. However, the second reading speech does not say that in terms. In my view it is also not the only available understanding of the speech. The speech reflects an intention to maintain the status quo so as to preserve the rates revenue for local authorities. That intention is consistent with retaining the rateability of occupied miscellaneous licenses, which unlike mining tenements generally, attract the exemption when unoccupied.
6. In my view, the brief reference in the second reading speech is itself ambiguous in respect of the rateability of an occupied miscellaneous licence.
7. More fundamentally, I am concerned that Atlantic's construction is unduly dependent upon a knowledge of the legislative history. While legislative history can certainly provide a guide to the meaning of a provision, the weight placed on that history by Atlantic runs the risk, I fear, of reading the statute through the microscopic lens of a parliamentary librarian. Legislative history may be relevant to determining the proper meaning of the text, but that history cannot replace the words of the text.

1. In my view, s 6.27 presents no obstacle to the appellant's construction. Should it be necessary, s 10(c) of the Interpretation Act 1984 (WA) provides that in any written law, words in the singular number include the plural and words in the plural number include the singular. The provision thus accommodates circumstances where there is one or more mining tenement on the land. The reference to a mining tenement may refer to more than one mining tenement.
2. On the contrary, I consider that it is the respondent's construction that leads to an outcome unlikely to have been intended by the parliament. In Fly By Night Musicians Club Limited v City of Fremantle [2002] WASCA 161, Le Miere J concluded that it is the physical land that is rateable; not the interest or the tenure in the land.[20] I respectfully agree with his Honour's analysis and conclusion. Land is exempt from rates, by reason of the legal rights of its 'owner' (for example, because the owner of the land is the holder of a miscellaneous licence over the land). The land attracts that exemption even though other interests may be held in respect of the land that would not attract an exemption for the land.
3. The provisions of the Act create a distinction between two things. On the one hand is the question of whether the land itself is rateable. As explained, under s 6.26(2) it is the land which is exempt, not the owner. On the other hand is the imposition of liability for the rates. Under s 6.27, if there are two or more owners, they are jointly and severally liable.
4. It follows that on the respondent's construction, if a miscellaneous licence was granted over a mining lease, then the land the subject of the miscellaneous licence would cease to be rateable notwithstanding that it may contain very significant mining infrastructure producing considerable profits. In my view, that is unlikely to reflect the parliamentary intention.

(2012) 250 CLR 503

(1997) 187 CLR 384

(2014) 253 CLR 531