re: judicial review s111a previous cases Although not existing in written form the Iron Policy seems to based largely on practices.
With regard the extension of exploration lease the DoIR statement from Bowler’s release argued “that exploration leases could be held on less onerous terms”
I would assume that Shovelanna EL was granted “Retention Status” under s.69A i.e. exemptions on exploration activity and the dollars spent if a resource had been previously discovered. The Iron Ore policy would have meant that ongoing applications for the Retention Status would have been simply rubber stamped.
I think that a 100 year lease couldn’t be granted as they still had to operate within the limits of the Mining Act which doesn’t allow such lengthy terms
So all RIO had to do was ensure that the licence was renewed on time and the govt would continue the façade and rubber stamp the application…..how dumb are they, they couldn’t even get that right!!!
I remember Carpenter whilst still the Mining Minister was interviewed on the radio and he mentioned that it seem a very large penalty for such a minor error. So what, the regulations are well and truly known by RIO and remember this was the second time they stuffed up the renewal of this licence.
The arguments to terminate CAZ application have to be in the “public interest”. So where is the public interest in undermining the Mining Act just because a small error has such a large monetary consequence to RIO.
One point I forgot yesterday was as per the saying anything is only as strong as the weakest link. In this instance the most obvious weaken link is Bowler. His day in court would have to be more anticipated by CAZ holders than a 6 year old waiting for Xmas day.
According to Herd on the Terrance in The West, Bowlers new nickname is Ashley Giles – a slow bowler that plays for the POMS. Couldn’t have said it any better!!!
Add to My Watchlist
What is My Watchlist?
