before you all cry corruption, page-20

My suggestion. to not go near, or raise the subject of corruption re Bowler's decision is simple. The interested public has not yet been given all the facts, the reasons behind/supporting the Bowler decision.

I once jokingly suggested Bowler was taking so long for various speculative reasons. One of which was that he'd be taking his time so he could work out a way of put his personal stamp on the decision. But I was strictly joking.

The ridiculous situation for this s.111 appeal is the secrecy surrounding the Minister's decision. Because all the submissions are available via FOI (freedom of information) application. And its mind boggling that it they are not immediately put on the minister's web site with the decision. I find this is absolutely typical of Australian politics and I hate the incredible public apathy that perpetuates this absurdity.

As for Bowler's departmental report/recommendation and various legal opinions, I don't yet know if they will every be also available via FOI. I think they must and should be. I'll also be looking into discovering those.

What I will be asking Cazaly, in due course, is, because they are in possession of RIO's submissions and have been all along, if they could post them on their web page. After all, any journo, once in possession of FOI derived information is free to splatter it all over the news. Except Cazaly didn't obtain it via FOI. Damn!

What I find interesting is the history behind s.111. Why not let the mining courts judge a section.111 appeal? They could easily deal with and determine what is the public interest. And the process, the precious process would not have been such a precious thing. For the court's "process" is their bread and butter. They don't have to go through a learning curve, as Bowler may well have gone through. Plus, and I think a very big PLUS, the courts are open to the public. All submissions are argued in public.

I just don't know why s.111 would need to delegate the decision to the Minister.